• Insurance - Property & Casualty
  • Financial Services
The Travelers Companies, Inc. logo
The Travelers Companies, Inc.
TRV · US · NYSE
214.09
USD
+3.21
(1.50%)
Executives
Name Title Pay
Mr. Avrohom J. Kess Vice Chairman & Chief Legal Officer for Travelers 3.93M
Ms. Mojgan Mehdian Lefebvre Executive Vice President, Chief Technology & Operations Officer --
Mr. Daniel Tei-Hwa Yin Executive Vice President & Co-Chief Investment Officer --
Mr. David Donnay Rowland CFA Executive Vice President & Co-Chief Investment Officer --
Mr. Paul Edward Munson Senior Vice President of Finance, Corporate Controller & Principal Accounting Officer --
Mr. Gregory Cheshire Toczydlowski Executive Vice President & President of Business Insurance 3.6M
Mr. Andy Francis Bessette Executive Vice President & Chief Administrative Officer --
Mr. Michael Frederick Klein Executive Vice President & President of Personal Insurance 3.13M
Mr. Daniel Stephen Frey Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer 3.09M
Mr. Alan David Schnitzer Chairman & Chief Executive Officer 7.78M
Insider Transactions
Date Name Title Acquisition Or Disposition Stock / Options # of Shares Price
2024-07-25 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 126.18
2024-07-25 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 10000 211.437
2024-07-25 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 126.18
2024-06-28 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 196.71 203.34
2024-06-28 Golden Russell G. director A - A-Award Common Stock 165.98 203.34
2024-05-15 Williams David Scott director A - A-Award Common Stock 910 214.35
2024-05-15 Williams David Scott - 0 0
2024-05-02 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 9371.767 214.9237
2024-05-01 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 3635 213.68
2024-04-25 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 5000 212.8964
2024-04-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 126.18
2024-04-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 126.18
2024-04-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 6611 213.7523
2024-04-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 3289 214.3226
2024-04-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 100 215.95
2024-03-28 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 173.81 230.14
2024-03-28 Golden Russell G. director A - A-Award Common Stock 146.65 230.14
2024-03-28 DOLAN JANET M director A - A-Award Common Stock 146.65 230.14
2024-02-28 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - G-Gift Common Stock 10000 0
2024-02-27 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 5263.962 220.941
2024-02-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3000 140.85
2024-02-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 222
2024-02-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 1000 222.75
2024-02-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3000 140.85
2024-02-22 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 2993 220.141
2024-02-22 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 12500 126.18
2024-02-22 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 12500 126.18
2024-02-22 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 12500 220
2024-02-21 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 9708.962 0
2024-02-21 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 4871 219.38
2024-02-21 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 6116.069 0
2024-02-21 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 3123 219.38
2024-02-21 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 17475.767 0
2024-02-21 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 8104 219.38
2024-02-21 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 6796.635 0
2024-02-21 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 3161 219.38
2024-02-21 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 16310.118 0
2024-02-21 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 7592 219.38
2024-02-21 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Common Stock 89317.382 0
2024-02-21 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 49393 219.38
2024-02-21 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off A - A-Award Common Stock 20969.116 0
2024-02-21 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off D - F-InKind Common Stock 11410 219.38
2024-02-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Common Stock 11649.306 0
2024-02-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - F-InKind Common Stock 6443 219.38
2024-02-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2000 140.85
2024-02-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 221.125
2024-02-20 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 220
2024-02-20 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2000 140.85
2024-02-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2000 140.85
2024-02-21 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 9708.962 0
2024-02-21 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 4445 219.38
2024-02-21 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - A-Award Common Stock 14950.789 0
2024-02-21 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - F-InKind Common Stock 7231 219.38
2024-02-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 16310.118 0
2024-02-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 7605 219.38
2024-02-21 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller A - A-Award Common Stock 1467.927 0
2024-02-21 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - F-InKind Common Stock 453 219.38
2024-02-21 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 8834.718 0
2024-02-21 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 4103 219.38
2024-02-21 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 12814.96 0
2024-02-21 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 6599 219.38
2024-02-15 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3000 140.85
2024-02-15 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 218.5
2024-02-15 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 1000 219.25
2024-02-15 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3000 140.85
2024-02-14 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1500 132.58
2024-02-13 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2000 132.58
2024-02-14 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 681 217.98
2024-02-14 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 681 140.85
2024-02-13 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 216.405
2024-02-14 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 1500 216.9167
2024-02-14 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 681 140.85
2024-02-13 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2000 132.58
2024-02-14 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1500 132.58
2024-02-12 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2000 132.58
2024-02-12 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 215.875
2024-02-12 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2000 132.58
2024-02-09 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 139.83
2024-02-09 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 566 0
2024-02-09 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 10000 214.7496
2024-02-09 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 139.83
2024-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock 222901 118.78
2024-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 17702 211.6662
2024-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 8195 212.7838
2024-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 18999 213.4208
2024-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 178005 213.46
2024-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 222901 118.78
2024-02-06 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10718 213.01
2024-02-06 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 24093 213.01
2024-02-06 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 99207 213.01
2024-02-06 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10718 213.01
2024-02-06 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 14615 213.01
2024-02-06 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1637 213.01
2024-02-06 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 12667 213.01
2024-02-06 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7086 213.01
2024-02-06 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 13818 213.01
2024-02-06 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 22676 213.01
2024-02-06 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20196 213.01
2024-02-06 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7086 213.01
2024-02-06 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 38000 132.58
2024-02-06 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 38000 132.58
2024-02-06 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 17716 213.01
2024-02-06 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 38000 212.5517
2024-02-06 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8681 213.01
2024-02-06 van Kralingen Bridget A director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-06 THOMSEN LAURIE J director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-06 SCHERMERHORN TODD C director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-06 Santana Rafael director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-06 OTIS CLARENCE JR director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-06 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-06 LEONARDI THOMAS B director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-06 Kane William J director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-06 Golden Russell G. director A - A-Award Common Stock 915 213.01
2024-02-02 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10181 106.03
2024-02-02 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 10181 214.0022
2024-02-02 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10181 106.03
2024-02-02 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7983 106.04
2024-02-02 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 5406 213.7375
2024-02-02 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7983 106.04
2024-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 4500 132.58
2024-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3500 214.9286
2024-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 1000 215.5
2024-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 4500 132.58
2024-01-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2500 132.58
2024-01-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2500 214.2064
2024-01-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2500 132.58
2024-01-30 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5000 106.04
2024-01-30 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5553 80.35
2024-01-30 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - S-Sale Common Stock 10553 212.9264
2024-01-30 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5000 106.04
2024-01-30 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5553 80.35
2024-01-30 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2500 132.58
2024-01-30 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2500 213.5386
2024-01-30 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2500 132.58
2024-01-26 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 43342 118.78
2024-01-26 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2249 106.03
2024-01-26 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 45591 211.6688
2024-01-26 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2249 106.03
2024-01-26 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 43342 118.78
2024-01-25 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3000 106.03
2024-01-25 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 211.02
2024-01-25 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3000 106.03
2024-01-24 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 16218 126.18
2024-01-24 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 931 118.78
2024-01-24 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 17149 212.5415
2024-01-24 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 931 118.78
2024-01-24 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 16218 126.18
2024-01-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 12287 140.85
2024-01-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 11287 210.634
2024-01-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 1000 211.232
2024-01-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 12287 140.85
2024-01-23 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2121 106.03
2024-01-23 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - S-Sale Common Stock 2121 212.86
2024-01-23 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2121 106.03
2024-01-23 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off D - G-Gift Common Stock 5350 0
2024-01-23 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 26633 132.58
2024-01-23 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 17195 212.5092
2024-01-23 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 9438 213.2122
2024-01-23 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 26633 132.58
2023-12-29 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 209.98 190.49
2023-12-29 Golden Russell G. director A - A-Award Common Stock 177.17 190.49
2023-11-30 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7000 80.35
2023-11-30 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - S-Sale Common Stock 7000 179.9217
2023-11-30 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7000 80.35
2023-11-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 270 126.18
2023-11-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 270 178
2023-11-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 270 126.18
2023-11-03 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 3797.269 169.375
2023-11-03 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 195 0
2023-09-29 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 244.93 163.31
2023-09-29 Golden Russell G. director A - A-Award Common Stock 206.66 163.31
2023-08-14 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 41 166.2
2023-07-24 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 140.85
2023-07-24 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 140.85
2023-07-24 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 10000 175.0479
2023-06-30 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 230.34 173.66
2023-06-30 Golden Russell G. director A - A-Award Common Stock 81.16 173.66
2023-06-02 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Common Stock 0 0
2022-02-05 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 4325 126.18
2019-02-02 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2121 106.03
2020-02-09 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1741 118.78
2021-02-06 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1397 140.85
2023-02-04 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 4996 132.58
2024-02-02 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3243 139.83
2025-02-08 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2117 172.5
2026-02-07 Munson Paul E. SVP & Corp. Controller D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1673 189.01
2023-05-24 Golden Russell G. director A - A-Award Common Stock 1023 175.99
2023-05-24 Golden Russell G. - 0 0
2023-05-10 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10246 118.78
2023-05-10 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 5536 182.4984
2023-05-10 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 4710 183.2535
2023-05-10 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10246 118.78
2023-05-05 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 838 0
2023-04-25 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 11572 132.58
2023-04-25 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 7207 177.5214
2023-04-25 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 1800 178.4761
2023-04-25 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 2565 179.6542
2023-04-25 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 559 0
2023-04-25 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 11572 132.58
2023-04-24 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off D - G-Gift Common Stock 1000 0
2023-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 39044 126.18
2023-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 19522 178.5617
2023-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 16415 179.6865
2023-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1462 140.85
2023-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 731 178.6141
2023-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 648 179.6548
2023-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 39044 126.18
2023-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1462 140.85
2023-03-31 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 233.36 171.41
2023-02-22 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 10126.557 0
2023-02-22 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 4707 185.61
2023-02-23 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 5419.557 184.1877
2023-02-22 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 3996.924 0
2023-02-22 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 1864 185.61
2023-02-23 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 2132 185.1455
2023-02-22 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 7993.845 0
2023-02-22 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 3639 185.61
2023-02-23 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 5374.832 183.4904
2023-02-22 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Common Stock 57292.362 0
2023-02-22 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 31683 185.61
2023-02-22 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 5330.014 0
2023-02-22 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 2684 185.61
2023-02-22 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 9326.937 0
2023-02-22 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 4354 185.61
2023-02-22 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock 2038.502 0
2023-02-22 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock 641 185.61
2023-02-22 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off A - A-Award Common Stock 14389.627 0
2023-02-22 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off D - F-InKind Common Stock 7768 185.61
2023-02-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Common Stock 7993.845 0
2023-02-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - F-InKind Common Stock 4421 185.61
2023-02-22 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 5330.014 0
2023-02-22 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 2439 185.61
2023-02-22 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 11192.325 0
2023-02-22 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 5213 185.61
2023-02-22 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - A-Award Common Stock 9326.937 0
2023-02-22 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - F-InKind Common Stock 4559 185.61
2023-02-22 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 6062.509 0
2023-02-22 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 2814 185.61
2023-02-22 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 1065.767 0
2023-02-22 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 545 185.61
2023-02-14 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2914 106.04
2023-02-14 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 2914 185.008
2023-02-14 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2914 106.04
2023-02-10 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 20000 132.58
2023-02-10 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 4443 140.85
2023-02-10 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 24443 186.5227
2023-02-10 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20000 132.58
2023-02-10 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 4443 140.85
2023-02-09 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 20000 118.78
2023-02-09 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 14185 185.069
2023-02-09 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20000 118.78
2023-02-09 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 5815 185.8998
2023-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock 150829 106.03
2023-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 63081 187.7657
2023-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 68203 188.9331
2023-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 19545 189.5847
2022-11-01 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - G-Gift Common Stock 2710 0
2023-02-07 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 119292 189.01
2022-12-19 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - G-Gift Common Stock 2512 0
2023-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 150829 106.03
2023-02-07 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7534 189.01
2023-02-07 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 14964 189.01
2023-02-07 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 14964 189.01
2023-02-07 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 23858 189.01
2023-02-07 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20091 189.01
2023-02-07 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 12557 189.01
2023-02-07 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 11511 189.01
2023-02-07 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10255 189.01
2023-02-07 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 11511 189.01
2023-02-07 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 28463 189.01
2023-02-07 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 26788 189.01
2023-02-07 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3503 189.01
2023-02-07 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 17266 189.01
2023-02-07 van Kralingen Bridget A director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 THOMSEN LAURIE J director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 OTIS CLARENCE JR director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 LEONARDI THOMAS B director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 Kane William J director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 HIGGINS PATRICIA director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 SCHERMERHORN TODD C director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 Santana Rafael director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 DOLAN JANET M director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 Ruegger Philip T III director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 Beller Alan L director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-02-07 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 952 189.01
2023-01-26 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 9000 126.18
2023-01-26 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 7000 191.2143
2023-01-26 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 192.125
2023-01-26 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 9000 0
2022-12-30 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 213.34 187.49
2022-11-30 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2000 126.8
2022-11-30 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 189.875
2022-11-30 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2000 0
2022-11-30 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7317 80.35
2022-11-30 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 5234 188.479
2022-11-30 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7317 0
2022-11-23 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 8553 106.04
2022-11-23 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 7554 187.7011
2022-11-23 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8553 0
2022-11-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5000 126.18
2022-11-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 5000 189.11
2022-11-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5000 0
2022-11-23 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10181 106.03
2022-11-23 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock 10181 188
2022-11-23 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 10181 0
2022-11-22 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - M-Exempt Common Stock 13000 80.35
2022-11-22 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - S-Sale Common Stock 13000 186.287
2022-11-22 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 13000 0
2022-11-22 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 13000 118.78
2022-11-22 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 13000 186.5534
2022-11-22 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 13000 0
2022-11-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7658 126.18
2022-11-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4658 187.161
2022-11-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 188.1463
2022-11-22 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7658 0
2022-11-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2342 126.18
2022-11-18 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1000 126.18
2022-11-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2342 186.1798
2022-11-18 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1000 0
2022-11-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2342 0
2022-11-15 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 4420 140.85
2022-11-15 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 4420 180.74
2022-11-15 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 4420 0
2022-11-08 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1000 126.18
2022-11-08 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 1000 185.5
2022-11-08 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1000 0
2022-11-01 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5229 126.18
2022-11-01 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 12000 140.85
2022-08-30 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 60 0
2022-11-01 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 55 0
2022-11-01 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 17229 184.7665
2022-11-01 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 12000 0
2022-11-01 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5229 0
2022-11-01 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1000 126.18
2022-11-01 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 1000 185.25
2022-11-01 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1000 0
2022-10-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 14000 126.18
2022-10-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 182.375
2022-10-28 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7000 126.18
2022-10-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 183.375
2022-10-28 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 181.375
2022-10-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 184.375
2022-10-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 185
2022-10-28 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7000 0
2022-10-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 14000 0
2022-10-31 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 0
2022-10-31 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 118.78
2022-10-31 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 10000 183.6706
2022-10-24 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - M-Exempt Common Stock 13516 78.65
2022-10-24 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - S-Sale Common Stock 13516 179.2084
2022-10-24 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 13516 0
2022-10-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1000 126.18
2022-10-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 1000 180
2022-10-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 1000 0
2022-10-14 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 32 164.73
2022-10-14 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 36 164.73
2022-09-30 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 261.1 153.2
2022-08-24 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 2945 168.3321
2022-08-16 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 11478 173.4127
2022-08-16 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 11478 0
2022-07-25 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off D - G-Gift Common Stock 1000 0
2022-06-30 Robinson Elizabeth A - A-Award Common Stock 214.17 169.13
2022-05-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 126.18
2022-05-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 177.875
2022-05-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 178.875
2022-05-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 179.625
2022-05-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 0
2022-05-31 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 126.18
2022-05-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5500 118.78
2022-05-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3500 176.4286
2022-05-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 177.125
2022-05-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5500 0
2022-05-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5500 118.78
2022-05-17 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3000 118.78
2022-05-17 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 177.25
2022-05-17 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3000 0
2022-05-17 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3000 118.78
2022-05-13 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 0
2022-05-13 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 9200 172.7293
2022-05-13 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 20000 126.18
2022-05-13 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 20000 173.3209
2022-05-13 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 180 0
2022-05-13 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20000 126.18
2022-05-03 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 2671 172.74
2022-05-03 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2671 0
2022-04-21 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 106.03
2022-04-21 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 10000 177.9232
2022-04-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3013 118.78
2022-04-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3013 179.1908
2022-04-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3013 118.78
2022-04-21 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3013 0
2022-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 4350 140.85
2022-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5573 118.78
2022-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 6787 106.03
2022-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 16710 177.8067
2022-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 4350 140.85
2022-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 6787 0
2022-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 6787 106.03
2022-04-21 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5573 118.78
2022-03-31 Robinson Elizabeth A - A-Award Common Stock 184.7 182.73
2022-02-28 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock 1161 172
2022-02-23 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 2254.369 0
2022-02-23 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 1136 171.5
2022-02-23 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 9739.669 0
2022-02-23 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 4543 171.5
2022-02-23 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Common Stock 50092.403 0
2022-02-23 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Common Stock 50092.403 0
2022-02-23 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 27702 171.5
2022-02-23 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - F-InKind Common Stock 27702 171.5
2022-02-23 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock 2129.125 0
2022-02-23 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - A-Award Common Stock 2129.125 0
2022-02-23 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock 968 171.5
2022-02-23 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - F-InKind Common Stock 968 171.5
2022-02-23 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 2254.369 0
2022-02-23 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 1028 171.5
2022-02-23 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - A-Award Common Stock 7235.987 0
2022-02-23 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - F-InKind Common Stock 3621 171.5
2022-02-23 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 7235.987 0
2022-02-23 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 3271 171.5
2022-02-23 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 1113.139 0
2022-02-23 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 402 171.5
2022-02-23 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 3757.282 0
2022-02-23 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 1752 171.5
2022-02-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - A-Award Common Stock 9044.395 0
2022-02-23 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - F-InKind Common Stock 4213 171.5
2022-02-23 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off A - A-Award Common Stock 14193.392 0
2022-02-23 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off D - F-InKind Common Stock 7849 171.5
2022-02-23 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Common Stock 14193.392 0
2022-02-23 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - F-InKind Common Stock 7849 171.5
2022-02-23 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 9044.395 0
2022-02-23 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 4214 171.5
2022-02-23 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - A-Award Common Stock 5844.269 0
2022-02-23 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 2632 171.5
2022-02-15 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 584 0
2022-02-08 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 15403 172.5
2022-02-08 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 43000 106.03
2022-02-08 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 34503 172.5
2022-02-08 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 43000 171.851
2022-02-08 Toczydlowski Gregory C EVP & President, Business Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 43000 106.03
2022-02-08 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 144507 172.5
2022-02-08 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 4537 172.5
2022-02-08 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 15403 172.5
2022-02-08 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 21564 172.5
2022-02-08 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20024 172.5
2022-02-08 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20024 172.5
2022-02-08 Kurtzman Diane EVP & Chief HR Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10082 172.5
2022-02-08 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20024 172.5
2022-02-08 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 32486 172.5
2022-02-08 Kess Avrohom J. Vice Chmn & Chief Legal Off A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 30246 172.5
2022-02-09 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 2000 118.78
2022-02-09 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 174.125
2022-02-08 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 16803 172.5
2022-02-09 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 2000 118.78
2022-02-08 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 25205 172.5
2022-02-08 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - A-Award Stock Options (Right to Buy) 12742 172.5
2022-02-08 van Kralingen Bridget A director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 THOMSEN LAURIE J director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 SCHERMERHORN TODD C director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 Santana Rafael director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 Santana Rafael director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 Ruegger Philip T III director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 OTIS CLARENCE JR director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 LEONARDI THOMAS B director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 Kane William J director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 HIGGINS PATRICIA director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 DOLAN JANET M director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-08 Beller Alan L director A - A-Award Common Stock 1043 172.5
2022-02-04 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 3115 172.524
2022-02-02 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - M-Exempt Common Stock 66522 106.04
2022-02-02 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - S-Sale Common Stock 66522 170.47
2021-11-24 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO A - G-Gift Common Stock 596 0
2022-02-02 Schnitzer Alan D Chairman and CEO D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 66522 106.04
2022-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 8500 118.78
2022-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 1500 169.751
2022-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 171.875
2022-02-03 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 3000 118.78
2022-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 172.75
2022-02-03 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 173.5
2022-02-02 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8500 118.78
2022-02-03 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 3000 118.78
2022-02-03 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10860 106.03
2022-02-03 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 10860 173.284
2022-02-03 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10860 106.03
2022-02-02 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7267 78.65
2022-02-02 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 7267 171.525
2022-02-02 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7267 78.65
2022-02-02 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - M-Exempt Common Stock 9011 78.65
2022-02-02 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - S-Sale Common Stock 9011 171.937
2022-02-02 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 9011 78.65
2022-01-27 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7983 106.04
2022-01-27 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock 7983 171
2022-01-27 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7983 106.04
2022-01-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7000 118.78
2022-01-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 170.125
2022-01-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 171.1567
2022-01-27 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7000 118.78
2022-01-26 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 106.03
2022-01-26 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 106.03
2022-01-26 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 10000 167.039
2022-01-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 27000 118.78
2022-01-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 6000 163.875
2022-01-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4500 164.75
2022-01-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 6000 165.875
2022-01-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 6000 118.78
2022-01-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 6000 166.875
2022-01-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4500 167.75
2022-01-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 6000 168.9467
2022-01-24 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 27000 118.78
2022-01-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 6000 118.78
2022-01-01 van Kralingen Bridget A - 0 0
2022-01-01 Santana Rafael - 0 0
2021-12-31 OTIS CLARENCE JR director A - A-Award Common Stock 263.7 156.43
2021-12-31 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 215.75 156.43
2021-12-31 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 215.75 156.43
2021-11-23 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 6005 118.78
2021-11-23 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 6005 159.869
2021-11-23 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - G-Gift Common Stock 130 0
2021-11-23 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 6005 118.78
2021-11-01 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7372 78.65
2021-11-01 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 7317 80.35
2021-11-01 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - S-Sale Common Stock 7317 162
2021-11-01 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7372 78.65
2021-11-01 RUSSELL DOUGLAS K SVP, Corp Contr & Treasurer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7317 80.35
2021-10-26 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 1038 160.7343
2021-10-25 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5876 106.04
2021-10-25 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 5876 161.7061
2021-10-25 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 5876 106.04
2021-10-15 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 37 157.01
2021-10-15 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 37 157.01
2021-09-30 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 222.02 152.01
2021-09-30 OTIS CLARENCE JR director A - A-Award Common Stock 271.36 152.01
2021-09-21 Lefebvre Mojgan M EVP & Chief Tech & Ops Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 3329 152.95
2021-09-07 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - Common Stock 0 0
2019-02-02 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10860 106.03
2020-02-09 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 13931 118.78
2021-02-06 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 13412 140.85
2022-02-05 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 16218 126.18
2023-02-04 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20816 132.58
2024-02-02 Klenk Jeffrey P. EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 15015 139.83
2021-09-14 Frey Daniel S. EVP & Chief Financial Officer D - F-InKind Common Stock 36 157.61
2016-11-03 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - Deferred Compensation Phantom Stock 15.3 0
2021-08-18 Kunkel Thomas M EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - G-Gift Common Stock 1350 0
2021-08-18 Kunkel Thomas M EVP & Pres., Bond & Spec. Ins. D - G-Gift Common Stock 1350 0
2021-08-27 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 20000 118.78
2021-08-27 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - M-Exempt Common Stock 835 106.03
2021-08-27 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 835 162.194
2021-08-27 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - S-Sale Common Stock 20000 162.048
2021-08-27 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 20000 118.78
2005-01-07 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - A-Award Deferred Compensation Phantom Stock 297.67 0
2004-01-07 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer A - A-Award Deferred Compensation Phantom Stock 144.96 0
2021-08-27 BESSETTE ANDY F EVP and Chief Admin Officer D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 835 106.03
2021-08-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5000 106.03
2021-08-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 3000 162.5
2021-08-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 163.125
2005-01-07 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Deferred Compensation Phantom Stock 502.35 0
2004-07-07 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Deferred Compensation Phantom Stock 98.34 0
2004-01-07 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Deferred Compensation Phantom Stock 380.71 0
2003-07-09 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - A-Award Deferred Compensation Phantom Stock 82.03 0
2021-08-25 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 5000 106.03
2021-08-20 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl A - M-Exempt Common Stock 9903 59.74
2021-08-20 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - S-Sale Common Stock 9903 162.045
2021-08-20 OLIVO MARIA EVP, Strat Dev & Pres Intl D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 9903 59.74
2021-07-26 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 12000 106.04
2021-07-26 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 12000 106.04
2021-07-26 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 12000 149.2233
2021-06-30 Robinson Elizabeth director A - A-Award Common Stock 220.94 149.71
2021-06-30 OTIS CLARENCE JR director A - A-Award Common Stock 266.54 149.71
2021-05-20 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer I - Common Stock 0 0
2021-05-20 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer I - Common Stock 0 0
2021-05-20 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Common Stock 0 0
2023-02-04 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 27755 132.58
2024-02-02 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 21450 139.83
2019-02-02 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10181 106.03
2018-02-03 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8553 106.04
2020-02-09 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8916 118.78
2021-02-06 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7153 140.85
2022-02-05 Rowland David Donnay EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 9731 126.18
2021-05-20 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Common Stock 0 0
2021-02-06 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7153 140.85
2016-02-05 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7267 78.65
2017-02-04 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7317 80.35
2018-02-03 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 7983 106.04
2019-02-02 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 9502 106.03
2020-02-09 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 8470 118.78
2022-02-05 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 9731 126.18
2023-02-04 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 27755 132.58
2024-02-02 Yin Daniel Tei-Hwa EVP & Co-Chief Invest. Officer D - Stock Options (Right to Buy) 21450 139.83
2021-05-20 LEONARDI THOMAS B director A - A-Award Common Stock 1102 158.81
2021-05-20 LEONARDI THOMAS B - 0 0
2021-05-13 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - M-Exempt Stock Options (Right to Buy) 10000 106.04
2021-05-13 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. A - M-Exempt Common Stock 10000 106.04
2021-05-13 Klein Michael Frederick EVP & President, Personal Ins. D - S-Sale Common Stock 10000 156.406
2021-05-10 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 6000 106.03
2021-05-10 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 2000 161.589
2021-05-10 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 4000 162.125
2021-05-10 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - M-Exempt Stock Option (Right to Buy) 6000 106.03
2021-05-06 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 5000 106.03
2021-05-07 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman A - M-Exempt Common Stock 1000 106.03
2021-05-06 HEYMAN WILLIAM H Vice Chairman D - S-Sale Common Stock 5000 160.3
Transcripts
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 19, 2024. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our second quarter 2024 results. We released our press release, financial supplement, and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer, and our three segment presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Jeff Klenk of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take your questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I'd like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliation are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the investor section on our website. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We are pleased to have generated a strong bottom line result in the quarter that included a record number of severe convective storms across the United States. Excellent underlying results, favorable net prior year reserve development, and higher net investment income contributed to core income of $585 million or $2.51 per diluted share. Underlying underwriting income of $1.2 billion pre-tax was up 55% over the prior year quarter. This year's exceptional result was driven by record net earned premiums of $10.2 billion and a consolidated underlying combined ratio that improved 3.4 points to an excellent 87.7%. Net earned premiums were higher in all three of our business segments. The underlying combined ratio in our Business Insurance segment was an excellent 89.2%, and the underlying combined ratio in our Bond & Specialty business improved 1.7 points to a very strong 86.1%. Looking at our two commercial segments together, the aggregate BI, BSI underlying combined ratio was an outstanding 88.7% for the quarter. The underlying combined ratio in Personal Insurance improved by nearly 8 points to a terrific 86.3%. Turning to the top line, we grew net written premiums by 8% to $11.1 billion in the quarter. Outstanding execution by our colleagues in the field across all three segments contributed to our top-line success. We are very pleased to report terrific production results in our commercial segments, where, as you've heard, margins are attractive. In Business Insurance, we grew net written premiums by 7% to more than $5.5 billion. Renewal premium change remained very strong at 10.1%, while retention remained high at 85%. A combination of strong pricing and retention reflects deliberate execution on our part and a marketplace that continues to be generally disciplined. New business increased 9% to a record $732 million, a reflection of the fact that our customers and distribution partners value the products and services that we offer and the experiences that we provide. In Bond & Specialty insurance, we grew net written premiums by 8% to more than $1 billion, driven by very strong retention of 90% in our high-quality management liability business, and excellent production in our market-leading surety business, where we grew net written premiums by 11%. At year-end 2023, we shared that across our two commercial segments, our E&S writings had reached $2.5 billion for the year, doubled the level from 2021. Year-to-date, we've grown E&S net written premiums by 16%. The margins continue to be quite attractive. In Personal Insurance, continued strong pricing drove 9% growth in net written premiums with growth of 10% in auto and 8% in home. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff, and Michael about our segment results. Turning to investments, our high-quality investment portfolio continued to perform well, generating after-tax net investment income of $727 million, driven by strong and reliable terms from our growing fixed-income portfolio and higher returns from our non-fixed income portfolio. Our investment results benefit from the strong cash flow we've generated over a sustained period. This quarter marks the seventh consecutive quarter in which we've generated more than $1 billion in operating cash flow. This isn't a measure that we or the industry talk a lot about, but it's important. Cash flow is what enables us to make strategic investments in our business, return excess capital to shareholders, and grow our investment portfolio. Since 2016, we've invested $11 billion in important technology initiatives, returned more than $20 billion of excess capital to our shareholders, and grown our investment portfolio by more than $25 billion. It's a virtuous cycle as well-conceived and executed strategic initiatives, an effective capital management strategy, and a thoughtful investment strategy contribute to attractive returns and growth in adjusted book value per share. Strong underwriting is the flywheel that sets it all in motion. Thanks to exceptional franchise value and excellent marketplace execution, we've profitably grown our premium base from about $25 billion in 2016 to more than $40 billion today. Our growth over this period of time has been largely organic, selling products in which we have deep expertise through distribution partners with whom we have longstanding relationships, and in geographies where we have a thorough understanding of the regulatory environment and other market dynamics. In other words, our competitive advantages have enabled us to effectively execute a relatively low-risk growth strategy. The success of that strategy is evidenced by a return on equity that has averaged about 900 basis points over the 10-year treasury over that period at industry-low volatility. What all this boils down to is steady consistent growth and adjusted book value per share after making important investments in our business and returning substantial excess capital to shareholders. And as a leader in the US PNC market with broad product capability, demonstrated success with innovation and plenty of market share headroom, we're confident there's a lot more opportunity in front of us. To sum it up, we continue to be very confident in the outlook for our business. Our results for the first half of the year include strong premium growth, an excellent bottom line result, record operating cash flow, and steadily rising investment returns in our growing fixed income portfolio. With a strong and diversified business and balance sheet, we delivered 13.6% core return on equity over the last 12 months, despite substantial industry-wide catastrophe losses. With this momentum, we remain well-positioned for success this year and beyond. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. We're pleased to have generated record levels of earned premium this quarter and an underlying combined ratio of 87.7%, a 340 basis point improvement from last year's strong result, and the third consecutive quarter below 88%. This led to one of our strongest ever underlying underwriting gains of $952 million after tax, up $337 million, or 55% from the prior year quarter. The expense ratio for the second quarter was 28.8%, in line with our expectations and once again benefiting from the combination of our focus on productivity and efficiency, coupled with strong top line growth. We continue to expect 2024's full year expense ratio to be 28% to 28.5%. As Alan mentioned, the industry experienced a very active cat quarter, and our second quarter results include $1.5 billion of pre-tax catastrophe losses, driven by a record number of severe convective storms. As disclosed in the significant events table in our 10-Q, we had five events surpass the $100 million mark in Q2, all in the month of May. Turning to prior year reserve development, we had total net favorable development of $230 million pre-tax. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $34 million resulted from approximately $300 million of better than expected loss experience in workers' comp across a number of accident years, largely offset by about $250 million of strengthening in general liability driven by Umbrella for accident years 2021 through 2023. In terms of the Umbrella line, these are very young accident years made up almost entirely of IBNR. While we will obviously continue to evaluate loss activity as it comes in, we believe we have been proactive and decisive in addressing the latest observed loss activity and adjusting our view of loss development factors to allow for the prospect of rising settlement costs and lengthening settlement patterns. Importantly, our picks for accident years 2015 through 2020 did not require much adjustment in the first half of this year. It's also worth noting that our returns in the Umbrella line for the impacted accident years remain attractive. As we saw five years ago, when we were the first to call out a change in loss levels tied to an increase in attorney rep rates, sharpening our view of loss costs early in the development of immature accident years and long tail lines positions us to enhance our risk selection, pricing, and claim strategies, ultimately setting us up to outperform in terms of growth and profitability. And on a related note, with court backlogs from the COVID shutdown now largely resolved, that element of uncertainty is, to a large degree, behind us. In Bond & Specialty, net favorable PYD was $24 million pre-tax. Personal Insurance had significant net favorable PYD of $172 million pre-tax with good news from recent accident years in both home and auto. After tax net investment income of $727 million, increased by 22% from the prior year quarter. As expected, fixed maturity NII was again higher than the prior year quarter, reflecting both the benefit of higher average yields and higher invested assets. Returns in the non-fixed income portfolio were also up from the prior year quarter. Our outlook for fixed income NII, including earnings from short-term securities, has increased slightly. We now expect approximately $675 million after tax in the third quarter and $695 million after tax in the fourth quarter. New money rates as of June 30th are still above the yields embedded in the portfolio. So fixed income NII should continue to improve beyond 2024 as the portfolio gradually turns over and continues to grow. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.7 billion were, again, very strong and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.7 billion. Interest rates increased during the quarter and, as a result, our net unrealized investment loss increased modestly from $3.7 billion after tax at March 31st to $4 billion after tax at June 30th. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $126.52 at quarter end, up 3% from year end, and up 10% from a year ago. We returned $498 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $253 million and dividends of $245 million. We have approximately $5.5 billion of capacity remaining under the share repurchase authorization from our Board of Directors. Turning to reinsurance, Page 19 of the webcast presentation shows a summary of our July 1st reinsurance placements. We increased coverage when we renewed our Northeast property CAT XOL Treaty, which now provides $1 billion of coverage above the attachment point of $2.75 billion. A year ago, we purchased $850 million of coverage, and the attachment point was $2.5 billion. We also renewed the Personal Insurance hurricane cat excess of loss treaty for coastal exposure, which continues to provide 50% coverage for the $1 billion layer above an attachment point of $2 billion. Recapping our results, Q2 was another quarter of strong premium growth, excellent underlying underwriting profitability, and continued growth in net investment income, all of which bode well for our future returns. Our ability to absorb $1.5 billion of pre-tax cat losses and still deliver $585 million of core income for the quarter is a testament to the overall strength of our diversified franchise and the fundamentals of our business. To give a little more color on that, underlying underwriting income has become an increasingly reliable and important component of our earnings power. Going back to the combination of Travelers in St. Paul, from 2005 through 2019, annual underlying underwriting income averaged $1.2 billion after tax. Our focus on profitable premium growth, which began accelerating around 2016, resulted in underlying underwriting income surpassing $2 billion for the first time ever in 2020. And we stayed above $2 billion through 2022. We then surpassed $3 billion in 2023. And through the first half of 2024, underlying underwriting income of just over $1.9 billion is up by 32% compared to the first half of 2023. In short, underlying underwriting income has become a significant and growing contributor to our ability to continue generating industry-leading returns with industry-low volatility. And now, for more color on each segment's results, I'll turn the call over to Greg to begin with a discussion of Business Insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance had another strong quarter in terms of both top and bottom line results. Segment income was $656 million, up more than 60% from the prior year quarter, driven by prior year reserve development, higher net investment income, and higher underlying underwriting income. We're once again particularly pleased with the quarter's exceptionally strong underlying combined ratio of 89.2%, our best second quarter result ever. For modeling purposes, property losses for this quarter were about a point favorable to our expectations. Net written premiums increased 7% to an all-time second quarter high of more than $5.5 billion. Renewal premium change was once again historically high at 10.1% with renewal rate change of 6.5% driving the majority of the strong pricing. Retention remained excellent at 85% and new business was up 9% to a record quarterly high of $732 million. In terms of pricing, we're pleased to sustain strong levels of renewal premium change, which was double digits for the fifth quarter in a row. The strong pricing was broad-based with renewal premium change in every line other than workers' comp at or pretty close to double digits. In terms of pure renewal rate change, we're pleased that the exceptional granular execution by our field organization reflects and appropriately balances the current return profile and environmental trends for each line. In terms of sequential rate movement from the first quarter, CMP, auto, umbrella, and workers comp all increased. Umbrella and auto led the way with double-digit rate increases. Renewal rate change in our property line moderated, driven by the National Property business, reflecting strong returns after several years of substantial compounding rate and improvements in terms and conditions. Even with these strong pricing levels, retention was improved or flat in every line other than property, where some large accounts in our National Property business in particular traded away to the subscription market this quarter on terms we weren't willing to accept. As for the individual businesses, in select, renewal premium change was exceptionally high at 12.3% with the renewal rate change of 5.3%, up a point and a half from the first quarter and more than 2 points from the second quarter of last year. Retention remained healthy but ticked down a bit from recent periods to 83% as we begin to purposely optimize our risk return profile in a couple of targeted geographies and classes. New business remains strong and increased 8% from the prior year quarter. We're pleased with the impact that our production, product, and platform initiatives are having in the marketplace and building a high-quality mix of business and driving profitable growth in this market. In middle market, renewal premium change remains strong and consistent with recent levels at almost 10%. Renewal rate change of 7% was up more than a point from the second quarter of last year and has now been at or around the 7% mark for the fourth consecutive quarter. Retention also remained strong at 89%. A new business of $383 million was the highest ever second quarter result. Lastly, fresh off my most recent round of field visits, I couldn't be more pleased with our team's execution, ideation, energy, and enthusiastic adoption of the tools and capabilities that have come from the strategic investments we've been making. And our distribution partners were once again crystal clear about our team's value and shared many examples of how our local teams, the best in the business, distinguished themselves. These trips continue to highlight for me the value of our high-performing talent in training curriculums, as well as the dividends we are receiving from our investments to be the undeniable choice for the customer and an indispensable partner for our agents and brokers. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeffrey Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty posted another strong quarter on both the top and bottom lines. We generated segment income of $170 million and a strong combined ratio of 87.7%. The underlying combined ratio improved 1.7 points to a very strong 86.1%. The underlying loss ratio improved 4.1 points to an excellent 46.4%, reflecting the comparison to an elevated level of losses in the prior year quarter from a small number of surety accounts. As we discussed last quarter, the expense ratio is modestly elevated primarily due to the Corvus acquisition. We expect that to continue to be the case for a few more quarters as we integrate the operation and as premiums from Corvus attractive book of business ramp up and earn in. Turning to the top line, we grew net written premiums by 8% in the quarter to a record high. In our high-quality domestic management liability business, we again delivered excellent retention of 90% with positive renewal premium change that is generally consistent with recent quarters. We're pleased that we grew new business by nearly 60% from the prior year quarter to a record $111 million driven by Corvus. As a reminder, all of Corvus production will continue to be reflected in new business through next quarter. We grew net written premiums in our market leading surety business by a terrific 11% in the quarter, reflecting a robust construction environment and continued strong demand for our surety products and services. So we're pleased to have once again delivered strong top and bottom line results this quarter. And now, I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff. Good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance, an excellent underlying underwriting result and strong net favorable prior year reserve development drove a significantly improved bottom line result relative to the prior year quarter, despite another period of elevated industry-wide catastrophe losses. The underlying combined ratio of 86.3% reflects nearly an 8 point improvement compared to the prior year quarter, primarily driven by higher earned pricing in both automobile and homeowners and other. Continued strong price increases in both auto and home drove 9% growth in net written premiums. In auto, we're pleased with another quarter of improved profitability and with the underlying fundamentals of the business. The second quarter combined ratio of 97.9% improved more than 10 points compared to the prior year quarter due to a lower underlying combined ratio as well as favorable prior year development. The underlying combined ratio improved more than 8 points, driven by the benefit of higher earned pricing and to a lesser extent lower losses from physical damage coverages. For modeling purposes, we view roughly 2.5 points of the improvement in the quarter as non-recurring. In homeowners and other, the second quarter combined ratio improved over 16 points compared to the prior year quarter, reflecting a lower underlying combined ratio, as well as higher favorable prior year development. While catastrophe loss dollars were similar to the prior year quarter, they had a smaller combined ratio impact as price increases continue to benefit earned premiums. Catastrophe losses this quarter, primarily resulting from severe convective storms, again significantly exceeded long-term industry averages. The 28 PCS designated cat events were the most ever for a second quarter and 150% of the historical 10-year average. Our catastrophe losses in the quarter were consistent with our market share. And for context, our average annual cat losses over the last five and 10 years remain below our market chart. This most recent experience will of course be reflected in our models going forward and we will continue to weigh our recent experience more heavily in our ongoing process of optimizing our exposure, underwriting, and pricing. The underlying combined ratio of 77.6% improved 7.6 points, due in large part to lower than expected fire and non-weather water losses, as well as the benefit of earned pricing. For modeling purposes, we expect approximately 5 points of the improvement in the homeowners and other underlying combined ratio to be nonrecurring. Turning to production, our results reflect the ongoing execution of a granular state-by-state strategy as we balance profitability and growth across the portfolio. In domestic automobile, retention of 82% remains strong. Renewal premium change of 15.8% continued to moderate as anticipated. Auto renewal premium change will continue to gradually decline, reflecting the improved profitability on the line. While new business premiums were higher than the prior year quarter in many states, new business premium in aggregate was down slightly relative to the second quarter of last year. This is the result of our continued efforts to manage auto profitability in a few remaining challenge states, as well as the cross-line impact resulting from some of our property actions, particularly in high-risk cat areas. Production results in homeowners and other reflect our focus to manage growth, while improving profitability. Renewal premium change increased sequentially to 15.1%, reflecting higher rate change, while retention remains strong at 85%. We expect renewal premium change to remain at this level through year end. As we intended, new business and policies enforced declined, reflecting our efforts to thoughtfully deploy capacity. To sum up for the Personal Insurance segment overall, we're pleased with our progress as we continue to deliver improved profitability. We're confident that the actions we've taken and continue to take will result in a profitable growing portfolio of personalized business over time. Now, I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Operator, we're ready to open up for Q&A.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from David Motemaden with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.
David Motemaden:
Thanks. Good morning. I just had a question on the moving pieces around reserves in Business Insurance. So just the $250 million of recent accident year umbrella charges. That comes after $100 million last quarter. So I guess I'm wondering if you could just elaborate on some of the more puts and takes and maybe give some confidence that you've put this behind you after the changes you made this quarter.
Dan Frey:
Hey, David, it's Dan. So you're right. We've seen umbrella in the general liability lines require some strengthening in the last few quarters. As we said in prepared remarks, we think that we're being proactive in reacting early and being decisive in meaning that we're being reasonably comprehensive in a meaning -- by reacting in a meaningful way to what we're seeing. I think the confidence we have is two pieces. One is, we are reacting both to the changes in actual versus expected and allowing for longer development factors going forward on the very recent accident years. So for the most part, we haven't even seen these claims come in yet, but we are allowing for the fact that when claims come in, they're likely going to cost more and take longer to settle. And then I think importantly, the 2015 through 2020 period has held up pretty well, given the actions that we had taken through the end of 2023.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Okay. And maybe also within Business Insurance, the underlying loss ratio, if I sort of adjust out the light non-cat weather this quarter and then in 2Q 2023, there still was around 50 basis points of improvement year-over-year on a clean basis. Could you talk about, I guess, what was driving that improvement? And especially given all these changes, was there any change to loss trend baked in there?
Dan Frey:
Yes, David, it's Dan again. So I'll take that. So I'll start with the second part first. So every time we have an impact on PYD, we reevaluate, is that going to have an impact on current loss year, jump off point, or loss trend. We had said last quarter that we had added beginning last quarter some IBNR to the current accident year. So we had already taken some action. The changes that we made in PYD have some carry forward impact on the umbrella line, but there's puts and takes across a variety of lines. And when you blend them all together inside of Business Insurance, it did not result in a big movement. In terms of the overall movement in BI's underlying loss ratio, you've got the big parts. There's still some benefit from earned pricing. Greg called out the fact that property losses, other than cat, were about a point favorable than our expectations. Other than that, in any quarter, you're going to have a half a dozen things that move favorably or unfavorably from mixed to base year to the impact of reinsurance, and you're seeing the net of those things. Nothing significant in there in terms of those individual movements.
David Motemaden:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. My first question, I'm looking at the BI pricing trends, which the [RSE] (ph) decelerated by 40 basis points. Is that just due to property, given that select and middle markets did improve in the quarter?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
At least. This is Greg. Good morning. Yes, you can see in the webcast the individual pieces of select and middle market. And select is up, and middle market is flat. And I did call out that National Property is the primary driver of that slight deceleration.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, great. And then just going back to the umbrella increase as well, can you give us a sense maybe just some more color by accident year? And then, maybe just a little bit more following up on David's question, like, what emerged, I guess, in the Q2 more than what you saw in the Q1 to think that you put this issue to bed that we're not going to be dealing with additional charges as we go through the balance of this year?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Elyse, it's Dan. So I think it's a pretty narrow range. We're giving you that it's three accident years, 2021, 2022, and 2023. I don't really feel the need to break it apart between the three. And it's a little bit more of the same, right? Things have continued to come in a little higher, whether it's attorney rep rate or severity, jury awards, all of those things, lengthening of the tail. What we're doing this quarter is, again, both reacting to what did we see that came in differently than what we would have expected and adjusting the development factors that we're going to use going forward? And that's what we mean when we say we think we're being proactive and decisive in this quarter's action.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Rob Cox with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Robert Cox:
Hey, thanks for taking my question. Yes, I just wanted to ask on the data surrounding the court backlogs, I thought that was interesting. The court backlogs are now resolved from the COVID shutdown. Could you give us a little more color on that? Are you referencing data for Travelers or is that external industry data?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Rob, good morning. It's Alan. That is really an evaluation of our own data. We think we probably have the market relevance to understand what's going on more broadly, but that's based on our view of our data.
Robert Cox:
Okay, got it. And the changes to reinsurance do you expect any impacts to the combined ratio at all or the underlying combined ratio from any of the movements there?
Dan Frey:
Rob, it’s Dan. So not really. Pricing was about in line with what we would have expected. I'll just remind you that although cost of reinsurance might have gone up a little bit, we're getting price increases on the direct side, so the margin impact is insignificant probably, if any.
Robert Cox:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Gregory Peters with Raymond James. Please go ahead.
Gregory Peters:
Good morning, everyone. I'd like to, for my first question, focus on Slide 8 of your PowerPoint presentation. And what I'm focused on is your competitive positioning. If I look at the year-to-date top lines results, kind of seeing some movements that I'm surprised by. I guess seeing national accounts grow as much as they did on a year-to-date basis kind of seems like it's counterintuitive. You expect the larger account business to be more competitive. And then on the selective middle market, I kind of anticipate maybe that to be higher growth areas for you from a net premium written perspective. So maybe you can provide some colors on that topic.
Dan Frey:
So Greg, it's Dan. I'll start, and maybe Greg will chime in. So national accounts, on a relative basis, in terms of its contribution to Business Insurance in total, not the biggest piece, and its large accounts. So how many you retain -- you could lose one account in a quarter and that has a big impact on retention. You could write one new big new piece of business. That's going to change the premium base. So I'd say two things about national accounts. One, we're really happy with the profitability of that book. Two, I'm not surprised to see the variability given
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes, Greg, maybe just start with the bigger picture, the total business. 7% is a really good result given the attractive margins in this business right now. And you pointed out some of the individual business units. When you look at them from quarter-to-quarter, a number of items can have some level of variation, including booking lags, reinsurance processing, things that Dan just referenced. But in terms of the aggregate results, I'd point you as close as they are, the quarter to year to date, I'd point you to the year to date number, as that's a better indicator of how we're feeling about the top line of the business right now.
Gregory Peters:
Fair enough. I guess for my follow-up question, I'm going to pivot to the Personal Insurance segment. And Michael, I appreciate your comments about the challenge to the states and trying to get the right positioning and pricing for your auto product. One of the largest and most visible peers seems to be really gaining share at this moment in time in the personal auto space. And I guess, when I look at your policy for in-force count going down, both in the first and second quarter, I'm just curious if you think your competitive positioning in personal auto is consistent with what's going on in the marketplace.
Michael Klein:
Yes, Greg, I think it's a great question. I would say, to your point about is it consistent with what's going on in the marketplace, it's interesting. The one peer you're talking about is the one peer with those results, not everybody else inclusive of us. So I would take a step back first of all and say, certainly kudos to them and the results they're generating and the success that they're having, but it's really not us who's the outlier. And then underneath that, I think, again, I tried to detail it for you. We are having success in the geographies that I'll say are the ones that aren't noisy and generating new business growth in those places where we like the auto margins and we're not impacted by some of the property actions, number one. That growth is, if you just look at the auto line by itself, being hampered by those challenged geographies. And then I also think that it's important to think about the differences in our strategy and our book of business when you look at our auto growth numbers, right? We are predominantly a package writer of personal lines business. The competitor that's growing auto is not predominantly a package writer of personal lines business. And when you look at the challenge of geographies from a property standpoint and you look at the independent agent channel, what you find in the marketplace is that, in many of those geographies in order to write the property, the carrier is insisting on also writing the auto. And so, if you are a competitor that's less dependent on auto business that brings property with it, you're not as challenged by those marketplace dynamics in those high-risk property geographies. So those are -- I think those are some of the things that explain the differences. But again, I would come back and say we're very pleased with our ability to generate auto new business growth in the places where we're not challenged by those factors. The other thing is, if you were to look underneath the new business growth numbers, first of all, you can see in aggregate auto new business growth is much better than property new business growth. And particularly, in those challenged geographies from a property standpoint, our auto new business is down, but it's not down nearly as much as the property new business in those geographies.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Greg, I would just point out at a very high level. Michael points out some distinguishing characteristics of our Personal Insurance business, there are some significant benefits from that business model. I mean, obviously, it's having the impact it's having on growth, but there are some significant offsetting benefits to that business model, and we're well on the way to sorting this out.
Gregory Peters:
Got it. Thank you very much for the detailed answers.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of [Jimmy Bueller] with JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hey, good morning. So first just had a question on just your cat losses. Given changes we've seen in the reinsurance market the last year and a half, should we assume that you're going to be absorbing higher levels of cats going forward, or is the high number that you posted this quarter, same quarter last year as well, more of a function of the type of events you have seen.
Dan Frey:
Yes, Jimmy, it's Dan. So, if you look at the reinsurance detail we gave at the January 1 renewals and now again at July 1 renewals, we're not really holding onto more. We tend to buy more tail coverage on big cat events. The attachment points have gone up, but the attachment points have gone up naturally as a result of the growth in the premium base and the growth of the insured values. So what's coming through our net result is not really any impact from less use of reinsurance.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay. And then just for Michael, can you talk about just competitor behavior in the personal auto line, both in terms of pricing and then advertising spending by some of the larger peers?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Jimmy. I would say, in terms of pricing, we continue to see renewal premium changes and price changes working their way into books of business across the industry similar to what we're seeing. I do think it's important when you look at our renewal premium change number though, to distinguish between what's coming through renewal premium change and the rate that's being filed for go-forward business, right? What you're looking at when you look at our renewal premium change number and many renewal premium change numbers across the industry is the lagged effect of the rate that's already been taken. When we look at filing activity for ourselves and for others, you see a much less significant amount of rate filing this time this year than you would have seen this time last year. And so again, what you're seeing in renewal premium change in auto is the lagged impact of that. In terms of your question about advertising, certainly we see increased advertising amongst some of our competitors who are big advertisers across the industry. In marketplaces where we bid for demand, where we bid for leads. We see the prices of those leads going up. That's reflective of that increased advertising spend and that increased appetite for leads. But I think that both of those things, I think, demonstrate that what you're seeing is improved profitability in auto across the industry and a pivot towards profitable growth very consistent with the conversation and the messaging that we're sharing.
Unidentified Analyst:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Joshua Shanker with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Joshua Shanker:
Yes, thank you very much. I guess for Michael, you're right to point out that the property declines are greater than the auto declines. I'm wondering if you can talk about whether there's non-renewals of customers who you no longer want given their geographies or whether it's pricing actions that are driving those customers away? When we look at the policy count changes in homeowners, what's driving them?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Josh. The biggest driver of the policy count decline in homeowners is the reduction in new business. You see where the retention holding relatively steady. And so for the most part, new business production being down is what's driving the [PIF] (ph) decline. I'll also say that, sort of consistent with my comments earlier, the new business reduction in the cat challenged states is down more significantly than the new business reduction you see in the production highlights as we work to manage the distribution of our property exposure. There is some limited non-renewal activity that I would say is really twofold. One is normal course, good hygiene, evaluating the worst performing risks in the portfolio and taking action on them. The other is, some targeted non-renewals, again, as we manage the geographic distribution of our exposures and manage growth in some higher concentration, higher cat geographies. But again, those actions are all intentional and the new business reductions, as I said in my prepared remarks, really are as intended as part of our efforts to improve profitability.
Joshua Shanker:
And then a quick question on catastrophe. It's been quite a decade in terms of catastrophe losses. While you've made changes over time, you were a cat [indiscernible] pretty consistent. You like the risk and you only have protection really at the top for very extreme events. A broken clock is right twice a day in hindsight 2020, but looking at the last 10 years, has the cat program at Travelers been the most efficient use of your capital? And when you revisit, say that this is exactly what we need to do for the next 10 years?
Alan Schnitzer:
Josh, I think we're very comfortable with being a net underwriter. We think that we've got the data, the analytics, the culture to manage this the right way. And you can't expect a reinsurer to take on losses without conveying a margin to them. And so, when we look at the strength of our underwriting, we think that there's a real advantage for us in being largely a net underwriter.
Joshua Shanker:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. First question, a couple parts on casualty. First of all, I guess with what you're seeing in Umbrella, is it safe to assume that the underlying cause of a lot of those losses you're seeing is mostly auto-related? That's the first part. And then the second part, I remember like six years ago in 2019, you guys experienced some of this earlier than others. Is there something about your small middle market, your writing lower limits, that there's a little bit less of a tail. So just to make sure your business kind of experiences some of the inflationary impacts you've seen from 2021 to 2023 faster.
Alan Schnitzer:
Hey Ryan, let me start there. So in terms of what we're seeing, no, it's not -- actually not a predominantly auto issue. This is a combination of economic inflation and social inflation driving claim activity into the Umbrella line in short. And economic inflation sort of speaks for itself. Social inflation, it's an aggressive plaintiff's bar. It's third-party litigation funding. It's sympathetic jury. It's the exact same constellation of factors we've been talking about, just a little bit more pronounced. In terms of our ability to see it sooner, I honestly don't think it's a function of our book of business or our limits or anything else. I think it's a function of our data, our analytics, and really importantly, our culture. We've got a culture that looks for this, that sees it. We've got a very, very important and very valuable feedback loop among our claims professionals, our pricing actuaries, our reserving actuaries, and our underwriters that can put together a story very, very quickly. And it's actually a competitive advantage. As Dan highlighted in his prepared remarks, the ability to sharpen a view of lost costs very, very early in the life of immature long-tail lines is a huge advantage. It's a difference on whether you're subject to adverse selection or inflicting adverse selection. And we think this positions us very well. Again, it's very, very early. These years are predominantly IBNR. And the returns that we're looking at in those years actually continues to be very attractive. So I get the interest in it. Believe me, we're interested in it, too. But our ability to see this and react to it really is a competitive advantage for Travelers.
Joshua Shanker:
Got it. Then I guess just to follow up. I think Greg mentioned lower retention in select accounts. I heard the word geography. I mean, to the extent that you are seeing elevated cats in commercial lines, I'd be curious if you guys think you are. Is that more of a small commercial issue or if not, is it kind of more middle market or a national account?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Hey, Ryan, this is Greg. Yes, we're not seeing cats disproportionately across any of the business units in Business Insurance. And it's just our normal good housekeeping and selected that we're going through and looking at the book of business and understanding parts of it where we need to get a better risk return profile. And folks certainly aren't going to share the individual geographies as that's market sensitive, but that's what's going on underneath that statement.
Alan Schnitzer:
It's the kind of optimizing we do in every business every day.
Joshua Shanker:
Understood. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Brian Meredith with UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Hey, thanks. I only have a couple of quick questions here. First one, there was some legislation in Florida, I guess, that passed in June that talked about Medicare reimbursement rates to doctors that will affect workers' comp. I'm just curious if you could maybe talk a little bit about how that would affect comp, pricing and loss cost severity trends. And is that something you see continuing throughout the US?
Alan Schnitzer:
Brian, what I would say about workers' comp loss trend is that, we continue to look at it based on long-term basis and frequency and severity both continue to emerge favorable to our expectations. So there's nothing we're seeing out there that's necessarily adversely impacting that perspective, but it's a long-tailed line and we're going to have a lot of respect for the duration of the liability.
Dan Frey:
And Brian, in terms of any specific state change that you mentioned, our product managers are looking at that at the state level. They're estimating what some of the bills and changes are. And we factor that in the pricing over time as we see those trends come in. So if there's a new reg out there and we think it's meaningful, we certainly are going to take an estimate at that and how it plays out in the marketplace.
Brian Meredith:
Terrific. Thanks. And Alan, second question is, you all have seen some great growth in your E&S capabilities and clearly seems like you're building those out. I'm just curious, you've typically been known as kind of the largest standard commercial and admitted market player in the US. Why kind of the sudden change, or not sudden change, but that kind of gradual change in strategy here toward more focus on the E&S markets? And do you think this continues here for the Travelers that E&S will become a larger and larger percentage of your overall, call it, commercial business mix?
Alan Schnitzer:
So Brian, we are predominantly a standard lines writer and we will continue to be that for the foreseeable future. We're not changing any stripes here and we've had substantial E&S capability for a very long time. So, for a long time a lot of our National Property business has been written on E&S paper. We've got our Northfield E&S business. We've got our Lloyd's business, some of what we do, in our Bond & Specialty business is written on E&S paper. So it's been a capability that we've had for a long time. And there have been ebbs and flows of business in and out of E&S for a long time. And so, part of this is what's been flowing into it and our ability to capture it. In addition, as we've seen an attractive E&S opportunity, we've leaned into it a little bit. So think what we've done with Fidelis and our acquisition of Corvus, and those have been contributors too. So this isn't a changing of strides by any stretch of the imagination, but there's an opportunity out there and we're participating in it at very attractive margins.
Brian Meredith:
Great, helpful. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Meyer Shields with KBW. Please go ahead.
Meyer Shields:
Great, thanks and good morning. I guess first question, I'm not sure who this is best sent to, but does the Supreme Court overturning the Chevron doctrine, how does that impact exposure for various casualty lines?
Alan Schnitzer:
I don't really know how to answer that, to be honest, Meyer. And we'll see over time whether there's any significant impact at all from Chevron. I mean, I hesitate to speculate on that at all and maybe it depends on who the regulators are in place and how that changes from one administration to the next. But I'm trying to decide whether I want to answer this off the top of my head or not, because it's not something that we've really rung our hands over. But if you imagine that regulatory activity is a contributor to loss activity, the impact of that decision on the Chevron document, you'd expect might be a good guy, frankly. But I think it's too early for us to make that call.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, fair enough. The second question, I guess, this is for Michael. When you look at the sort of potential outcomes for non-catastrophe weather and catastrophe losses, do you think of those as being inversely related or unrelated?
Michael Klein:
Meyer, I think it depends on the quarter. The non-cat weather in Personal Insurance sometimes will see a benefit because much of the weather gets classified as a cat. That actually was the case in the second quarter of last year. That was less so the case this year. When we talked about the underlying result this quarter, I talked about the fact that it was really fire and non-weather water losses, just to put a point on it and really didn't talk about non-cat weather, because in this quarter, it really -- we had both elevated catastrophes and we had about what we expected from a non-cat weather standpoint. So, in some cases, you'll see a little bit of an inverse relationship depending upon sort of the footprint of the weather and how significant the events are. But they're not always inversely related or directly related for that matter.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
I mean, it was a little bit of a factor of force this quarter in Business Insurance. Not huge, but it did have that impact this quarter. And so, when we do think about our weather, obviously, we're managing it as one, but there's a lot of what we would report favorably or unfavorably in small weather that you would see in the catastrophe line of some of our peers.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, that's perfect. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Mike Zaremski with BMO. Please go ahead.
Mike Zaremski:
Hey, thanks. Good morning. Just stepping back and thinking about the competitive environment in commercial lines, maybe a little more focused on Business Insurance, but maybe not. Would you expect current pricing power trends and maybe for the industry to kind of be stable? Or would you expect kind of an upward sloping trend if indeed Travelers is kind of ahead of others in terms of being proactive on loss trends, especially on the casualty side.
Alan Schnitzer:
Mike, I think we're going to try very hard not to give outlook on pricing. But I will say that from here, we would expect renewal price change continue to be positive and strong and in particular, driven by casualty. Now, whether that means up a little bit or down a little bit in one line or another. I don't really know. But I would say we expect it to remain relatively strong. There's a lot of uncertainty out there and you've heard from others about their experience in the casualty lines. As we look at the schedule P's, honestly, we expect there to be more of that coming from the industry. When we look at our position relative to the industry position, we would expect there to be more coming from the industry. So I would say positive and strong, particularly driven by casualty.
Mike Zaremski:
Got it. Quick follow-up, and I wish there was a live transcript if there's not because of this global IT issue, but I feel Dan, you made some prepared remarks that were a bit longer and you talked about kind of underlying profitability and consistency. Is there can you unpack what was the -- what was the message you were trying to convey to us and investors? Are you trying to tell us to focus kind of more on the underlying loss ratio and less on kind of PYD levels or am I misunderstanding what you meant by that?
Alan Schnitzer:
Mike, so thanks for listening. I think the main gist was sort of there was a period of time where underlying underwriting income was a pretty steady level. And it was a long period of time. And that was a period of time when written premium growth was sort of ticking around low single digits for a fair amount of time. And then when we started to accelerate the rate of top line growth again around 2016, and did it at consistent margins. The point was, that just translated into a much bigger base of pretty reliable underlying underwriting income. You can't quite go so far as to say it's just going to come in like the tide, but you look at the last five years where we -- before 2020, we had never reached $2 billion in after-tax underlying underwriting income. We crossed $2 billion in 2020 and stayed there. Then we crossed $3 billion in 2023. And in the first half of the year, we're up 30-something percent compared to that. So it was -- I sometimes think that people don't think of us as having grown, but really the underlying earnings power of the franchise is just in a completely different ballpark than it was five or six years ago.
Dan Frey:
And that's the important point, Mike. When you look at the various things that impact the bottom line, underlying underwriting income has been a much bigger, much more reliable contributor to that. And when you think about the earnings power of the Travelers, that's an important contributor. And, well, I'll leave it at that.
Meyer Shields:
Thank you.
Operator:
We have time for one more question, and that question comes from [Bob Hwang] with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst:
Great, thank you. Just maybe on workers comp a little bit. Obviously, California's benchmark rate decreased by 2%. As we think about more and more people go back to work, cost of medical inflation going up, can you maybe talk about the dynamics between your pricing, your severity as well as your frequency and how we should think about the $300 million relief this quarter and then also just the overall reserving position for the book on workers comp.
Alan Schnitzer:
So a lot there Bob and I'm not -- honestly, I'm not sure what the question is. The workers comp book continues to be extraordinarily attractive. We are the market leader and very good at it. We like the business. We like the returns. We feel great about the balance sheet position. I mean, if there's a specific question there, let me know so we can be responsive.
Unidentified Analyst:
Yes, sorry. Maybe it got cut off. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of, given where the rates are, given where medical cost inflations are going, which is increased, right? And given that frequency, or at least from the fact that more and more people are going back to the office, should we expect frequency to go up? Should we expect severity to go up from here? How do you think about after you take the $300 million of workers' comp reserve release this quarter, how should we think about just the ongoing reserve position of that book? That's where I'm trying to get to.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. So, I mean, we've had favorable development in the workers' comp line for many, many, many quarters now. And I don't know what it's going to be next quarter or the quarter after that, but I can tell you that we continue to feel positively about the balance sheet reserves sitting behind the workers' comp book. In terms of frequency and severity, look, frequency has been on a long-term secular decline. And, again, we're not going to project where that's necessarily going, but it's been on a long-term secular decline that the pandemic and the work from home that's followed it, it's probably too early to make a call on it, but at the margins, that's been probably positive. And if people came back to work and it ticked up a little bit, that wouldn't be particularly troubling for us because as we think about where frequency and severity go from here, as we've always done given the duration of the liability, we are very respectful of those two things. And so we continue to book frequency and severity as if it's going to go back to long-term trends. And so, we feel fine about the line and where lost trend is and where it could go.
Unidentified Analyst:
Okay got it. If I can just sneak into the last one. We've all around that New Jersey homeowner price. I know that pricing was up significantly. Just curious as to what the rationale about the New Jersey's homeowner pricing increase, if there is any.
Alan Schnitzer:
You're asking about New Jersey Homeowner price increases?
Unidentified Analyst:
Yes, sir.
Alan Schnitzer:
I mean, pricing in homeowners broadly is up, driven by rate. New Jersey is actually been a challenging place from a homeowners pricing standpoint. And it's one of the reasons we're actually dramatically shrinking the book of business in that state. And it's really driven by the loss environment. So, New Jersey is been, again, a challenging environment from a loss standpoint, and the regulatory challenges there are really the driver of our need to shrink that book. If we could get approval for the rate that we think we need then we'd be happy to write business there, but right now the regulatory dysfunction is a significant challenge.
Unidentified Analyst:
Really appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
And that concludes our question-and-answer session. I will now turn the conference back over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein for closing comments.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much for joining us. And as always, if there's any follow-up, please feel free to reach out to Investor Relations. Have a good day.
Operator:
And this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the First Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 17, 2024. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers discussion of our first quarter 2024 results. We released our press release, financial supplement, and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment presidents; Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Jeff Klenk of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take your questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I'd like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We are very pleased to report excellent top and bottom line results for the quarter. Core income was $1.1 billion or $4.69 per diluted share, generating core return on equity of 15.4%. After-tax core income increased by $126 million, despite a $211 million one-time tax benefit in the prior year quarter. On a pre-tax basis, this year's core income was $413 million or 45% higher year-over-year. Strong core income is driven by record net earned premiums of $10.1 billion up 14% compared to the prior year period and an excellent combined ratio 93.9%. The combined ratio improved 1.5 points notwithstanding elevated catastrophe activity primarily in the central and eastern regions of the United States. The underlying combined ratio improved 2.9 points to an outstanding 87.7% driven by strong underlying results in each of our three segments. Looking at the two commercial segment together, the aggregate BIBSI [ph] underlying combined ratio wasn't excellent 88.8% for the quarter. The underlying combined ratio in personal insurance was 86.1% a 6.8 point improvement over the prior year. Turning to investments, our high-quality investment portfolio continue to perform well generating after tax net investment income of $698 million for the quarter driven by strong and reliable returns from our growing fixed income portfolio and higher returns from our non-fixed income portfolio. Our underwriting and investment results together with our strong balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share after returning $620 million of excess capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases and making important investments in our business, as we notched another quarter of successful execution on a number of important strategic initiatives. In recognition of our strong financial position and confidence in the outlook for our business, I'm pleased to share that our board of directors declared a 5% increase in our quarterly cash dividend to $1.05 per share marking 20 consecutive years of dividend increases with a compound annual growth rate of 8% over that period. Turning to the top line, we grew net written premiums by 8% to $10.2 billion in the quarter. All three segments and excellent execution by our colleagues in the field contributed to our top line success. In Business Insurance, we grew net written premiums by 9% to $5.6 billion. Renewal premium change remained very strong at 10.6%, our retention remained high. The combination of strong pricing and retention reflects deliberate execution on our part and a marketplace that continues to be generally disciplined in the face of persistent headwinds. The segment generated a very strong $691 million of new business in the quarter, a reflection of the fact that our customers and distribution partners value the products and services that we offer and the experiences that we provide. In Bond & Specialty Insurance we grew net written premiums by 6% to $943 million. That was driven by strong retention of 90% and record new business in our high quality management liability business along with excellent production in our market leading surety business, where net written premiums were up 15%. Given the attractive returns, we are very pleased with the strong production results in both of our commercial business segments. In Personal Insurance, continued strong pricing drove 9% growth in net written premiums. Renewal premium change was 16.6% in our auto business and 13.4% in home. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. Before I turn the call over to Dan, I'll share that more than a hundred of my Travelers colleagues and I just returned from our Travelers leadership conference, TLC as we call it. It's a multi-day event that we host every year for the principals and senior leaders of our most significant distribution partners. Most of our guests have been coming for years, some for decades. We're also pleased every year to host a number of first timers. The represented firms are industry leaders and collectively account for more than half of our premium volume. We all returned home with the continued confidence that our relationships with these business partners and their firms are as strong as ever. We confirm that they remain very supportive of the strategic initiatives that we have underway and we took away valuable feedback on how we can accomplish even more together. The independent agent and broker channel remains a robust and growing part of our industry. At Travelers, we proudly partner with more than 15,000 agent broker firms across their 35,000 locations. We're a top three market for the majority of these firms that's a critical advantage because distributors place a disproportionate amount of their business with their top few carriers. We don't take these relationships for granted. As we've shared before, the vision for innovation agenda includes optimizing our value proposition as an indispensable partner to our agents and brokers. We continue to make significant investments to ensure that we realize that vision by offering best-in-class products, services, and experiences. Case in point, in our Bond & Specialty business, we recently conducted a blind survey of agents and brokers, ours and others, to determine how we ranked on the 10 attributes they identified as most likely to impact their placement decisions. Among our key competitors, we ranked first or tied for first in each of the 10 categories. We are over and over again that Travelers deep specialization across a wide range of modernized, simplified, and tailored products, along with a broad and consistent appetite are major differentiators for us in the market. For example, in Business Insurance, we offer a wide variety of coverages and product solutions. Admitted and DNS, across industries representing more than 85% of domestic GDP. Everything from a bought product for a local florist to a package solution for a main street middle market account to a loss sensitive workers compensation for a large national account. Across our three business segments, our distribution partners generally don't need to go to multiple carriers to satisfy customers' insurance needs. And the more lines per account we write, the higher the lifetime value of the customer. The primary focus of ours has been digitizing the value chain, in part to create value and provide great experiences for our agents and brokers, and in part to create efficiencies for them and for us. I'll share a few examples. In Business Insurance, we believe we were the first to offer agents and brokers a comprehensive portfolio loss data exchange, which allows us to digitally transfer to a small commercial or middle market distributor, loss information on their entire book with us. This capability enables our distribution partners to efficiently develop important insights into their books of business and supports their marketing efforts. In our middle market business, we believe we were the first carrier to offer multi-line digital submission capabilities. In our small commercial business, agents can transact with us through APIs or through our new quote and issue platform Travis, which is reduced quoting time by 25% for our leading BOP product. Across Business Insurance, nearly all of our largest distributors are currently leveraging one or more of our digital capabilities. In Personal Insurance, earlier this year, we added our proprietary aerial image reviewer to our agent portal. This advanced capability integrates a high resolution, over time photo series of a home into agents quoting workflow. This gives our partners a bird's eye view, helping them to better understand the customers or prospects insurance needs and how they may have evolved. We bring our franchise value directly to agents and brokers through distribution, underwriting, sales and claim professionals in more than 80 local offices. Through our expansive and empowered field organization, we foster deep relationships with our partners and are well-positioned to deliver the strength and expertise of travelers at the local level. We're also investing in our distribution partner’s workforces by providing education and training programs to their up and coming producers. Our Flagship Travelers agency leadership program and agency producer school provide in-person training to invited participants. We also offer larger virtual programs that have trained thousands of producers, including more than 3,000 just last year. We remain deeply committed to our vision of being the undeniable choice for the customer and an indispensable partner to our agents and brokers. Our pole position with this, with leading distributors is a significant competitive advantage and one that's hard to replicate. To sum it up, the year is off to a terrific start with strong profitability and production in all three segments, as well as higher investment income. In short, we're firing on all cylinders. We also continue to invest in important strategic initiatives. We have demonstrated success in executing our innovation strategy, which has contributed to superior returns with industry low volatility, both in our premium base and higher adjusted book value per share. With this momentum and the best talent in the industry, we remain well positioned for success this year and beyond. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the first quarter increased by 13% to $1.1 billion. And core return on equity was 15.4%. The growth in core income was driven by higher net investment income, and despite the one-time tax benefit in the prior year that Alan mentioned, higher underlying underwriting income, partially offset by a higher level of catastrophe losses. Our pre-tax underlying underwriting gain of $1.2 billion was up 50% from the prior year quarter, reflecting higher levels of earned premium and an underlying combined ratio that improved by 2.9 points to 87.7%. The underlying combined ratio was among our best ever and featured continued strong results in both Business Insurance and bond and specialty, complemented by a strong result in personal insurance, reflecting another quarter of significant improvement. We were pleased with the first quarter expense ratio of 28.7%, which was flat year-over-year despite the impact of Corvus, for which we had a full quarter of expenses, but very little earned premium, as there was no unearned premium carried in from the closing of the transaction on January 2nd. For the full year, we remained comfortable with an expense ratio expectation of 28% to 28.5%. We reported net favorable prior year reserve development of $91 million pre-tax in the first quarter. There was no net prior year reserve change in Business Insurance, as favorable development and workers comp of nearly $100 million was largely offset by modest increases for liability coverages in recent accident years, along with modest charges in our runoff book. In Bond & Specialty, net favorable PYD of $24 million pre-tax was driven by better than expected results across multiple lines. Personal Insurance recorded net favorable PYD of $67 million pre-tax, with improvements in both auto and home. After-tax net investment income increased 25% from the prior year quarter to $698 million. Fixed income NII was higher than in the prior year quarter and in line with our expectations, benefiting from both higher levels, higher yields, and a higher level of invested assets. Returns in our non-fixed income portfolio were also up from last year's quarter. Our updated outlook for fixed income NII, including earnings from short-term securities, is $640 million after-tax in the second quarter, growing to approximately $665 million in the third quarter, and then to around $690 million in the fourth quarter. Regarding income taxes in the first quarter, recall that last year's quarter included a one-time tax benefit of $211 million related to the repeal of Internal Revenue Code Section 847, and that's the main reason you see a higher effective tax rate in this year's quarter. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.5 billion were again very strong, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.6 billion. As interest rates increased during the quarter, our net unrealized investment loss increased from $3.1 billion after-tax at year-end to $3.7 billion after-tax at March 31st. Remember, the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses do not impact how we manage our investment portfolio. We generally hold fixed income investments to maturity. The quality of our fixed income portfolio remains very high, and changes in unrealized gains and losses have little or no impact on our cash flows, statutory surplus, or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses, was $125.53 at quarter end, up 2% from year-end, and up 8% from a year ago. Share repurchases this quarter included $250 million of open market repurchases. We had an additional $138 million of buybacks in connection with employee share based compensation plans. We have approximately $5.8 billion remaining under prior board authorizations for share repurchases. Dividends were $232 million in the quarter, and as Alan mentioned earlier, our board authorized a 5% increase in the quarterly dividend to $1.05 per share. In summary, the quarter's strong results once again demonstrate the significant earnings power of our ability to grow premiums across our well-diversified book of business while maintaining very attractive margins, along with steadily increasing net investment income from our growing and fixed income portfolio. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Greg for discussion of Business Insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance continues to deliver exceptional results with a strong first quarter of 2024 in terms of both the top and bottom lines. Segment income of $764 million was up from the first quarter of 2023 driven by higher net investment income and higher pre-tax underlying underwriting income. We're once again particularly pleased with the quarter's exceptionally strong underlying combined ratio of 89.2% among our best ever. Net written premiums increased 9% to an all-time quarterly high of $5.6 billion. Renewal premium change was once again historically high at 10.6% with renewal rate change of 7% driving most of the strong pricing. Retention remained excellent at 86% and new business of $691 million was an all-time first quarter high. Let me give you a little more texture on the continued strong pricing environment. Renewal rate change remained high, coming in at 7% or higher for the fourth quarter in a row. It was also up almost 2.5 points from the first quarter of 2023. In our select and core middle market businesses, renewal rate remained consistent with the fourth quarter. Renewal rate change in our national property book was strong and in the double digits, but down a couple points sequentially. That's an appropriate result threading the needle between healthy returns in the business and continued weather volatility. From a line perspective, umbrella, property, and auto led the way. All with renewal rate change in or very close to double digits. Renewal rate change was higher compared to the preceding and prior year quarters in GL, Umbrella, Auto, E&CMP [ph]. In workers' comp, renewal rate change was about half a point more than negative than the preceding and prior year quarters. With continued healthy exposure, renewal premium change in comp continues to be positive in the low single digits. Again, an appropriate result given the strong results in the line. Retention remained healthy across the board. We're pleased with our production results, the exceptional granular execution by our field organization, and the resulting growth in top line and attractive margins. As for the individual businesses, in select, renewal premium change remains strong at 10.4% with renewal rate change of 4%, consistent with the fourth quarter and up more than two points from the first quarter of 2023. Retention also remained strong at 84%, while new business increased 22% from the prior year quarter to $156 million, driven by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product. We're also encouraged with the impact we're seeing from Travis, our new front end rate, quote, and issue interface platform that Alan mentioned. In middle market, renewal premium change was 10% with renewal rate change of 7%, consistent with the strong fourth quarter result and up close to three points from the prior year quarter. Retention remains strong at 87%. To sum up, Business Insurance had a great start to the year. We continue to grow our profitable book while investing in capabilities to enhance our position as the undeniable choice for the customer and an indispensable partner for our agents and brokers. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeffrey Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Fund & Specialty started the year with another quarter of strong returns in our 29th consecutive quarter of profitable net written premium growth. Segment income was $195 million, driven by strong earned premiums and a combined ratio of 84.5%. Underneath the combined ratio, the underlying loss ratio improved 2.7 points to an excellent 46.4%. As Dan mentioned, the expense ratio was elevated compared to recent periods, primarily due to the Corvus acquisition. We expect that to continue to be the case for the next several quarters as we integrate and earn in Corvus' business. Turning to the top line, we grew net written premiums by 6% in the quarter. In our high quality domestic management liability business, we again delivered excellent retention of 90% with slightly higher sequential renewal premium change. We grew new business by 34% from the prior year quarter to a record $91 million, driven by Corvus production. As a reminder, we are in the midst of transitioning Corvus' $200 million profitable book of business onto Traveler's paper, which will continue to be reflected in our new business production in the coming quarters. Net written premiums in our market-leading surety business grew a terrific 15%, reflecting continued strong demand for our surety bonds. So we're pleased to have once again delivered strong top and bottom line results this quarter. And now I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to report Personal Insurance generated first quarter segment income of $220 million and a combined ratio of 96.9%, both of which are significantly improved relative to the prior year quarter. The underlying combined ratio of 86.1% reflects a 6.8 point improvement compared to the prior year quarter, driven by higher earned pricing in both automobile and homeowners and other. Net written premiums grew 9% as a result of continued price increases in both auto and home. In automobile, the first quarter combined ratio of 94.6% improved 10 points compared to the prior year, primarily reflecting a lower underlying combined ratio, as well as favorable prior year development. The underlying combined ratio of 94.9% improved 8.5 points compared to the prior year, driven by the benefit of higher earned pricing. At the same time, vehicle severity trends moderated, and the quarter also included a modest frequency benefit from the mild winter. As a brief reminder, the first quarter underlying combined ratio is typically our seasonally lowest in auto. We are very pleased with the trajectory of auto profitability. In homeowners and other, the first quarter combined ratio of 99.1% was impacted by higher catastrophe losses, reflecting an active cat quarter, with 19 PCS designated events for the industry, more than 50% higher than the long-term average. The underlying combined ratio of 77.6% improved 5 points, primarily driven by the impact of earned pricing. Turning to production, our results demonstrate continued disciplined execution of rate and non-rate measures to balance profitability and growth. In domestic automobile, retention of 82% remained strong, and renewal premium change of 16.6% was consistent with our expectations. Given the improving profitability of our book, we continue to expect renewal premium change to moderate throughout 2024. New business premium was consistent with the prior year quarter. Underneath this headline number, new business volumes grew in states where we have achieved written rate adequacy. In homeowners and other, retention of 84% remained strong and was consistent with recent quarters. Renewal premium change of 13.4% reflected higher renewal rate change, and was consistent with our expectations, as we have largely closed the gap in insurance to value. We expect renewal premium change to remain at these levels throughout 2024, as we continue to seek rate in response to elevated loss costs. The declines in homeowners' new business and policies in force reflect our ongoing efforts to thoughtfully deploy capacity, as we continue to manage rate adequacy, catastrophe risk, and regulatory risk. Personal Insurance team has made notable progress on improving the underlying fundamentals of our business, while sustaining investments in key capabilities for the future. We're moving closer to our goal of delivering target returns. Auto profitability continues to improve. We have reached written rate adequacy in all but a few states, and are continuing to temper non-rate actions accordingly. For homeowners, we remain focused on managing growth, while improving profitability. At the same time, we're delivering key strategic capabilities. In February, we completed two noteworthy product launches, Quantum Boat 2.0 in the U.S., and Optima Home in Canada. Quantum Boat 2.0 delivers a better agent and customer experience, with improved segmentation, and strengthens our position as a provider of total account solutions, building on the success of Quantum Auto 2.0 and Quantum Home 2.0. Optima Home is an extension of our market-leading Quantum Home 2.0 property product, enabling us to deliver a more robust total account solution in the Canadian market. Both product launches mark further progress on our journey to modernize our products and platforms, making us an even more compelling choice for customers and distributors. To sum it up, I'm very pleased with the positive start to the year in Personal Insurance and grateful to our team. Now I'll turn the call back over to Abby. Now I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. We're ready to open up for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of David Motemaden of Evercore. Your line is open.
David Motemaden:
Hi. Thanks. Good morning. I had a question just on the more recent accident year reserve increases in Business Insurance and some of those liability lines that Dan was highlighting. I'm wondering, is there any more detail you can provide here with regards to specific accident years? It sounded like GL. Also, I don't think you guys are alone in seeing some adverse on these years. I think everyone had thought that these were better priced years relative to 2019 and prior. Could you just talk about what exactly is the disconnect here and why there's some adverse coming on those years?
Dan Frey:
Hey, David. It's Dan. Sure. I'll take that. Yes. By more recent accident years, we're not talking about 15 through 19. We're talking about years more recent than that. I guess the thing I'll reiterate from my comments is we're talking about some pretty small movements here. We had some adverse in those recent accident year liability lines. We also had some modest charges in the runoff book. I think what we're doing here, David, is trying to be reactive to all the information we're seeing those recent accident years in the liability lines, which tend to take longer to develop and be on the books for a while, are more leveraged to IB&R. We're just trying to get some more IB&R into those lines to recognize that uncertainty.
Alan Schnitzer:
David, its Alan. The other thing I'd add is there's not any significant new developments here. These are generally the same trends we've been talking about for a long time, a little more of the same. Again, to reiterate Dan's comment, when you look at the overall reserves we have for these lines, these are very small adjustments.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Okay. That's helpful. Then, maybe just switching gears to the personal auto business, Michael, I think you had mentioned that there was maybe some benefit just from mild frequency given a warmer than typical first quarter. Is there any way you could size that just to help us think about the sustainability of the improvement in the auto business?
Michael Klein:
Yes, sure, David. I think the mild frequency impact on the underlying combined ratio was a little less than a point.
David Motemaden:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Gregory Peters with Raymond James. Your line is open.
Gregory Peters:
Good morning, everyone. For the first question, I'll focus on the Business Insurance segment. In the comments and in the stats, I think there's 7% or higher renewal rate change for four consecutive quarters. Retention seems to be holding up, maybe slipping a little bit. Maybe you could step back and give us some context about, or texture I think is the word you used, about the competitive environment. Curious, given all the rate change that's coming through, why we haven't seen more aggressive actions on behalf of some of the competitors yet, or maybe there's still reconciling previous year's results as well. I don't know. Just some color there would be helpful.
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning, Greg. It's Alan. I'll start and then turn it over to Greg. Hard for us to comment for competitors, but we do think that in the pricing we've been able to achieve with these retentions, you do see a reflection of the competitive environment. I'd say that everybody is, well, what we would speculate is that everybody's reacting to the same things that we're reacting to. There's returns in a much better place after years of pricing and improvements in terms and conditions, but there are some headwinds and some uncertainty out there. All the things we've talked about, there's social inflation, economic inflation, a tight labor market. Weather, geopolitics, I think, puts a certain lens over the way we all see the world. I suspect what you have is a marketplace that's reacting to an overall level of risk and uncertainty.
Gregory Peters:
I guess I'll pivot then. If you look at the proxy statement, I know ROE targets are a very important metric for you all. I think the target was 12.8% for 2023 up from 11.6% from 2022. Can you talk about how you're looking at the ROE targets for the company for 2024, please?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes, I don't think we're going to share that target. It gets competitively sensitive and close to pricing. But I will say we think about that in terms of the overall outlook for our business. We think about the rate at which the interest rate environment is earning into the fixed income portfolio, which turns over on a lag basis. And we think about really what we want to achieve as a margin over both the 10-year treasury and our cost of equity. So those are the things we think about as we put the plan together. Dan, anything else I'm missing there?
Dan Frey:
No, you got it all.
Gregory Peters:
Got it. Thanks.
Dan Frey:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks. My first question is on personal auto. I think you guys said that Q1 is seasonally the lowest combined ratio quarter, but you still have a good amount of rate earning in the book. So shouldn't that obscure some of the seasonality, or would you expect Q1 to be better from a combined ratio perspective on the underlying side relative to the other three quarters of the year, even knowing you have rate to earn in?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Elyse. It's Michael. So just taking a step back and talking about auto, the seasonality comment is a long-term average comment. Typically, Q1 is roughly three points lower than the overall combined ratio for the year. But that's, again, a long-term average and largely an all-else equal environment. So that three points doesn't adjust for earned effective pricing potentially having impact in the back half of the year. And so you have to make an adjustment for that, no question. But, again, I would just take a step back and maybe put a little more color around my response to David as well. So the mild winter weather benefit we would view as sort of a one-off in the quarter that we wouldn't expect to continue, we don't see any reason to assume adjusted for that. That seasonality is any different today than it was historically. And at the end of the day, to the premise of your question, the earned effective pricing is far and away the biggest driver of the improvement in the quarter, and there's more of that to come going forward.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thanks. And then my second question, I wanted to go back to the liability reserve increase in the quarter. Could you give us a sense, if there were some additions, I know the numbers are modest, like you guys said, on accident year 2023. And then, given the additions you see here, are you adjusting your longer trend, long-term loss trend assumption for the liability lines following this?
Dan Frey:
So, Elyse, it's Dan. I'll start with the PYD piece and avoid the temptation of splitting what is a small number to begin with into its individual accident years. So we're not going to do that. I do think if you look at the results in Business Insurance, we talked about the fact that you saw some improvement in the underlying combined ratio, including in the underlying loss ratio. You have the benefit of pricing and a couple of other things like mix, which we talked about last quarter. The same time, like in any quarter, you've got some puts and takes, and one of those puts and takes in this quarter is booking a little bit more IB&R in the current accident year to reflect some of the uncertainty that we're seeing. Not big numbers, but we are reacting to it.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. First one for Michael. Michael, I'm just curious, one of your competitors in the personal auto space is showing some pretty strong growth in policy and so forth, really kind of capitalizing the market. I'm just curious, are you in a position at this point to kind of go after and get some growth given how your results have improved so much?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Brian. Thanks for the question. Certainly, again, underneath the results in the quarter, if you look at it on a state-by-state basis, the states where we have achieved written adequacy, we've achieved written adequacy, we did achieve new business premium growth. And consistent with our comments last quarter, what I would say to you is we're executing a very granular state-by-state, geography-by-geography strategy as we look to temper some of the non-rate actions that we had in place in auto. And if you take a step back, if you look at it over the last couple of years, we have a small increase in policies in force in auto over the last couple years or so. We got a small decrease in property, all the while premiums are up 30-plus percent. So we feel pretty good about the starting point. And directly to your question, our focus in auto is on profitably growing auto on a go-forward basis. Our focus on home remains on improving profitability, and so that's why we talk about sort of balancing profitability and growth across the whole portfolio.
Brian Meredith:
Makes sense. Thanks. And then a follow-up on the Business Insurance. Alan and Greg, I wonder if you could kind of dissect kind of the competitive landscape, kind of large, middle, small. Are any of them kind of incrementally more competitive? It feels like small, middle seems to be a little more stable right now than maybe the large from what we're hearing in the marketplace.
Alan Schnitzer:
Brian, let me just comment and I’ll turn it over to Greg. I think all of these markets are always competitive all the time, and that's sort of the way we think about it. So I'm not sure. I mean, as Greg shared in his prepared remarks, to the extent that you're thinking about, renewal price change as a proxy for competition, and I don't think it is, by the way. That did come down a couple of points, but, again, still among our highest rate achieved in any line, and, double digits and a reflection of terrific returns in the line. So I don't think there's been any sea change in or any significant shift, among those businesses. I'd say competitive business that we have. I don't know, Greg.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes, maybe I'll touch on new business since Alan just hit on rate. And you can see in the new business we had a real strong quarter in small commercial up 22%, so that we are seeing a little more dislocation in that market than we are in middle market. But the combination of our new segmented product, BOP 2.0, and our new commercial automobile product, we feel terrific about, our position there and where we're writing that new business and what returns we're going to achieve there. Middle market still had, the delta wasn't as big on new business, but we had a record result on the first quarter of the prior year, so really strong new business levels. So not as much dislocation, Brian, in the middle market, but really feeling good about the combination of where the returns are and our field team staying really active on the new business front.
Brian Meredith:
Terrific. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. Good morning. I just had a couple, I guess, on exposure acting as rate. So, yes, exposure acting as rates clearly been a tailwind in particular for margins. It's been flagged, for the past couple years, especially in the workers' comp line. But this is the first quarter in a long time I think, I've seen that workers' comp NPW shrink year-over-year. So curious sort of, what dynamic might be going on there?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes. Good morning, Ryan. How you doing? This is Greg. Yes, exposure continues to be strong, down somewhat as you look at the businesses. Not a surprise to us as the Fed has been very active in curtailing inflation. So definitely we're seeing some of that in workers' comp. But the primary driver of the down in comp is, we do still have rate reductions, as I shared in my prepared comments, relative to the other products. And as we're an account solution, we're going to remain very active and disciplined with our underwriting. And as we invoke both of those dynamics in the business, that's what drove the overall net written premium change in the comp line.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And I guess if I look at the overall, the exposure is still positive across the book. So clearly something else is picking that up. On the property side, are you guys still getting positive exposure adjustments from like insured value adjustments? Or is that really just kind of a 2023 catch up thing that's already happened?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes, as you can imagine, it's somewhat linear with inflation, Ryan. So 2023, we had some record results of trying to keep up with the replacement costs and building materials. So it's down somewhat from 2023, but still up overall.
Alan Schnitzer:
Hey, Ryan, as a macro comment, if you look at that exposure, it's easy to get very focused on recent periods. But if you look at that number over time, it's a pretty healthy number that I think is consistent with what is today a pretty healthy economy.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyers Shields with KBW. Your line is open.
Meyers Shields:
Great, thanks. If I can stick with property for a second, last year when we tracked renewal pricing changes, it sort of peaked in the second and third quarter. And I'm wondering whether there's a seasonal element to that or we should just sort of follow that curve to anticipate smaller rate increases because of the reduced indicated need over the course of 2024?
Alan Schnitzer:
Meyer, yes, there really isn't a seasonal element of pricing overall. Our field underwriters are going to look at the exposure at hand and the renewal book will change over time as we write incremental new business. And so overall, it's dependent on the exposures that come up for that particular quarter. That's more of the dynamic than any seasonality.
Dan Frey:
Yes, Meyer, it's Dan. I'll just add in case your question is not just seasonality of pure price change, but within the property line, there's some seasonality of its mix on a written premium basis. And to your point, and you can see it in the financial supplement, the second and third quarters tend to be relatively higher levels of commercial property compared to what comes up in Q1 and Q4.
Meyers Shields:
Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. If I can switch gears, I wanted to talk a little bit about workers' compensation reserve releases because based on the statutory numbers, there were like 900 million of releases in 2023. And I think you said less than 100 this quarter. So that's slowing down. I was hoping you could maybe break that down either by accident year or the difference between actual claim emergence versus indications.
Dan Frey:
Yes, Meyer, it's Dan. So again, I'm going to resist the temptation to do it by accident year. It's multiple accident years in comp as it normally is. We're really just going through the same robust and disciplined review process every quarter in comp and in every line. We'll go through the latest data. We'll look at how it might have varied from what our actuarial models would have expected. And we'll do our best to determine the reasons why the actual varied from expected and book the necessary adjustments accordingly. And the number is just sort of going to be what it's going to be. And if you think about this quarter versus last quarter or this quarter versus next quarter in any particular line, prior reserve development might be more, might be less. We'll wait and see what the data tells us. But it's more of the same in terms of thematically what's coming through. We have continued to make assumptions around what long-term severity is going to be. We have assumptions around what frequency is going to be. And that of those things has been some more good news in the first part of this year.
Alan Schnitzer:
Meyer, I'll also add that as we, one part of our consideration process as we go through this is to make sure that we're appropriately reflecting our thoughts about uncertainty. So that's, just something to keep in mind.
Meyers Shields:
Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski of BMO. Your line is open.
Mike Zaremski:
Okay. Great. Good morning. On the, maybe question on the Business Insurance segment, when we look at the underlying combined ratio, it's, it's shown a nice trend of, I guess improvement versus prior years. And that's kind of despite you all kind of topping off IB&R and kind of adding to reserves on recent vintages. And so just curious about that dynamic, how is it that your view of kind of the underlying has stayed excellent kind of, and not kind of drifted a bit higher as you've taken some just small actions? Is it just pricing powers been, you think just much higher than loss cost trend or any color you have would be helpful?
Alan Schnitzer:
Let me, let me start and I'll turn it over to you, Dan. So we understand that sometimes the investment community can get very focused on a couple of metrics as you think about what drives it, but, but that's really not the way it comes together. It comes together through all the things that, that impact margins. And so, if you look at the excellent result this quarter earn pricing was a significant benefit favorable mix was a little bit of a benefit and there was some small items going the other way that that partially upset some of that benefit. As Dan mentioned, we booked a little bit more IB&R as a reflection of uncertainty, a little bit of non-CAT weather a little bit of discrete large loss activity none of those things significant and as you can tell from the fact that it was an excellent and improving number but every quarter there's there are just a bunch of factors that add up and puts and takes.
Dan Frey:
Yes, that's right. And I think the only thing I’d add to that and I'd sort of confirm your premise in the question Mike is it's really a very strong pricing environment if you go back and look at the i-commentary over the last year or two it's one of the reasons we've been so pleased to see retention remain as a strong as it has because we love the profile of the book and we're trying to, so we're happy to be retaining it, happy to get pricing on top of it and that's improving margins and then in any quarter it's going to be impacted by some of the things that Alan just mentioned.
Mike Zaremski:
Okay that's helpful. My last follow-up is on maybe more on homeowners' personal lines. Given the, what seems like continued trend of higher task losses, any changes you're seeing in the industry or the travelers trying to implement on terms and conditions such as roof replacement, are there any trends there we should be thinking about? Thanks.
Michael Klein:
Sure, Mike. It's Michael. Absolutely. I think if you, if you dig underneath our comments around non-rate actions, there's a variety of things that we're executing on, and many of which we're seeing across the industry. And examples include, first of all, eligibility, right, based on an evaluation of the exposure also eligibility on age of roof, underwriting restrictions around things like roof condition and tree overhang. Our primary approach on sort of risk sharing, if you will, is really to focus on AOP and wind-hail tornado deductibles. We've implemented higher wind-hail tornado deductibles in virtually every severe convective storm exposed state across the country. I think the last count were up to, I think, 21 states where we've increased deductibles to help to deal with the exposure. And then, managing distribution and managing appetite to manage aggregation of exposure, within a local or a state-by-state geography. So really, those are some examples of the variety of actions we're taking from a non-rate perspective, which is really what we're referring to when we talk about managing growth and improving profitability and property.
Mike Zaremski:
Thanks.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Phillips with Oppenheimer. Your line is open.
Michael Phillips:
Thanks. Good morning, everybody. Totally different turn here. Florida homeowners market, obviously, market has not been a big player. And I'm wondering if any of the reforms that have been taking place in the past couple of years have given you pause to maybe revisit that?
Michael Klein:
Sure. Great question and certainly something that we spend time evaluating. What I would say is certainly reforms in Florida, some of the depopulation of citizens in Florida are certainly things that make Florida look better than it has in the past. But it is still a highly CAT exposed geography. It is still a place where we think the risk-reward is not in balance. And one of the things, frankly, in Florida that remains a significant concern is the potential assigned risk obligation in the event of a significant catastrophe. And so, and I think Alan's referred to this in the past. We see signs of improvement in the state, but it's going to take more than what we've seen. And one of the things that it causes you to think about is whether or not you can compete in Florida on an admitted basis versus an excess and surplus lines basis. So those are all some of the considerations around Florida. The upshot for us is while we do see those signs of improvement, we haven't seen enough change to cause us to change our perspective on wanting to, reopen for new business and property in Florida.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, the TOR [ph] reforms that they enacted we think were an excellent start. We certainly love other states to follow suit because we think regulatory reform is important as it relates to affordability, not just insurance, but of home ownership and autos. But there are some other structural things in the state that are, just make it difficult at the moment. We'll continue to reevaluate it.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, great. Thank you guys. Thanks for the color. Second question, personal auto. Are you seeing any sign there of kind of just higher attorney [ph] involvement in personal auto that give you [Indiscernible] concern?
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure, Michael. I would say that, in Q1, it's, first of all, bodily injury is where most attorney involvement occurs. And in Q1, it's the longest tail element of the exposure we see in personal insurance. So concluding anything based on what we saw in the quarter from a bodily injury standpoint is a challenge. But the same, sort of social inflation, litigation, abuse challenges that Greg has talked about a lot in Business Insurance, we're not immune from in personal insurance. We have seen over a longer period of time increased attorney involvement impact bodily injury. But all that said, if we look at bodily injury results in the quarter, bodily injury loss trends were pretty consistent with what we expected.
Michael Phillips:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Ward with Citi. Your line is open.
Michael Ward:
Thanks. Good morning. I was just curious, the growth in commercial auto accelerated pretty meaningfully. Was that mostly price or how should we think about the pricing environment in that line?
Michael Klein:
Good morning, Michael. Yes, it was. I think most of the growth that happened from a net written premium change was due to RPC. One thing I would point out, and I referenced a little bit earlier, we do have our new automobile product that we've rolled out across all Business Insurance in our express select underwriting route model and also in our transactional middle market business, our TCAP [ph] product. So we feel, terrific about that latest segmentation and that should ultimately improve the return profiles on that business overall. But the biggest change was RPC.
Michael Ward:
Great. Thank you. And maybe just back to GL, you noted the charges were relatively modest. I guess just compared to last year's charges, are they similar, less, or any other color around that? Thanks.
Dan Frey:
Hey, Michael. It's Dan. I guess I'll say if you just look at the comment being that, comp was approaching 100 million, the segment was zero, some of it was runoff, you could get to an implication of sort of a box around how much the GL must have been. And for whatever it's worth, and I'm not sure how much it's worth, that would tell you that the first quarter number was probably less than some of the magnitude that we saw in last year. But again, we'll do a full evaluation again next quarter and the number will be more or less favorable or unfavorable depending on what the data tells us.
Michael Ward:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Robert Cox with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Robert Cox:
Hey, thanks. So we saw some data potentially indicating a slowdown in premium growth in the E&S market. And I know Travelers has about 2.5 billion in E&S and you guys have indicated that margins there are quite attractive. Just curious if you saw any changes in competitive dynamics in E&S or pricing.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Hi, Robert. This is Greg. Yes, as we've shared with you, underneath that 2.5 billion, we have quite a bit of diverse businesses that drive that. And we didn't really see any material slowdown in the segments that we compete in.
Robert Cox:
Okay, got it. And maybe secondly, I'm curious as I think you've started to go through some of the re-underwriting of the Corvus book, if you've learned anything material and if there's any major takeaways.
Jeffrey Klenk:
Yes, thanks, Robert. It's Jeff. We're 3.5 months now into our integration. We're feeling really good about bringing and leveraging the capabilities of both organizations. I would tell you that we feel really good about the quality and the profitability of the Corvus book of business. It's consistent and we're taking some of those capabilities. We've already completed the scans using their proprietary technology to the existing Traveler's book of business. Really comfortable with what we're seeing. Thanks for the question.
Robert Cox:
Thank you.
Operator:
We have time for one more question. It will be from Paul Newsome of Piper Sandler. Your line is open. Paul Newsome, your line is open.
Paul Newsome:
Hi, good morning and thanks for squeezing me in. Maybe just a couple of quick personalized questions. Is it fair to say that the renewal premium change for both auto and home, given what you've already filed and the fact that you're getting closer to or you've gotten most states to adequacy, that we should see that decelerate fairly meaningfully in the next couple of quarters? Just any thoughts about that so that we aren't surprised?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Paul. It's Michael. I would separate auto and home. For auto, you'll see RPC moderate as we go throughout the year. I wouldn't suggest it's going to be a sharp decline. One of the things that I think is important to think about as you think about RPC over time for us is we write mostly 12-month policies in auto. While someone who writes a lot of six-month policies is going to see RPC accelerate quickly on the front end, they're going to actually see it decelerate more quickly on the back end. Ours is going to be a more gradual increase and then a more gradual decrease because we file a rate in May of 2023. We're still renewing policies at that same higher rate in April of 2024. So just a little bit of context for why I say it's going to be more of a gradual deceleration in auto RPC. In property RPC, we don't anticipate a deceleration. We're going to continue to drive rate into the property portfolio in response to increased loss costs. I would expect RPC to remain relatively consistent through the balance of 2024 in property.
Paul Newsome:
I did notice that the renewal rate in home did come down quite a bit, at least sequentially. Is that just sort of an anomaly or is it something to note?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Paul. The RPC drop from Q4 to Q1 in property is what we were referring to last year when we talked about the fact that we've made a lot of progress on insurance to value in home. So when you think about renewal premium change in personal lines property, it's really driven by two primary things. One is rate and then the other is increasing the coverage limit on the dwelling. And in 2022 and 2023, we made dramatic increases in property coverage A limits in home that drove a decent amount of the property RPC. In my prepared remarks, that's why I mentioned that when you look at that 13.4%, it actually reflects improvement in rate from last quarter to this quarter. And the drop is really because we've essentially caught up on insurance to value in property. So that's why I say you're not going to see a further incremental change in RPC due to that coverage A limit dynamic because that's just going to stay the same. And now what you're looking at is mostly our outlook for rate in property for 2024, which again is to keep it pretty consistent.
Paul Newsome:
Thank you. That helps always much appreciated.
Operator:
Thank you. I will turn the call to Ms. Goldstein for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you all very much again for joining us this morning. And as usual, if there's any follow up, please feel free to reach out directly to Investor Relations. Have a great day.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. We thank you for joining. You may now disconnect your lines.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on January 19, 2024. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers discussion of our fourth quarter 2023 results. We released our press release, financial supplement, and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment presidents; Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Jeff Klenk of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take your questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I'd like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We are very pleased to report exceptional top and bottom line results for the quarter. Core income earnings per share and return on equity were all record highs, driven by both underwriting and investment results. Our underwriting gains were broad-based in each of our three segments underlying underwriting income was higher and prior year development was favorable. Catastrophe losses were also light. Record underlying underwriting income resulted from net earned premiums of $10 billion, up more than 13% over the prior year quarter and an underlying combined ratio, which improved 5.5 points to a record 85.9%. Looking at our two commercial segments together. The aggregate BI/BSI underlying combined ratio was an excellent 85.9% for the quarter. The underlying combined ratio in personal insurance was coincidentally also 85.9%, an improvement of more than 10 points year-over-year. In addition, we are pleased to have delivered full year core income of $3.1 billion, generating core return on equity of 11.5%. Notwithstanding elevated industry wide catastrophe losses earlier in the year and a personal lines operating environment that while improving was difficult during the year. Turning to investments. Our high quality investment portfolio continued to perform well, generating after tax net investment income of $645 million for the quarter and $2.4 billion for the year, driven by strong and reliable returns from our growing fixed income portfolio. Our operating results together with our strong balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 8% during the year, after making important investments in our business and returning nearly $2 billion of excess capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Turning to the topline. We grew net written premiums by 13% to $10 billion in the quarter. For the year, we grew net written premiums by 14% to more than $40 billion. All three segments contributed to our topline success. In Business Insurance, we grew net written premiums in the quarter by 14% to more than $5 billion. Renewal premium change remained high at 11.8%. Our retention also remained high at 87%. The combination of strong pricing and retention reflects deliberate execution on our part and a disciplined marketplace. The segment generated $672 million of new business in the quarter, which is a $118 million or about 20% higher than in the prior year quarter. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 7% to $989 million, driven by excellent production in our surety business, where net written premiums were up 9%. Production was also strong in our management liability business. Given the attractive returns, we are very pleased with the strong production results in both of our commercial business segments. In Personal Insurance, top line growth of 13% was driven by higher pricing. Renewal premium change was 21.2% in home and 16.7% in our auto business. Renewal premium change alone contributed more than $2 billion of written premium in this segment over the past year. With another strong production -- with another year of strong production in each of our segments, we feel very well positioned for the new year. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. Before I turn the call over to Dan, I'd like to take a minute and put our 2023 results into an overtime context with an update to some data we shared previously. A half dozen or so years ago, we laid out a focused innovation strategy, ensure that if we were successful in this execution, we would expect to grow our business at attractive returns. A reflection of our belief that any strategy to achieve industry-leading returns over time requires a strategy to grow over time. The data on Slide 19 of the webcast presentation show the success we've achieved. Starting at the top left corner. In terms of the top line, we've grown net written premiums at a compound annual rate of 7% over the past seven years, that's 2.5 times our rate of growth from 2012 to 2016. The growth rate in each of the past two years was double-digits, the result of a deliberate and tailored strategy, stronger pricing where we need it and a combination of pricing and unit growth where we like the opportunity. In Business Insurance, we've added more than $4 billion to our top line over the past two years. The investments we've made in capabilities to enhance the franchise value that we offer to our customers and distribution partners have contributed to strong retentions and growth in new business. In Bond & Specialty, we've increased net written premiums over that period by about $0.5 billion or 14%. More than half of that growth has come from a very profitable surety business, where our market leading position has enabled us to benefit from increased demand for bonds with higher contract values and projects resulting from the Federal Infrastructure and Jobs Act and other federal programs. Across both of our commercial segments, since 2021, we have about doubled our E&S writings to around $2.5 billion. That includes organic growth from the E&S business we write in National Property, our North field business and our Lloyd's business, as well as the impact of more recent strategic efforts, which include our relationships with Fidelis and Corvus. The margins in our E&S business are quite attractive. In Personal Insurance, where margins have not been at target levels in recent periods. Net written premium growth of $3.4 billion over the past two years has been almost entirely a result of price increases. The PI team has done an excellent job of threading the needle, maintaining a strong customer base while achieving meaningful pricing gains. They've also done a great job with private product management. Our advanced peril-by-peril Quantum Auto 2.0 offering now represents more than 60% of the domestic property portfolio. And adoption of our telematics product and teledrive among new customers has been strong. With pricing gains and enhanced product sophistication, the book should contribute to our earnings power going forward as we move to our target returns. Also important is that across all three segments, we've grown mostly in products, classes of business and geographies and through distribution partners that we know well, that gives us a lot of confidence in the business we're adding to the books. Moving to the right, you can see that while we've meaningfully increased our rate of growth, we've maintained very strong and consistent underlying profitability. That demonstrates that we're not growing by underpricing the business or compromising our underwriting discipline. We've grown by investing in the products, services and experiences that our customers want to buy and our distribution partners want to sell. We've also grown through a lot of great hustle and hard work on the part of our outstanding field organization. One of the clear strategic objectives of our innovation strategy has been to optimize productivity and efficiency. Moving to the top right of the slide, you can see that over the last seven years, we've reduced our expense ratio by 3.6 points to just over 28% for 2023, which is more than a 10% reduction relative to our 2012 to 2016 expense ratio of around 32%. Enhanced operating leverage gives us the flexibility to let the benefit fall to the bottom line and/or invest further in our strategic priorities. Case in point, as you can see on Slide 21, since 2017, we have doubled our investments in strategic technology initiatives. Over that same period, we've carefully managed growth in routine but necessary technology expenditures. In other words, over a seven year period, we simultaneously and meaningfully increased our technology spend, improve the strategic mix of that spend, and lowered our expense ratio. The upshot of what we've accomplished on the top half of Slide 19 is what you see on the bottom half. On the bottom left, you can see that we've increased underlying underwriting income significantly. From 2012 to 2019, underlying underwriting income averaged $1.3 billion. In 2020, we crossed the $2 billion mark and 2023 marks the first time that we've exceeded $3 billion. We've taken our underlying underwriting income to a meaningfully higher level. We've also significantly increased our cash flow from operations to more than $7.5 billion in 2023. The fourth consecutive year it's been more than $6 billion and more than double our average cash flow from operations in the earlier part of the last decade. Cash flow isn't a metric that we or our industry talk a lot about, but it's important. It's what gives us the ability to make important investments in our business, return excess capital to shareholders and grow the investment portfolio. We've grown our investment portfolio significantly to nearly $93 billion. As we continue to reinvest our fixed income portfolio at higher rates, this is a highly reliable lever of earnings and value creation. To sum it up through a well-executed strategy, we've more than doubled our rate of growth, sustained strong underlying underwriting margins and meaningfully lowered our expense ratio. That has resulted in record levels of underlying underwriting income, cash flow and invested assets. Ultimately, of course, one number that brings everything together is adjusted book value per share. On Slide 20, you can see that we have steadily increased adjusted book value per share each year since 2006 at a compound annual rate of 7.5%. The effective management of our capital complements that result. We've increased our capital base to support the profitable growth of our business. At the same time, we've been disciplined about returning excess capital to shareholders. Over this period, we've increased our dividend at a compound annual rate of more than 8% and returned more than $40 billion to our shareholders through share repurchases at an average price of about $74 per share. These results, together with our track record of strong returns and low volatility demonstrate the strength of our business and the success of our overtime strategy. Looking ahead, we're very confident about how we're positioned for 2024 and beyond. The fundamentals across our business are in excellent shape. We're confident that we're focused on the right strategic priorities and that with demonstrated success in execution, there's plenty more opportunity ahead of us. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the fourth quarter was $1.6 billion, and core return on equity was 24%, both all-time record quarterly results. We're pleased to have once again generated record levels of earned premium this quarter and an excellent underlying combined ratio of 85.9%, a 5.5 point improvement from last year's quarter. The combination of premium growth and underlying margin improvement led to underlying underwriting income of $1.1 billion after tax, up $511 million or 89% from the prior year quarter. The underlying combined ratio improved from the prior year in all three segments. The expense ratio for the fourth quarter improved by 0.5 point from last year's quarter to 27.4%, once again, reflecting the benefits of our focus on productivity and efficiency, coupled with strong top line growth. The full year expense ratio of 28.1% was our best ever. As Alan mentioned, our focus is on operating leverage. And looking ahead to 2024, we're comfortable with the annual expense ratio in the range of 28% to 28.5% for now. Our fourth quarter results include a modest $125 million of pre-tax catastrophe losses with no individually significant events impacting our book of business. Turning to prior year reserve development. We had total net favorable development of $132 million pre-tax, with all three segments contributing. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $56 million was driven by favorability in workers' comp that was partially offset by adverse development in umbrella and general liability. Even after the reserve charge, the returns in both umbrella and GL remain very attractive. In Bond & Specialty, net favorable PYD of $36 million was driven by better than expected results in both surety and management liability. Personal Insurance had $40 million of net favorable PYD driven by homeowners and other. After tax net investment income of $645 million was up 21% from the prior year quarter. Fixed maturity NII was again higher than the prior year quarter, reflecting both the benefit of higher average yields and the significant growth in our portfolio of invested assets. Returns in the non-fixed income portfolio were also higher than in the prior year quarter. In terms of our outlook for fixed income NII for 2024, including earnings from short-term securities, we expect approximately $2.6 billion after tax, beginning with approximately $630 million in the first quarter and growing to approximately $675 million in the fourth quarter. Page 22 of the webcast presentation provides information about our January 1 catastrophe reinsurance renewal. Our long standing CAT XOL Treaty continues to provide coverage for both single CAT events and the aggregation of losses from multiple CAT events. And we've increased the amount of total coverage for 2024. Despite the growth in our property book, our attachment point remains steady, and the per occurrence loss deductible is unchanged at $100 million. For 2024, we have placed coverage for $3.5 billion of the $4.5 billion layer above the $3.5 billion attachment point. We're pleased to have obtained the extra protection in light of the recent inflationary impact on insured values. With context, we've never hit this treaty. Nonetheless, this is prudent, affordable balance sheet protection for tail events. The cost of the additional reinsurance will be largely offset by the strong renewal pricing we continue to achieve on our direct written property premiums resulting in only a de minimis impact on the underlying combined ratio. On a financial modeling note, let me turn your attention to Slide 23 of the webcast presentation. As we enter 2024, we thought it would be helpful to once again highlight the seasonality of our CAT losses over the prior decade. As shown in the data, the second quarter has regularly and noticeably been our largest CAT quarter. CAT losses in the second quarter have been, on average, more than three combined ratio points higher than in any other quarter and the second quarter has been our largest CAT quarter in seven of the past 10 years. Also of interest for 2024, in light of continued strong pricing and terms in the E&S and reinsurance markets, we are pleased to share that we have renewed the 20% quota share with Fidelis. The renewal includes the same loss ratio cap we had for 2023. The written premium volume, which will again be included as part of international within the Business Insurance segment is not expected to be material to the segment. but should have a modestly favorable impact on the underlying combined ratio for 2024 as it earns in. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $2.1 billion were again very strong, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.5 billion. As you may have seen, S&P issued their updated capital model, and we now expect that the result of the new model will be a modest improvement in their assessment of our capital metrics. Interest rates decreased and spreads narrowed during the quarter. And as a result, our net unrealized investment loss decreased from $6.5 billion after tax at September 30 to $3.1 billion after tax at year end. As we've discussed previously, the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses generally do not impact how we manage our investment portfolio. We generally hold fixed income investments to maturity, the quality of our fixed income portfolio remains very high and changes in unrealized gains and losses have a little impact on our cash flows, statutory surplus or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $122.90 at year end, up 8% from a year ago. We returned $298 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $66 million and dividends of $232 million. We have approximately $6 billion of capacity remaining under the share repurchase authorization from our Board of Directors. Thinking about share repurchases in 2024, while there is no change in our capital management philosophy, we will factor in the need for increased capital in light of our top line growth as well as the $435 million we just deployed to complete the Corvus acquisition. Currently, we expect repurchases in the first quarter of somewhere around $250 million. Recapping our results for 2023. Core income was $3.1 billion, and core ROE was 11.5%. We delivered our highest ever levels of written premium, earned premium, underlying underwriting income and cash flow from operations. In addition, we ended the year with our all-time high in adjusted book value per share and with our largest investment portfolio ever. We've never been better positioned for the year ahead. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance had another strong quarter, rounding on a terrific year in terms of financial results, execution in the marketplace and progress on our strategic initiatives. Last year at this time, I indicated that we were firing on all cylinders, and that certainly remains the case today. Segment income for the quarter was $957 million, our highest quarter ever and up well over $200 million from the prior year quarter, driven by higher underlying underwriting income and net investment income as well as lower catastrophes. The all-in combined ratio of 86.5% was a great result, and we're once again particularly pleased with our exceptional underlying combined ratio of 86.8% and an all-time best result. The underlying loss ratio improved by almost 2.5 points from the prior year quarter, with the drivers of the improvement, including the benefit of earned pricing a mix shift to the property line and an impact from non-CAT weather that was modestly favorable to both the prior year and our expectations. The expense ratio remained excellent at 28.8%. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 14% from the prior year to a fourth quarter record of $5 billion, benefiting from high retention, strong renewal premium change and increase in new business levels. As Alan mentioned, given the attractive margins in this segment, we're very pleased with this growth. Turning to domestic production for the quarter. Renewal premium change was once again historically high at 11.8%, with renewal rate change of 7.4% and continued strong growth and exposure. Renewal rate change increased from the third quarter in select and middle market, however, ticked down at the segment level, driven almost entirely by a lower mix of national property written premium in the fourth quarter as compared to the third quarter. Retention remained excellent at 87% and new business of $672 million was the strongest fourth quarter we've ever produced. We're thrilled with these production results and our field superior execution in the marketplace. In terms of pricing, we're pleased to be able to sustain strong levels of renewal premium change to address the persistent environmental headwinds. As for renewal rate change, during the quarter, we achieved meaningful renewal rate increases in all lines other than workers' comp. The property, umbrella and auto lines led the way. Renewal rate change in each of the casualty lines was comparable or better than the third quarter. And given our high quality book as well as several years of meaningful price increases and improvements in terms and conditions, we're very pleased to continue to produce historically strong retention levels. As for the individual businesses, in select, renewal premium change remained strong at 11.9%, up more than 1.5 point (ph) from the third quarter driven by renewal rate change, which increased to 4.1% for the quarter. Even with strong pricing, retention remained very strong at 85%. New business was up $49 million from the prior year quarter driven in large part by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product. In middle market, renewal premium change of 10.4% and retention of 90% remained historically strong. New business of $348 million was an all-time best fourth quarter result. As we close out 2023, let me provide a little color on full year results before turning the call over to Jeff. Segment income was nearly $2.6 billion, an exceptional result. The underlying combined ratio of 88.9%, top line of $20.4 billion renewal premium change, retention and new business premiums were all record results. These results are a direct reflection of our successful execution of our thoughtful and deliberate strategies. And while delivering these financial and production results, we've also continued to invest in strategic capabilities that will enhance our many competitive advantages. For example, during the year, we continued to advance our data and analytics capabilities by leveraging evolving technologies, including AI, and new data sources to help us manage the portfolio and equip our frontline underwriters with data and insights to better enable our risk selection, underwriting and pricing. In addition, we continued to advance our already state-of-the-art product and service capabilities by continuing to roll out our BOP 2.0 product, which is now live in all but a couple of states, as well as our new commercial auto product, which is now live in 14 states. Both products deliver industry-leading segmentation and user experiences. In addition, we continue to make progress on developing other industry leading user experience capabilities to make it easier and more efficient for our distribution partners and customers to do business with us. In particular, in our middle market business, we advanced our capabilities around digitizing the underwriting transaction for our agents and brokers. In our Small Commercial business, we continued to roll out our new front end rate quote and issue interface platform to make it faster and easier for our agents to write business with us, while maintaining all the underwriting discipline and specialization behind the scenes. And finally, we continued to improve our operating leverage through our relentless focus on productivity and efficiency. We're proud of these extraordinary results in the best-in-class team that produce them. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeffrey Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Fund & Specialty ended a strong 2023 with a terrific quarter on both the top and bottom lines. Segment income was $240 million, up 9% from the prior year quarter. delivered very strong underlying underwriting income and an outstanding underlying combined ratio of 80.6%. Turning to the top line. We grew net written premiums by 7% in the quarter. In our high quality domestic management liability business, we again delivered excellent retention of 90%, in line with the prior year quarter, while continuing to achieve positive renewal premium change. New business was up driven by a new domestic cyber capacity agreement with Corvus. Surety net written premiums increased 9%, reflecting continued strong demand for surety bonds. So we're pleased to have once again delivered terrific top and bottom line results this quarter, capping off a year during which we generated record segment income and net written premium. Finally, we're pleased that earlier this month, we closed our previously announced acquisition of Corvus Insurance. Corvus is an industry leading cyber insurance managing general underwriter, powered by proprietary technology. Corvus has developed cutting edge capabilities, including digitally integrated cyber sales, underwriting, service and support, sophisticated underwriting algorithms and advanced vulnerability scanning. Corvus also brings deep cyber underwriting and risk management expertise, and we're pleased to welcome them to the Travelers family. This acquisition affords us the opportunity to write Corvus' profitable book of business which will be reflected as new business in our production results over the course of 2024. And now I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to share that Personal Insurance generated $520 million of fourth quarter segment income, strong results and a significant improvement compared to the prior year quarter, due to higher underlying underwriting income and lower catastrophe losses. The underlying combined ratio of 85.9% improved over 10 points compared to the prior year quarter, reflecting improvements in both automobile and homeowners and other. Net written premiums grew 13%, driven by continued elevated levels of renewal premium change in both auto and home bringing full year net written premiums to a record of nearly $16 billion. In automobile, the fourth quarter combined ratio was 103.6%, the underlying combined ratio of 102.7% improved nearly 8 points compared to the prior year quarter. This improvement was driven by the benefit of higher earned pricing. To a lesser extent, it also benefited from the year-over-year impact of a modest favorable re-estimation of prior quarters in the current year compared to a modest unfavorable re-estimation in the prior year quarter. In Homeowners and Other, the fourth quarter combined ratio of 70.8% improved by over 28 points, reflecting catastrophe losses that were favorable to both the prior year quarter and our expectations and an improved underlying combined ratio. The underlying combined ratio improved 12.5 points, primarily due to non-catastrophe weather-related losses that were favorable to both the prior year and our expectations and the impact of earned pricing. Turning to production. Our results demonstrate our continued disciplined execution of rate and non-rate actions to improve profitability and manage growth. In domestic automobile retention remained consistent. Renewal premium change of 16.7% remains strong and as expected, moderated from the third quarter of 2023 and as the majority of our book reached rate adequacy on a written basis. We expect renewal premium change to remain in the mid-teens through the first half of 2024 as we continue to assess the environment and seek rate on a state-by-state basis as appropriate. We're pleased to note that auto new business increased relative to the prior year quarter, as we tempered our non-rate actions in states where we've achieved written rate adequacy. We will continue to evaluate our non-rate measures as more states reach adequacy throughout 2024. In Homeowners and Other, retention remained consistent even as renewal premium change reached a record level at 21.2%, primarily driven by higher renewal rate change. As we noted last quarter, we expect homeowners' renewal premium change to moderate to low double-digits in 2024. We will continue to see great increases in response to elevated loss levels. But at the same time, our automatic increase in limit factors will return to more normal levels, reflecting the progress we've made on aligning insured values with replacement costs. Our continued efforts to manage new business flow and thoughtfully deploy capacity in the face of market dislocation drove the year-over-year decline in homeowners new business and policies enforced during the quarter. We anticipate this trend will continue as we take further actions to improve profitability and manage growth in property. In 2023, we made notable progress on improving the underlying fundamentals of our business and are moving towards our goal of delivering target returns. While the environment remains dynamic, we're confident we're on a path to generating leading returns in Personal Insurance and growing profitably over time. Now I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks very much. We're happy to open up for your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from the line of David Motemaden from Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
David Motemaden:
Hi. Thanks. Good morning. I just had a question on the Business Insurance underlying loss ratio. And if you could seize the components of the improvement between earned pricing above trend the light non-CAT weather as well as the property mix shift?
Dan Frey:
Hey, David. It's Dan. So we're not going to put numbers on them. But price versus trend has been favorable throughout the last couple of years and was favorable again -- favorable again this quarter. A little bit of a mix shift towards property, as Greg said, and modestly favorable non-CAT weather impact, not huge but worth to mention, but we're not going to put numbers on each of those.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Thanks. And then I think it's been five of the last seven quarters or something like that where you guys called out the general liability and umbrella as areas of reserve increases in Business Insurance. I'm wondering if we could get a little bit more detail about exactly what you guys are seeing and reacting to, and if you think we're closer to the end of some of these true-ups?
Dan Frey:
Sure, David. It's Dan, again. So not big, big movements this quarter, more of the same, more of what we’ve sort of been talking about the last couple of quarters, which is no surprises in terms of the themes of the things that we’re seeing come through those numbers, but the magnitude has been a little greater than we had allowed for previously, and we’re just looking at the data that comes in every quarter and try to make sure we stay as current with it as we can. And so a modest reaction to keep up with that, but nothing really new.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Greg Peters from Raymond James. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Greg Peters:
Good morning, everyone. Well, first of all, you had a great fourth quarter, so congratulations. But I wanted to focus on Slide 7, the return on equity slide and you guys have all mapped out really a pretty strong outlook. And I guess, I'm trying to reconcile what is looks to be a very pretty good outlook with the fact that your ROE is running below where I think it should be. I feel like the ROE should be running higher. So maybe, Alan, you can provide some perspectives because I know the ROE is an important factor that you guys look at.
Dan Frey:
Hey, Greg. It's Dan. I'll start. So look, 11.5% for ROE for a full year, pretty good number, another year, double-digits, well above our cost of capital. and the risk-free rate, not quite where we'd like it to be. And I think the biggest contributor, and as you called out, Slide 7 is that yellow bar from the contribution from underwriting really impacted, as we talked about, especially in the second quarter and the third quarter by a very elevated level of catastrophe losses for the year, that's not what we expect to be the new normal run rate. We're certainly factoring more recent CAT experience into our view of CAT expectations going forward, but we wouldn't expect it to be elevated at that level.
Alan Schnitzer:
Greg, it's Alan. The other thing I would add to that is, I won't tell you would do, but one of the things I do every quarter is, is try to take a stab at normalizing these things. And so eliminate prior year development and put in for CATs, whatever you think is a normalized CAT number and then you get a different perspective.
Greg Peters:
Right. Okay. And then Dan, I just wanted to go back to your comments about share repurchase and uses of capital. I know you talked about the expectation for what's going to happen in the first quarter, and you talked about capital. Are there any other things you'd like to call out in terms of capital allocation outside of dividends and share repurchase.
Alan Schnitzer:
Let me start with that, and then I'll see what observations Dan has on that. So I think we've said for a very long time, our first objective for every dollar of capital we generate is to invest it back in the business when we think we can do that and achieve our objectives and contribute to shareholder value. But we think we've got a long track record that demonstrates our discipline with shareholders' capital. And so we're going to invest the money back in the business when we can and that could be keeping capital on the balance sheet to support profitable growth. It could be buying things like Corvus. It could be investing in technology or people doing the things that we think we can do that are accretive to our objectives. And when we can't do that, we're going to give the dollars back. So it's a long-winded way of saying no change at all in our capital management plans (ph). Dan, you want to add?
Dan Frey:
I agree entirely. There's no hidden message in there, Greg. It's business as usual.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi. Thanks. Good morning. My first question is on the Fidelis relationship. Dan, I think you called out and said you expect a modest favorable impact in 2024. Could you just give us a sense of how favorable that deal was to ‘23 margins within BI and how we should think about the year-over-year improvement you guys are expecting in '24 versus '23?
Dan Frey:
Sure, Elyse. It's Dan. So really not going to put a very fine number on it. Keep in mind now that Fidelis is now a standalone public company. They haven't reported results yet. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to give an outlook of what we felt about their profitability. But it was a modest help in 2023, it will be a modest help again in 2024, there'll be a little bigger base of earned premium as we'll have two years' worth of written impacting 2024. So worth calling out as a modest benefit, but not a big number, and I really don't think it would be appropriate for us to try to put a finer number on it than that.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. Thank you. Then on, within personal auto, what percent of your states or premium still have non-rate restrictions in place.
Michael Klein:
Elyse, I don't think we'll get more specific than the majority, but you can think of the non-rate restrictions as tracking very closely with where we see written adequacy state-by-state. So the majority of the premium is in states where we have relaxed some of those or tempered some of those non-rate actions because the majority of premium is in states where we’ve got target returns on a written basis. And again, as I indicated in the – in my prepared remarks, we’ll continue to follow that path as more states get adequate will temper actions in those states as they reach adequacy.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis from Autonomous Research. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey. Thanks. Good morning. I guess my question is just looking at the rate slides. We saw an acceleration of pricing in middle market in Select obviously, a decelerated headline. So I'm guessing that means there's deceleration in national property. Could you just, I guess, talk a little bit about the relative pricing dynamics in those three markets?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Good morning, Ryan. It's Greg. Yeah. You can see, if you look at underneath the pricing, you can see rate is up in both the middle market and Select business. So the residual that makes up the total BI, you're correct, the preponderance of that is national property. And so a couple of dynamics this quarter in National Property One is when that plays out to the total book, we did have less weight on a net written premium national property this quarter, quarter four versus quarter three and quarter two. And we did have a tick down overall in rates national property also just given where the returns are in that business, and the business is performing extremely well.
Alan Schnitzer:
But make no mistake, Ryan, the overall rate change and renewal price change in the property line continues to be very strong.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. Thanks. And then just a follow-up. We're not used to seeing this type of margin expansion in Business Insurance. I would think that would mean that's largely attributable to short tail lines. But I guess I was also curious, obviously, rate's been running an excessive onstream and casualties well for a while. We have been really talked about changing loss picks or anything like that. But was there a change on the casualty side to I guess, loss picks in the fourth quarter? Any true-up to the current year or something like that we should be aware of?
Dan Frey:
No, Ryan. It's Dan. Like, if we have an unusual item in the quarter that's sort of non-run rate, we'll usually try and call it out for you, including some kind of year-to-date catch-up, Michael referred to it in PI auto, but you didn't hear Greg talk about anything significant in BI because there wasn't really anything significant in BI. So we do – what we always do, right, go through all the lines there’s puts and takes across every line, looking at frequency and severity. But on the whole, no big change in our view of blended trend.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski from BMO. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Michael Zaremski:
Hey. Thanks. Good morning. Happy Friday. First question is maybe looking for a little bit more color on some of the pleasantly surprising commentary about the general liability and umbrella returns still being very good despite but someone else had pointed out, was five of the last seven quarters adding to reserves. So just curious, is there any more -- can you elaborate on that? Is that maybe you're taking into account the -- you don't typically hear that. Maybe it's the investment income that's helping or its sold as part of a package. And so the rest of the products are running at better returns or anything you could add to that? Thanks.
Dan Frey:
Hey, Mike. It's Dan. So we're thinking about the returns, and that is our all-in view of return, but we are specifically looking at those lines when we make that comment, although, we do, to your point, also pay a lot of attention to returns on an account basis. But those comments were specific to the liability and umbrella lines. And this really goes back to the comment that Alan made a couple of quarters ago, which is -- the amounts that were, I'll say, tweaking prior year reserve development by is really pretty modest in the scope and the scheme of those reserves. And when we look at the total volume of business that we're writing and the returns on an over time basis, we still both like both of those lines very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Another way to think about it, Mike, might be that you think about it in terms of rate adequacy and you might have an attractive rate adequacy, you might make an adjustment to it. It might be to one degree or another, slightly less rate adequate, nonetheless, you like the rate adequacy. So that's -- it's in that context, we say we continue to like to returns in those lines.
Michael Zaremski:
Okay. That's helpful. And my follow-up, Alan, you continue to mention and show gauges of free cash flow. You also mentioned that it's -- I still don't think it's appreciated, at least I don't appreciate it, why it's important. So maybe you can try to further elaborate on is it -- is the increase in cash flows, which I assume is correlated with your increased growth. Is that actually aiding your ROE or what are we -- why should we be focusing more on free cash flow, which has a lot of moving parts in it.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. I wouldn't say it's just growth. It's a combination of profitable growth is what I would say about that. And as I've said, that I mean that's what gives us the flexibility to invest in all the important things we invest in, return capital to shareholders and grow the investment portfolio. So without strong free cash flow, we couldn't do those three things, and those are key to our operating model.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes. Thanks. First question, if I look at the underlying combined ratio on your Business Insurance it's, I believe, the best it's ever been since the St. Paul merger and public prior to that just on the numbers. I guess can you kind of talk a little bit about -- is that a sustainable kind of underlying combined ratio, underlying margin? Is there more improvement potentially can go there? At what point do you kind of say, okay, the margins we're seeing on the business are about as good as we should have and maybe more focus on growth and more expenses and other things. How do you balance that?
Alan Schnitzer:
It's a really good question. And as you can imagine, I'm going to resist the temptation to try to share too much on an outlook of that number or what we might want to do strategically. Everything you mentioned is something we can think about. And I really would like to get away from talking about the future of margins. But we've answered that question before with loss trend where it is and pricing where it is. So you can conclude that answer hasn't really changed. So I think I'm just going to leave it with we really like these margins. We really like the business we're putting on the books at the margin we're putting it on the books and we really like the opportunity ahead of us.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Brian, this is Greg. Just one follow-up. I would note you said you could grow the business. We are growing the business 16% on a full year basis and have strong new business. So there's a number of items that we watch and we compete in the marketplace, but growth is one of them through the lens of adequacy of our products.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. And on that note, as I've shared before, we -- it's a [indiscernible] in this industry to try to grow and compete on price. That's a losing proposition. We try to grow by making sure we've got the products, services and experiences that our customers want to buy and our distribution partners want to sell.
Brian Meredith:
Makes sense. Thanks. And then, Michael, I'm just curious, back on personal auto. When you look at your business, the majority right now being all on a written basis, what are you kind of thinking from a loss cost in place in perspective? And is that maybe why you're not stepping on growth maybe a little bit quicker right now because of uncertainty as far as the claim severity?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Brian. It's a great question. I would say that we continue to see loss trends moderate in personal auto but they remain at elevated levels. And so I guess I would describe our outlook as cautiously optimistic, and I would just say we're staying very disciplined, as I described earlier, with state-by-state execution, making sure we have our arms around written rate adequacy and then adjusting our marketplace actions in auto accordingly. And as I said, we're very pleased with the increase in new business production that we saw this quarter and policies in force stabilizing. And our plan is to continue down that path, achieve rate equity in additional states and for those non-rate actions as we go and see what that does to the top line as we move forward.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Great. Thank you. Good morning. I was hoping for an update on what you're seeing in workers' compensation medical inflation. We've heard some comments about it moving back towards normalized levels and I'm wondering what Travelers experience is?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Meyer. It's Dan. So sure, a couple of comments on that. We do see some paid medical severity. That's now higher than what we saw in the very benign pandemic levels. On the flip side of that, frequency has been pretty favorable. And as you know, we've shared a number of times previously, our view in reserving and in pricing still assumes that there's going to be a return to that higher longer-term trend. But when we factor all that in, in the most recent data that we're looking at, loss costs still coming in better than we expected, and that's why you get another quarter of favorable PYD.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Fantastic. And then switching gears, when we look at the, I guess, the premium data in Business Insurance, it looks like exposure and other components that are not rates accelerated in Select, but decelerated in middle market and property. And I was hoping you could talk us through that.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Hey, Meyer. This is Greg. We have a couple of dynamics going on between those two businesses. In Select, we have a higher exposure in workers' comp E&CMP (ph). And for workers' comp relative to middle market, I think that it's just a different cohort of customers. So in a wage increase environment on a smaller customer base, you get bigger deltas and so that's what's driving the difference in workers' comp. CMP, similar to what Michael said, that’s our business owner product with a heavy property coverage that comes with it in. So we do have to think of it as an automatic inflationary level underneath the CMP product, so you get a little more exposure to growth there also. So those are the drivers underneath the difference between select and middle.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Alex Scott from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Alex Scott:
Hi. Good morning. First one I had is on Business Insurance. And I was just interested in hearing a little bit about the competitive dynamic in the market. I mean I look at the returns, how the underlying loss ratios are and so forth and the ROEs that suggests and yet price accelerating and in some areas, your business retention is actually hitting pretty darn high levels. So it also gets a lot of discipline in the marketplace. And just wanted to get your perspective on what is it in the environment that's causing everyone to remain so disciplined despite good underwriting and the additional contribution to net investment income.
Alan Schnitzer:
Alex, good morning. It's Alan. Let me start and then I'll turn it over to Greg to add anything I missed. But I would say, overall, you're correct. The pricing environment remains very strong and broad based by any historical standard or on any measure. And as you said, even with another quarter of very strong pricing, retention remains at historical highs. And I would say in broad strokes and there's really no change here from recent quarters. In broad strokes, I think there are two trends impacting pricing. On the one hand, there's just a lot of uncertainty out there in the world, and there's some headwinds. So the reinsurance market continues to be strong. You've got inflation of various varieties. You've got a tight labor market. I think weather is probably on everybody's minds, think about geopolitics these days, the world has never been more active than it is now and on and on. And so I can't speak for anybody else, but we're reacting to those things in our pricing. At the same time, we've had -- returns were in a much better place than they were a few years ago because we've done a pretty good job with pricing terms, conditions and all the rest. And so the pricing you see from us, and you referred to it as a competitive marketplace. I would say that it is a marketplace that is pretty disciplined. I suspect reacting to many of the things that we're reacting to. Greg, anything to add?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
No, I think that's spot on.
Alex Scott:
Got it. The second one I had is on personal auto. Can you just give us maybe a high-level idea of what's going on with severity in the claims, and we can look a lot at used cars and that kind of thing, but some of the more new settlements around core repair and that kind of thing. Any color you can provide on some of those trends?
Michael Klein:
Yeah. Sure, Alex. It's Michael. Maybe just give a couple more comments relative to the comment I made earlier about moderating trends. You're right to point to sort of vehicle severity and used car prices, and we certainly see moderation there in the level of increase year-on-year. And in fact, when you look at the dynamics underneath the prior period adjustments that I described in the script, those really are driven by the physical damage coverages. Late last year, we were adding to our estimates for vehicle losses because physical damage coverages were rising more than we thought they were going to. And this year, we actually took down some of our estimates for vehicle severity on prior periods because they've been a bit more favorable than we anticipated. Broadly speaking, severity in auto is running mid to high0single digits, think closer to mid in the vehicle severity, think closer to high and bodily injury. And so that’s sort of where trends are running today. We don’t have a dramatic improvement in those trends sort of factored into our comments about when we’re going to get to written adequacy state by state or those types of things, but that’s a little bit more detail on sort of where things are running today. The other thing that we’ve mentioned a couple of quarters throughout the year is we are also monitoring the mix of losses between vehicle loss and losses that have third-party property damage and bodily injury. We’ve seen a bit of a mix shift towards more bodily injury claims, which is one of the things that has us keeping our severity trend estimates at that sort of elevated level.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Paul Newsome:
I want to follow directly on that, maybe similar thoughts about the home part of the business, Michael?
Michael Klein:
Sure. Just in terms of outlook for tends, Paul?
Paul Newsome:
Yes, please.
Michael Klein:
Yeah. So in property, again, the big driver of the improvement this quarter really was catastrophes and non-CAT weather. The non-CAT weather and I guess the non-weather loss dynamic that I would elaborate on is a lot of that non-CAT weather favorability and some of the non-weather loss favorability that we've commented on throughout 2023, really has been frequency driven. We do still see pretty healthy severity trends in the property space, offsetting some of that favorable frequency. Now again, we've had favorable results in the quarter. So the net is a good guy. But labor and some large loss pressure along with that favorable frequency is what's happening kind of underneath the loss levels in property.
Paul Newsome:
I'm just curious for some time, I think we've seen a little bit of a divergence between commercial auto and personal lines auto. Has that continued to be the case or are we seeing pretty similar claim trends in across sort of anything that drives?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think broadly, the claim trends are similar. I mean we see similar threads. It's obviously -- I mean that the exposures are different. The size of the vehicles are different. Mike, what else would you add.
Michael Klein:
Limits profile...
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. Limits profile were different.
Michael Klein:
Limits profile were different. Mix of vehicle versus bodily injury is different between Business Insurance and Personal Insurance, right, Greg?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yeah. I mean, one of the benefits, Paul, of having two large cohorts of auto business, commercial, auto, personal our product managers and actuaries spend a lot of time together and compare the trends. And for commercial, we'll have passenger -- private passenger light vehicles, think Vans of that sort. And then we'll have heavies, which aren't as relevant, but we spend a lot of time on the two cohorts that are private passenger like and the trends are very similar, both on a frequency and severity basis between the two portfolios.
Operator:
We have time for one more question. And that question comes from the line of Andrew Kligerman from TD Cowen. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Andrew Kligerman:
Hey. Great. I made the queue. Question -- most of my questions are answered. But in Bond & Specialty, the results looked exceptional. But in the context of renewal premium change, I'm very curious as to how pricing fared with regard to D&O and cyber in the quarter and what you're thinking in terms of those two lines going into 2024.
Jeffrey Klenk:
Yeah, Andrew. This is Jeff Klink. So relative to D&O and cyber, public D&O pricing continues to be, I'd say, more pressured relative to the other liability lines. I would remind you that for public D&O and our management liability book, we're relatively underweight there, that's not been a major area of focus for us. On the cyber side, we continue to see some modest negative pricing there, I think, given some broader market perception on the returns in the line. Again, we feel really good about our execution there. We closely monitor our return profiles and are comfortable with our execution, both for those lines of business and management liability problem.
Andrew Kligerman:
Got it. Great. And along the same lines in Business Insurance with regard to workers' comp, I was wondering if you could put some numbers around that paid medical severity higher than the benign numbers you were seeing during the pandemic. I think that was in response to Meyer's question. And then the same question on the pricing of workers' comp. What are you thinking about going into 2024 as you proceed?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Andrew. It's Dan. So I'll start and disappoint you on the work comp severity. So we're not going to put a number on it. But again, it's been benign. We've seen some of those numbers move up, but your starting point matters. So what you assumed medical severity was going to be inside of your overall loss pick. Pick really matters in terms of whether a move-up is problematic for you or not. And again, we saw more favorable reserve development this quarter. And then in terms of pricing, and I'll turn it to Greg. I think the returns in comp have continued to be good. So pure rate has continued to be slightly negative for us. We are getting strong exposure increases, Greg referenced in the select comments a few minutes ago, that's the poster child for where a lot of that exposure behaves like rate because it's the same worker just earning a higher wage and we're getting paid a higher price for it. The rating agencies, the bureaus are looking at their data on a lagging basis and until returns come under some pressure in work comp, we wouldn't be surprised to see this environment stay pretty steady.
Andrew Kligerman:
Perfect.
Operator:
Thank you. I will now turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We appreciate your time. And as always, if there's any follow-up, please feel free to reach out. Have a great day.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the third quarter results teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question and answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 18, 2023. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our third quarter 2023 results. We released our press release, financial statement--supplement, sorry, and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer, and our three segment presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you Abbe. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. Core income of $454 million for the quarter benefited from very strong underlying underwriting results and net investment income, but was also impacted by elevated catastrophe losses and net unfavorable prior year reserve developments. Mike will provide more context on the catastrophe losses. The unfavorable prior year reserve development was driven by the results of our annual asbestos review in our run-off book. The reserves in the ongoing businesses of all three segments developed favorably. We are very pleased with the underlying fundamentals of our business. Underlying underwriting income of $868 million pre-tax was up more than 40% over the prior year quarter, driven by record net earned premiums of $9.7 billion and a consolidated underlying combined ratio which improved almost two points to an excellent 90.6%. The underlying combined ratios in our commercial segments remained excellent. Our business insurance segment once again delivered very strong results with an underlying combined ratio of 89.7%. The underlying combined ratio on our bond and specialty business was also excellent at 80.7%. Looking at the two commercial segments together, the aggregate BI/BSI underlying combined ratio was 88.3% for the quarter, among our best ever. In our personal insurance segment, the underlying combined ratio improved more than five points to 94.2% as the strong written rate from prior quarters is earning in. Our underlying results in personal insurance are improving and heading in the right direction. Turning to investments, our high quality investment portfolio continued to perform extremely well, generating after-tax net investment income of $640 million, reflecting strong and reliable returns from our growing fixed income portfolio and solid returns from our non-fixed income portfolio. In terms of production, thanks to great execution by our colleagues in the field and the strong franchise value they have to sell, we grew net written premiums by $1.3 billion or 14% to a record $10.5 billion. In business insurance, we grew net written premiums by 16% to $5.1 billion. Renewal premium change in the segment was very strong at 12.9%, driven by renewal rate change which accelerated year-over-year and sequentially to 7.9%. Renewal rate change was higher sequentially in every line other than workers’ comp, where overall renewal premium change remains positive and appropriate given return to the line. For the segment, even with higher pricing at record levels, retention remained very strong at 87%, a reflection of a rational market. New business was strong and higher broadly across the segment. In bond and specialty insurance, we grew net written premiums to a record $1 billion, achieved 91% retention of our high quality management liability business, and grew net written premiums in our industry-leading surety business by 13%. Given the attractive returns, we are very pleased with the strong production results in both of our commercial business segments. In personal insurance, top line growth of 14% was driven by higher pricing. Renewal premium change was 19.4% in our home owners and others business and increased to a record high 18.2% in our auto business. Another quarter of strong production across the board positions us well for the rest of the year and into 2024. We’ll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. With the end of the year in sight and 2024 on the horizon and coming into focus, we feel very well positioned for what’s ahead and quite confident. In our business insurance segment, written margins are expanding. Pricing has been strong and the components of core goods inflation that impact our loss costs are moderating. Medical inflation in particular remains benign; nonetheless, given the duration of relevant liabilities, we continue to incorporate medical inflation in our loss costs based on the higher longer term trends. In terms of the top line in business insurance, we’re pleased that economic output and consumption so far remain robust given our leading workers’ compensation business, we benefit in particular from the near 50-year low in unemployment, the prime age labor participation rate, which is at its highest level since 2007, and ongoing wage inflation, which contributes to premium growth and margins. As a result of strong pricing in recent years and higher fixed income NII, returns to the segment are currently attractive; nonetheless, given the uncertainty generally in terms of weather volatility, economic and social inflation, a hardening reinsurance market and the geopolitical landscape, we plan to continue pursuing strong price increases in both the property and casualty lines to achieve our over time return objectives. Turning to our industry-leading bond and specialty business, we just reached a milestone $1 billion in net written premiums and returns are terrific. As you’ve heard, results in our personal insurance business are headed in the right direction. Earned margins are improving and additional price increases will earn-in from here. We’re very pleased with our targeted marketplace execution at the same time inflationary pressures are moderating. In terms of the investment portfolio, with interest rates at their highest levels in recent memory and most indications suggesting higher for longer, we are extremely well positioned. In the last five years, we’ve grown our very high quality investment portfolio by nearly $19 billion, or about 25% to more than $90 billion. Ninety-three percent of the portfolio is allocated to fixed income. As we look ahead to 2024, we expect our after-tax fixed income NII will be more than $2.6 billion. To ensure that our competitive advantages continue to distinguish us and fuel our performance, we will continue to invest in our ambitious and focused innovation priorities. We’re spending more than $1.5 billion this year on technology inside an excellent expense ratio and with a higher proportion allocated to strategic technology investments. We’re confident that we’re working on the right priorities, executing effectively, and that we’ll see the benefits play out in growth and attractive returns going forward. Lastly, I’ll share that we’re recently back from one of the year’s largest industry conferences, where we met with many of our distribution partners. We left confident that we have the pole position with distribution in the United States and that we’re positioned to support each other’s strategic and marketplace priorities. We’re committed to being their best partner and to offering the products and services that best serve our mutual customers. To sum it up, we remain very confident in the outlook for our business. I couldn’t be more grateful to my 30,000 colleagues who show up every day committed to our culture, to our standard of excellence, and of fulfilling our mission of creating shareholder value and our purpose of taking care of the people we’re privileged to serve. With that, I’m pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you Alan. Core income for the third quarter was $454 million and core return on equity was 6.9% as heavy cat activity impacted our results. We’re pleased to have once again generated record levels of earned premium this quarter and an excellent underlying combined ratio of 90.6%, a 1.9 point improvement from last year’s strong results. This combination of growth and underlying margin improvement led to a very strong underwriting gain of $684 million after tax, up $206 million or 43% from the prior year quarter. The expense ratio for the third quarter improved 10 basis points from last year’s quarter to an excellent 28% and continues to reflect the benefits of our focus on productivity and efficiency coupled with strong top line growth. Our third quarter results include $850 million of pre-tax catastrophe losses resulting from another quarter of both frequency and severity of weather across North America. Turning to prior year reserve development, we had total net unfavorable development of $154 million pre-tax. In business insurance, net unfavorable PYD of $263 million was driven by charges in our run-off business, including $284 million related to our annual asbestos review as well as increased reserves for abuse and molestation resulting from the volume of claims related to the closing of the reviver window in California. This year’s asbestos charge includes an additional increase to strengthen our carried reserve position relative to the range of outcomes. Outside of run-off in our ongoing businesses, business insurance had $132 million of net favorable PYD driven by favorability in workers’ comp that was partially offset by unfavorability in commercial auto. In bond and specialty, net favorable PYD of $72 million was driven by another quarter of better than expected results in both surety and management liability. Personal insurance had $37 million of net favorable PYD driven by home owners and other. After tax net investment income of $640 million was up 27% from the prior year quarter. Fixed maturity NII was again higher than the prior year quarter, reflecting both the benefit of higher average yields and the significant growth in our portfolio of invested assets. Returns in the non-fixed income portfolio were also above the prior year quarter. With interest rates having moved higher, we are again raising our outlook for fixed income NII, including earnings from short term securities, to approximately $615 million after-tax for the fourth quarter. For 2024, we now expect more than $2.6 billion after-tax, our highest level ever, beginning with approximately $630 million in the first quarter of 2024 and growing to approximately $690 million for the fourth quarter. New money rates as of September 30 are about 180 basis points higher than what is embedded in the portfolio. Turning to capital management, operating cash flows for the quarter of more than $3 billion were an all-time record. All our capital ratios were at or better than our target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.7 billion. Interest rates increased and spreads widened during the quarter, and as a result our net unrealized investment loss increased from $4.6 billion after tax at June 30 to $6.5 billion after tax at September 30. As we’ve discussed previously, the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses generally do not impact how we manage our investment portfolio. We generally hold fixed income investments to maturity. The quality of our fixed income portfolio remains very high and changes in unrealized gains impact on our cash flows, statutory surplus or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $115.78 at quarter end, up 2% from year end and up 3% from a year ago. We returned $333 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $101 million and dividends of $232 million. We have approximately $6.1 billion of capacity remaining under the share repurchase authorization from our board of directors. Similar to my comments on last quarter’s call, the significant level of catastrophe losses we’ve experienced this year have resulted in lower year-to-date earnings than we expected, so share repurchases in the fourth quarter will likely be lower than the quarterly share repurchases made in the first half of the year. To sum things up, while our third quarter earnings were adversely impacted by elevated catastrophe losses, we’re pleased to post another quarter of double-digit premium growth and improved and very strong underlying combined ratio, and further improvement in our outlook for fixed income NII, all of which bodes well for our business results going forward. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of business insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks Dan. Segment income for the third quarter was $468 million, with strong underlying underwriting and investment income, as well as favorable prior year development in our ongoing book offset by reserve charges in our run-off book mostly related to asbestos. We’re particularly pleased with our exceptional underlying combined ratio of 89.7% for the quarter, which was a 30 basis point improvement year-over-year and an all-time best third quarter result. The benefit of earned pricing was offset by normal variability in loss activity, all in netting to an excellent result. Net written premiums increased 16% to a record third quarter of $5.1 billion driven by very strong renewal premium change of 12.9%, historically high retention of 87%, and new business of $695 million. Underneath RPC, as you heard from Alan, renewal rate change accelerated sequentially from the second quarter to 7.9% with all lines other than workers’ comp being higher. We’re thrilled with these production results and our fields’ continued superior execution in the marketplace, and given our high quality book as well as several years of meaningful price increases and the improvements in terms and conditions, we’re very pleased to continue to produce historically strong retention levels. Lastly, we’re encouraged that new business was higher than the prior year quarter broadly across the segment. While the comparison of new business to the prior year quarter benefited from a relatively modest prior year result, as well as higher pricing on new business this year, we’re also pleased with the impact that our strategic investments are having on our production results. As for the individual businesses, in select renewal premium change remains strong at 10.3%, while retention of 85% was up two points from the prior year quarter. New business was up $46 million from the prior year quarter driven in large part by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product. We’re also encouraged with the early performance of our new state-of-the-art commercial auto product, which has been rolled out in 12 states. In middle markets, renewal premium change remained very strong at 10.6%, while retention remained excellent at 89%. New business was a strong $352 million. We’re pleased with the quality of the submission flow from our distribution partners during the quarter and our responsiveness in quoting and closing accounts that aligned with our appetite. As always, we remain vigilant around risk selection, underwriting and pricing. To sum up, business insurance had another terrific quarter. We’re pleased with our execution in driving strong financial results while continuing to invest in the business for long term profitable growth. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeff Klenk:
Thanks Greg. Bond and specialty posted terrific top and bottom line results for the quarter. Segment income was a record $265 million, up 10% from the very strong prior year quarter. The underlying combined ratio was an outstanding 80.7%. Turning to the top line, we’re pleased to have delivered record net written premiums of over $1 billion. In domestic management liability, we again delivered record level retention of 91%, up two points from the third quarter of 2022 while continuing to achieve positive renewal premium change. This result reflects the attractive returns of our high quality book of business. Record surety net written premiums reflect strong broad-based demand for surety bonds and higher premium for large construction projects. We’re pleased to have once again delivered terrific top and bottom line results this quarter driven by our continued underwriting and risk management diligence, excellent execution by our field organization, and the benefits from our value-added approach and market leading competitive advantages. Now I’ll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks Jeff, and good morning everyone. In personal insurance, the third quarter segment loss of $193 million was significantly impacted by catastrophe losses. We experienced elevated losses from weather activity specifically related to wind and hail events. This was another active quarter for severe convective storms across the U.S. There were 19 designated PCS events specifically related to wind, hail and tornado activity in the quarter, nearly twice the 10-year average and the highest number for a third quarter in more than a decade. On a more positive note, the underlying combined ratio of 94.2% improved 5.1 points compared to the prior year quarter, reflecting an improvement in both automobile and home owners. Net written premiums for the quarter grew 14%, driven by high teens renewal premium change in domestic automobile and home owners and other. In automobile, the third quarter combined ratio was 103.5%. This was 8.7 points lower than the prior year quarter, which included catastrophe losses resulting from Hurricane Ian. The underlying combined ratio of 100.6% improved 3.3 points compared to the prior year quarter, driven by the impact of earned pricing in excess of loss trend. The quarter-over-quarter improvement in our results clearly reflects the growing impact of our pricing and non-rate actions. Underlying results in auto are headed in the right direction as the benefit of earned pricing continues to accelerate and as vehicle repair and replacement trends are moderating. Looking ahead to the fourth quarter of 2023, it’s important to remember that the fourth quarter auto underlying loss ratio has historically been six to seven points above the average for the first three quarters because of winter weather and holiday driving. In home owners and other, the third quarter combined ratio of 116.2% increased 13.9 points due to the catastrophe losses that I mentioned earlier. The underlying combined ratio of 88% improved 6.9 points primarily due to the impact of earned pricing, a benefit from the favorable re-estimation of prior quarters in the current year, and a lower expense ratio. Turning to production, our results continue to demonstrate our disciplined market execution in a challenging marketplace. Beginning with domestic, home owners and other, renewal premium change of 19.4% was very strong. The lack of growth in policies in force reflects our continued actions to further balance rate adequacy, catastrophe risk, and regulatory risk. We expect renewal premium change in home owners to remain consistent through year end. Looking ahead to 2024, we expect renewal premium change to remain elevated but moderate into low double digits as our automatic increase in limits factors return to more normal levels, in line with stabilizing industry estimates of replacement costs. In domestic automobile, renewal premium change of 18.2% increased two points compared to the second quarter of 2023. Auto policies in force declined slightly, reflecting our continued efforts to manage growth while improving profitability. Going forward, we expect renewal premium change in auto to remain very strong but begin to move down from here, as more of the book reaches rate adequacy on a written basis. I’m proud of the way our team continues to respond to the dynamic environment. We are consistently evolving pricing, segmentation, underwriting, and terms and conditions while managing new business flow to ensure we deploy capacity thoughtfully in the face of market dislocation. At the same time, we’re sustaining our investments in capabilities to build our business for the future. With our leading talent, capabilities and strong distribution relationships, we are confident in our ability to generate leading returns over time. Now I’ll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks Michael, and Operator, we’re ready to start questions.
Operator:
[Operator instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Greg Peters from Raymond James. Please go ahead.
Greg Peters:
Good morning everyone. I guess my first question will focus on business insurance. I think you guys have now reported something like 14 consecutive quarters of year-over-year improvement in the underlying combined ratio. I guess what I’m--where I’m going with this is just what is your longer term target with your UCR, especially in light of what we’re seeing in the accelerating renewal rate trend, and maybe if you don’t want to answer it that way, maybe you can triangulate for us just how the renewal rate change, which is accelerating, matches up with your inflation expectations and your insurance-to-value initiatives.
Alan Schnitzer:
A lot in that question, Greg - good morning, it’s Alan. There’s a lot in that question. I think you’re right for starters - I don’t think we’re going to give you our targets or objectives. I think it gets too close to something that’s competitively sensitive in terms of our pricing strategies, but I guess I’d point you toward where renewal premium change is, which is at record levels, and frankly I always hate to get into the commentary on loss trend because, as I’ve shared before, to take a single metric to define what’s going on across billions of dollars of premium implies a level of precision that doesn’t exist - every line has got its own dynamics, so on and so forth. But there wasn’t a lot of change in the profile of loss activity this past quarter, so we continue to have a pretty meaningful gap between where renewal premium change is and where loss trends are, and so I think that gives you a sense. It’s why we are--it’s why we are--it’s easy enough in my prepared remarks to share that written margins are expanding.
Greg Peters:
Right.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of David Motemaden from Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.
David Motemaden:
Hi, good morning. Just a follow-up question on the BI underlying loss ratio. Greg, you had said that the benefit of earned pricing was offset by normal variability in loss activity. I was wondering if you could just size those components, and it sounded like non-cat weather was maybe a little bit elevated relative to normal expectations, but wondering if you could just break that down for us.
Dan Frey:
Hey David, it’s Dan. I think we’re not going to go any further. I think what Greg said is really the way to think about it, which is as Alan just mentioned, we’ve been getting a good level of written price increase and that’s earning its way through, so there is still definitely a benefit from earned pricing. In any given quarter, you’ve got a handful of things that are going to go one way or the other - that could be small weather, that could be base year, it could be mix changes, it could be just variability from one quarter to the next. There were some good guys and some bad guys, nothing particularly significant in that result, just about offset the benefit from earned price, and again all inside of an underlying combined ratio that we’re really happy with at sub-90.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. I was hoping to get more color on the reserve development you guys called out in your ongoing businesses within business insurance, if you could tell us what the workers’ comp favorability, and then I think you called out commercial auto developed adversely. Could we get the numbers there, and then are there any other lines in your ongoing business that moved materially in the quarter?
Dan Frey:
Yes Elyse, it’s Dan. I’ll disappoint you there - we’re not going to do the line by line, but comp has been pretty strongly favorable. It was pretty strongly favorable again this quarter. In our remarks, we tried to call out the lines that had noteworthy movement this quarter. Commercial auto did have some noteworthy movement, it wasn’t dramatic particularly in the scope of if you think about the size of the reserves for the commercial auto book. What we saw in commercial auto this quarter is a little bit of a lengthening of the development patterns, not a terrifically new theme but every quarter, we’re looking at all the data that comes in. This gave us an indication that maybe reserves should be carried a little higher than we were, and we’re just trying to react to that in real time as quickly as possible. There was some movement in the other lines, some good guys and some bad guys, nothing particularly noteworthy, but those were the two main drivers.
Elyse Greenspan:
And then you guys--you know, you’ve called out higher cats in the third quarter, as well as other quarters this year. As you guys contemplating making any changes to your reinsurance program heading into 2024, or how do you think changes you made over the past year could have led to higher cats this year?
Dan Frey:
I don’t think that the changes we’ve made would have had much of a difference. Obviously the last few years, we’ve had that underlying cat aggregate treaty. We didn’t attach it at all in 2023, we didn’t renew it in 2024. We get that question a couple times - just to remind you, in 2023 when we had that underlying cat agg treaty, we placed--sorry, 2022, I’m a year into the future already! So 2022, we didn’t attach it, we didn’t renew it in 2023. Even when we had it last time in ’22, we placed about 50% of a $500 million layer, so it couldn’t have been more than $250 million of recovery and it cost us a lot to have that policy - rate online was very high for that coverage. We said at July 1 that we’d enter into a new PI-specific coastal reinsurance treaty. I think we’ll just continue to evaluate our position and what’s available to us in the marketplace from a reinsurance perspective as we look forward to 2024, but I’d say what we sort of regularly say, which is we’re really pleased with our risk selection. We think we do a great job of segmentation and pricing. We’re going to probably keep more net than many of our peers because at the end of the day, we like our underwriting.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis from Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. First question, just for Michael, in terms of home owners, that clearly seems like a line that probably needs more rate, not less, just given where cat trends have been. But you mentioned in your prepared remarks that we might see some premium growth deceleration because of what you referred to as automatic increase in limits. It sounded like that might have been about half of renewal premium growth. Can you just, I guess mechanically, help us understand a little bit more what that increase in limits is tied to, and in the absence of that, what are some other means by which you can get more pricing on that line?
Michael Klein:
Sure Ryan, thanks for the question. Just unpacking it for a second, right, so inside RPC in home owners, there’s really two primary components
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. Then just a follow-up on business insurance retention - you know, it’s interesting how robust that’s been. Clearly we’re seeing personal lines, retention come off as I would think you’d expect when you’re taking rate. What do you guys make of that, like why has retention been so robust, I guess despite so many rounds of rate increases?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Good morning Ryan, this is Greg. I think we start every month with retaining our high quality book of business, so it’s been very much an intentional strategy of ours to make sure that we’re being thoughtful on our terms and conditions, our pricing, and all the changes that we’re making to continuously improve margins, but given the quality of that book, it’s not a surprise for us. It also is an indicator of just how rational the marketplace is right now and the need for improved margins across the entire industry, based on all those headwinds that Alan talked about. We’re not surprised by it, we’re very pleased with it, and we’re very focused on it.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Jimmy Bhullar from JP Morgan. Please go ahead.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Hi, good morning. First, just had a question on commercial auto, and if you could just give us a little bit more insight into what’s driving the adverse development there. Some of your peers have seen that as well, and I think there is some concern that this could be the beginning of a trend, given what’s gone on in personal auto over the past two years or so.
Dan Frey:
Hey Jimmy, it’s Dan again. Yes, as we said a little while ago, commercial auto is really just a modification based on the most recent data that’s come in, in terms of the development of claims in commercial auto, particularly bodily injury claims. It’s something that we’ve commented on and off probably over the last three or four quarters - numbers have been pretty modest, the themes are not inconsistent with what we anticipated, but you get a new set of data and the data looks a little bit different than your prior estimation, and so the magnitude of some of the changes that we anticipated is a little higher. Really, the focus of this most recent strengthening is the continued longer development of--or said inversely, the slower closing of claims in commercial auto, so as that continues to lag historical closure patterns, we’re making an adjustment to reflect the most recent data.
Jimmy Bhullar:
And that’s just a function of repairs taking longer, or something else?
Dan Frey:
This is more in the bodily injury side of commercial auto, so it’s not so much repairs themselves, although that’s been a factor in both Michael’s business and, to a smaller degree, in Greg’s business. Bodily injury, it’s more the settlement of the injury claim.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Then in personal auto, where are you in terms of rate adequacy on a written basis, and is--your discount has been sort of flattish, are your competitors being fairly rational and you’re seeing price increases across the board or are there some companies that are not adjusting due to higher loss trend?
Michael Klein:
Thanks Jimmy, it’s Michael. I would say that when you look at our--taking the second part of the question first, when you look at our production statistics, retention is down a bit but it’s actually been pretty resilient in the face of the rate we’ve been driving through the book, particularly given the magnitude of those numbers. I think that that’s indicative of a fairly rational market and the fact that these are again industry-wide pressures that most competitors are dealing with. In terms of written rate adequacy, again last quarter I said we’d get there in the coming quarters. Relative to the comments last quarter, we feel a little bit better sitting here today than we did 90 days ago, given the record level of RPC that we achieved in the third quarter and the fact that we’re seeing loss trends stabilize, and that’s coming through in our underlying combined ratio. That said, I would also say that written rate adequacy still depends on the same list of things we talked about last quarter, right - it’s the price we get, it’s how quickly loss trends moderate and how much they continue to moderate, the regulatory process for getting rate approvals, and our actual loss experience. But it is at this point very much a state-by-state conversation, and we’re working each state individually and adjusting our actions accordingly.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS Financial. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. A couple ones here. First, let’s let Jeff answer some questions here. Jeff, on the management liability business, I think you had mentioned in the quarter that there was some favorable current year development. Maybe you can quantify that and what’s going on there with the management liability business that you’re seeing this favorable development.
Dan Frey:
Hey Brian, it’s Dan. I think we’re not going to put a number on it. It’s not a significant deal. The only point Jeff was trying to make was sort of when you do the comparison year-over-year, there was some favorable CYPQ, which we called out last year in the third quarter. There was some favorable CYPQ this year as well, just not as much, so the year-over-year is unfavorable given less of a good guy.
Brian Meredith:
Got you, okay. That’s helpful. The next question, I’m just curious, bigger picture in business insurance, exposure growth continues to be pretty healthy. Maybe you can give us a little context around what kind of drives that exposure growth? I would think that with the economy moderating some here, that that exposure growth would start to slow here.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes Brian, we watch for that all the time, and as you can see in the webcast, in the blue lines we give you, you can see it’s been very stable across the select business and the middle market, and obviously those add to the total BI business. It really is a function of nominal GDP - you know, economic growth and overall inflation levels, and clearly we’ve seen the consumer-type inflation correct somewhat from the peak of mid-2022. Where we’re really encouraged, when we also look at our audit premium which is more of a going backwards view in our core middle market business, we continue to have real strong audit premium also, so both backwards and forward, we’re encouraged with how exposure is playing out in the business and we’ll continue to report out what we see with that line.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Zaremski from BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Michael Zaremski:
Hey, great. Good morning, guys. First on business insurance segment, heard loud and clear the comments about written margins expanding. Does the definition of written margins include reserve changes, because I’m just trying to--you know, when we look at the loss ratio, maybe I guess ex-cat, we clearly see that [indiscernible] that reserve releases or additions or whatever, right, are worse year-over-year, and clearly margins are good. I’m just trying to--you know, does written margins mean--are you looking kind of forward-looking or backward-looking? Any color there? Thanks.
Dan Frey:
Yes Mike, it’s Dan. Just to clarify for you, so when we’re talking about margin in that context, we’re talking about the underlying combined ratio, so leaving to the side catastrophe losses and leaving to the side prior year reserve development. The only other comment I’d make in that regard is when we do see changes in prior year development, we do roll forward our thinking in terms of does that impact our view of current year loss and go-forward loss, but PYD itself as its booked, whether it’s favorable or unfavorable, is outside of that context when we’re talking about underlying margins.
Michael Zaremski:
Okay, understood, and just a quick follow-up, then. Have you changed your view of forward-looking loss after this quarter, and you also called out the topping off of the asbestos and environmental--I think you used the word, topping off, but you kind of called out an additional add, and I don’t know if you want to call out specifically what that dollar amount was. Thanks.
Dan Frey:
Yes, so I don’t think we’ll split the asbestos charge beyond that, but what we wanted to get across was we did our sort of traditional deep dive in the third quarter, that resulted in a figure for which we would have strengthened the asbestos reserve. We chose also to, if you think about it in simple terms, as moving higher in the range of possible outcomes for asbestos, and so we’ve put some money on top of what the analysis otherwise would have told you for the quarter. Then in terms of the first part of the question, we’re looking at all the factors that go into loss trend every quarter, including favorable or unfavorable PYD. There are generally small puts and takes on a pretty regular basis, nothing terribly significant in this quarter in terms of our view of loss trend.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar from Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Yaron Kinar:
Thank you and good morning. I guess my first question is on workers’ comp. We saw a premium decline there year-over-year. Are there any one-time items there or is it just an indication of market conditions and maybe rate compression? Maybe you can tie that into how you’re viewing this line of business and your thoughts about that into 2024.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes, good morning Yaron. I think you’re referencing the slight down in the net written premium for the quarter. I would point you to year-to-date - it is just up 2%, so it wasn’t a meaningful change for the particular quarter, and obviously where you’re seeing not the level of net written premium growth on the other product lines that we’re seeing in workers’ comp, is clearly the rate pressure that the entire industry is seeing there. That rate pressure is driven based on the bureau’s loss cost recommendations that continue to put minuses across the industry, and that’s just an indication of the health of the line. We’re the largest workers’ comp writer in the country, and on a calendar year basis we feel terrific about the results of that, and that’s basically what’s driving some of that net written premium change that you mentioned.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes Yaron, just to be clear, we feel great about the workers’ comp line, we feel great about our results this quarter, this year, and we feel great about the outlook.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it, thank you. Then my second question, also on BI, did you have any CYPQ there, because I did notice that the underlying loss ratio was flat year-over-year. Just given the rate commentary and RPC commentary, I would have thought maybe we’d see a little bit of improvement there.
Dan Frey:
Yes Yaron, it’s Dan. A little earlier in the call and in Greg’s comments, we called out that we did see some benefit from earned price, but half a dozen other things that would happen in any quarter, could be some good guys, could be some bad guys, could be mix, could be base year, could be non-cat weather, there were some favorable and some unfavorable that netted to a modest unfavorable to offset the pricing benefit, but nothing significant there.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning, thanks for the call. I wanted to ask if you could help me think more about the cat load prospectively, and one of the things I was wondering about, and this may go to the definition of how you think about cat [indiscernible], is if inflation is effectively pushing losses that otherwise in the past would not have been cat losses, been in the cat designation, and that may be what--how much of that may be part of why the cat load may maybe go up. Just any thoughts on that would be great.
Dan Frey:
Sure Paul, it’s Dan. I’ll start. I think the second piece of the question, the answer would be yes to the degree that some of what we’ve seen in higher cat losses is the impact of inflation over the last several years, and just the value of those claims going up. So yes, over time more things would fall into what would get designated as, quote-unquote, catastrophes, given the threshold. Other than that, thinking about cats, we’re looking at long term weather trends, medium term weather trends, near term weather trends. We’re putting more weight on nearer term weather trends and, as both Greg and Michael have talked about, trying to react with very strong pricing, changes in terms and conditions, and risk selection where we think it’s appropriate. There is also clearly an uptick in catastrophe activity this year, so last year--I think last quarter, I think Alan maybe gave the statistic that in the 91 days of the quarter, there were 88 days in which there was a PCS event occurring. In the third quarter, there were 92 days in the quarter; on 91 of those 92 days, there was a PCS event occurring, so the increase in catastrophes is the combination of several factors
Paul Newsome:
Is there any way to think about whether or not that would have an impact on the underlying combined ratio [indiscernible] the cat designation from the underlying?
Dan Frey:
You know, Paul, sometimes we do see that in the quarter, where it’s bucketing, where things will spill over into the cat number that would have otherwise been an underlying. That was not a big factor this quarter. It’s not like there were a bunch of close calls that, because of inflation, spilled over into a cat designation. This was a significantly higher number of severe convective storms for a third quarter that created a bunch of catastrophes, so this was not a definitional bucketing close call issue. That does happen sometimes, but it didn’t happen this quarter.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Ward from Citi. Please go ahead.
Michael Ward:
Thanks guys, good morning. I was curious about personal auto. Just wondering if there was an impact from current year reserves on the underlying result, and if you could maybe expand on the frequency and severity trends.
Michael Klein:
Sure Michael, it’s Michael. You know, in terms of CYPQ, not a significant amount. I mean, we called out the earned impact of pricing - that really is the driver of the improvement in underlying, and then as respects frequency and severity, frequency largely coming in, in line with expectations. If you look at external indices, miles driven is up 2% to 3%, it’s pretty consistent with the trend it’s been on, and so not a lot to talk about on the frequency side. Then really, the moderating trends that I described are really coming from severity as we continue to see in particular physical damage severity moderate quarter over quarter over quarter as we go through 2023.
Michael Ward:
Thanks, and then on commercial property, just wondering how should we think about the impact of the growth on PI margins, and if there’s more volatility in non-cat property, might that affect your growth appetite next year?
Dan Frey:
Mike, it’s Dan. I think we’re very aware and cognizant of the amount of property that we’re putting on the books, where we’re putting it on the books, and what that’s doing to our total exposures. We price property with a risk load, given the uncertainty and variability that can come with it. In terms of the margin from how much property you’re writing, there can be a mix change over time if you think about the relative loss ratios of the lines, and some of that’s driven by the duration of the liability in the lines. Property historically tends to run a lower underlying loss ratio than, for example, workers’ comp, so you could get a mix change over time. Tell me if that’s not responsive to your question.
Michael Klein:
The one thing I’d add to that also is when you look at our property growth, the thrust of that growth really is being driven based on rate and exposure change. Clearly, we’re being active and very selective on the new business front, but when you look at what’s driving the net written premium change, it does start with rate and exposure change.
Alan Schnitzer:
And strong retention.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Please go ahead.
Meyer Shields:
Great, thanks. A question to start for Jeff. We’ve seen G&A expenses rise significantly faster than written premium every quarter this year, and I was hoping you could talk to what’s going on there.
Jeff Klenk:
Yes, absolutely. This is Jeff - thanks Meyer. The question on expenses is we’re definitely making strategic investments to support our future success. I think broadly speaking, I’d give you two buckets
Meyer Shields:
Yes, that’s fair. Thanks, that’s very helpful. Second question, and I’m obviously shooting a little bit in the dark, but it looks like last year and this year, the run rate of workers’ compensation reserve releases was a lot higher than preceding years. I was hoping you could talk through what that change is - is it just COVID-related frequency benefit, or are there other factors?
Dan Frey:
Hey Meyer, it’s Dan. You know, comp has been pretty consistently for a number of years a pretty favorable development story, and when it is, it’s across a number of accident years. That’s continued to be the case in 2022 and 2023. We’re really just reacting to--you know, we’ve had this conversation before, you’ve got to be really careful with your assumption around medical cost trend, given the duration of the liability. A quarter goes by, a bunch of claims close, you see what actually happened in terms of severity relative to what you had previously allowed for, and you make an adjustment. We’re really just following the numbers in that regard. We’ve certainly not become any more aggressive in the way we’re reserving for workers’ comp, it’s just the mathematical output of the changes that we’ve seen.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Alex Scott from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Alex Scott:
Hey, good morning. First one I have for you is on casualty, and specifically I wanted to ask you about some of the comments that have come out of the larger reinsurance companies. I mean, it sounds like they’ve gotten a bit more cautious in their stance on U.S. casualty in general, and I guess the social inflation trends and so forth. Certainly you guys sound like you saw a little bit of that in general liability in commercial lines, but I just wanted to see if you could provide perspective on how big of an issue do you really think that is for the industry at this point, and is there anything unique about your exposure that sort of insulates you, whether it’s the size of business that you tend to write and that kind of thing.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes Alex, it’s Alan. We think that commentary is well placed and, frankly, we’ve been on that bandwagon since, I don’t know, 2018 or something like that. We think we rang that bell very, very early. We think we’ve reacted to it consistently, even during the pandemic when you might have looked at the data and thought that things were improving. We’ve said consistently, we don’t believe it. We think it’s here, we think it’s at higher levels, we think it’s inflating faster. What we’ve seen is inside the underlying--the combined ratios that we’re reporting in business insurance, so we do think that it continues to be an important issue to watch. We’ve taken a lot of price in part in response to that, so it’s an issue and we think we’re on top of it.
Alex Scott:
Got it, thank you. The follow-up I had is on the auto insurance specifically. You obviously showed a good amount of improvement, which is great to see. How much of that is driven by the severity beginning to calm down, or stabilizing at least? Any color you can provide on those trends, and maybe specifically even repair and what you’re seeing there?
Michael Klein:
Sure Alex, it’s Michael. I’ll just clarify a couple of things I said earlier. It really is the acceleration of earned pricing, earning through and driving that underlying improvement. But when you think about the external trends and external costs, it definitely is also a result of those external trends moderating. We had been talking about double-digit loss cost trends particularly in the physical damage space for quarter upon quarter upon quarter. Those trends moved into the single digits this quarter, so it was really both the earned pricing and the moderating trends driving that improvement.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Scott Heleniak from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Scott Heleniak:
Yes, good morning. Just wondering if you could comment on the recent proposed reforms in the State of California, really to keep private insurers in the state from leaving the state. Do you think that the initiatives there are appropriate? Do you think they’re enough, and does that impact your strategy there either way, in either direction? Just any overall kind of first views on some of the proposals out there.
Michael Klein:
Sure Scott, it’s Michael. I’ll share a couple of thoughts. First of all, the idea of regulatory reform in California is positive news. That said, I really don’t think there are enough details available to evaluate. You’ve got a framework that the governor has asked the commissioner to take action on, but the details underneath that framework and how it’s going to be implemented have yet to be defined, and so deciding whether it’s a net positive or not and what actions to take as a result, there just really aren’t enough details yet to evaluate that further. But we certainly are encouraged by the fact that California is considering regulatory reform, and we think it’s long overdue.
Scott Heleniak:
Okay, understood. Thanks.
Operator:
We have time for one more question. Bob Huang from Morgan Stanley, please go ahead.
Bob Huang:
Thank you. Most of my questions were answered, but maybe just one thing. You mentioned on the prepared remarks about tech investments. Can you possibly unpack that a little bit - what are the key technological aspects that you’re focusing on in terms of the investment? I’m assuming cloud is always going to be a big part of your investment, just given that it is a consumption-based expense model, but are there other IT capabilities that you would like to call out?
Alan Schnitzer:
Bob, good morning, it’s Alan. Thank you for the question. We would be really happy to take this offline with you. We’ve talked really extensively about this over a long period of time, but broadly, the investments that we’re making across the organization fall into three buckets
Bob Huang:
Okay, thank you for that. Maybe just a follow-up on worker’s comp, and apologies for belaboring the point on this, is it possible to maybe unpack a little bit in terms of how the loss ratio looked like for workers’ comp versus other parts of business insurance? I’m assuming this does not impact your loss cost trend of 5.5% to 6%, but just curious if you can give a little bit of details there.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, we’re not going to break out the losses by product line, but it certainly is wrapped in the overall number that we’ve talked about historically.
Bob Huang:
Okay, thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Ms. Abbe Goldstein, I will turn the call back over to you.
Abbe Goldstein:
Great, thanks everyone. We appreciate you joining us today for our call, and as usual, if there’s any follow-up, please feel free to reach out to Investor Relations. Have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 20, 2023. At this time. I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein; Senior Vice-President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our second quarter 2023 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey; CFO; and our three segment Presidents Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Jeff Klenk of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I'd like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties, and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today In the face of an historic cat quarter, our top and bottom line results demonstrate the strength of our franchise and the resilience of our business model. This quarter, we reported strong underlying results and investment returns, as well as, net favorable prior-year reserve development, which were essentially offset by an historic level of industry-wide catastrophe losses. There were PCS designated catastrophe events taking place on 88 of the 91 days of the quarter. Despite pre-tax catastrophe losses of $1.5 billion, we generated slightly positive core income for the quarter. We are very pleased with the underlying fundamentals of our business. Pre-tax underlying underwriting income of $781 million for the quarter was up nearly 40% driven by record net earned premiums of $9.2 billion, and a consolidated underlying combined ratio, which improved 1.7 points to an excellent 91.1%. Earned premiums were higher in all three of our business segments. Underlying profitability in our Business Insurance segment was particularly strong. The underlying combined ratio improved by 3 points to an excellent 89.4%. The underlying combined ratio in our Bond & Specialty business was higher year-over-year, but at 87.8%, still generated a very attractive return. In our Personal Insurance segment, the underlying combined ratio improved by 2 points, reflecting the actions we've taken to improve profitability. Turning to investments, our high-quality investment portfolio generated net investment income of $594 million after-tax for the quarter, reflecting stronger and reliable returns from our fixed-income portfolio and solid returns from our non-fixed-income portfolio. Given our confidence in the strength of our business, we returned $633 million of excess capital to shareholders during the quarter, including $400 million of share repurchases. Turning to production. Thanks once again to excellent execution by our colleagues in the field, we grew net written premiums by $1.3 billion or 14% to a record $10.3 billion. In Business Insurance, we grew net written premiums by 18% to $5.2 billion. Renewal premium change in the segment was a record-high at 12.8%, driven by renewal rate change, which accelerated 2.5 points sequentially to 7.2%. The renewal premium change we achieved this quarter was broad-based. RPC was double-digit or near double-digit in every line, other than workers' compensation, and it was higher sequentially in every line, including workers' compensation. Even with strong pricing retention, an important indicator of marketplace stability, remained very strong at 88%. New business increased 36% to $671 million, led by the property line. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, record net written premiums were about even with the prior-year quarter. Retention in our management liability business was an excellent 91%, and new business increased 11%. Surety net written premiums were also once again strong. Given the attractive returns, we are very pleased with the strong production results in both of our commercial business segments. The growth we're putting on the books is from geographies, products and distribution partners that we know well. In Personal Insurance, top line growth of 13% was driven by higher pricing. Renewal premium change was 19.2% in our Homeowners and Other business, and increased to a record high 16.1% in our auto business. Another quarter of terrific production across the board positions us well for the rest of the year and into 2024. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. Before I turn the call over to Dan, I'd like to spend a few minutes on what Travelers is doing in an important area for us, artificial intelligence. We subscribe to the view that over time the impact of AI across the economy is going to be profound, so is the opportunity for Travelers. With our performance transformed mindset and our disciplined framework for assessing our investment priorities, we've been focused for years on responsibly developing differentiating AI capabilities across our three innovation priorities, extending our lead in risk expertise, providing great experiences for our customers, agents, brokers, and employees, and optimizing productivity and efficiency. Between our colleagues who are dedicated to AI specifically and others in enabling disciplines, we have a very significant number of our employees engaged on the objective of making sure that we're leading when it comes to AI. As we've shared before and as you can see on Slide 23 of the webcast presentation, for some time, we've been steadily increasing our technology spend. This year, we'll spend more than $1.5 billion on technology. As this slide demonstrates, we've also been improving the strategic mix of our tech spend. That includes a meaningful increase in investments to develop require cutting-edge AI capabilities built on modern cloud technology. Importantly, we've done all that while significantly improving our expense ratio. In no small part, thanks to the success of our technology investments. The quantity and quality of data are key differentiators when it comes to AI. For more than a decade, we've been investing in datasets, data quality and data accessibility. Between submissions in our commercial businesses and quotes in PI, we intake millions of business opportunities each year. We also take and adjust and adjudicate millions of claims. As one of the largest risk control organizations in the industry, we provide risk mitigation to our commercial customers, completing more than 100,000 risk control consultations annually. We capture valuable data from virtually all of those interactions. Our data also include decades of curated institutional knowledge in the forms of policies, procedures, guidelines, forensic investigations and so on. All of that creates an excellent foundation for the next iteration of generative AI. In addition to our extensive proprietary data, we've been assembling actionable third-party data for years. In fact, we have more than 2,000 datasets from hundreds of third-parties. All-in, we believe that we have a significant and hard-to-replicate data advantage. Given the competitive advantages that will come from deploying AI across the insurance value chain and the expertise, resources and data required to get there, scale will increasingly be a differentiator in our industry, as well the ability to execute complex initiatives effectively and efficiently. Expertise, resources, data, scale and execution excellence, all favor Travelers. The potential use cases for AI in our industry are many and varied. We pursue very focused opportunities that are consistent with our innovation priorities and will create meaningful and sustainable competitive advantages, all with an eye towards leveraging strategic capabilities across our organization. AI capabilities that we currently have in production span the spectrum from those driving efficiency through automation, to more advanced generative AI and large language models. More advanced models augment various aspects of our underwriting, claim handling, service delivery and other work. We use intelligent process automation broadly throughout our business to handle hundreds of routine workflows. Automation and AI have been meaningful drivers of our expense ratio improvement over the past seven years or so. The key success driver in insurance is segmenting risk as finely as possible, to achieve pricing that is accurately calibrated to the risk. Deep learning models have significantly improved our ability to classify it in segment risk in our flow businesses. For example, in Personal Insurance, we leverage proprietary AI and aerial imagery to assess roof and other site-related conditions at the parcel level. Parcel level risk assessment at scale was practically unimaginable to several years ago. And that type of information is very difficult to obtain from the insured with a reliable degree of accuracy. In our Select Accounts business, we estimate that AI has improved business classification, a critical underwriting input by more than 30%. In our Middle Market business, we've developed a suite of sophisticated AI models, which facilitate targeted cross-selling, supporting our effort to sell more products to more customers. We're also using AI to better understand our customers and their needs. So this improved customer segmentation, we can better align new product development and generate insights that improve the customer experience. Enhancing our industry-leading analytics using machine learning models to deliver sophisticated actuarial insights into loss cost trends and development, which improve our already strong pricing and product monitoring capabilities. On the most advanced end, we're leveraging generative AI in large language models, and we've been doing so for several years. For example, in our Bond & Specialty business, our proprietary large language models have processed hundreds of thousands of broker submissions as we work toward improving intake time from hours to minutes. This will improve our responsiveness to our customers and distribution partners, and contribute to our productivity. In our claim organization, our proprietary large language model ingest legal complaints filed against our insureds and then highlights key liability and coverage issues, assists in routing the cases to the best-suited defense counsel, and provides risk-related insights that can be incorporated back into our underwriting process. We've also developed and are piloting a Travelers claim knowledge assistant, a generative AI tool trained on many thousands of pages of proprietary technical source material that was previously only accessible to thousands of different documents. The model provides claim professionals with the ability to easily access accurate actionable information on technical and procedural claim matters, increasing speed, accuracy, and consistency in various workflows, including in interactions with our customers and distribution partners. So in terms of AI, we're investing with speed and strategic direction, consistent with our stated objective of delivering industry-leading returns. I've only shared some of what's in-flight, and the capabilities that we've developed are in various phases of adoption. The full impact of the capabilities we're developing, and others on our roadmap are still ahead of us. To sum things up, we are very confident in the outlook for our business. We have terrific underlying fundamentals in our commercial businesses, improving underlying results in our personal insurance business, and steadily rising investment returns in our fixed-income portfolio. As you've heard, we're also investing in impactful new capabilities to advance our ambitious innovation agenda. With that momentum and the best talent in the industry, we are well-positioned to continue to deliver meaningful shareholder value over time. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. We're pleased to have generated record levels of earned premium this quarter, and an underlying combined ratio of 91.1%, a 170-basis point improvement from last year's strong results. This led to a very strong underlying underwriting gain of $615 million after-tax, up $171 million or 39% from the prior-year quarter. The expense ratio for the second quarter improved 40 basis points from last year to 28.6%, once again, benefiting from the combination of our focus on productivity and efficiency coupled with strong top line growth. As Alan mentioned, the industry experienced a very active cat quarter and our second quarter results include $1.5 billion of pre-tax catastrophe losses, our second largest ever cat amount for a second quarter. As disclosed in the significant events table and our 10-Q, we had six events surpass the $100 million mark in Q2, the most ever for a single quarter since we began disclosing the table in 2013. Turning to prior-year reserve development. We had total net favorable development of $60 million pre-tax. In Business Insurance, net unfavorable PYD of $101 million was the result of better-than-expected loss experienced in workers' comp across a number of accident years being more than offset by an increase in some of our other casualty reserves, as well as, for run-off operations. In Bond & Specialty, net favorable PYD of $119 million was driven by better-than-expected results in management liability and surety. Personal Insurance at $42 million of net favorable PYD, driven by Homeowners and Other. After-tax net investment income of $594 million was in line with the prior-year quarter. Fixed maturity NII was again higher than the prior year quarter, reflecting both the benefit of higher average yields, and higher invested assets. Returns in the non-fixed-income portfolio were solid, but as expected, we're not as strong as the double-digit yield we experienced in the prior-year quarter. With interest rates having moved higher during the second quarter, we are raising our outlook for fixed income NII, including earnings from short-term securities by $35 million after tax for the back half of the year. We now expect approximately $570 million after tax in the third quarter and $595 million after tax in the fourth quarter. New money rates as of June 30th are about 140 basis points higher than what's embedded in the portfolio, so fixed income NII should continue to improve as the portfolio gradually turns over and continues to grow. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.5 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $2 billion. In late May, we issued $750 million of 30-year debt in order to maintain a debt-to-capital ratio in line with our target range as our premium volume has continued to grow. Interest rates increased and spreads widened during the quarter, and as a result, our net unrealized investment loss increased from $3.9 billion after tax at March 31st to $4.6 billion after tax at June 30th. As we've discussed in prior quarters, the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses generally do not impact how we manage our investment portfolio. We generally hold fixed-income investments to maturity. The quality of our fixed-income portfolio remains very high and changes in unrealized gains and losses have little impact on our cash flows, statutory surplus or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $115.45 at quarter-end, up 1% from year-end and up 3% from a year ago. We returned $633 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $400 million and dividends of $233 million. We have approximately $6.2 billion of capacity remaining under the share repurchase authorization from our Board of Directors. Since the significant level of cat losses in late June resulted in lower earnings for the quarter than we had anticipated, we expect the level of share repurchases over the back half of the year to be lower than the level of share repurchases in the first half of the year. Turning to the topic of reinsurance, Page 20 of the webcast presentation shows a summary of our July 1st reinsurance placements. While we did see some meaningful price increases on our reinsurance renewals, those increases were broadly in line with the price increases we are obtaining on the direct property premiums we're writing. So there's little or no impact expected on margins. We take another moment to highlight a few items on Page 20. First, we renewed our main cat reinsurance program at terms that were generally consistent with the expiring program. Second, we increased the coverage under our Northeast Property treaty by fully placing the $850 million layer above the attachment point of $2.5 billion. A year ago, we placed $750 million of that $850 million layer and the attachment point was $2.25 billion. This treaty remains pretty far out on the tail for us. Finally, as part of our ongoing management of tail risk exposure for the enterprise and in response to inflation-driven growth in insured values in our Personal Insurance property book, we added a new hurricane cat excess of loss reinsurance program, specific to Personal Insurance coastal exposure, providing 50% coverage for the $1 billion layer above an attachment point of $1.75 billion, again far out on the tail. Any margin impact from this new program will be de minimis, given both the size of our PI property book and the level of price increases we are obtaining on that book. To sum up the quarter, our ability to absorb $1.5 billion of pre-tax cat losses and still report slightly positive core income for the quarter is a testament to the overall strength of our franchise, and the underlying fundamentals of our business. Q2 was another quarter of double-digit premium growth, improved underlying profitability, and further improvement in our outlook for fixed-income NII, all of which bodes well for our future returns. With that, I'll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance produced $402 million of segment income for the second quarter, down from the prior-year quarter, driven by prior-year reserve development and higher cats, as Dan mentioned. Underlying underwriting results continue to be exceptional, with the underlying underwriting income up more than 50% from the prior-year quarter. We're once again particularly pleased with the quarter's underlying combined ratio of 89.4%, which improved by three points from the prior-year quarter. The loss ratio benefited from property losses that were about a 1.5 points better than our expectations for the current year quarter. The loss ratio also improved due to earned pricing. The expense ratio remained strong at 30.1%. Net written premiums increased 18% to a quarterly record of $5.2 billion, driven by renewal premium change of 12.8%, retention of 88% and new business of $671 million, all record highs. Underneath RPC, renewal rate change accelerated sequentially from the first quarter by 2.5 points to 7.2%. We're thrilled with these production results and the superior execution by our field team in the marketplace. In terms of pricing, we're pleased with our response to the persistent environmental headwinds in both the property and liability lines. In each of our product lines, renewal premium change was higher than the first quarter. And beyond pricing, we continue to improve terms and conditions to ensure we're achieving an appropriate risk-reward trade-off on the business we write. As we always say, we execute in a granular manner, deal-by-deal, class-by-class. Into that point, we're thrilled with our execution. Demonstrated by record retention of 88% on our very-high quality book of business and rate that is thoughtfully segmented by return profile. New business, as a percentage of the book, returned to pre-pandemic levels, led by the property line. We're pleased with new business dollars at an all-time high. And as always, when it comes to new business, we remain focused on risk selection, underwriting terms and conditions, and pricing. We're also very pleased with the impact that our strategic investments are having on our production results. As for the individual businesses, in Select, renewal premium change was up 1 point from the first quarter to a strong 10.6%, while retention also remained historically high at 84%. New business increased $30 million or 28% from the prior-year quarter, driven by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product. In Middle Market, renewal premium change was up more than 2 points sequentially from the first quarter to a historically high 10.5% with renewal rate change increasing sequentially by 1.5 point to 5.9% and continued strong exposure growth. Retention was once again exceptional at 90%, while new business was up 32% from the prior-year quarter, with increases across all account sizes in most markets. To sum up, Business Insurance had another strong quarter and continued to execute on the fundamentals to drive profitable growth. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeff Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty posted strong top and bottom line results for the quarter. Segment income of $230 million was up slightly from the very strong prior-year quarter. The combined ratio was a terrific 77.1%. The underlying combined ratio was a solid 87.8% for the quarter. A small number of surety losses drove the roughly 4 point increase in the underlying loss ratio year-over-year. As we've said before, surety losses can be a bit lumpy. Even with the incremental losses this quarter, our returns in the surety line remain excellent. Turning to the top line, we delivered record net written premiums this quarter. In domestic management liability, we are pleased that we drove record retention of 91% in the quarter, up 2 points sequentially and 3 points from the second quarter of 2022, while continuing to achieve solid renewal premium change. This result reflects our team's deliberate execution to retain our high-quality book of business in light of the very strong returns. We're also pleased that we increased new business 11% from the prior-year quarter. That's a reflection of the strong franchise value we offer to our customers and distribution partners, and a lot of hard work by our team in the field. Additionally, we are pleased to report record surety net written premiums in the quarter. So both top and bottom line results for Bond & Specialty were once again strong this quarter driven by our continued underwriting and risk management diligence, excellent execution by our field organization, and the benefits from our ongoing strategic investments to extend our market-leading competitive advantages. And now, I will turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone In Personal Insurance, the second quarter segment loss of $538 million and a combined ratio of 122% were significantly impacted by catastrophes. While it's not unusual for us to have a loss in the second quarter given it's typically the quarter with the highest weather-related losses, catastrophe losses this quarter for both us and the industry were significantly elevated compared to historical results. Net written premiums for the quarter grew 13%, driven by double-digit renewal premium change in both Domestic Automobile and Homeowners and Other. The underlying combined ratio of 94.1% improved 2 points from the prior-year quarter, reflecting an improvement in the underlying combined ratio in Homeowners and Other, partially offset by an increase in Automobile. In Automobile, the second quarter combined ratio was 108.4% with an underlying combined ratio of 103.5%. The underlying combined ratio increased 1.7 points from the prior-year quarter due to higher severity, driven by increased vehicle replacement and repair costs and a mix-shift from collision-only claims for its claims with bodily injury and third-party property damage, which is more consistent with more cars on the road leading to more multi-car accidents. These increases were partially offset by the growing benefit of earned pricing and a lower expense ratio. While some of the inflationary pressures in auto are beginning to show signs of easing, they are not improving at the rate we expected. Consequently, we're not yet achieving the written rate adequacy levels, we had anticipated. While we continue to make progress and expect to get there in the coming quarters, exactly when will depend on a few things. For example, how quickly inflation comes down, how quickly we can get additional rate through the regulatory process and our actual loss experience. In Homeowners and Other, the second quarter combined ratio of 135.1%, increased 17.1 points, due to significantly higher catastrophe losses. The underlying combined ratio of 85.2% improved 5.1 points, primarily driven by non-cat weather losses that were lower than in the prior-year quarter. Non-cat weather losses in the quarter were also better than our expectation, as more events reached our catastrophe threshold. Turning to production, our results continue to demonstrate disciplined market execution of rate and non-rate actions in both lines as we remain focused on improving profitability and managing growth in response to continued inflationary pressures in the environment. In Domestic Automobile, renewal premium change of 16.1% increased 2.1 points from the first quarter of 2023. We expect renewal premium change to continue to increase from current levels throughout the second half of this year. In Domestic Homeowners and Other, renewal premium change of 19.2% was broadly consistent with the first quarter. We expect renewal premium change to remain in the high-teens through the end of the year. Before I conclude, I just want to take a minute to thank our claim partners for responding to our customers when it matters most. Behind the aggregate statistics of catastrophe events occurring virtually every day of the quarter, our tens of thousands of individual customers whose homes and vehicles are damaged or destroyed and whose lives are disrupted. In each case, our claim team is responding, helping those customers get their homes repaired and their cars back on the road, continuing to deliver high-quality customer service despite the high volume of clients. Both the loss environment and the personal insurance marketplace remain dynamic. We continue to respond to the changing environment with a steadfast focus on execution quickly addressing changes in loss experience with targeted pricing, underwriting and other non-rate actions, remaining disciplined in writing business that is consistent with our appetite and making thoughtful and impactful investments for the future. We're confident that the actions we've taken and we'll continue to take will improve profitability as we move through 2023 and beyond. Now, I will turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael. We're ready to open up for questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Greg Peters of Raymond James. Please go ahead.
Greg Peters:
Well, good morning, everyone. I guess, notwithstanding on Michael's comments, I - just curious about if there's going to be any shift in the strategy on property considering what's going on with catastrophe losses. And I'm also trying to triangulate or bridge the difference between personal lines, which clearly was a negative surprise, and I think, Greg, in your comments you said property actually was a better net gain for you guys relative to expectations. So any broad comments on your views on property in light of the cats and in the different segments too, please?
Michael Klein:
Sure. So I can start on the property side, Greg. Certainly, the catastrophe experience in the quarter was significantly worse than prior year and n worse than our expectations. In terms of our shift in strategy, what I would say is we continue to execute a series of actions in the property line to manage growth and improve profitability. And again, first and foremost, you see that in the pricing and the production statistics that we shared with you on the webcast. But beyond that, we're managing terms and conditions, think deductibles, think roof age eligibility, think coverage levels on roof replacement, and a variety of actions that we look at very granularly state by state, market by market, account by account. And then one of the other things we're really encouraged by, Alan had mentioned in his discussion around artificial intelligence, is our aerial imagery and artificial intelligence-enabled capability we have there to refine our underwriting and our risk selection. So less the shift in strategy and more a continuation of a really broad array of profit management and profit improvement efforts in the personal lines property space.
GregToczydlowski:
Hi, Greg. This is Greg. Just to follow-up on the commercial side, and so many times the catastrophes - the split between personal and commercial can be - really depends on the concentration of where the catastrophes hit in terms of where commercial businesses are. In terms of your comment, I think you referenced in my prepared comments, when I was explaining the underlying combined ratio, and I mentioned that property was better than expectation, and that really was non-cat property.
Greg Peters:
Got it. All right. Thank you for the answers. And then, I guess, I'll pivot, Greg, also during your comments, you talked about reserve development. Maybe spend a minute - don't really touch upon workers' comp, but the adverse development in the other lines.
Dan Frey:
Hi, Greg, it's Dan Frey. I'll take the PYD comments. So in the quarter for Business Insurance, as we said, overall unfavorable $101 million. Comp continues to be favorable. The comp favorable was very strong this quarter, more than $250 million of good news. So that leaves us with the other liability lines including run-off being unfavorable. And that's really led by umbrella, which is sort of the poster child for perpetual core levels of inflation just compounding and pushing more claims up into the umbrella layer. But a couple of things to put - to put that in context, I guess, we're making a relatively small adjustment to those liability lines, given the fact that there are more than $15 billion worth of reserves in those lines. The returns in BI continue to remain excellent. And across the company, I'd just remind us, including the good news coming out of Bond & Specialty, which is also liability type coverage, we had a net favorable of $60 million for the quarter.
Greg Peters:
Got it. Thanks for the answers.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of David Motemaden of Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.
David Motemaden:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. I had just a follow-up question just on the adverse prior-year development. I guess, what does that do to your view of future loss cost trends? It sounds like some of it is run-off, but also some of it is more business that you're obviously still writing. So I'd be interested in how you've changed your 5.5% to 6% loss trend assumptions.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, David, good morning. It's Alan. Thank you. Two things in response to that. One, I would say that - I would just point you to the combined ratio and underlying combined in BI in the quarter, and obviously, we think about how prior-year development influences that through - base your changes and you can see a pretty solid results. And as we've shared with you before, I always - I always want to just preface this by saying, it's a very blunt instrument to try to capture what's going on across billions of dollars of premiums in a single loss trend metric. Every line has its own dynamics, and the question usually comes in, in terms of loss trend, but, of course, there is base year changes, there's exposure changes, there's other adjustments to loss activity. So always puts and takes in all those - in all those measures. But all-in, I'd say there really hasn't been much significant change. And I would go back to a comment that Dan made, on $15-odd billion of reserves, this is a relatively small adjustment. And we're always every quarter looking at all our reserves, and sometimes they go up, sometimes they go down, but relatively small. And as Dan said, the returns in BI continue to be exceptional.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Thanks. And then I guess, I should just take that. I mean, it's obviously a very fluid environment. But I guess, it would - fluid macroenvironment. It would seem that just given the re-acceleration in renewal rate change, the gap between written rate and loss trend has been expanding. I guess, is that the right take? Or is there anything else that I'm missing there? Obviously, we have to take catastrophes into account, but there - I know Fidelis has come in. I'm just wondering if there's anything else I'm missing on the underlying loss ratio.
Alan Schnitzer:
No, I mean other than - Greg mentioned in the script that the non - the non-cat property losses came in a little better than we thought. But for the most part, I think the way you slice it up is about right.
Dan Frey:
Yes. And David, it's Dan. I'll just - you mentioned Fidelis, I mean, we said at the beginning of the year that Fidelis was not going to be big enough to have a meaningful impact on the underlying combined ratio, and that's still the case including Q2.
Alan Schnitzer:
I think you got it right, David.
David Motemaden:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis of Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. So, yes, Alan, I hear you that you've got $15 billion reserves, sometimes they go up, sometimes they go down. But I guess, I'd say, they don't usually go up quite as much in a given quarter, especially when there is so much workers' comp reserve releases, and I mean, there's also like a pretty sharp acceleration of pricing. So it does look from the outside like - I don't know maybe you guys are seeing something new or you've identified something from a trend perspective. I guess, just if anything, in this review, I guess, what have you learned this year that, I guess, you might not have known a year ago?
Alan Schnitzer:
Let me start, Ryan, and I will turn it over to Dan. But we're squaring triangles, and we're doing - we're applying actuarial analytics to a series of triangles and historical losses, and that's really how we're coming up with this. I mean, the overwhelming thing that all of us are looking at is higher levels of economic inflation. And so that - you know, that is no doubt a contributor here.
Dan Frey:
Yes, Ryan. The only thing, I think, I'd add to Alan's comments, which I agree with. We've said, as people have asked over the last several quarters and pricing has continued to be strong for quite a while now, is that sustainable? And here you see it ticking up and I think we just keep going through the litany of pricing is going to be a reaction to what's your - what's your return target and what's happening in the loss environment. So we talk about continued increased frequency and severity of weather losses and you see that certainly this quarter, headline inflation, social inflation, that we said never went - never went away, and an uncertain overall macro environment. So those things continue to factor into our pricing. Those things also get evaluated every quarter and every year in terms of our view of loss trend in prior-year reserve development. So what you're seeing here again across the place, net favorable prior-year reserve development, I get the focus on the liability lines so - but really what you're seeing there is a degree of difference as opposed to some surprise. We've been talking about inflation for a long time and we were the first people to be talking about social inflation and never thought that went anywhere. So directionally, it's not a surprise. It's just an adjustment to the order of magnitude.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And then for Michael, and maybe Greg, I guess, on the cat front, I mean, you guys were highlighting a frequency of events. But it seems like to me that severity must be at least as bigger of a contributor. Then maybe I'll just talk about - yes, in other words, I don't think I would have ever expected $1 billion of personalized with 6 Bcf] events. So from a severity perspective, like how - what's weighing on is here? Is it like the size of the hail, in other words, like the nature of the weather? Or how much of is elevated repair cost, demand surge like that type of thing?
Michael Klein:
Hi, Ryan, it's Michael. Yes, all of that. So I think your point is a good one. So if you look at the quarter, I think the number of events, PCS designated events was 19, that is above the long-term average. So there is a frequency of events that's higher. And that's a relatively high number for Q2. But actually, the majority of it really is severity. Now, some of that severity, to your point, is the underlying weather activity itself. I think on average, the events in this second quarter impacted about eight states apiece as opposed to six states apiece, so they were a little broader and more all-encompassing. And then again, historical averages. So you've got the number of events and then the size and magnitude. There certainly are anecdotal total evidence of more severe larger hail, those types of things. But the other item that you mentioned, it really is as big, if not a bigger factor than sort of the frequency and the magnitude of the events, and that's just insured values and cost to repair and the severity pressures that we've been talking about across both auto and property and frankly any first-party coverages that we offer as an organization really exacerbating that. So I think it's - I think it's all of those things, but it's at least as much a severity issue, and at least as much driven by economic inflation as it is the weather activity itself.
GregToczydlowski:
And Brian, from a Business Insurance or a commercial point-of-view, we weren't immune from some of the same dynamics that Michael just articulated. I think we just have a broader array of products that you get a little more diversification when you add the workers' comp, the GL and all the other products on top of that.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Alex Scott of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Alex Scott:
Hi, good morning. First one I have is on the Business Insurance underlying loss ratio improvement. I was hoping you could help us unpack it a little in terms of workers' comp versus maybe the other products. Certainly, the reserve development is sort of a good indication of how healthy things are on workers' comp, but pricing is down. I mean, is that a business line that's helping the underlying improvement year-over-year, or is it detracting from it? Could you kind of dimension that and help us think through some of the underlying drivers?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Alex. It's Dan. We're really - we don't do profitability by line. We're not going to go into that level of detail. You call out comp, it has been a good line for us. It continues to be - continues to be a good line for us, but really the way to think about BI is the blend of the products and that's the level at which we will talk about the underlying.
Alex Scott:
Okay. Second question I had is on pricing. There's, I'd say, more reacceleration in your pricing than we're hearing from, I guess, Marsh earlier today, and some of the barometers that are out there and so forth. Anything that's unique around the way you're approaching the market there? And could you help dimension it all, how much of that reacceleration of pricing is necessary for the reinsurance costs? You mentioned, it sounds like maybe loss cost trend hasn't moved that much. But help us think a little bit about how much of that can help you to tread water, first allow more underlying improvement?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, I think, we're going to try to stay away from forecasting margins, and I think, it may have been David who went to this question earlier, and just said renewal premium change is close to 13% and you're saying there's not a lot of movement in loss trend, it was - sort of should we take it on face value? I think, broadly the answer is yes. But really, I think what's going on here is there are some headwinds. There is - there - reinsurance costs are higher, inflation is higher, we're in a tight labor market, there's weather and so on So we're reacting to all those things. And on the other hand, after years of pretty good pricing returns, we're in a pretty good place. And so hats off to our field organization. They are threading that needle incredibly well. And returns are excellent, and we're pricing to continue to maintain and maybe even improve the returns.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks, good morning. My first question, within BI, the underlying loss ratio improved. When we look at the quarter, right, improve - the improvement year-over-year was about 300 basis points. And I know you guys said that there was a 150 basis points from better property results. I think that was 1 point negative last year. So if we're looking year-over-year, is it right to say, it was 2.5 points better on property, and then the remainder, like 50 basis points is earned rate over trend or is there something else going on, and I know that's just kind of looking all-in, but something else going on with the margins in the quarter?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Elyse. It's Dan. So I think you're thinking about the property piece, the right way. And then there's 50 basis points left over, and Greg mentioned the continued benefit of earned pricing. That's not the only thing going on in there. As always, there are - there are pluses and minuses. We're trying to call out the main drivers for you, and those are - those are the two main drivers. If there was anything else of real significance, I think we do a pretty good job of trying to make sure we include that in the commentary.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thanks. And then my second question on - the ROCE improved a good amount sequentially. It sounds like that was broad-based in property and liability lines. I know this is obviously a bigger quarter for property in terms of business mix. I just want to get a sense of just confirm that I'm thinking about that right that it was more than just property that drove the improvement in ROCE. And how should we think about - any color you could just give in terms of that ROCE as we think about the Q3 and beyond?
Alan Schnitzer:
Are you talking about renewal price change, Elyse, is that?
Elyse Greenspan:
I was talking about the renewal rate, but - renewal rate - yes, in BI.
GregToczydlowski:
Yes, Elyse, you're right. I mean, clearly, we had a real strong quarter in terms of both rate and exposure in property. But we also had significant movement across the rest of the portfolio also, again, in both rate and exposure.
Alan Schnitzer:
I'd say, at least, if you're asking whether it was broad-based or narrow, I think the answer to that it was broad-based.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith of UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. A couple here. First, for Jeff, I know you talked about surety losses just being a couple and they can be lumpy. But then are we seeing any signs of maybe some pressures in that line from a loss cost perspective given what's going on with commercial real estate and other things that are happening right now?
Jeff Klenk:
Hi, Brian. It's Jeff. Thanks. I would say that we're watching inflation in materials and labor costs relative to construction. But honestly, really I think the prepared remarks really summed it up for you, right? We had a couple of losses that drove the underlying loss ratio change and ultimately this can be a lumpy line, and we feel really good about our market-leading surety book.
Brian Meredith:
Maybe Higher interest rates matter also, I mean, when you get a big jump in financing costs, right, for contractors and stuff?
Jeff Klenk:
Sure. The credit availability for our contractors is absolutely an issue. We take that into account with our high credit quality book of business the way we underwrite this book. We got a high-quality book of contractors that we focus on there. And so your point is well taken. It's a part of the underwriting process. That's where I'd leave it. Thanks for the question.
Brian Meredith:
Thanks, Jeff. And then, Mike, I'm just curious, can you talk a little bit about kind of the regulatory environment right now in personal lines? Obviously, some states are getting a little more content on rate, but are we seeing any push back kind of starting to emerge from certain states as far as the level of rate going through?
Michael Klein:
Yes, Brian, thanks for thanks for the question, and I think it's - I think it's a good observation. As we talk about pretty consistently, we feel pretty good about our relationships with the departments of insurance, are we really endeavored to make sure they have all the information necessary to evaluate and approve our rate increase requests? And starting with us, we continue to file for increases that align with our most recent experience and our indicated rate needs. That said, what we're seeing and you're seeing in the headlines, some news about increased scrutiny and/or states considering or proposing changes to the way that they regulate pricing in response to the continued period of increases necessary to keep up with loss costs. And so I'd say, on the margin, there is a couple of places where it's getting a little more challenging. But broadly speaking, we have still been able to file and get approved the rate we think we need in response to the increased costs.
Brian Meredith:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker of Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Joshua Shanker:
Yes, thank you. Alan, you began the conference call with the preamble on artificial intelligence and analytics. It's been an unusual three years in terms of interpreting loss cost trend with the courts being open and closed during COVID and very wildly changing conditions under loss trend. Is the data quality that you are looking at right now any less reliable in your mind than you think that normally is? are we in a state where extra caution needs to be placed on being comfortable with those numbers that you're using for reserving practices?
Alan Schnitzer:
I would say the answer to that Josh is, yes. And I think we've said pretty consistently over the last few years that we have been cautious and reflecting that level of uncertainty into the way we think about loss cost and reserves. So I think the answer is yes, and we've been doing exactly that.
Joshua Shanker:
And then, I mean, look, we're all just throwing shelves from the cheap seats, a little bit. Can you talk a little bit about some of that, how you get more conservative or how you - in a time of uncertainty, how you get better or what you're doing in order to offset the risks associated around what's bad data and whatnot?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, it's probably a longer conversation, Josh. We can follow-up it. But let me just give you one example, and I think we've said this over the last couple of years. If you were just looking at the data, you might have assumed that some aspects of loss trend had improved over the last couple of years. And whether that's true in Personal Insurance, and you see the lack of negative PYD in personal auto, for example. Or if you look at social inflation, we said if the courts were closed, then that data could have been misinterpreted to mean things are getting better. You look at that data and you say, I don't believe it and we understand that it's distorted and that there are other things that could be impacting it. And so we are going to do the best we can to try to understand where the uncertainty is coming from and to make sure that we're - that we're reflecting our view of uncertainty as we're thinking about either our prior-year reserves or managing our current loss taxes.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields of KBW. Please go ahead.
Meyer Shields:
Thanks. I want to start with a question on personal lines. Michael mentioned that the deceleration and claim cost inflation wasn't as strong as we anticipated. I thought you could give us some color on what - I guess, the indicators that you've previously used what they're suggesting for personal loss cost inflation for the back half of the year?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Meyer, I don't - I don't know that - that the external indicators that we look at are significantly different than the ones you look at or have - or do have available. What I can say is, auto severity has sort of remained stubbornly in the low-double-digits, and we had not anticipated that it would remain in double-digit territory for this long. I think the other thing I commented on in my prepared remarks was that we are seeing some signs of easing. The predominant thing, I'm talking about there is the Manheim Wholesale Index. And again, an update just came out this week on that, and I believe Manheim's estimate now is that used car prices will end 2023 below 2022 levels. But importantly, that's just one element of our loss cost, right? So wholesale car prices impact retail car prices, which impact our total loss settlement values, which is a portion of our loss cost. I think one of the reasons you continue to see double-digit pressure on severity is continued elevation in repair costs, labor, materials, et cetera. And then again, we've talked about just broad-based severity pressure. I think what we are seeing is some of the potential good news that we're starting to see in the physical damage coverages is being offset a little bit by this shift in mix to more claims with bodily injury and property damage and so on a mix - that mix impact impacts those loss costs as well. But again, the short answer is, we're still seeing low-double-digit trends in auto severity and we hadn't anticipated that they would last this long.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, perfect. That's helpful. And final question. When we look at, I guess, whether it's possibly changing weather patterns or the mix shift within BI slightly towards property or just inflation pushing more weather losses above the cat threshold, how do you think about sort of the magnitude of coming year's catastrophe load compared to where you've been recently?
Alan Schnitzer:
I'm not sure we're quite ready to talk about that or to certainly give an outlook for that. Obviously, as we start to put our views together for 2024 and beyond, we'll think about the experience that we've had this year and in recent years, and other factors whether that's changes in exposure in our book or other things and we'll come up with a view that we hope will be sort of thoughtful and appropriate.
Operator:
Thank you. We have time for one more question. Your next question comes from the line of Tracy Benguigui of Barclays. Please go-ahead.
Tracy Benguigui:
Thank you. Good morning. My focus these days is on the liabilities, and I especially appreciate your legal perspective, given your background, Alan, and I am not sure if AJ is on the call or not. Last quarter, you indulged me by talking about this. And this quarter, I'm wondering if you can indulge me again and talk about PFAS. Sorry in advance, my question is quite meaty. Is PFAS, a chemically - a chemical explicitly excluded from GL, like included in a pollution exclusion. And for pre-1986 exposure, does the statute of limitations apply?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Tracy, it's hard to answer a question like that without claiming a policy. So I'm going to - I'm going to avoid that. And we're happy to take this offline with you and talk a little bit more about it if we can do that consistent with Reg FD. About PFAS, what I would say about that is, this issue has now been around for a while. What we know about it is, it is reflected in our reserves, and I'm not sure there's a lot more to say about it at this point.
Tracy Benguigui:
Okay. So you said, reflected in your reserves, so the adverse development you took in the quarter didn't reflect an update to PFAS.
Alan Schnitzer:
Didn't say that Tracy, but we're not going to really go into the drivers. We gave you the big drivers of the - of PYD, We're not going to go into the specific coverage issues in PYD.
Operator:
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much. We appreciate everyone's time. And as always, if there's any follow-up, please feel free to reach out directly. Thank you.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the First Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 19, 2023. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our first quarter 2023 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We're very pleased to report a terrific start to the year, including an excellent bottom-line result for the quarter, particularly in light of the high level of severe weather activity across the United States and very strong production in all three of our business segments, which produced net written premium growth of 12% for the quarter. Profitability and growth in our Business Insurance segment were particularly strong. And as you'll hear from Michael, we're positioned for improved profitability in our Personal Lines business. Core income for the quarter was $970 million, or $4.11 per diluted share, generating core return on equity of 14.5%. Core income benefited from record net earned premiums of $8.9 billion, up 10% compared to the prior-year period, an excellent underlying combined ratio of 90.6% and a one-time tax benefit. Catastrophe losses were elevated as the industry experienced the highest number of Q1 PCS catastrophe events since PCS started tracking in the 1950s. Turning to investments. Our high-quality portfolio generated net investment income of $557 million after tax for the quarter, reflecting reliable results from our fixed income portfolio and positive returns from our non-fixed income portfolio. Our underwriting and investment results together with our strong balance sheet enabled us to return $680 million of excess capital to shareholders, including $462 million of share repurchases. At the same time, we grew adjusted book value per share and made important investments in our business as we notched another quarter of successful execution on a number of important strategic initiatives. In light of our strong financial position and confidence in the outlook for our business, I'm pleased to share that our Board of Directors declared an 8% increase in our quarterly cash dividend to $1.00 per share, marking 19 consecutive years of dividend increases with a compound annual growth rate of 8% over that period. The Board also authorized an additional $5 billion of share repurchases. Turning to the top-line in production. Thanks once again to excellent execution by our colleagues in the field, we grew net written premiums by 12% this quarter to a record $9.4 billion, with all three segments contributing. In Business Insurance, we grew net written premiums by 15% to $5.2 billion. You may recall that we entered into a quota share arrangement with Fidelis for 2023. This contributed about $160 million, or around 3.5 percentage points, net written premium growth in the segment. Results from the quota share are not reflected in our production statistics. Renewal premium change in Business Insurance remained historically high at 9.6%. Pure renewal rate change ticked up a little bit from the fourth quarter, driven by the property, umbrella and auto lines. Even with continued strong pricing broadly, retention in Business Insurance was very strong at 87%. New business of $639 million was a record and up 17% from the prior-year period. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased slightly from a very strong level in the prior-year quarter, with excellent retention of 90% and new business growth of 25% in our management liability business, and a record level of Q1 net written premium in our surety business. Given the attractive returns and the high quality of business in our commercial segments, we are very pleased with strong production results in these businesses. In Personal Insurance, top-line growth of 12% was driven by higher pricing. Renewal premium change increased to 20.2% in our homeowners and other business, and a 13.9% in our auto business. Another quarter of terrific production across the board positions us well for the year ahead. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. In light of the recent disruption in the banking sector, I'd like to share a reminder about how our business differs from those in the headlines. We often talk about the high quality of our investment portfolio and I'll get back to that, but first, let me say a few words about our prudent management of that portfolio. The banking sector disruption started with an acceleration of liabilities in the form of withdrawals from demand deposit accounts. As we all know, there's no acceleration of our largest liabilities, loss reserves. In other words, there's no such thing as a run on the bank in our business. But the banking episode also highlighted the risk to the equity of an enterprise when the duration of assets and liabilities are mismatched. We manage the duration of our assets relative to our liabilities. Such as on an economic basis, we've effectively defused our insurance liabilities. In other words, increases or decreases in interest rates generally have offsetting impacts on the present value of both our investment portfolio and our outstanding insurance liabilities. This essentially boxes the economic impact of changes in interest rates. As we've explained in response to your questions over the years, this is a reason why we didn't reach for yield by increasing duration in the low interest rate environment over the past decade and a half. In addition to duration, the bank solvency issues also highlighted the importance of thoughtfully managing liquidity. Quarter in and quarter out, we've consistently generated strong cash flows from operations. Our cash flows from premiums alone over the course of the year are consistently greater than our annual payments for claims and expenses. That was true throughout the 2008 financial crisis and more recently throughout the pandemic. We also have a steady and reliable stream of cash flows from our very high-quality fixed income portfolio. In addition to the periodic interest payments we receive on the bonds we hold, the proceeds from our maturing investment each month provide an additional source of liquidity. Back to the high quality of our investment portfolio, macroeconomic uncertainty reminds us of how important that is. And the quality of our holdings and our disciplined focus on risk adjusted returns distinguish us. Our fixed income investments are highly diversified. They have an average credit rating of AA and comprise 93% of our investments. Our alternative investments are also high quality and well diversified. Page 20 of our webcast presentation includes further details. To address another topic that's been in the news lately, Page 21 of the webcast presentation includes information demonstrating the relatively nominal risk we have in our investment portfolio related to commercial real estate. Real estate represents a small percentage of our total invested assets. Our fixed income real estate investments are very high quality and the largest component of our non-fixed income real estate investments is wholly-owned properties. The wholly-owned properties are carried at their depreciated historical cost. In other words, they were never written up when market values were high, and the appraised value of the portfolio is well above book value. The portfolio has also produced a strong free cash flow yield. In short, whether we're talking about underwriting or investing, Travelers is built to manage through uncertain times. Before I turn the call over to Dan, I'll share with you that we just returned from our annual conference with our most significant distribution partners who collectively represent more than half of our premium. We all left with the continued confidence that our relationships with these business leaders and their firms are as strong as ever, and feeling tremendous support for the strategic initiatives that we have underway. It's a great reminder that our position with distribution sets us apart and is an important competitive advantage that's hard to replicate. To sum things up, we're off to a great start for the year with another quarter of strong profitability and growth, driven by our underwriting and investment expertise. At the same time, we continue to successfully execute on our innovation strategy, which has contributed to significantly accelerated premium growth, superior returns and industry low volatility over the past decade. With the best talent in the industry, we remain well positioned for success through a wide range of economic and operating environments, and confident in our ability to continue to create shareholder value overtime. With that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the first quarter was $970 million and core return on equity was 14.5%. Compared to the prior year, this year's first quarter results included a significantly higher level of catastrophe losses and a lower level of favorable prior year reserve development. Those unfavorable items were largely offset by higher underlying underwriting income, including a one-time tax benefit. The tax benefit impacts the income tax line only, and thus, does not impact the combined ratio or the underlying combined ratio. Our first quarter results include $535 million of pre-tax cat losses, significantly higher than the prior year's benign results, and about $160 million above the average of our first quarter cat losses for the past five years. Our pre-tax underlying underwriting gain of $797 million was $131 million higher than the prior-year quarter, reflecting higher levels of earned premium and an improved underlying combined ratio of 90.6%. Results were again very strong in both Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty, while in Personal Insurance, we made significant progress in obtaining price increases that position us to get back to target returns. The first quarter expense ratio of 28.7% was again very strong. Our ongoing investments in strategic initiatives are balanced by our continued focus on productivity and efficiency and strong top-line growth, resulting in an expense ratio that, as expected, was broadly consistent with last year's first quarter and full year figures. We reported net favorable prior-year reserve development of $105 million pre-tax in the first quarter. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $19 million pre-tax was driven by another quarter of favorable development in workers' comp, largely offset by an increase for umbrella liability coverages and environmental exposure in our run-off book. In Bond & Specialty, net favorable PYD of $58 million pre-tax was driven by better-than-expected results in both surety and management liability. Personal Insurance recorded $28 million pre-tax of net favorable PYD, driven by improvement in the homeowners' book. After-tax net investment income increased 3% from the prior-year quarter to $557 million. Fixed income NII was higher than in the prior-year quarter benefiting from both higher fixed income yields and higher level of invested assets. Returns in our non-fixed income portfolio remained positive, but were, as expected, less favorable than in last year's quarter. We are raising our outlook for fixed income NII, including earnings from short-term securities, to $530 million after tax in the second quarter, growing to approximately $555 million in the third quarter and then to around $575 million in the fourth quarter. Remember, only about 10% of the portfolio turns over each year, so the higher new money rates will take a while to fully impact run rate NII. Regarding the tax line, this quarter included a one-time tax benefit of $211 million with respect to the repeal of internal revenue code section 847, which addressed the discounting of property casualty loss reserves. And as a reminder, last year's first quarter included a $47 million benefit from the favorable resolution of our most recent federal income tax audits. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels. And we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.6 billion. As interest rates decreased during the quarter, our net unrealized investment loss decreased from $4.9 billion after tax at year-end to $3.9 billion after tax at March 31. Remember, the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses did not impact how we manage our investment portfolio. We generally hold fixed income investments to maturity. The quality of our fixed income portfolio remains very high, and changes in unrealized gains and losses have little or no impact on our cash flows, statutory surplus or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses, was $116.55 at quarter-end, up 2% from year-end and up 4% from a year ago. We returned $680 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, including share repurchases of $462 million and dividends of $218 million. As Alan mentioned earlier, our Board authorized an 8% increase in the quarterly dividend to $1.00 per share and also authorized an additional $5 billion of share repurchases on top of the $1.6 billion remaining under the prior authorization. Let me wrap up my comments today on a personal note. A few weeks ago, we announced that on June 2, our friend and colleague Doug Russell, will retire after a 40-plus year career, about 25 of which have been with travelers. And for the past five years or so, Doug has held two very important roles, Corporate Controller and Treasurer. Doug is knowledgeable. He is unflappable and he is one of the very nicest people you could ever have the good fortune to know. He's also a great teacher. And in addition to being invaluable to me when I took over the Corporate CFO role, Doug has positioned us well for the future. We're fortunate to have two highly-capable long-time Travelers' employees ready to step in. Paul Munson will take over as Corporate Controller, and Larry Mills will take over as Treasurer. Thank you, Doug, for all that you have done for the success of our company as well as for the success of the finance professionals who've had the privilege of working for you and working with you. And now, I'll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance continues to deliver exceptional results, with a strong first quarter of 2023 in terms of both top- and bottom-line results. Segment income of $756 million was up 13% from the first quarter of 2022, driven by higher underlying underwriting income. In addition to higher earned premium and the lower underlying combined ratio, underlying underwriting income also benefited from the segment share of the one-time tax benefit that Dan mentioned. We're once again particularly pleased with the quarter's underlying combined ratio of 89.6%, which was more than 2 points better than the prior-year quarter. The improvement was driven by the loss ratio, which benefited from property losses that were lower than a somewhat elevated level in the prior-year quarter and the benefit of earned pricing. The expense ratio was a strong 29.8%, and continues to benefit from the combination of the leverage from higher earned premiums and our strategic focus on productivity and efficiency. Net written premiums increased 15% to an all-time quarterly high of $5.2 billion, benefiting from historically high renewal premium change and retention, as well as record new business levels. As you heard from Alan, the Fidelis quota share also contributed to the higher net written premiums. Turning to domestic production for the quarter, renewal premium change was once again historically high at 9.6%, with renewal rate change ticking up sequentially to 4.7% and continued strong exposure growth. Retention of 87% also remained exceptional, while new business was up 17% from the first quarter of last year to a record high of $639 million. We're thrilled with these production results and our field superior execution in the marketplace. In terms of pricing, we're pleased to be able to sustain strong levels of renewal premium change to address the persistent environmental headwinds. And given our high-quality book as well as several years of meaningful price increases and improvements in terms and conditions, we're very pleased to continue to produce historically strong retention levels. Lastly, we are particularly pleased that our ongoing focus on our strategic investments help us drive an increased flow of new business opportunities. And we capitalized on those opportunities by being more responsive in quoting and converting on more quality accounts during the quarter. As for the individual businesses, in select, renewal premium change remained strong at 10%, while retention increased [a point] to an exceptional 84%. New business increased 16% from the prior-year quarter to $129 million, driven particularly by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product. In middle market, renewal premium change was 8.1%, with renewal rate change increasing sequentially to 4.4%, while exposure growth was once again strong at 4.1%. Retention remained exceptional at 89% and new business was up 19% from the prior-year quarter with increases across all account sizes in most markets. As I mentioned a moment ago, we're pleased with the impact that our focus on strategic initiatives is having on our production results. To sum up, Business Insurance had a great start to the year. We continue to grow our profitable book while investing in capabilities to enhance our position as the undeniable choice for the customer and an indispensable partner for our agents and brokers. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeff Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty started the year with a great quarter on both the top- and bottom-lines. Segment income of $207 million was slightly lower than the prior-year quarter. Pre-tax income improved slightly as higher levels of net favorable prior year reserve development and net investment income were mostly offset by losses related to disruption in the banking sector. A lower favorable income tax adjustment in the current quarter more than offset this pre-tax improvement. The segment combined ratio was an excellent 80% for the quarter. The underlying combined ratio was a solid 86.1%, with the 3.9 points increase primarily driven by losses related to a few financial institutions and a higher expense ratio, partially offset by the benefit of earned pricing. Our quality risk selection and disciplined limits management continue to position us well to navigate through uncertain economic conditions. Turning to the top-line. Net written premiums were strong and consistent with our exceptional top-line in the prior-year quarter, which, as you might recall, grew by over 20%. In domestic management liability, considering our strong returns, we're very pleased that retention continued to be at a near-record 90%, a 5 points improvement from the prior-year quarter, and that renewal premium change was solid at 5%. We're also pleased that we increased new business 25% from the prior-year quarter. As Alan mentioned during his opening remarks, we're pleased to have driven a very strong and record level of first quarter surety net written premiums. So, both top- and bottom-line results for Bond & Specialty were terrific this quarter, driven by excellent execution, benefits from our ongoing and strategic investments and the market-leading competitive advantages and franchise value that we offer our customers and distribution partners. And now, I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance, first quarter segment income was $83 million. The combined ratio of 101.5% increased approximately 6 points from the first quarter of 2022, driven by higher catastrophe losses, primarily related to the significant tornado and hail events in March. The underlying combined ratio of 92.9% was comparable to the prior year, as the benefit of earned pricing across all products, lower losses in the homeowners and other product line and a lower expense ratio were offset by elevated losses in the automobile product line. Net written premiums for the quarter grew 12%, driven by double-digit renewal premium change in both domestic automobile and homeowners. In automobile, the first quarter combined ratio was 104.7% with an underlying combined ratio of 103.4%. The underlying combined ratio increased 4.6 points from the prior year due to increased vehicle replacement and repair costs, higher bodily injury severity and, to a lesser extent, higher frequency. These increases were partially offset by the growing benefit of earned pricing as well as a lower expense ratio. In homeowners and other, the first quarter combined ratio of 98.5% increased 7.3 points, primarily due to higher catastrophe losses. The underlying combined ratio of 82.7% improved 4.2 points, reflecting lower losses associated with mild winter temperatures in the Eastern and Central United States, as well as the benefit of earned pricing and a lower expense ratio. These benefits were partially offset by elevated loss severity from continued labor and materials price increases. As a reminder, for homeowners, we expect the upcoming second quarter to be the seasonally highest quarter for weather-related losses. Turning to production. Our results demonstrate the impact of rate and non-rate actions in both lines, as we seek to improve profitability and manage growth. In domestic automobile, renewal premium change of 13.9% increased 2.5 points from the fourth quarter of 2022. We expect renewal premium change to be modestly higher than this level throughout the remainder of 2023. We've shared previously that we expect written pricing in auto to be adequate in states, representing the majority of our premium by mid-year. While the loss environment is incrementally more challenging, we are adjusting our pricing plan accordingly and still expect to get there or very close to it. We will continue to pursue rate increases necessary to deliver target returns and the benefits of this increased pricing will earn into our results over time. As we've taken significant pricing actions, retention and growth in auto have continued to moderate as expected. Policies in force declined 1% from year-end 2022. In domestic homeowners and other, renewal premium change of 20.2% increased approximately 6 points from the fourth quarter. We expect renewal premium change to remain at this elevated level through the end of the year. In the face of these increases, retention declined but remained strong, new business written premiums were in line compared to the prior-year quarter, and policies in force remained consistent relative to year-end 2022. In Personal Insurance, we entered the year with continued focus on disciplined marketplace execution in response to a loss environment that remains challenging. In addition to making more progress in pricing, we continue to implement non-rate actions. Examples include tighter underwriting in both auto and home, and improved pricing segmentation and risk selection in property. We're encouraged by the progress we're making towards our goal of achieving target returns. While we have more work to do, we are confident that the actions we have taken and will continue to take will improve profitability as we move through 2023 and beyond. Now, I will turn the call back to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Michael. I'd like to add to Dan's recognition of Doug Russell. I met Doug in 2022 during Travelers' IPO. He's been a great friend and a source of endless expertise and insight ever sense. Doug, we thank you and we'll miss you around this table in particular, and thanks for leaving us in such good hands. Abbe, back to you.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Alan. Okay, we are ready to open up for your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Greg Peters from Raymond James. Your line is open.
Greg Peters:
Well, good morning, everyone. And I guess where I'd like to start off is on the top-line growth in the Business Insurance, the 15%. I'm looking at Slide 8 of your presentation. Can you provide some color on the various lines that are going up? I was intrigued by national property. And then, the geography of Fidelis, is that an international? And when I think about property, can you talk about where the growth is coming from in the context of what we're seeing in reinsurance costs?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Good morning, Greg. Yeah, this is Greg. First of all, I'll take the national property one. Yeah, clearly, we shared with you in the fourth quarter that post some of the severe weather activity in the fourth quarter, we did expect a hardening of the reinsurance market, and we are going to be in such a good position given our gross line underwriting mentality. And I think that's what's playing out ultimately in some of the growth in national property. It is mostly driven by renewal premium change, although we are getting the opportunistic looks at new business, but most of that growth really is coming through pricing. In terms of Fidelis, I mean, Alan made his comments. If you look at the webcast, you can see the domestic production up 11%. So, when you look at all the businesses from select to national property, again, double-digit growth, and we're feeling terrific about that growth. And similar to national property, most of that growth is coming through price increases. But again, some thoughtful new business, adding quality accounts to the portfolio has been in addition to the pricing.
Greg Peters:
Great. And then, my follow-up question, just pivoting to inflation assumptions. If we're watching CPI data, it still seems like there's inflationary pressures. And maybe, Alan, you can give us your view of how you think inflation is going to affect your loss cost assumptions for the current accident year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Greg. I guess I would say that we're pretty confident that in our loss picks, we're contemplating everything that is going on that could impact loss cost, and that includes inflation. And we're only trying to predict out as far as the duration of the liabilities. And so, we feel pretty comfortable with the picks. We're certainly seeing inflation. You see it more prominently in Personal Insurance where you've got shorter tail lines and more of the loss cost impacted by things like materials cost and labor, and you see it relatively less in our commercial lines, because just -- that's just a lower portion of the loss cost. But I guess that's what I'd say, Greg.
Greg Peters:
Got it. All right. Thanks for the answers.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski from BMO. Your line is open.
Mike Zaremski:
Hey, good morning. Thanks. Maybe focusing on the Business Insurance segments, Cognizant results were good. But just curious, Greg, you mentioned persistent environment -- environmental headwinds. Reserve releases were lower than expectations in that line. And sorry to be harping on the negative, but umbrella liability was called out as one of the reasons and the environmental reserve addition looks like it was lower year-over-year looking at the Q. So, just any comments there?
Alan Schnitzer:
What's -- Mike, what's the question? I've -- we heard are commentary...
Mike Zaremski:
Sorry. Curious about what Greg meant about the persistent environmental headwinds. Are you speaking to inflation picking up a bit or kind of staying kind of at levels that are a bit above historical trend?
Alan Schnitzer:
Mike, I'll turn it back to Greg if I miss anything here, but there's -- I think there's nothing new in that comment. It's reinsurance pricing, it's economic inflation, it's tight labor market, it's weather frequency and severity and so on. But it's a continuation of trends we've been facing for some time.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Mike, the only thing I'd just add and I think that's what's driving the renewal premium change of close to 10% and ultimately the combined ratio of sub-94% and an underlying of sub-90%. So, I feel like given those headwinds, we're operating very well in terms of relationship to them.
Mike Zaremski:
Okay, great. Last question just on personal lines. Clearly, good momentum on the pricing side, clear about your comments about rate adequacy in most states. But if we just look at the combined ratios, it -- in your comments, it looks like inflation is staying much higher for longer in both auto and home. I don't know if you'd agree with that or anything you want to call out or that maybe is getting better or one-time in nature. Thanks.
Michael Klein:
Sure, Mike. It's Michael. Yes, I would say, I would agree inflation is higher for longer continuing to put pressure on both lines. And I called that out as a driver of the continued deterioration in auto, and then a little bit of an offset to some of the improvement in property. So, we continue to face that persistent inflation pressure. The other thing just to be really clear on the comment about rate adequacy, right, that's a comment about written adequacy for business we're putting on the books, which is really a prospective view, and certainly the GAAP financials will lag that, because we need that rate to earn through before it shows up in the GAAP financials, which is why I've been consistently commenting that it will take time for those rate changes to earn through. But we do see continued momentum in pricing in both auto and home, and I'll give you a quick example. We were actually really pleased last Friday to get approval from the State of California for 19 points of rate in auto effective May 31st, which is one of the elements of that prospective view and one piece of the puzzle in terms of why we see renewal premium change going higher from here.
Mike Zaremski:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. A couple of quick ones here for you. First, I'm just curious, Michael, did you have any effect in your auto results from the additional claims that were filed in Florida as a result of the legislation? Any pressure -- any anything on reserve? I know you're relatively small there, but any impact at all?
Michael Klein:
Yes, thanks, Brian. No, we did not have an impact from the Florida lawsuit filings in our result, and that's largely due to the fact that the comment that you just made, our auto market share in Florida is about 2%. So, it's a relatively small exposure for us.
Brian Meredith:
Great. That's helpful. And then, secondly, on the commercial lines, I'm just curious, in Business Insurance, Fidelis coming in. I'm assuming it was relatively small from an earned premium perspective. But as we think about that continuing to earn in your Business Insurance results, is that going to have favorable impact on your underlying loss ratios here? Does it have a more property component maybe better underlying loss ratios?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Brian, it's Dan. I'll take that. So, look I think the short answer as we said at the end of the fourth quarter is it's just not going to be big enough to move the needle a lot. If it plays out the way that we hope it would play out, it would be -- it would have a very modest favorable impact to underlying combined ratio and business insurance. The first quarter, it's tiny, because the earned premium component of a partial earning is just not that big. And then, the only other thing I'll throw out there as a reminder since you mentioned the property book or any other business that they write, we do have a loss ratio cap on that quota share, so it can't really hurt us badly on the other side.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Jimmy Bhullar from J.P. Morgan. Your line is open.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Hey, good morning. So first, just had a question on Business Insurance. If you look at price increases, they've been fairly steady over the past several quarters, but inflation stayed pretty high as well. So, as you think about your margins in the business over the next one to two years, do you think they'll improve further, or should we assume that more of the earnings growth will come from just the momentum in premiums?
Alan Schnitzer:
Hey, Jim, it's Alan. I think we'd like to get away from forecasting margins. What I will say is we have answered that question from time to time over the last year or so and, frankly, these written measures aren't that different than they've been over the last year or so. But we would like to get away from forecasting. What I will say is we are very, very pleased with the business we're putting on the books.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay. And then, any color on sort of the timing of completing the buyback authorization? Is it the next two to three years, or is it more open ended? And, like, any sort of color on that?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Jimmy, it's Dan. So, very open ended. We are rightsizing capital over time. It will depend on our view of capital strength. It will depend on what happens from a loss perspective. It will depend on our view of growth and how much capital we need to hold on to growth. I think what the increased authorization gives us is
Alan Schnitzer:
And also no change in our capital management philosophy.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Understood. And just lastly if I could just a follow up on the point on margins. If we think about the loss inflation in your Business Insurance division, should that be somewhat similar to what general CPI inflation is, or what are the puts and takes? Because at one point, I guess, social inflation was a big deal, but it seems like it hasn't come back the same way as it was prior to COVID.
Alan Schnitzer:
Jim, if you're talking about loss trend, there's -- we didn't make any changes to our trend assumptions in the quarter.
Dan Frey:
And Jimmy, it's Dan. On social inflation, just to clarify and I think we've said it probably every quarter for the last 10 quarters, social inflation was elevated. We called it early in late 2018. We saw it in 2019. We saw it in 2020. Even during COVID when the court slowed down, we don't think social inflation has gone anywhere. So, if you're thinking that social inflation is less of an issue now than it was, we don't think that, and we continue to book our loss reserves on that basis.
Alan Schnitzer:
But all of that reflected in the really exceptional margins we posted in the quarter.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Yeah. And I see that you're booking at that level, but are you actually seeing that as well? Because it seems from the outside in that it's not as high -- doesn't seem as elevated as it has been.
Alan Schnitzer:
I think we're not going to comment beyond the combined ratio we printed in our comment on loss trend.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from the line of Alex Scott from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Alex Scott:
Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the question. First one I had was on Business Insurance. When I listened to the comments about the year-over-year change in underlying loss ratios and so forth, one of the things I didn't hear was sort of the mix shift maybe a bit towards property or impact from the reinsurance changes that you made, a little higher retention, et cetera. I mean, is that because that was not really too material to that? Or can you provide any color on how that may have impacted year-over-year comparisons of loss ratios?
Dan Frey:
Yeah, Alex, it's Dan. So, I think you're coming to the right conclusion. Not a big impact -- excuse me, or we would have called it out. Because a reminder, we did say even back in the fourth quarter when we went through what the 1.1 reinsurance renewals looked like and where our attachment points were and what the cost was and what treaties we renewed and what treaties we didn't renew that we didn't expect that to have a big impact on margins going forward and that proved to be the case. Mix does move over time. We gave you the written premium numbers by line of business, so you can see that. But not a driving factor in the year-over-year margin comparison.
Alex Scott:
Got it. And then, maybe just in terms of the pricing, can you kind of unpack for us at all when we think about that modest reacceleration of renewal rate change? Can you help us think about what you're seeing among some of the different product lines?
Alan Schnitzer:
Alex, let me just try to respond to that with some general comments about the pricing environment and you can follow-up if we don't get to the question. I would say the pricing environment remains very strong. We saw, as you saw, in the numbers a little acceleration in renewal rate that was led by property, umbrella and auto. And we'll just have to see whether that's the start of the trend in that direction or it's not. And very significantly when you were thinking about prices, we've said many times even with another quarter of very strong pricing, retentions remain at historical highs, which for us is terrific given the attractive return. So, in broad strokes, and I think Greg included this in his commentary, there are two trends impacting pricing. On the one hand, there are headwinds and we've been seeing those for a while now, and they're still there, and that's what you see us reacting to. And on the other hand, after years of some pretty good pricing and improvements in terms and conditions, [returns in] (ph) a better place. And so, the pricing that you see us putting up is what we're achieving is really threading that needle incredibly well. I mean, hats off to our field organization for just really superior execution.
Alex Scott:
Yeah. All right. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your now question comes from the line of Josh Shanker from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Josh Shanker:
Yes, thank you very much for taking my question. Could you -- I don't know what details I'm looking for [here, I have] (ph) some smart ones. Where are the courts shaping up right now? How is the backlog of cases come through? How efficiently are they handling current cases? Compared to where we were one, two, three years ago, where are we in that story?
Dan Frey:
Hey Josh, it's Dan. So, I'll take a shot at that. Look, I think we were saying two years ago, that even when courts did reopen that we expected that it was going to take quite a while for the backlog to work its way through. We thought that was going to be measured in years, not in quarters. I think the data that we look at every quarter would so far confirm that to be true. So, in some of the most recent, say, three and six month diagonals, the amount of claims that are closing in a three or six month period is a little higher than the historical pattern would tell you it would be. But when you put that on a life to date basis for those accident years, closure rates are still lagging where they were pre-pandemic. And so that's what we're seeing. You're starting to see some of that backlog work its way through, but again we think we've got a long way to go there.
Josh Shanker:
And does the backlog mean that if I have a new incident in 2023, that it's going to be a extended period of time before it can see a courtroom?
Dan Frey:
It depends, Josh. It depends jurisdiction by jurisdiction, it depends by type of claim, it depends by complexity of claims. So, I wouldn't say that as a universal rule. But I would say generally speaking, we're still modeling slower closure rates than pre-pandemic.
Josh Shanker:
I do appreciate the answers. Thank you.
Dan Frey:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Josh.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Tracy Benguigui from Barclays. Your line is open.
Tracy Benguigui:
Thank you. Good morning. I'd also like to wish Doug Russell best of luck. I really enjoyed the interactions in my prior role over many years. Hey, since the Boy Scouts' appeal by insurance did not go through, wondering, were you holding out on that appeal passing or do you feel good about the IBNR reserves you set aside? It would also be helpful if you could quantify how much IBNR you set aside for reviver cases in general.
Dan Frey:
Yes, Tracy. So, it's Dan. So, I'm not going to do the latter. You know from the way we've talked about reviver statutes, and those types of exposures going all the way back to the first quarter 2019 when New York implemented what for us was a pretty significant reviver statute. We're looking at what happened state-by-state quarter-by-quarter and reacting in real time as best we can. BSA is something that we and the whole industry has been watching for a long time. You generally don't see our name in the news in connection with that because we don't have anywhere near the exposures that some of the other folks have. We weren't necessarily going to be significantly swayed by bankruptcy proceeding or not proceeding one way or the other. We have all the information at our fingertips in terms of what's the latest and greatest, and that's what's baked into our reserves. In that regard, one thing I'll mention in case you were going to go there, in the month of April, the State of Maryland implemented a new reviver statute. It's not effective until October of '23, but because the law changed in the second quarter of '23, we'll do our assessment in the second quarter of '23. Too early to say with any certainty what that impact might be, but not expecting that to be a big deal for us at this point.
Tracy Benguigui:
That's very helpful. Maybe just a follow-up question that Josh raised. I noticed in your 10-K, you've reported a lower number of -- cumulative number of reported claims. And I'm wondering when you set aside reserves if you think about a more normalized number of claims coming through considering the backlog in the court system?
Dan Frey:
Tracy, I think for the last few years, we've said given the backlog in the court system and the delay in closure rates, there was more uncertainty in the loss environment, and we were trying to make sure that we allowed for that uncertainty when establishing our loss picks.
Tracy Benguigui:
To something north of the reported claim, correct?
Dan Frey:
No, we're not going to do frequency times severity. I'm just telling you that we'll recognize that there's a level of uncertainty in the environment and we're trying to factor that into our loss picks.
Tracy Benguigui:
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of David Motemaden from Evercore. Your line is open.
David Motemaden:
Hi. Thanks. Good morning. I had a question on the Business Insurance underlying loss ratio. Could you talk about some of the drivers of the improvement year-over-year and the sustainability of it going forward? And I'm specifically looking just for how much lower the non-cap property losses were this year versus the elevated level last year? And were they at a lower level than you would normally expect in a typical first quarter?
Dan Frey:
Yes. Hey, David. Dan again. So, look, so the underlying combined improved by a couple of points, almost a half a point of that you could see was expense ratio. So, you got about 1.5 point in the loss ratio. And Greg's comments were slightly elevated level of property losses in last year's number and the continued benefit of earned pricing, neither of those are huge to the probably more salient point of your question at the end. We look at this quarter and see it as pretty clean quarter in terms of a jump off point, not really anything that was significant one way or the other that we think you'd adjust out for.
David Motemaden:
Okay. Great. That's helpful. And then, just a question for Alan, just on the pricing environment and specifically for the property business. So, last quarter, I think you had said you saw property rate accelerate month-by-month in the quarter. Just wondering how that trended in the first quarter here. And just given property is a seasonally small part of the business in the first quarter, would you expect continued acceleration in renewal rate change in Business Insurance?
Alan Schnitzer:
I mean, the first quarter property pricing was -- we saw a continuation of that trend through the first quarter. I think we're going to try not to forecast and line pricing is not much more competitively sensitive than our pricing strategy. But given the hardening of the reinsurance market, there's a fair amount of activity in the pricing space. There's, overall, probably a constraint in capacity, and I think underwriters are generally just reacting to the loss environment.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome from Piper Sandler. Your line is open.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning. Congratulations on the quarter.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Paul.
Paul Newsome:
I've got a couple of auto and personal lines related questions. In the context of there're some rumors that Progressive is [getting back] (ph) to digital marketing a lot. The implications, they saw something in March that made them nervous about the business, it's been confirmed. But is there anything in the data that you saw sort of inter-quarter, as we went through the quarter, particularly in auto that would suggest some sort of market change either in the loss ratio or maybe even the sort of marketing piece of the business? Obviously, the average looks what you'd expect. But just wondering if there's anything in that inter-quarter level that we should be -- that would stand out at all?
Michael Klein:
Yes, Paul, it's Michael. I would say probably nothing that would stand out. I will tell you that the first quarter in auto is one of the tougher quarters to try to diagnose trends in because of changes in weather, when the weather improves, when you get winter storms or not, the sort of frequency and severity results in auto in Q1, sort of inter-quarter, as you described, are sort of the toughest to discern trends from really of any quarter in the year. And then, as you look at the external indices, you see wholesale used car prices moving around. One consistent trend we see underneath everything is parts and labor costs continuing to rise. That's been fairly steady for a long time. And then, again, a lot of the items that I mentioned, just impact driving behavior very differently from one year to the next. So, I wouldn't say I see anything on the loss side that's worth pointing out from within the quarter. And then, if you think about more of the business dynamics, to your point about digital advertising, et cetera, we continue to see healthy demand for quotes in the marketplace. And I think there's a variety of drivers of that, probably the biggest of which is the rate that's going through the marketplace and through the industry driving people to shop. So, I don't know if that was one of the elements you were trying to get at. But certainly, we see pretty healthy quote activity, again, through the quarter, not a lot of inter-quarter variability.
Paul Newsome:
That definitely helps me understand it better. And then, relatedly, I was just listening to your comments about personal line pricing. And maybe just a clarification, and I apologize if it's just me being confused. But it sounds like you're going to hit the expectations for guidance of rate adequacy on time. But was there an implication that essentially Travelers will have to kind of jack up the rates a little bit faster or a little bit higher than you previously expected because the underlying trends are a little bit worse? Or am I just not interpreting that correctly?
Michael Klein:
No, I think you're spot on, Paul. We have seen the loss experience be incrementally worse, frankly than it was and than we expected. And so, we have adjusted our rate plan for 2023 accordingly and are seeking more rate than we thought we would as we put the plan together for the year. And so that's -- but that is underneath the comment that I made about RPC going north from here for the balance of the year. So that expectation of where RPC is headed reflects both our original plans around rate and the additions that we're now seeking because the loss experience has been a little bit worse.
Paul Newsome:
Great. I'll always appreciate the help very much. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Ward from Citi. Your line is open.
Michael Ward:
Thanks, guys. Good morning. Just thinking about the small and Business Insurance clients, it seems like pretty healthy growth. I was hoping you could comment on what you're seeing there in terms of kind of macro trends?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes. Good morning, Michael, this is Greg. First, I'd point to the top-line in select, plus 11%. And you can see on the webcast, a lot of that is being driven by a strong pricing environment with a 10% RPC. But you can also see below that, that we've got real strong new business. New business is up 16% over the prior year, and we've shared with you the success of our BOP 2.0 product. So that's driving a lot of the new business. So, the combination of new business and pricing is really driving that strong top-line growth. And we're feeling terrific about the profit profile of that business and continue to invest in it.
Michael Ward:
Super helpful. Thank you. And then maybe on management liability, was hoping you could unpack some of the losses or expected losses in Bond & Specialty. And then, for management liability, any -- not necessarily asking for an outlook, but any commentary on pricing trends?
Jeff Klenk:
Yes, Michael, this is Jeff Klenk. So, relative to the financial institutions, we've got some exposures on some of the financial institutions that were prominent in the news in the first quarter. We booked some losses for those over and above what we have in our loss picks. And I mentioned in the prepared remarks, that's really the primary driver of the 3.9 points increase in the underlying combined ratio. And then, what was the second question?
Michael Ward:
Management liability pricing commentary?
Jeff Klenk:
I think we wouldn't really give a projection on pricing going forward. I would say that given the healthy returns that we have in our portfolio, feel really very good about the 5 points of RPC that we got, the 90 points of RPC and you know that we're growing our new business. Thanks for the question.
Michael Ward:
Thank you.
Dan Frey:
90 points of retention.
Jeff Klenk:
Oh, sorry about that. 90 points of retention and then growing the new business by 25%. Thanks, Dan.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis from Autonomous Research. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. Good morning. Obviously, the pricing look better in middle markets, national property. It did look like it softened a bit in small commercial. I'm not sure if things are getting more competitive there or it's just a function of mix, but looking for some color on that?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey, Ryan, this is Greg. For this particular quarter, we do have a stronger weight in the select business, particularly of workers' comp. And so, given the continued negative rate environment that we're seeing broadly across the workers' comp industry, the select business felt that in the first quarter. But again, I'll point out the strong RPC overall at 10% exposure was really robust. And as we've shared with you before, there's a meaningful portion of that, that does behave like rate.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And then, I guess, for Michael, I mean, we've seen modest sequential PIF declines in the past couple of quarters in home and auto, but nothing significant. How should we think about -- when you think about the rate that you've put through or you're planning to put through, are you feeling like we've probably seen kind of, I don't know, retention bottom or, I guess, anything on that? Like, are your clients kind of feeling the full impact of the type of rate that you put through yet?
Michael Klein:
Sure. Thanks, Ryan. I would say that as we continue to push rate and renewal premium change through the portfolio, we would anticipate some continued pressure. Again, not our primary focus. We're not wringing our hands over PIF growth at the moment. Our primary focus really is on improving profitability and the actions we need to take there. But we wouldn't be surprised if we see a bit of continued pressure on PIF as we continue to work to improve margins.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Pardon me. Great. Thanks so much for fitting me in. Two quick questions for Jeff. One, can you give us a little color on the expense ratio increase on year-over-year basis?
Jeff Klenk:
Sure. So Meyer, I think we're making strategic investments to maintain and extend our competitive advantages, and so -- and to make sure that we're investing in our future success. The two biggest buckets on that would be people and technology. And I'd point out why we continue to deliver attractive returns. A little more color on what that investment is would really be to develop and extend our flow underwriting capabilities in what I'd say are these traditionally higher touch management liability and surety lines of business. And again, that's all in the context of a reported combined ratio of 80%.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. That's very helpful. Second question, I guess, there -- I'm sorry, Greg called out some reserve issues related to the BI segment's general liability. It doesn't look like that problem manifest itself in Bond & Specialty in the quarter. Can you talk about, I guess, what's going on there, and why the same issues wouldn't present?
Dan Frey:
Yeah, Meyer, it's Dan. I'll take the PYD question. I think just a different dynamic. Umbrella and we talked about it a little bit last quarter. You're writing excess coverages in an environment of inflation, whether it's both the combination of sort of CPI, headline-type inflation plus the fact that social inflation never went anywhere. What you've seen is some more items pierce into those higher layers. So, not directionally inconsistent with the way we would have thought about it, but the magnitude of it was different, and we're just trying to react to that as we see the data come in. Just a different dynamic in terms of the management liability exposures that exist in the BSI book. And it just hasn't had the same crossover.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. So that's a function of the book as opposed to the actual loss trend if I understand it correctly?
Dan Frey:
I would say that's true, yes.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Perfect. Thanks so much.
Dan Frey:
Thanks, Meyer.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi. Thanks. My first question, did you drop your workers' comp loss picks in the quarter?
Dan Frey:
Well, we took favorable PYD at least -- be a little more specific on what your question is?
Elyse Greenspan:
Sorry, I'm trying to get a sense of just how you booked the underlying year if you took down the picks and comp relative to where you were booking accident year 2022 and prior, on the current accident year?
Dan Frey:
Yeah. I don't think so, Elyse. So, we -- you saw what we did in '22. '23, we do our normal process of projecting what we think loss trend is off of '22. Loss trend is still positive in workers' comp because we are making an assumption that severity is going to return to some more normalized level and not be as benign as it has been. And it's -- so '23 -- and '23, it's early in the year, we wouldn't have done anything to modify our pick at this point.
Elyse Greenspan:
And then, in terms of personal auto, obviously, recognizing right, it's been a pretty hard environment in terms of loss trend for everyone. I had thought if in previous years, right, Q1 has at times been seasonally the best quarter when just looking at underlying combined ratios. You guys, obviously, have rate going to the system but that needs to earn in and trends remained high. Would you expect that same seasonality to persist that the other quarters of the year would be weaker on an underlying basis relative to the Q1? Or how should we think about the dynamics within personal auto?
Michael Klein:
Yeah, Elyse, it's Michael. I would say that we don't see anything that would cause us to change our view of seasonality in auto. And to your point, the biggest reason the combined ratio came down relative to fourth quarter of last year really is that seasonality. So, notwithstanding the year-over-year same-period-to-same-period deterioration, those seasonality trends still seem to be intact based on looking at this year's first quarter relative to last year's fourth quarter.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
And we have time for one more question. Your final question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar from Jefferies. Your line is open.
Yaron Kinar:
Good morning. Thanks for allowing me in. Two questions, if I may. One, on the Florida reform, I realize your market share in Florida is underweight or [netting in] (ph) small overall, but would you expect there to be an impact beyond personal auto, maybe in some commercial lines as well?
Alan Schnitzer:
I'll say we are very, very encouraged by what they've done in Florida. We think it's great progress. And I think we're just going to wait and need to see how it plays out a little bit. It's been a pretty challenged market over a pretty long period of time, still competing against citizens. It's pricing at a subsidized level. The current reinsurance market doesn't help. So, I guess, I'd say we're going to watch it with great interest and continue to evaluate the opportunity, but we are very encouraged by what they've done in Florida.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. And then just on Slide 21 of the presentation on the real estate portfolio, again, realize high quality, relatively small. One thing that caught my eye is you said that the appraised values are meaningful -- meaningfully in excess of carrying value. I'm just curious how often the properties are appraised, or when were they last appraised?
Dan Yin:
Hi, Yaron, this is Dan Yin from Investments. We go through an official appraisal every year annually. But quarterly, we do sort of notebook type of appraisal as well.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it. Thanks so much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
And I will now turn the call back over to Abbe Goldstein for some final closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you all for joining us today. And as usual, if there's any follow-up, please get in touch with Investor Relations directly, and have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded January 24, 2023. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our fourth quarter 2022 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbie. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us today. We are pleased to report this morning a solid bottom line for the quarter, exceptional results in our commercial businesses, with higher full year core income and another quarter of attractive margins and strong growth, continued progress addressing the industry-wide loss pressures impacting the Personal Insurance business. Very strong production in all three of our business segments, resulting in consolidated net written premium growth of 10% for the quarter and another quarter of successful execution on the number of important strategic initiatives. Core income for the quarter was $810 million or $3.40 per diluted share, generating core return on equity of 12.3%. These results include $362 million of after-tax catastrophe losses. Core income benefited from record net earned premiums of $8.8 billion, up 10% compared to the prior year period. Our solid underlying combined ratio of 91.4% reflects very strong performance in both of our commercial segments. Looking at the two commercial segments together, the aggregate BI/BSI underlying combined ratio was an excellent 88.3% for the quarter. You will hear from Michael shortly about the progress we are making in Personal Insurance and the roadmap to improve profitability. For the full year, core income of $3 billion or $12.42 per diluted share benefited from higher core income in our commercial segments that was driven by record net earned premiums and strong profitability, including our best ever underlying combined ratio in Business Insurance. Our underwriting and investment results, together with our strong balance sheet enabled us to return nearly $3 billion of excess capital to shareholders, including more than $2 billion of share repurchases. At the same time, we grew adjusted book value per share and made important investments in our business. Turning to the top line, thanks once again to excellent execution by our colleagues in the field and the strong franchise value we offer to our customers and distribution partners. We grew net written premiums by 10% this quarter to $8.8 billion with all three segments contributing. In Business Insurance, net written premiums grew by 11% to $4.4 billion. Renewal premium change remained very strong at an historically high 10.1%. In the property line, which has received a lot of attention post-Ian, renewal premium change accelerated month-by-month in the quarter. Even with continued strong pricing across the board, retention in BI reached a record high 88%. As you have heard us say before, strong retention is a sign of a stable and rational pricing environment. New business in the segment of $558 million increased 10% from the prior year period. Given the attractive returns in the segment, we are pleased with the very strong retention of our high-quality book of business and the strong level of new business. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 5% on a constant currency basis, driven by excellent production in our market leading surety business, where net written premiums were up 18%. Production was also strong in our management liability business, with renewal premium change of 6.3%, retention of 90% and new business, up 23% from a year ago. In Personal Insurance, top line growth was driven by higher pricing. Renewal premium change was meaningfully higher both year-over-year and sequentially as we continue to address the industry-wide loss pressure. Renewal premium change alone contributed more than $1 billion of written premium to our portfolio over the past year. With another quarter of impressive production in each of our segments, we feel very well positioned for the new year. You will hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. Our 2022 results cap off a decade of strong and consistent performance. We posted a double-digit return on equity in every year over the last decade with the exception of 2017, a difficult CAT year for the industry in which we posted a 9% ROE. In every one of those years, we comfortably covered our cost of equity. And over the last six years, we have significantly increased our rate of top line growth. We have accomplished all of this with industry low volatility. Successfully investing in differentiating capabilities has been a significant focus for us and an important contributor to our success. As you can see on Slide 24, over the past five years, we have meaningfully increased our overall technology spend. At the same time, through our strategic focus on productivity and efficiency, we have significantly reduced our expense ratio. In addition, we have improved the mix of our technology spend, increasing our spending on strategic initiatives by nearly 70%, while holding routine, but necessary expenditures about flat. The consistency of our results also benefits from the diversification of our business across our three segments. If we look back at the combined ratio over the last 10 years, in five of those years, Personal Insurance outperformed business insurance. In the other five years, Business Insurance outperformed Personal Insurance. And our Bond & Specialty business delivered spectacular results in every one of those years. The depth and breadth of our diversified businesses is a key advantage and would be very difficult to replicate. Speaking of our business profile, given the economic instability and geopolitical risk around the world, we feel very good about our concentration in North America, the largest, most advanced and most stable economy in the world, where we have the pole position and plenty of room to grow. With uncertain economic conditions ahead, I will also note we have a strong track record of performance through a variety of challenging environments over many years. We have got the experience, the know-how and the capabilities along with an efficient operating model and a rock solid balance sheet to manage through whatever comes our way. To sum things up, I am grateful to my more than 30,000 colleagues for all they have accomplished this year and over time. Given our strong foundation, our track record of successful innovation and our ambitious roadmap, we are very confident in the outlook for Travelers. With that, I am pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the fourth quarter was $810 million, a very strong result considering the significant impact of CAT 73, the winter storm that occurred in late December. Core income for the full year was $3 billion. For the quarter, core return on equity was 12.3%, including the 5.9 percentage point adverse impact of CAT 73. For the full year, core ROE was 11.3%. As you heard from Alan, our consistently strong performance has delivered double-digit core ROE in nine of the past 10 years, averaging 12.6% over that timeframe and our adjusted book value per share has nearly doubled over the past decade. For the quarter, underlying underwriting income of $723 million pre-tax reflected higher levels of earned premium in all three segments and a consolidated underlying combined ratio of 91.4%. Terrific underlying combined ratios in both Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty were offset by results in Personal Insurance. Results in all three segments reflected the benefit of earned price that exceeded loss trend. One additional comment on underlying underwriting income. Prior to 2020, the highest level of full year underlying underwriting income we had ever reported was $1.5 billion after-tax. Despite the significant adverse impact of elevated inflation on profitability in Personal Insurance, 2022 marks the third consecutive year with underlying underwriting income above $2 billion after tax. Simply put, our increased premium volumes and diversified portfolio of businesses are generating underwriting profit dollars at a completely different level than where we were just a few years ago. The fourth quarter expense ratio of 27.9% brings the full year expense ratio of 28.5%, our lowest full year expense ratio ever. As we have discussed previously, the improvement in the expense ratio has not been achieved through cutting corners or artificially managing expenses for the short-term. Rather, we have made and continue to make significant investments in technology and other strategic initiatives that we believe will drive our continued success. Our ongoing focus on productivity and efficiency has improved our operating leverage. Looking ahead to 2023, we are very comfortable with an expected full year expense ratio in the range of 28.5% to 29%. Our fourth quarter CAT losses were $459 million pre-tax. Activity in the quarter was driven by $512 million from the large winter storm in late December, which impacted most of the U.S. as well as Canada while our losses from this event were significant, but were not outsized relative to our modeled estimates for a storm of this size and intensity. Turning to prior year reserve development, we had net favorable development of $185 million pre-tax on a consolidated basis. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $127 million was driven by better-than-expected loss experience in workers’ comp across multiple accident years, partially offset by increased loss estimates for general liability coverages, primarily umbrella, where year-over-year inflation has resulted in more losses reaching excess layers of coverage. The Bond & Specialty segment saw a net favorable development of $51 million, while in Personal Insurance we recorded net favorable PYD of $7 million. After-tax net investment income of $531 million reflected another quarter of improving returns and higher invested assets in the fixed income portfolio and modest returns in the alternative portfolio, which we expected given the downturn in the broader equity markets that occurred during the third quarter. Looking forward to 2023, we expect after-tax fixed income NII, including earnings from short-term securities to average about $535 million per quarter with an estimated $515 million in Q1, growing to an estimated $560 million in Q4. Page 21 of the webcast presentation provides information about our January 1 CAT Treaty renewals. Our longstanding corporate CAT XOL Treaty continues to provide coverage for both single CAT events and the aggregation of losses from multiple CAT events. Consistent with the increase in our annual net written premium volume for property, we increased our retention level to $3.5 billion from the prior $3 billion level. The Treaty provides 100% coverage for the $2 billion layer above the $3.5 billion retention. The per occurrence loss deductible remains unchanged at $100 million. We did not renew the underlying property aggregate catastrophe XOL Treaty, which was only 45% placed in 2022. As we have said previously, we believe that hardening a reinsurance market provides a relative advantage for Travelers. Our consistently strong underwriting results give us an advantage in terms of reinsurance pricing and capacity. That, combined with the fact that we buy less reinsurance than most of our peers, gives us a cost of good sold advantage. We can let that fall to the bottom line or reflected in pricing without compromising our return objectives, making us more competitive for attractive new business opportunities. Overall, while property reinsurance pricing was higher when we consider the level of price increase as well as changes in terms and conditions we are obtaining on our direct written business, we do not expect a noticeable impact on our net underlying loss ratio for property. Also related to the overall reinsurance market as well as the E&S market, you will recall that in 2021 we took a minority ownership stake in Fidelis. Effective January 1, 2023, we have separately entered into an agreement with Fidelis, whereby Travelers will take a 20% quota share on policies issued by Fidelis with effective dates in 2023. The market for Fidelis products is probably as favorable as it has been in 20 years or so and the market was impacted by 9/11, dot-com collapse and Hurricane Katrina. This quota share arrangement allows us to participate in the hard market, while also accelerating our understanding of this marketplace. While strategically valuable and expected to be accretive to earnings, the quota share deal is not expected to have a significant impact on our consolidated financial results. Our portion of net written premiums from Fidelis is expected to be around $550 million to $600 million for the full year and those premiums will be reflected within the international results of Business Insurance. Detailed terms of the quota share have not been disclosed, but we can share that there is a loss ratio cap to ensure that even a worst case underwriting scenario is boxed to a very manageable impact on Travelers. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flow for the quarter of $1.3 billion was again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.5 billion. For the full year, operating cash flow was once again very strong at $6.5 billion, reflecting the benefit of continued increases in premium volume, strong profitability and paid losses that for the full year were once again less than 90% of incurred losses. As we have said previously, we are assuming that this lower level of payment activity is ultimately a timing issue. In establishing our reserves and pricing our products, we assume that elevated severity related to social inflation has not abated at all. Our substantial cash flows give us the flexibility to continue to make important investments in our business, return excess capital to our shareholders and grow our investment portfolio, which increased to $86.7 billion, excluding net unrealized losses at year end. Interest rates increased slightly during the fourth quarter, but spreads narrowed. And accordingly, our net unrealized investment loss decreased from $6.3 billion after tax as of September 30 to $4.9 billion after tax at year-end. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses, was $114 at year-end, up 4% from a year ago. We returned $721 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising dividends of $220 million and share repurchases of $501 million. For the year, we returned $2.9 billion of capital to shareholders, including $2.1 billion of share repurchases. Overall, we had another very good year with strong top line growth in all three business segments, excellent and improved margins in our commercial businesses, our best ever expense ratio and a very strong balance sheet that has us well positioned for whatever economic conditions the future may bring. And now, I will turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance had another strong quarter rounding on a terrific year in terms of financial results, execution in the marketplace and progress on our strategic initiatives. We are firing on all cylinders. Segment income for the quarter was $725 million with an all-in combined ratio of 89.5%, both great results. We are once again particularly pleased with our exceptional underlying combined ratio, which was also 89.5%, an all-time best fourth quarter result. The underlying loss ratio increased by a little more than 0.5 point as the benefit of earned pricing was more than offset by the comparison to the prior year quarter, which benefited from both a particularly low level of property losses and the favorable impact associated with the pandemic. The increase in the underlying loss ratio was more than offset by a lower expense ratio that benefited from our ongoing strategic focus on productivity and efficiency. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 11% from the prior year quarter to a fourth quarter record of $4.4 billion, benefiting from strong renewal premium change, high retention and an increase in new business levels. Turning to domestic production for the quarter, renewal premium change was once again historically high at 10.1%, with renewal rate change of 4.5% and record growth in exposure. Retention reached an all-time high at 88%. New business of $558 million was the strongest fourth quarter we have ever produced. At the product level, in addition to what you heard from Alan about pricing in the property line, terms and conditions and the line tightened over the course of the quarter, further improving the price per unit of risk. While not reflected in our production metrics, this improvement in the price per unit of risk will contribute to our profitability over time. In workers’ comp, renewal rate change was a little more negative than we have seen in recent quarters, which is a reflection of the strong profitability in the line and the benefit of continued strong exposure growth. Overall, workers’ comp renewal premium change was positive in the mid single-digit range and actually a little higher year-over-year. We are pleased with these strong production results and the excellent execution by our colleagues in the field. Given our high-quality book as well as several years of segmented rate increases, together with improvements in terms and conditions, we’re thrilled to continue to achieve this historically strong retention levels. The pricing gains we achieved in the quarter reflect our deliberate execution, which balanced the persistent headwinds and uncertainty in the current environment with the improvement in profitability across our portfolio after several years of strong pricing. As always, we will continue to execute our granular pricing, careful management of deductibles, attachment points, limits, sublimits and exclusions to maintain profitable growth. As for the individual businesses, in select, both renewal premium change of 10.8% and retention of 83% were strong. New business was up 6% from the prior year quarter, driven primarily by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product as well as growth in other lines. We’re pleased with the progress we’ve made in improving the profitability of this business over the last couple of years, while continuing to invest for future growth. In middle market, renewal premium change remained historically strong at 8.8%, while retention of 91% reached an all-time best. New business was up 13% from the prior year quarter. As for full year results, segment income of more than $2.5 billion was exceptional, benefiting from record earned premium in our best-ever underlying combined ratio. In addition, the top line of $17.6 billion and full year retention were both record highs, while new business premiums were near in all-time high. These results were driven by the successful execution of our thoughtful and deliberate strategies. And while delivering these financial and production results, we’ve also continued to invest in strategic capabilities that will enhance our many competitive advantages, designed to enable us to continue delivering profitable growth over time. For example, during the year, we advanced our already state-of-the-art product and service capabilities by continuing to roll out our BOP 2.0 product, which is now live in 46 states as well as launching our new commercial auto product in a handful of states. Both products contain industry-leading segmentation. In addition, we continue to make progress on developing industry-leading user experience capabilities to make it easier and more efficient for our distribution partners and customers to do business with us. In particular, in our middle market business, we advanced our capabilities around digitizing the underwriting transaction for our agents and brokers. And in our Small Commercial segment, we launched our new front-end rate quote and issue interface platform to make it faster and easier for our agents to write business with us, all while maintaining the underwriting discipline and specialization behind the scenes. And finally, we continued to improve our operating leverage through our relentless focus on productivity and efficiency, as I referenced earlier. I’ll note that our full year expense ratio of 29.7% is down more than 2.5 points from the 2016 level. We’re proud of these results and the team that produce them. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeff Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty ended a terrific 2022 with another great quarter on both the top and bottom lines. Segment income was $221 million, up 30% from the prior year quarter, driven by strong and higher earned premium and an exceptionally strong combined ratio, which benefited from a higher level of net favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio was also strong and improved about 1.5 points from the prior year quarter to a terrific 81.7%, driven by the benefit of earned pricing. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums grew 5%, excluding the impact of changes in foreign exchange rates. Domestic Surety grew an outstanding 18% in the quarter, driven by an increase in the number of bonds issued and higher average bond premiums. In domestic management liability. Given the strong returns, we’re very pleased that we increased retention of point from last quarter to a near record 90%. That’s a 4-point improvement from the prior year quarter. Renewal premium change was solid at 6.3%, and we’re also pleased that we increased new business 23% from the prior year quarter. Excluding FX, net written premium in our international business contracted modestly from the exceptionally strong fourth quarter of 2021, primarily due to the impact of the significant decline in merger and acquisition activity on our transactional liability book of business. For the full year, Bond & Specialty produced record earned premiums and an outstanding combined ratio of 75.3%, driving segment income above $900 million for the first time ever. So for both the quarter and year, our results were terrific, driven by excellent execution, returns from our ongoing strategic investments in our competitive advantages and the market-leading value proposition that we offer our customers and distribution partners. And now I’ll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance, the fourth quarter loss of $61 million and a combined ratio of 105.3% were negatively impacted by the weather event in late December as well as elevated underlying loss activity in both automobile and homeowners and other. While our results aren’t meeting our target returns, we are encouraged by our strong marketplace execution as we continue to respond to the loss environment with both increased pricing and non-rate actions. Net written premiums for the quarter grew 13%, driven by double-digit renewal premium change in both domestic automobile and homeowners, reflecting our focus on improving profitability. In automobile, the fourth quarter combined ratio was 111.4%. As a reminder, while there is some seasonality in auto every quarter, the fourth quarter typically has an elevated loss ratio driven by things like holiday driving in Northeast winter weather. Over the last 10 years, the fourth quarter underlying loss ratio has been approximately six to 7 points above the average for the first three quarters. Seasonality aside, the underlying combined ratio of 110.5% increased 6.7 points from the fourth quarter of 2021, primarily related to the continued inflationary impact on vehicle replacement and repair costs, as well as increased claim frequency, which returns to pre-pandemic levels in the quarter and higher bodily injury severity. These loss impacts were partially offset by the growing benefit of earned pricing and a 1-point reduction in the expense ratio. Separately, the current quarter results included a modest impact for the reestimation of prior quarters. We continue to factor our latest view of loss experience into our pricing actions going forward. In Homeowners and Other, the fourth quarter combined ratio was 99.4%. This was 21.6 points higher relative to the prior year quarter, driven by catastrophe losses that were 13 points, 2 points higher than the prior year period and a higher underlying combined ratio. The underlying combined ratio of 82.2% increased 8.8 points. This increase was primarily driven by higher loss severity related to continued labor and material price increases as well as higher non-catastrophe weather losses. This loss pressure was partially offset by the current quarter benefit of earned pricing. Turning to production. Quarterly results reflect our rate and non-rate actions as we seek to manage growth and improve profitability. In domestic automobile, retention moderated this quarter as renewal premium change increased 3 points from the third quarter to 11.4%. New business written premiums declined 3% prior to the prior year compared to the prior year, and policies in force were essentially flat with last quarter as our additional rate and non-rate actions are taking effect. In domestic Homeowners and Other, we achieved renewal premium change of 14.5% in the fourth quarter. The retention remained strong at 84%. Slide 17 provides a graphical representation of renewal premium change in domestic automobile and homeowners and other. We added this view to highlight our progress with respect to renewal premium change over the last several quarters. The magnitude and speed of our pricing actions simultaneously across both lines of business is significant. As Alan mentioned, we have added over $1 billion of written premium to our portfolio in 2022 as a result of the high levels of renewal premium change. The benefits of this increased pricing will continue to earn into our results over time. Looking ahead to 2023, renewal premium change in both lines of business will increase above these already very strong levels as we continue to take action to improve profitability. Consistent with our comments last quarter, we expect written pricing in auto to be adequate in states representing the majority of our business by midyear 2023. In 2022, our team met a challenging environment head-on and took action to address rising costs. We are confident that the actions we have taken and will continue to take will drive improved profitability as we move through 2023 and beyond. Now I’ll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks very much, and we’re happy to open up for your questions now.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Greg Peters with Raymond James.
Greg Peters:
Good morning, everyone. It’s Greg Peters. I guess I’ll start with the first question on Business Insurance and the growth. You produced some outstanding results in all of your segments and for ‘22. And there is a bunch of factors that we’re considering as we think about the outlook for ‘23 and ‘24. We’re watching, obviously, as you are the renewal premium change. We’re also watching the rate change on renewals. And I’m curious, when you look about – when you think about ‘23, what are some of the factors that you think might influence your top line results in Business Insurance?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Greg, good morning. And thank you for the question. Let me just go back to basics and just talk about how we approach this business because we don’t approach it with a grower shrink mentality, we approach it with an overall approach to the marketplace. So we look at our business and we want to keep our best business, and you can see our retention this quarter was off the charts, which is a reflection of how we feel about that book of business. We want to improve the returns on the business that need it, and so we want to execute at a very granular, very thoughtful, very strategic level in terms of price and rate in RPC and then by investing in franchise value and through a lot of hustle in the marketplace. We want to make sure that we’re generating attractive new business opportunities. And we’re going to – we did that in ‘22 and the results have been fantastic. We’re going to do it again in ‘23, and we’re very confident about that. And let me spend just a second on the pricing environment because that seemed like it was part of your question, and I’ve seen a number of you write about it this morning. So I think it’s hard to characterize this pricing environment as anything other than very strong. At 10.1% that RPC is spot on an eight-quarter average. So incredibly stable and near record levels. Small movements between pure rate and exposure, but I would emphasize small movements between rate and exposure. The breadth of the pricing gains across our book is very strong and very consistent. I don’t think you can assess the pricing environment without looking at retention and given where that is literally record levels and given the profitability very strong. The pricing gains that we achieved were broad-based, led by property, auto, umbrella and CMP. And then you take all that against the margins that we printed and we just – we feel fantastic about the pricing and the overall execution this year. And again, we’re going to go out and do it again in ‘23.
Greg Peters:
Just a point in your answer, you mentioned the renewal premium change. Can you talk about your perspective on what’s going on with the renewal rate change, which seems to be trending down?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Again, we’re executing at a very granular level, looking at what it is we need to do by account. And you look at that 10.1% overall renewal premium change, very strong near-record levels. And the fact that there is a little bit of movement back and forth between rate and exposure to us almost inconsequential. So you can look at that 0.5 point of change in isolation and try to make something out of it. We look at the overall production picture, and it just looks fantastic. So – and again, Greg made a really important comment in his remarks, which is we’re – the execution you see is balancing a bunch of things going on. On the one hand, there is headwinds and some uncertainty. We’ve got inflation in the marketplace, supply chain is – hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels. We’ve got weather volatility. We’ve got reinsurance. We’ve got social inflation we’ve talked about over the years. So on the one hand, that continues to be a headwind for us, and we take that into account. But on the other hand, we’ve got a bunch of years of very strong pricing and look at where the margins are today. So the rate change of 4.5% and the overall RPC doesn’t happen to us. That’s a very deliberate execution on our part, taking into account everything that we see in front of us.
Greg Peters:
Great. And just the last clarification point, you talked about the inflation factors. And I think in the comments, you mentioned there are some issues in umbrella, minor issues. What’s your view on inflation trends as it might affect the reserve levels for ‘23 relative to what your assumptions may have been last year? That’s it.
Dan Frey:
Hey, Greg, it’s Dan. So I don’t think anything terribly surprising. And I guess I’d step back and look at reserve development over the course of 2022 and say, full year number, $650 million of favorable reserve development. Of course, there are some lines that are going to develop a little better and some that are going to develop a little worse, but $650 million over the course of the year, favorable development in all three segments of the business. Umbrella, not really different than our overall thesis, but sort of the degree to which severity moved was a little more than we expected. So as we usually do, we’re trying to look at the data as quickly as possible and react as quickly as possible and all of that inside of a net favorable PYD. So we’re feeling very good about where the balance sheet is.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. First question, just around the excess capital position. Historically, the company has been able to easily return operating earnings and in some years, even more than debt of shareholders. We’ve never seen this level of first of all, exposure growth and also just seeing the retention go up on the property CAT Treaty, are we at a point yet where I guess the growth and the risk of the business could start to impact capital return decisions?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Ryan. Good morning. It’s Dan. Yes, look, I think we’ve talked even a couple of years ago about the fact that we were seeing an increase in the level of top line growth. We knew we were going to need to hold more capital to reflect both a bigger top line book of business, which brings with it a higher level of reserves on the balance sheet. And so we said at that time, look, don’t expect us to continue to be able to return nearly 100% in terms of operating earnings between buybacks and dividends. I think what you see in 2022, in particular, is the fact that we had a good strong capital position coming out of 2021. Remember, earnings in the fourth quarter of last year were tremendously strong. So we probably exited last year with a little more capital than we might have forecasted we were going to end the year. So what we’re doing in 2022 with capital management and as we go into ‘23 is considering all the things that you just said, that continued outlook for top line growth, where the balance sheet is from a reserve perspective, what our reinsurance programs are and what our property exposures look like. And we were very comfortable returning what we just did in the fourth quarter.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And then a follow-up for Michael, just thinking about the rate you are taking on the homes side, is there a way to kind of compartmentalize that in terms of how much of the rate is toward attritional type losses versus how much is budgeting for higher caps? I am not sure if there is, but I would be curious if you had any perspective on that?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Ryan. Thanks for the question. I would say, broadly speaking, it’s sort of hard to compartmentalize because the majority of the rate we are taking is base rate. Now again, the numbers that we give you are renewal premium change. So, just to clarify, right, renewal premium change is rate and values, and we have talked about the fact that the RPC numbers that you see certainly include both. And our outlook for 2023, where we indicate that renewal premium change is going to go north from here, is driven by further increases in both rate and values. But in terms of attritional loss versus CAT loss, again, it’s fairly broad-based rate across the book. So, there is not really a significant differentiation there.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from David Motemaden with Evercore ISI.
David Motemaden:
Thanks. Good morning. Michael or actually, Dan, sorry about that. Dan, could you just elaborate a little bit more on the financial impacts of non-renewing the aggregate reinsurance outside of a higher potential catastrophe load? I think when you put it on, there was a 50 basis point headwind to the underlying combined ratio, which obviously was offset by lower CAT load, but that was back in 2019, so I am sure it’s changed. It doesn’t sound like you expect a noticeable impact on the property loss ratio or the total company expense ratio. So, just wondering if you could just sort of talk through the puts and takes of non-renewing that aggregate?
Dan Frey:
Sure, David. So, a couple of things, in 2022, we did not attach the treaty, right. So, we didn’t hit the underlying, so it didn’t have any beneficial impact in 2022’s results. You are right that when we first entered into the treaty, which was at the beginning of 2019, we said at the time that the impact of the incremental ceded premium from that treaty was going to have about 0.5 point adverse impact on underlying results because of the impact on the denominator. In 2019, we told you that we placed – it’s the same $500 million layer in all four years. In 2019, we have told you that we placed 85% of the layer. In 2022, we only placed 45% of the layer. So, in sort of broad sweeping terms, you could expect that the absence – the impact in 2022 on the underlying would have been about half as much as it was in 2019. And so that’s what the year-over-year comparison will look like in 2023. So, maybe somewhere around 0.25 (ph) of a point.
David Motemaden:
Got it. And then just following up on that, is that something and you also mentioned just the relative cost of goods sold advantage from buying less reinsurance. Does that benefit something you are looking to price or just allow to flow through in pricing as opposed to falling to the bottom line just based on your commentary, it sounds like that might be the case, but maybe elaborate on that as well.
Dan Frey:
Yes. I don’t think it’s really big enough to impact the way we think about the pricing on the property book overall. I mean – so again, we placed 45% of the $500 million layer. We didn’t attach it. If you look across the business, we have got $8 billion or $9 billion worth of property premium. It goes into our consideration of how do we think about pricing in our underwriting appetite. But we said sort of from the first day we bought that treaty and we sort of would have been happy if we bought it or almost as happy if we didn’t buy it, it was sort of on the margin. So, the absence of it is not really going to have any impact on the way we view pricing adequacy and property.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Thank you. And then coming back to Michael, just wondering, I think in the past, I have heard you guys talk about mid-90s combined ratio in auto. And you said you thought you could get to written rate adequacy still by ‘23. Maybe just one, is that still the right combined ratio to think about you guys are targeting? And then any sort of view on timing of when you think you can get there?
Michael Klein:
Sure, David. I think in terms of the target, obviously, it’s impacted by a lot of things. I think we have said mid-90s or even a range on the upper end of the mid-90s is actually, I think what we have talked about historically. Certainly, investment yields are better than they were when we talked about that. But I think broadly speaking, you can think of that range as where we are trying to get to. And again, as I have described last quarter and reiterated this quarter, we think that written pricing will get to adequacy on the majority of the business by midyear. So, again, that’s a leading indicator of what you are going to see in GAAP results, right. So, I have also talked about the price we are taking will earn its way into our results over time. This morning, I have said you will see the benefit sort of throughout ‘23 and beyond. I think what’s important to note is the comment we made this morning about the growing impact of earned rate on the auto results this quarter, that impact will grow through 2023 as we have taken – you see more and more written RPC in the book of business as the year goes forward this year. We have talked about higher levels of written RPC in 2023 that paves the way for increased earned rate impacting the book of business quarter-over-quarter-over-quarter as you go into 2023. So, I think those are the breadcrumbs we are trying to give you in terms of how to lay out your expectations for next year. Obviously, the million-dollar question for everybody in ‘23 is what happens to loss experience and where the loss trends go from here. And that’s the – if you sort of lay out your own view of earned rate versus what’s going to happen to loss trend that will sort of help you figure where you think the lines are going to cross.
David Motemaden:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi. Thanks. Good morning. Michael, maybe picking up on your last comment, I mean you say that you guys are going to reach within rate adequacy in personal auto. So, what are you guys assuming for frequency and severity from here when you make that comment?
Michael Klein:
Yes. Elyse, I think we are not going to get into specifics on frequency and severity assumptions for next year. I think what we have talked about pretty consistently is we have been booking to the loss experience that we have seen, those booked trends remain double digit as we talk – as we sit here today, talking about the fourth quarter. And again, we have pretty consistently talked about observing double-digit severity trends in the book. Frankly, that’s a property comment and an auto comment. And is the severity and loss pressure that we are contending with. And we have also said that we have been factoring those increased costs into our expectations, both in terms of the actual experience and our outlook. But I don’t think we are going to put a number on the forecast severity and frequency trends beyond that.
Elyse Greenspan:
Then on the reinsurance program, can you give us a sense of – an absolute sense of how much your reinsurance costs went up? And then on the capital side, as you guys have added more volatility right by retaining additional CAT losses in ‘23, how could that affect your capital allocation? Should we expect lower buyback in the second quarter and third quarter? And could this even impact the excess capital that you would have for new business growth?
Dan Frey:
So, a couple of things, Elyse, it’s Dan. We are not going to go into the details of reinsurance pricing. What I was trying to communicate in my comments was when we consider the pricing that we are getting on the direct business that we are writing in our management and terms and conditions. We don’t expect the higher pricing for reinsurance to have much of an impact on our margins. And again, the change in the overall treaty, I don’t think it’s going to have a significant impact on our capital position, I really think of it as sort of business as usual. We made the comment that the attachment employee increase is sort of in line with our increase in property premiums. So, the attachment point went up 16% or 17%. Our premium volume in 2022 compared to 2021 was up 15% or 16% or 17% in both business insurance and personal insurance I don’t think it’s going to have a dramatic impact on – it does not have a significant impact on our view of capital adequacy now. And I don’t think it’s going to have a significant impact on the way you see us behave from a capital perspective in 2023.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Meyer Shields from ABW.
Meyer Shields:
Thanks. Good morning all. A quick question on, I guess the quota share arrangement. Can you talk about – and I am putting this as binary, and it’s probably not. But can you talk about why Travelers is going through sort of quota share arrangements to capitalize on the hard property market as opposed to your own excess and surplus science paper?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Meyer, it’s we have got all the flexibility in our property business and in our other businesses with E&S paper and otherwise to do whatever it is we want to do. This was an opportunity for us to work a little bit more closely with Fidelis. We think they are interesting in what they do and wanted to understand it a little bit better. And they are in some businesses that we just haven’t historically been in. And so in cases like that, it’s not the only place we have done it. But in cases like that, we look to leverage the capabilities of other talented underwriters and this is just one of those opportunities.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. No, that makes sense. And then a quick question for Michael. You talked a little bit about, I think un-quantified the impact of accident year ‘22 loss take increases in the fourth quarter, did that change have a meaningful impact on the indicated rate need?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Meyer. Again, I would say every quarters of additional experience where we see double-digit loss increased experience impacts our rate need, it impacts our loss experience. The good news is it factors into the evidence we have to go to regulators to ask for rate increases. So, it certainly, the additional quarter of sort of double-digit severity did put additional upward pressure on our rate indications and that’s what we are factoring into the indications were taken to the department in early 2023.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Prefect. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Alex Scott with Goldman Sachs.
Alex Scott:
Hi. Good morning. I had one follow-up on the personal auto. We saw a peer of yours that’s had severity sort of picking up maybe faster than they even were expecting earlier in the year and as well as bodily injury that’s sort of being settled at this point. Just wanted to see, is that something you have looked at harder in your book, how confident are you that you are fully capturing the severity in the way you are reserving on the auto? Do you feel comfortable with where that is headed into 2023 and the starting point here?
Michael Klein:
Sure. This is Michael. Maybe I will start and Dan can speak to the reserving element of it. Certainly, as I talked about the prior period comparison in auto, we are seeing severity across auto physical damage coverages and bodily injury coverages. We have talked about both auto physical damage and bodily injury and either prepared remarks or Q&A sort of throughout the year. We have certainly spent more time talking about auto physical damage, but bodily injury severity trends have been elevated throughout the year. I think we have talked about them being elevated, but consistent with our expectations. They were a little worse in Q4, which is why we call them out. But we have booked to that in our Q4 results. They were also an element of the prior period – current year prior quarter development that I called out in the prepared remarks as well. So, they are in the loss estimates that we booked for the quarter and the full year.
Dan Frey:
Alex, it’s Dan. Just in terms of the balance sheet, I think we made this comment last quarter as well. We were pretty consistent in 2020 and 2021 in saying that we felt we were being appropriately cautious in allowing for the elevated level of uncertainty in the environment at that time when we were making our loss picks, including in personal insurance. And I think that’s continued to proven to hold up. As Michael said, our expectation was always that bodily injury severity, not only was elevated, but the trend slope was upward moving on that. And so I think when you take into consideration the fact that we were sort of intentionally reflecting an elevated level of uncertainty in ‘20 and ‘21 and trying to continuously react to the most recent data as it comes in to this point all the way through the end of 2022, our reserves for prior years have held up just fine.
Alex Scott:
That’s really helpful. Thank you. And then my follow-up is on workers’ comp actually. We were just looking at some of the NCCI stuff out there. I mean it looks like in ‘23, maybe there is a bit more pressure on workers’ comp pricing than even in the recent years. I appreciate though that there is also an improving starting point for ultimate loss ratios just based on the way that the development has been trending. So, when I think about all those things, I mean can you help me think through what that means for accident year loss ratios in ‘23, just at a high level and whether we should be thinking about that as a pressure point?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Alex, let me start, and I will look at Greg, if I missed something here. So, renewal price change was mid-single digits positive, as you heard from Greg. Given the durations of the liability, we take a pretty cautious view on how we think about loss trend and the outlook for that. And so you would say pricing is a little bit positive, you would say loss trends negative. And the net of those two things would probably be a little bit negative as we think about next year. I think the question is going to be what’s loss trend going to do because it has – over the last few years or more than that surprised us to the benign side. And so we will just have to see where the losses come in and then take a look at the calendar year results. But again, I would just say workers’ comp has been a fantastic line for us. And we think the outlook for it is positive as well.
Alex Scott:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Yaron Kinar with Jefferies.
Yaron Kinar:
Good morning everybody. First question, just going back to the CAT load. So, I think we are seeing a non-renewal of the property ad cover, a shift up in XOL retention, maybe some additional CAT coming in from Fidelis the quota share as well. How should we think about that kind of in aggregate as we think about 2023, does that essentially mean that we should think about maybe a lower aggregate loss ratio, but maybe some additional volatility?
Alan Schnitzer:
I don’t think that’s where I would go Yaron on that. Tell me what you would look at that would lead you to look for a lower aggregate loss ratio?
Yaron Kinar:
Well, I would think that more cat-exposed business would have a lower attritional loss ratio coming with it, provide retention rates, we have a lower return on additional loss year as well.
Dan Frey:
Yes. I think you are really talking on the margins. I don’t think we are very – we are significantly changing the mix of the property book we write in terms of what its cat-exposed profile is. Fidelis, again, at those levels and a portion of what they write is going to be cat-exposed. But at that level, that’s going to have a very small impact on our overall base of premiums. We look at the CAT results over the last few years. And I think like everyone sort of continually update our view of – and for us, it’s importantly – it’s weather losses, not just what falls into the catastrophe bucket, right, because we have got sort of a more restrictive definition of what CAT is than most other folks. But it’s really not a significant change. So, we don’t see a significant change in the relative percentage of the book that’s CAT exposed. We don’t see a significant change despite some changes in reinsurance, I would describe those changes in reinsurance relative to the property book as a whole as pretty modest. So, I don’t think it dramatically changes our CAT profile. So, I don’t really think it’s going to have a significant impact on the way we think about the property book going forward.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. That’s very helpful. And then maybe shifting to Michael’s world, were there any entry year catch-ups in personal auto this quarter?
Michael Klein:
Yes, Yaron, it’s Michael. I think to your question, we did have a modest impact from re-estimation of prior quarters. And I talked about the auto physical damage, the frequency and the bodily injury as the drivers of the period-to-period change. There was really some prior year re-estimation sort of across a number of factors in the book, but again, it was modest.
Yaron Kinar:
And is it something you can quantify or not at this time?
Michael Klein:
Yes. I mean it was, I would say, about a point, a point or two points kind of – and again, it varied a little bit by coverage, but call it around one point or so.
Yaron Kinar:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
That concludes the Q&A session. I now turn the call over to Ms. Goldstein.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much. I appreciate your time this morning. I know there were several people left in queue. So, as usual, please feel free to follow-up after. Thanks so much. Have a good day.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Third Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 19, 2022. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our third quarter 2022 results. We released our press release, financial supplement, and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. I'd like to start by acknowledging the devastation and loss of life caused by hurricanes Ian and Fiona. We're thinking of all those who have been impacted and are supporting the Red Cross's disaster relief efforts. In addition, as always after events like these we're focused on taking care of our customers. We're on track to meet our objective of resolving 90% of our property claims arising out of the storms within 30 days. My thanks to all our claim colleagues who are working hard to make that happen. Moving to our results, we're pleased to report this morning a solid bottom line for the quarter particularly in light of the significant industry wide catastrophe losses. Strong and improved underwriting profitability in our commercial business segments. Progress addressing the environmental headwinds facing the personal insurance industry. A meaningful contribution from net investment income, including positive returns from our alternative investment portfolio, notwithstanding the challenging equity market. Very strong production in all three of our business segments, resulting in strong growth in net written premiums, and another quarter of successful execution on a number of important strategic initiatives. Core income for the quarter was $526 million, or $2.20 per diluted share, generating core return on equity of 7.9%. These results benefited from record net earned premiums of $8.6 billion up 10% over the prior year quarter, and a solid underlying combined ratio of 92.5%. The nine months core to non-equity was 10.9%. Given the challenging environmental issues impacting the personal insurance industry, these consolidated results once again demonstrate the benefit of our diversified portfolio of businesses. We're particularly pleased with the continued strong underlying results in our commercial businesses. Looking at the two commercial segments together, the aggregate BI-BSI underlying combined ratio was an excellent 88% for the quarter. As expected results in personal insurance were impacted by elevated severity in both auto and home. As you'll hear from Michael, we're continuing to make progress addressing the environmental loss cost issues. In terms of catastrophe losses, as I've described before, strategic efforts we have undertaken in recent years have enabled us to more effectively manage our exposure to catastrophes and more efficiently mobilize our claim response. And while there is always the potential for us to have outsize exposure to an event, those efforts contributed to losses for us from hurricane Ian that based on current estimates are favorable relative to our corresponding market share. That's consistent with our experience over the past five years. Odd share of the industry's property CAT losses over that period has been meaningfully lower than our corresponding market share. Our capabilities position us well for a kind of increasing frequency and severity of losses from natural catastrophe. Turning to investments. Our high quality investment portfolio generated net investment income of $505 million after-tax for the quarter, reflecting high returns from our fixed income portfolio and positive returns in our non-fixed income portfolio. Our strong operating results over the past few quarters together with our solid balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 7% over the past year, after making important investments in our business and continuing to return excess capital to shareholders. During the quarter, we returned $722 million of excess capital to our shareholders, including $501 million of share repurchases. Turning to the top line. Thanks to excellent execution by our colleagues in the field and the strong franchise value we offer to our customers and distribution partners. We grew net written premiums by 10% this quarter to a record $9.2 billion. In business insurance net written premiums grew by 9%. Renewal premium change was very strong at an historically high 10.2%, while pure renewal rate change of 5% was higher than in the first half of the year. Retention remained very strong at 86%. And new business increased 9% in the prior year period. Underneath the headline numbers, execution in terms of rate and retention at a segmented level continued to be exceptional. In Bond & Specialty Insurance net written premiums increased by 8% driven by excellent production in both our surety and management liability businesses. Surety net written premiums were up 18%. Management liability premiums were up 4%, driven by renewal premium change of 9%, retention that increased to 89% and 20% growth in new business. In Personal Insurance, renewal premium change was meaningfully higher both year-over-year and sequentially as we continue to address the environmental headwinds. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. Before I turn the call over to Dan, I'd like to comment on a public policy issue. Hurricane Ian puts a spotlight on the troubled condition of the Florida insurance market. Other states may be headed for similar challenges. As policymakers consider how best to address the availability and affordability of insurance, we would urge them to consider the impacts of the unhealthy tort environment, fraud and abuse by a few that impact too many and regulatory practices that undermine free market principles. I believe those factors are at least as consequential as the weather itself to the industry's ability to provide our communities with effective and efficient ways to manage risk. We're looking forward to being a participant in constructive conversations about solutions in the days ahead. Something's up building on our strong results so far this year, we're confident about our outlook. Our commercial lines businesses are generating terrific results for achieving meaningful price increases in personal lines. And our high quality investment portfolio is poised to generate meaningfully higher levels of fixed income NII going forward. When we combine that and the success we've had with our performance transform called action. We're very confident in our ability to continue to create shareholder value over time. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the third quarter was $526 million and core return on equity was 7.9%. On a year-to-date basis, core ROE as a healthy 10.9%. Our after-tax underlying underwriting gain of $478 million was once again very strong. We generated the record earned premium and reported an underlying combined ratio of 92.5%. In both Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty, the underlying combined ratios were particularly good and improved from the prior year quarter. While in personal insurance, the underlying combined ratio was elevated. Greg, Jeff and Michael will provide more detail on each segments results in a few minutes. The expense ratio for the quarter of 28.1% was our best ever quarterly results, having improved 1.3 points from last year's third quarter. As a reminder, the expense ratio has improved even as we continue to increase our significant investment in strategic initiatives. With the improvement driven by our focus on productivity and efficiency coupled with strong top line growth. In our earnings call last quarter, we told you that we expected the expense ratio to be around 29% for the full year. And with the year-to-date expense ratio at 28.7%, it looks like we'll do a little better than 29%. Our third quarter results include $512 million of pre-tax catastrophe losses with $326 million related to hurricane Ian. We hold ourselves accountable for managing our CAT exposures over time. And Ian is another illustration of our industry leading expertise. As you heard from Alan, based on available industry estimates for Ian, Travelers share of losses looks to be well below our weighted average market share in the affected states. The investments we've made in talent, technology and sophisticated peril-by-peril modeling are paying off in terms of risk selection, pricing segmentation, risk mitigation, and our industry leading claim response capabilities. Regarding CAT losses and reinsurance on a year-to-date basis through September 30th, we've accumulated $1.4 billion of qualifying losses for the aggregate retention of $2 billion on our property aggregate catastrophe XOL treaty. A couple of additional comments on reinsurance. Based on what we're hearing from the reinsurance community, it sounds like the market is in for higher pricing and capacity constraints. In terms of primary carriers, that's going to impact some much more than others. For two reasons, we would expect to be less impacted than others. First, as a disciplined gross line underwriter, we just don't buy that much reinsurance compared to many others. Second, we have a long track record of strong underwriting performance, consistently outperforming the industry. The upshot of those factors is that we generally expect to be able to obtain the reinsurance coverage we need at acceptable prices. Also, because we're less reliant on reinsurance, we should be less affected by price increases and capacity constraints. With less of an impact on our cost structure, we should have the option to expand our margin advantage or to reflect that cost advantage in our pricing, making us more competitive for attractive new business opportunities. Turning to prior year reserve development, we had total net favorable development of $20 million pre-tax in the third quarter. In Business Insurance net unfavorable PYD of $61 million was driven by a $212 million charge related to our annual asbestos review, largely offset by better than expected loss experienced in workers comp across a number of accident years, as well as favorable development in property. In Bond & Specialty net favorable PYD of $63 million was driven by better than expected results in fidelity and surety as well as the management liability plug. Personal Insurance had $18 million of net favorable PYD with modest movements in both auto and home. One additional comment on asbestos. Loss activity and the level of deaths related to measles silioma [ph] did moderate somewhat in the most recent data available for review, but not to the degree we had projected. Nonetheless, the long-term trend is that measles silioma mortality rates are declining. After tax net investment income decreased by 22% from the prior year quarter to $505 million. As expected, returns in our non-fixed income portfolio were below last year's excellent results. Although we were pleased that the alternative portfolio generated positive income, despite the significant downturn in the broader equity markets. Fixed maturity NII was higher than in the prior year quarter, reflecting both the higher level of invested assets and the impact of higher yields. With interest rates having moved higher during the third quarter, we are again raising our outlook for fixed income NII, including earnings from short term securities to approximately $500 million after tax in the fourth quarter, and approximately $540 million on average per quarter in 2023, with an estimated $515 million in the first quarter, growing to an estimated $570 million in the fourth quarter. New money rates as of September 30th, were about a 150 basis points higher than what is embedded in the portfolio. And with rates having moved up again in October, a difference is now around 200 basis points. As it relates to our non-fixed income investments. Let me take this opportunity to remind you that results for our private equities, real estate partnerships and hedge funds are generally reported to us on a one quarter lag. Since our non-fixed income returns tend to directionally follow the broader equity markets, we expect the downturn experienced by the broader market in the third quarter to impact our fourth quarter results. Turning to Capital Management, operating cash flows for the quarter of $2.5 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than our target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of more than $1.4 billion. Interest rates increased and spreads continue to widen during the quarter and as a result, our net unrealized investment loss increased from $3.8 billion after tax at June 30 to $6.3 billion after tax at September 30. As we've discussed in prior quarters, the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses generally do not impact how we manage our investment portfolio. We regularly hold fixed income investments to maturity, the quality of our fixed income portfolio is as always very high. And changes in unrealized gains and losses have little impact on the expected cash flow from those investments, our statutory surplus or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses was $111.90 at quarter end, up 2% from year-end and up 7% from a year-ago. We returned $722 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $501 million and dividends of $221 million. We have approximately $2.5 billion of capacity remaining under the most recent share repurchase authorization from our Board of Directors. To sum it all up, we had another very good quarter in light of the impact from Ian, but strong premium growth in all three segments, terrific underlying underwriting profitability in our commercial businesses, and further improvement to our outlook for fixed income NII. All of that, combined with another quarter of progress on important strategic initiatives has us well positioned to continue to grow at attractive returns. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Greg for discussion of Business Insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance had an excellent quarter with segment income of $471 million. We're particularly pleased with our exceptional underlying combined ratio, which improved to 90% for the quarter. This result is a testament to our execution and focus on achieving our target returns. The underlying loss ratio increased by about a point as the benefit of earned pricing was more than offset by the comparison to both the low level of property losses and the favorable impact associated with the pandemic in the prior year quarter. The increase in the underlying loss ratio was more than offset by a lower expense ratio that benefited from our ongoing strategic focus on productivity and efficiency. Net written premiums of $4.4 billion were up 9% over the prior year quarter, with growth in all domestic markets and lines of business. Premiums benefited from strong renewal premium change and retention, both of which were once again historically high, as well as higher levels of new business. Turning to domestic production for the quarter, renewal premium change of 10.2% was once again exceptionally strong. RPC included renewal rate change of 5%, a tick up from the second quarter and strong exposure growth. Retention remained very strong at 86% and new business premium was more than $500 million, up 9% over the prior year. We're pleased with the strong production results and the excellent execution by our colleagues in the field. Given our high quality book, as well as several years of segmented rate increases, and improvements in terms and conditions, we're thrilled to continue to produce historically strong retention levels. The rate gains we achieved in the quarter reflect our deliberate execution, which balanced the persistent headwinds and uncertainty in the current environment with the improvement in profitability across our portfolio after several years of strong pricing. As always, we'll continue to execute our granular pricing, careful management of deductibles, attachment points, limits, sub-limits and exclusions to maintain profitable growth. As for the individual businesses, in Select, renewal premium change remains healthy at 10.6%, while retention of 83% was up two points from the prior year quarter. New business was up 8% from the prior year quarter, driven by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product. In middle market, renewal premium change remained very strong at over 9%, while retention was higher year-over-year and sequentially at an excellent 89%. New business premium of $271 million was up 5% over the prior year. To sum up, Business Insurance had another terrific quarter. We're pleased with our execution and driving strong financial results while continuing to invest in the business for long-term profitable growth. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeffrey Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty had an outstanding quarter on both the top and bottom lines. Segment income was $242 million, up 39% from the prior year quarter, driven by record underlying underwriting income, and a higher level of net favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio was a terrific 78.4% and improvement of five points from the prior year quarter, reflecting both the benefit of earned pricing and about a two point impact from the favorable re-estimation of losses for the first two quarters of 2022. Turning to the top line, net written premiums grew 8% in the quarter to a record high with contributions from all our businesses. Domestic Surety grew an outstanding 18% in the quarter driven by larger average bond premiums. Domestic management liability renewal premium change remains strong at 9% while we improve retention by a point to a terrific 89%. We're also pleased that we increase new business 20% from the prior year quarter, as we leverage the investments we've made and continue to make in our competitive advantages to grow these profitable businesses. So both top and bottom line results for Bond & Specialty were again terrific this quarter, reflecting continued excellent execution across our business and the value of our market leading products and services to our customers and distribution partners. And now I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff and good morning, everyone. For the third quarter, Personal Insurance reported a combined ratio of 107.2% up approximately two and a half points compared to the prior year quarter, primarily driven by a higher underlying combined ratio. The four point increase in the underlying combined ratio reflects the continuing environmental challenge of elevated loss severity in both automobile and homeowners. The loss impacts were partially offset by a two point reduction in the expense ratio. For the quarter, catastrophe losses were $285 million and included losses from Hurricane Ian, most of which are Florida automobile losses. Catastrophes were two points lower than the prior year quarter, which included Hurricane Ida. Net written premiums for the quarter grew 13% primarily driven by very strong price increases in both domestic automobile and Homeowners & Other. In automobile, the third quarter combined ratio was 112.2%, including nearly eight points of catastrophe losses. The underlying combined ratio was 103.9%, an increase of 6.9 points relative to the prior year quarter. The increase reflects another quarter of elevated vehicle replacement and repair costs, and to a lesser extent the continued return toward pre-pandemic driving and claim frequency levels. Our primary response to these environmental challenges is higher pricing. We were pleased with our progress this quarter building out our actions to increase rates over the past few quarters. While pricing continues to gain momentum, it will still take some time for rate actions to fully earn into our results. In Homeowners & Other, the third quarter combined ratio was 102.3% and improvement relative to the third quarter of 2021 as catastrophe losses in property were lower. The underlying combined ratio of 94.9% increased about a point and a half from the prior year quarter. We continue to experience higher loss severity related to a combination of labor and material price increases in the quarter. But that loss pressure was largely offset by the current quarter benefit of earned pricing, lower non-catastrophe weather losses and a lower expense ratio. Turning to quarterly production, we continue to make excellent progress and achieving pricing increases. I'll discuss Homeowners & Other production first this morning before spending a bit more time on automobile. For Domestic Homeowners & Other, renewal premium change increased to 14.1% and retention decreased slightly to 83% both consistent with our expectations. We expect renewal premium change to continue at these levels for the remainder of 2022. Looking ahead to 2023, we expect renewal premium change to increase above these already very strong levels, as we implement additional insured value increases. For domestic automobile, renewal premium change increased to 8.1%, while retention was 83% also consistent with our expectations. During the quarter, we implemented price increases in 26 states at an average of about 8.5%. We expect that domestic automobile renewal premium change will get into double-digits in the fourth quarter and be in the mid-teens throughout 2023. Written pricing should reach adequacy in most states representing the majority of our business between now and mid-2023 and that pricing will earn into our results over time. In addition to increased pricing, we're also implementing additional non-rate actions, including further tightening underwriting criteria, restricting binding authority for certain agents in certain states, and removing our auto product from comparative riders in California and Florida. These actions will help us manage growth and improve profitability. Personal Insurance has a strong track record of financial performance demonstrated by over 40% net written premium growth and 97% combined ratio for the five-year period from 2017 to 2021. While we and the industry continue to face near-term environmental headwinds, we remain confident in our ability to deliver attractive returns over time, while continuing to build the business for the future. Now I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. And we are ready to open up for Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Greg Peters from Raymond James. Your line is open.
Gregory Peters:
Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. I guess I'm going to start out with the expense ratio improvement. Dan, you talked about it being a combination of top line productivity and efficiency. And now the target is a little bit below 29 for the year, maybe you could give us a breakdown of where the improvements are coming from? And more importantly, it seems like the trend is going to continue. The trend of improvement should continue beyond just this year. Maybe you can comment a little bit on that.
Dan Frey:
Sure, Greg. It's pretty broad based and it's sort of the continuation of the theme that we've seen, really now for the past three, or four, or even five years of making important investments in strategic initiatives. At the same time, we focus on productivity and efficiency, and grow the top line in all three segments. So what you see is just a consistent pattern of expense increases at a rate that's well below the rate that we're growing, growing the top line. In terms of, whether we expect that continue or providing outlook going forward, we'd said probably a year and a half ago or so that we've gotten down to 30. And we were pretty comfortable at that level, then we said we got down to 29. And we were going to be pretty comfortable with that level. At 28.7 on a year-to-date basis, I'd still put that in the around 29 bucket. As Alan has talked about many times what we liked about our focus on productivity and efficiency and expenses is it gives us optionality, we can continue to make important investments, which we will, we could let it drop to the bottom line, we could reflect it in more competitive pricing, and there's no reason for us. And we're not going to declare at this point, what we think that's going to look like next year or a year or two out. So I'd suffice it to say that in the 29 neighborhood is a number that we're still pretty comfortable with and 28.7 through the first nine months feels really good.
Gregory Peters:
Thanks, thanks for the answer. I guess the second question will be just on reinsurance. And I know you're pretty upfront in your record of being a gross line underwriter stands out, stands by itself. So I guess when I think of the treaties you do have in place like the aggregate XOL treaty, and whatever access loss property cover you have in place, you mentioned that pricing is probably going to change for the market next year. What are you hearing about how those particular programs for The Travelers might evolve? And I guess what I'm getting at is, should we expect increased retentions for The Travelers in '23 and '24's result?
Dan Frey:
I think Greg, too early to say. We'll talk about the one-one renewals when we know how things turned out, which we'll do probably at the -- in the fourth quarter call. I like the point of the comments today, we're really to just reinforce for folks that one, we're not a big user of reinsurance, especially relative to some other parts of the market; and two, our track record and our long tenure with a lot of our trading partners, as is pretty confident that we're going to be able to place what we want to place at appropriate prices, the CAT aggregate XOL treaty, specifically, we've said -- I think we've said, every year we had it. We'd either buy it or not, depending on what we thought the pricing level was relative to our own appetite. And you've seen us place anywhere from 55% of that treaty to 85% of that treaty, depending on the pricing environment. And if there's a year where we decide to not place any of it, we'll be perfectly fine with that. But that's a decision we'll make as we go through the renewal process.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Greg it's Alan. I would just add to that, to Dan's point, whether retentions go up or they don't go up who knows. But I think the important point is, given the strategic way we think about reinsurance and given the strength of our underwriting, we're going to have the flexibility to make the right decision for our business.
Gregory Peters:
Makes sense. Thanks, Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. My first question, so hurricane Ian, right seems like it's going to be a pretty large event. I know you guys talked about below market share, but insured losses, probably $50 billion to $60 billion, which I think really as the impact to move pricing. So I was hoping to get your view there, Alan. And then, if you can tie that back, you guys did make a comment about right being a little less reliant on what's happening in the reinsurance markets who can be more competitive on the pricing front? So how do you think price plays out given this large event and in the reinsurance dynamic as well?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, good morning, Elyse, and thank you. Just to start with basics, pricing is a function of rate adequacy. And given what we all expect to happen to reinsurance, there's going to be a rate need. On top of that, certainly as it relates to property, there's going to be capacity constraints that are -- that will be significant, I suspect across the market. And I think on top of those things, which are probably largely quantifiable, it was just a big storm, maybe rivaling Katrina. And that's just going to impact the way that the market thinks about risk. So we would expect that constellation factors to put certainly upward pressure on property pricing and potentially extended to other aspects of the market as well, we'll see. But certainly, as it relates to property, we would expect there to be upward pressure on pricing.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thanks. And then my second question, you guys called out the impact of the favorable accident, your adjustment within management liability? Could you give us more details on what drove that the specific lines? And was that better frequency or severity driven?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Elyse, it's Dan. I don't think we're going to parse it out finer than that. We have a loss pick at the start of the year, we'll look at it as we get to the midpoint of the year. And then each of the bad couple of quarters of the year the short answer is things have just come in a little better than we would have expected based on the plan. And so that's what we're reflecting in this quarter's results.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thank you.
Dan Frey:
Thanks Elyse.
Operator:
Your next question comes from a line of Ryan Tunis from Autonomous Research. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. Just a couple for me. So the -- Dan, you're talking about the NII guidance and our rates have moved since 930. Is that guide trued up for where we are today in terms of rates or is that just as of where new money was at 930?
Dan Frey:
You're getting a little fine there Ryan, in terms of whether we're going to change it every two weeks. We've seen rates move up and down a little bit. It's been fairly volatile in the last 30 days. I would say, generally speaking, it's reflective of the current environment, and I wouldn't put a specific date on it.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay. And then I think the CAT number in auto was higher than we've seen. How much of that $133 million auto CATs is from Ian? And I guess I'm just curious how certain is that estimate at this point? Is that pretty much a ground up loss or in a lot of that IBNR kind of based off of like an industry view, if that makes sense?
Dan Frey:
Sure. So it's Dan, I'll start and Michael can chime in if you want. I think we feel pretty good about that number. We watched it very closely and very carefully, as you would imagine, given the unfortunate timing, not only the unfortunate event itself, but the unfortunate timing for those of us who are accountants and actuaries trying to come up with an estimate at the end of the quarter. But we watched it all the way through the first week of October made our best estimate. At this point, a lot of it's unpaid. We look at the data, the way it continued to develop all the way through, frankly, the time we're getting ready to push the button on reporting earnings. And what came in was pretty consistent with what we'd expected before. But to be clear, we're doing it based on what we think our exposure is in the footprint of the event, and the weight claims have actually come in a couple of weeks. Since then, it's not the blunt instrument have just taken an industry estimate and ours expected market share.
Michael Klein:
Yes. And Ryan, it's Michael. I would just add part of the question might be the number relative to some of the external estimates that have been floating around for auto. And frankly, given our footprint inside Florida, we weren't surprised. And I mean, strategically, we for a while have been avoiding Southern Florida. So that means you're going to push your market share to a more -- a higher level than your statewide average in the places that you're still riding. So in the context of that in our local market share and our strategy in Florida, the numbers not surprising.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of David Motemaden from Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
David Motemaden:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. I wanted to focus on the business insurance underlying loss ratio, and there was definitely some noise in last year's quarter. So it's -- just wondering if you could clarify, if we look at the underlying loss ratio and business insurance, how much of a benefit earned pricing was during the quarter? And then maybe just talk about your view of that going forward? I know, Alan, you mentioned some uncertainty in the environment. So maybe just some high level comments around that as well.
Dan Frey:
Sure. David, it's Dan, I'll start. So as Greg gave you in his script, last year there was some good news from non-CAT property losses, and a little bit of what we felt was favorable impact related to the COVID environment. So we don't have that in this year. We do have some benefit of price versus trend, as you've seen over the last year or so and rate number come down, that number has trended down, it's now something less than a point. We're not really going to put a -- put an outlook projection on it. But you can see what rates done and exposure have done in the last few quarters. And that's been pretty steady. The only other comment I'd make related to that is, while there was noise in last year's quarter, we don't think there's a lot of noise in this year's quarter. So that's why Greg didn't really call anything out as unusual in terms of what's in this year's underlying loss ratio.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Thanks. And then maybe, if you could just talk about Alan, and maybe Greg, just talk about how your view of the rate environment in BI has changed over the last three months. And I know you guys don't typically do this, but I'm wondering if you could just give some color around rate movement by line sort of high level. I know, Alan, you just spoke about on the property side. But maybe just wondering some of the other lines and sort of how you're thinking about that going forward. Do you think we continue to see an acceleration here?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, David, let me start. And then I'll look to Greg to add anything he'd like to add. I would describe the pricing environment as strong. Overall commercial pricing is near record levels. The breadth of the pricing gains are very good. We always look at retention to give us a sign on the strength of pricing retention, really hasn't budged, it's hanging in there at very high numbers. The strong pricing led by property auto umbrella be on primary GL. So it's broad based in it at overall pricing levels that we would say are near records. You heard me say that that from here, we would expect there to be some upward pressure on pricing and property. The other end of the spectrum, you've got workers comp, where we'd expect more of the same. And the other lines will fall in between those two, reflecting the two factors that Greg mentioned, on the one hand, we continue to have headwinds from inflation and supply chain disruption and whether social inflation, reinsurance et cetera. And on the other hand, we've had pretty good pricing for a number of years that that has improved the overall returns of the portfolio. So I would say those other lines in between will reflect the balance of those two dynamics.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Thank you.
Dan Frey:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from a line of Mike Zaremski from BMO. Your line is open.
Michael Zaremski:
Hey, Greg, good morning. First question regarding capital management, if I look at kind of year-to-date dividends and repurchases. It looks like you've given back on a 100% ish of operating income, despite very strong top line growth. I feel like I recall, maybe it was a year ago or more, you talked about kind of making us kind of take into account that you needed to support that strong top line growth, which just continued to accelerate. So any thoughts there on whether you can continue to buyback at such a high ratio?
Dan Frey:
Mike, it's Dan. Thank you very much for listening to me two years ago, appreciate it. That's still the theme, I think that we -- that we'll follow here we're going to be very strongly capitalized. Nonetheless, the business does continue to generate excess capital. We'll look to deploy that excess capital if we can in a way that generates attractive returns. And when we think we've exhausted all those opportunities, we're going to do what we've done for the last 15 years and continue to give it back to shareholders. It is hard to look at, any one year or in this case, less than a year and do the ratio of buybacks and dividends relative to core income and draw a conclusion. We have said historically, and I would repeat here, it will not and cannot be a 100% going forward. We are going to need to hold on to some capital to support the business growth. What we've done this year is partly a function of where we ended 2021 with really strong performance, especially in the third and fourth quarters of 2021. That put us in the position that we started the year with probably a very robust capital position.
Michael Zaremski:
Okay, that's helpful. My last question, just kind of back to the David's question and your remarks on just the overall kind of competitive environment. How does Travelers think about the dynamic of meaningfully improved new money rates on investment income? I mean, does that kind of allow you to The Travelers or you have to fill up maybe the industry to allow that kind of let off the gas on pricing? Or is it just kind of rates have been so volatile over the last many, including today that it's tough to kind of bake in the expectation that rates stay? They so high, stay at current levels? Any thoughts there? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure. So the rate levels do impact our view of the outlook for net investment income, which you have heard from Dan. And there is some judgment involved in how much of that we put into our pricing model. But there's two things you got to keep in mind in terms of the impact of interest rates on pricing. One is that earns in overtime into the investment portfolio, because you got such a small portion of it turning over in any one year. And two, our -- what we've got mid-teens return equity objective over time. When we think about the near term, it's really we think about it as a margin over the risk free rate. And so as those interest rates go up, certainly as a function of the risk free rate, we're also increasing our return objectives. And so it's just not as simple as looking at it saying GI, investment incomes going up, pricing is coming down. It's a little bit more of a complicated assessment. And I would say the takeaway is, certainly in the short term, we wouldn't expect a very significant impact.
Dan Frey:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. A couple of them here. First, Michael, I'm just curious in your comments you talked about -- it sounds like reducing kind of your appetite on the personal auto line of business by getting off of some comparative riders et cetera, et cetera. Is that kind of where you're alluding to, because I look at your PIF growth continued to grow in personal auto. Should that kind of you think reverse trend here, as you really focus on getting profitability back in that area, that line?
Dan Frey:
Sure, Brian. Thanks for the question. I think what I would say is again, we're really focused on improving profitability. We're working to manage growth as we do that. That said in the majority of jurisdictions, we have a pretty good line of sight to rate adequacy. And so in those jurisdictions, while we're renewing accounts and writing new business for the most part we're comfortable with what's going on. The couple of jurisdictions that I did spike out are a little bit challenging in that regard. In Florida, there's currently a moratorium on file and use for a price increases, which is a change in their regulatory approach to rate filings. And in California, the Department of Insurance is still not considering auto rate increases. And so in those two states in particular, that really was what drove our decision to come off the comparative riders. Other than that, most of those actions are things that we do in the normal course that we're being a bit more aggressive on in places where profitability is challenged. But again, in most jurisdictions, we're comfortable, we're either getting or going to get the rate we think we need and focused on that and letting the growth come through. So that's really what I was trying to trying to reflect there, if that makes sense.
Brian Meredith:
Got you. Yes, that makes sense. And then Alan, a bigger picture question. I may have asked this before, but just maybe remind us, Travelers is obviously a phenomenal standard commercial lines carrier. But just looking at what happened with Hurricane Ian and the complexities of risks that continue to emerge. Give us your thoughts on whether Travelers needs to be more active, or in the Excess & Surplus lines market, if there's opportunities for you all there to maybe grow or do something?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, thanks for that, Brian. So two different questions do we need to be? No, I think we've got, all the tools in the toolkit to be successful. So there's something we need to do there, is it an opportunity, sure it could be. And I would just start by saying we already have meaningful E&S capabilities. So we've got our Northfield business. We've got Lloyd's franchise, we've got E&S capabilities in our core business, we probably write a quarter of our national property business on E&S Paper, we're doing a lot in our management liability business through E&S. So we've got a lot of E&S capability. And the ability to be creative inside our many of our admitted products, too. And so we've got a lot of flexibility to do what we want to do. So, often if we lose an opportunity to the E&S market, it's often because we don't like the risk reward equation, not because we can't do it. Having said that, over time, could there be opportunities for us to strategically expand in E&S, sure there could be. It's not anything that we feel like we can't be successful in creating shareholder value. We've got a terrific business model, and we're very comfortable with it, but sure there can be more opportunity.
Brian Meredith:
Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Joshua Shanker:
Yes, changing gears a little bit, maybe a question for David and Daniel. Is there any thoughts about crystallizing some investment losses for an opportunity redeploying the capital at a higher yield? Is there any penalty for doing that? How do you think about redeployment prematurely selling a bond at this point in time?
Dan Frey:
Josh, it's Dan, I'll start and I think Dave Rowland is on the line. And Dave could jump in as well. Other than really selectively, selling individual securities that we think are at a position where it would make sense to sell them and we could redeploy the money in a new preferable instrument that's not really been part of our strategy. We're taking a long-term view of how we manage a very high quality asset portfolio. Again, the unrealized loss doesn't cause us any concern. If we think there was significant economic value available, that's where you're going to see us make some trades, but for us, that's a very small percentage of the portfolio. I would simply say don't expect to see us make a wholesale turn over in the portfolio to realize a bunch of losses and then take higher yields on the money going forward and think economically, that's sort of a wash. And we're looking at what's best for the company from an economic perspective.
Joshua Shanker:
All right. And another easy question. Historically, you guys have a wonderful job of being fairly conservative about your catastrophe picks early on, and they've generally matured favorably, as time has gone on. When you have prior year favorable reserve development on a catastrophe, does that show up in your P&L as a negative CAT or as prior-year development?
Dan Frey:
It shows as prior year reserve development.
Joshua Shanker:
Okay, that's it. Thank you very much.
Dan Frey:
Thanks, Josh.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Josh.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Great, thanks. Good morning. First question, I think is for Michael, where you've talked about states where you're either at adequacy or you have line of sight. When you talk about anticipating double-digit premium increases in 2023, and we combined that with the policy enforced growth that we've seen so far this year. Can we infer that you'll underwrite business that's not adequately priced now, if there is line of sight to adequate pricing?
Michael Klein:
Yes, thanks, Meyer. Good question. I mean, I think the way I would just describe it, let me parse it out right. So you're looking at RPC numbers in the production highlights that reflect the written impact of the rate that we've taken on the renewal book, as the policies renew. And so the first point I'd make is when you're looking at those numbers, they're a bit of a lagging indicator of the price that we've actually gotten filed and approved with the Departments of Insurance. And so when I describe the outlook that says that we believe we're going to be adequate in most states that reflect the majority of our business by mid-year, next year, I'm talking about that written price level, at the point in time, we get that rate approval. And again, what I would say is, if we're confident that we're going to get the rates to where we want them to be, then yes, we'll renew business in the ordinary course. And we'll continue to be open for new business. Again, in most jurisdictions where we have that confidence, and by the way in most jurisdictions, that next rate increase is a single-digit number. So it's not that we're talking about a significant number of places where we're double-digit rate away from adequacy. In fact, the 8.5% increase in the 26 states that average increase across 26 states that I talked about this quarter, most of those states are additional increases on top of increases we've already gotten. So hopefully, that gives you a little bit of a flavor for our both our philosophy but also in places where we aren't necessarily adequate for how far away we think we are.
Meyer Shields:
No, that was very thorough, very helpful. Thank you. And then question for Alan, I know it's early in the process of Florida getting its act together, is there any receptivity to having the legislative reforms that you've talked about?
Alan Schnitzer:
Receptivity in the State of Florida?
Meyer Shields:
Yes, among the legislature?
Alan Schnitzer:
I'm probably not the right person to speak on behalf of the Florida Legislature. I do think that there's recognition that there's an issue there and in recent months, they have made some progress, I think, probably not enough. But I suspect they're getting to a point where something's got to give, but I certainly shouldn't speak on behalf of them.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, no, asking from your perspective, but I understand. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
The answer is, I hope so.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, that's fair.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Meyer.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Tracy Benguigui from Barclays. Your line is open.
Tracy Benguigui:
Thank you. Good morning. Dan, following up on your comments about reinsurance pricing and capacity constraints. So on a speeding perspective, when you were choosing reinsurance partner, I assume you're looking at balance sheet strength, in doing so are you excluding unrealized losses on investments? Are you looking through that as you determine who participates on your panel and also to determine their related participation?
Dan Frey:
I would say Tracy, we're looking at the long-term economic viability of our trading partners and the likelihood and confidence that we're going to get collected. So, to the degree that if someone else's in an unrealized loss position for a similar reason that we're in an unrealized loss position, meaning it is not credit driven, it is not investment portfolio property driven, it is nothing other than a function of the change in interest rates, which will definitively will reverse itself over time, then from an economic value perspective, I think for the most part, we're going to look through that.
Tracy Benguigui:
Very helpful. When I first heard of your objective of closing 90% of your property claims within 30 days, I was thinking, Gee, that could really contain loss creep. But is there anything in the litigation side or regulatory side in Florida, given Alan your public policy announcement that can impede your ability to meet that objective as it relates to Ian specifically?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think right now, Tracy, we feel pretty good about our ability to get to that level. And in fact, we had that objective in place for several years. And we're routinely successful in meeting that objective, and there's always litigation of one sort or another. And so I don't, I would expect that we'll get there. I mean, we're not there yet. So who knows, but I would expect we'll get there.
Tracy Benguigui:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome from Piper Sandler. Your line is open.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning. Thanks for taking my call. My question is, I guess, a little color on the Bond & Specialty outlook would be wonderful. Is there any reason why either business mix change or anything that's changing that business, the underwriting performance shouldn't somewhat track sort of economic and credit quality? I think of that as a credit business. But maybe things have changed.
Jeffrey Klenk:
Yes, this is Jeff. Paul, thanks for the question. We don't give a lot of outlook relative to the Bond & Specialty business. But I would re-emphasize what you said it is a credit business, we feel really good about the underlying profitability of both the Surety and the management liability components of that business. And we continue to invest for growth. So I probably leave it at that. And thanks for the question.
Alan Schnitzer:
I guess probably the other thing I would add is you could go back to the 2008 financial crisis, you could go back to the pandemic, I mean, this portfolio has been challenged in other difficult credit environments. And it's performed extraordinarily well. And it's the same underwriting philosophy. It's the same tools, it's the same et cetera. And so, we don't look at this, if you're thinking, we could be in for bumpy economic times ahead. We agree with that. But we're confident in this business and the way we manage it.
Paul Newsome:
No, I agree. It's extraordinary track record, I'm just wondering in your profitability that is unique, even for what Travelers have seen in the past. So I'm not actually suggesting that that could be a horrible quarter. I'm just thinking whether or not the current sustained, extraordinary profitability is sustainable. But second question, I wanted to ask about the just CAT exposures in general, as kind of looking back over many years, and it looks like there was, it looks like there might have been a reduction in kind of your general view of exposures of CATs. And what you want to take on relative to your business in total, but there's been so much noise over the last three years, that's hard to tell if that's really the case. And obviously, we have to have sort of an expectation to normalize CAT load. But are you essentially not changing this stuff, is your sort of appetite for CAT exposure. And I really want to talk about just next quarter, but over the years has the appetite changed at all for Travelers?
Alan Schnitzer:
Not really, Paul, when we think about our -- we write plenty of CAT exposed business and there hasn't been a really significant overall portfolio level shift. I mean, certainly, we found some geographies more attractive than others, and we've moved capital around from that perspective. But we haven't in a meaningful wholesale way withdrawn from CAT exposure, nor do we feel the need to do that going forward, we've been, I think going back probably five years taking a very thoughtful approach to taking a step back. And we've put dedicated teams in place for every peril and our objective was to be the leader and understanding the science behind that peril and the underwriting around that peril, and also to develop extraordinarily claim handling capabilities for those events. And I think that's really what's paid off for us. I don't think it's been a meaningful withdrawal from the exposure.
Paul Newsome:
Great. Thanks, guys. Congrats on the quarter.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Paul.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Phillips from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Michael Phillips:
Thanks. Good morning. Thanks for putting me in. I guess in this question given all the comments that Dan made in the opening comments about property CAT and reinsurance pricing. Maybe answers here would be more of an industry level what you think industry does, but if you want to put in what you do that that's fine, too. But theoretically, if we're paying more for property CAT reinsurance, will that translate into us charging more for our BI casualty business? Is it no, because that they're separate businesses? Yes its cost of doing business? Or is there is kind of some threshold that maybe we can make spills over into our casualty primary book that what we charge there. I know you downplay the impact on profit CAT reinsurance for you guys. But maybe your own views there or what you think the industry might do there?
Alan Schnitzer:
I'm looking at Greg, I do think that every product or the exposure sort of stands on its own. But at the same time, I think there's overall psyche in the market, and a reaction to the overall level of risk that that we perceive in the marketplace. And so is there some of that that carries over? And to what extent that the reinsurance pricing carries over, we'll find out, but it may be that that's a contributor to casualty pricing, moving up a little bit, but I think on the whole I would expect these lines to stand on their own grant.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes, I think that's the case so Alan. And that really will be reinsured by reinsurer if they think about account pricing or individual line, but balance point I think most are so discipline, they're going to be looking at the line. And just as a reminder, casualty has its own headwinds with social inflation and the reinsurer certainly had been addressing some of that incremental risk as we have on the growth side also.
Alan Schnitzer:
That's a good point, Greg.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, yes. Thanks. That makes sense. And second, I guess there's been so much talk, obviously on the headlines from personal auto. But I guess, could you say what you're seeing on the commercial side for auto in terms of just loss trends there and kind of where rate adequacy is today?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes, sure, Michael. We're making good progress that overall on the auto in terms of your question relative to personal auto, we're certainly not immune from some of the severity challenges Michael and his team are experiencing. And you can think of two cohorts of vehicles on commercial private passenger light vehicles, think light trucks, vans and that sort. And then you have the heavy vehicles. And so we're seeing a little more of that severity pressure on that first cohort that has some of the same supply and demand dynamics that that Michael's feeling, but we're continuing to make good progress on pricing and underwriting and as I share that at the recent Investor Day, we're bringing out a new auto product that we think is going to be really segmented and help us with our prospects even more.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from a line of Alex Scott from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Alex Scott:
Hey, thanks for putting me in here. First one I have for you is just a high level question on loss costs. And I've been just interested in your updated views on how you know what we're seeing in CPI inflation and how that translates to actual insurance claims inflation for the business insurance business. And just as that's evolving, things like medical costs inflation not running away from us or something, but beginning to take up a little more. Are you having to evolve your view of those things in a bigger way or do you still view that as CPI prints getting worse, you're not really fully translate into insurance claims costs?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Alex, we are always evaluating that. Practically on a daily basis, and we did increase our severity trend assumptions back in the first quarter. And then we did that with a degree of caution, knowing that there was a fair amount of uncertainty out there. And what we've seen subsequent to that in the second quarter, and again, this quarter was consistent with those expectations. So it's not that we're not seeing or feeling that severity coming through. We are, but it's within the expectations that we established back in the first quarter. Now, as it relates to medical inflation, you can't really focus on the medical CPI. Because, workers comp is different, right? We're treating workplace injuries, we're not treating chronic diseases. So the components of medical inflation, that impact workers comp are probably inflating it at a lower rate than the overall medical CPI. And my comment on overall workers comp loss trend is it continues to be benign.
Alex Scott:
Got it. That's helpful. And follow-up question I had is on the unit exposure increases, I'd imagine that the sort of real unit exposure increases the economy strength and maybe help you a little more than, just the insured value and inflation sort of impact. I think through price rate acting, or the unit exposure acting is rate. I mean, can you help me think is, is we've approach periods of time where you're lapping pretty strong economic growth. I mean, do the benefits that you get from unit exposure increases begin to erode. And is that still far enough out in the future that it's not a concern for now as we head into next year? Or is that something we need to think harder about as we get to sort of 1Q, 2Q next year?
Alan Schnitzer:
So I'm not sure that I exactly get the question, Alex, but I'll make a few comments. And if I don't get to the answer that you're looking for, let me know. But as we shared many times over more than a decade, exposure growth does contribute to margins. And there's two types of -- really two types of exposure growth, there's true unit growth, and then there's inflation. And in particular, the inflation side of exposure is a more meaningful contributor to margin than true unit growth, because that unit growth does come with some risk content. I do think the unit growth also contributes to margins, by the way, but not at the same level that inflation does. And so to the extent that continues to come in, and we'll see what happens with the economy, and we'll see what happens to exposure over time. But to the extent that does come in, it will continue to contribute to margins. Is that helpful?
Alex Scott:
Yes, that does clarify. Thank you for entertaining the question. Appreciate it.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
And your final question comes from the line of Michael Ward from Citi. Your line is open.
Michael Ward:
Hey guys, thanks. Just last one on workers comp. Growth tailed off a bit in 3Q, just wondering if there was anything to read into there from a macro perspective? And I guess, wondering along those lines, to what extent did -- would you say mix contributed to your rate acceleration in 3Q? Thanks.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Michael, it's Greg. Yes, there wasn't really any material change in workers comp for this quarter across business insurances. As Alan said, it has continued to be the laggard in terms of pricing, but again driven based on industry and certainly Travelers profitability of that line. So no real material change there. Obviously, we're getting some strong exposure growth. And that's why we're getting an overall lift in written premium there. So nothing to look into other than where the run rate has been.
Alan Schnitzer:
And on your last question, the overall mix was not a contributor in any meaningful way to the overall rate number. It was broad based.
Michael Ward:
Thank you, guys.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
And this brings us to the end of our question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call back over to Abbe Goldstein for some final closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much. We appreciate your time this morning. And as always, if there is any follow-up, please reach out directly to Investor Relations. Have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the second quarter results teleconference for Travelers. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 21, 2022. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our second quarter 2022 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, CFO; and our 3 segment presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. We are pleased to report a very strong second quarter, including an excellent bottom-line result, double-digit top line growth in all 3 segments, strong and improved profitability in our commercial business segment, progress addressing the rental headwinds facing the personal insurance industry, a meaningful contribution from net investment income and another quarter of progress on a number of important strategic initiatives. Core income for the quarter was $625 million or $2.50 per diluted share, generating core return on equity of 9.3%. These results were driven by record net earned premiums of $8.3 billion, up 9% over the prior year quarter and a solid underlying combined ratio of 92.8% -- environmental issues impacting insurance industry, consolidated results reflect the benefit of our diversified portfolio of businesses. For the 6 months, core -- was ahead of the prior year at $1.66 billion, an excellent first half result. We're particularly pleased with the continued strong underlying results for our commercial businesses. Looking at the 2 commercial businesses together, the combined BI-BSI underlying combined ratio of 2.7% for the quarter, an improvement of 1 point from the prior year quarter. Results in Personal Insurance were impacted by elevated severity in both auto and home. As you'll hear from Michael, we're on the right track in addressing the environmental issues. Excellent operations together with our balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 8% over the past year after making important investments in our business, turning excess capital to shareholders. During the quarter, we returned $725 million of excess capital to our shareholders, including $500 million of share repurchases. Turning to the top line, thanks to excellent execution by our colleagues in the field and the strong franchise value we offer to our customers and distribution partners, we grew net written premiums by 11% this quarter to a record $9 billion with, as I mentioned, each of our 3 segments growing double digits. In Business Insurance, net working premiums grew by 10%. Renewal premium change was 10.3%. That's the fourth highest quarterly renewal premium change going back more than 15 years. Renewal premium change included renewal rate change of 4.9%. Both measures moved up from the preceding quarter. Retention remained very strong at 86%. We have a high-quality book of business and keeping it as a priority. Also, as we've shared previously, strong retention is a sign of a rational and stable pricing market. Underneath the headline numbers, execution in terms of rate retention at a segmented level was excellent. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 13%, driven by excellent production in both our Surety and Management Liability businesses. Surety net written premiums were up 24%. Management Liability premiums were up 7% and driven by a rental premium change of 8.8%, retention that increased to a very strong 88% and strong new business. In Personal Insurance, net written premiums increased by 12%. We know a premium change was meaningfully higher, both year-over-year and sequentially in auto and homeowners as we continue to execute to improve returns. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. Turning to investments. Our high-quality portfolio generated net investment income of $595 million after tax for the quarter, reflecting reliable results from our fixed income portfolio and another quarter of strong returns from our nonfixed income portfolio. Speaking of investments, given the potential for a difficult economic environment ahead, we've included on Page 19 of the webcast presentation a slide breaking down the composition of our investment portfolio. Consistent with our long-time focus on risk-adjusted returns, we're underweight compared to most in terms of risk assets as a percentage of shareholders' equity. Our investment philosophy has served us well over many years and through many different market cycles. It starts with asset allocation. More than 90% of our $80 billion portfolio is invested in fixed income securities. That sets us apart. Inside that, we also have relatively high allocation to municipal bonds where the default rate has been meaningfully lower as compared to corporate bonds. Even within munis, we're discriminating. We're invested in only about 1,000 municipal issuers out of an estimated 80,000. Virtually all of our municipal bond holdings are rated AA- or higher. Our corporate bond portfolio is curated with the same level of discipline. Virtually all of it is investment grade. And within that, we are meaningful overweight AA and A credits and meaningfully underweight BBB credit. During times of economic distress, credit quality is key and in the sometimes foreseeable and sometimes unforeseeable lead up to those times, when spreads widen and volatility increases, the market doesn't allow for a graceful repositioning of a portfolio. So we stay true to the strategy that has served us well over decades. Our level of actual impairments over a long period of time has been remarkably low. In 2008 and 2009, with the Moody's default percentage reached 2% to 2.5%, our default rate never reached 1%. In the COVID charge turmoil of 2020, when the Moody's default rate at 1%, our portfolio default rate was around 10 basis points. And given the credit quality of our portfolio, the fact that we hold the vast majority of fixed income investments to maturity, decreases in market value due to rising interest rates as the market is experiencing now have little to no impact on how we run the business or how we view the strength of our capital position. In terms of our investments in alternative asset class, we don't reach for yield. Our private equity portfolio is well diversified across strategies, sectors and general partners. Our own real estate is high quality and entirely unlevered. And we have little in the way of hedge funds and higher risk assets. Although we see potential short-term headwinds from recent declines in the equity markets, we also see near-term and potentially ongoing tailwinds from higher interest rates that will benefit our returns going forward. You'll hear from Dan shortly about how the recent rise in interest rates positively impacts our outlook for fixed income NII. Like everything we do, all starts with our tower. We have a world-class investment team that is responsible for executing on our investment philosophy. Those with position-making authority have worked with us and with each other for an average of around 20 years. That reinforces the long-term perspective we bring to our investment portfolio. I'm always grateful for their excellent work. But particularly at times like this, I'm reminded of the wisdom of our approach. It has contributed to a long history of industry-leading returns and industry-low volatility. To sum things up, building on our excellent results in the first half of the year, we're confident about our outlook, benefiting from years of strategic investments as part of our performance transform called action, guided by our decades of experience successfully executing in a variety of macroeconomic conditions and supported by an outlook for improving fixed income returns. We remain well positioned to deliver industry-leading returns and shareholder value over time. With that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Daniel Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the second quarter was $625 million and core return on equity was 9.3%. These results were very strong, especially considering the high level of cat losses, which is typical seasonality for us in the second quarter. While core income declined from the prior year quarter, remember that the prior year quarter included a very benign level of cat losses and record returns from the non-fixed income portfolio. Our second quarter results include $746 million of pretax catastrophe losses. And while cats were higher year-over-year, they were not outsized relative to our modeled estimates for the second quarter. On a year-to-date basis, we've accumulated $935 million of qualifying losses toward the aggregate retention of $2 billion on our property aggregate catastrophe XOL treaty. Our after-tax underlying underwriting gain of $444 million was down slightly from the prior year quarter. We generated record levels of earned premium and reported an underlying combined ratio of 92.8%. Improvements in the underlying combined ratio in both Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty were more than offset by an increase in the underlying combined ratio in personal insurance. Greg, Jeff and Michael will provide more detail on each segment's results in a few minutes. At the same time that we continue to make significant investments in strategic initiatives, the second quarter expense ratio improved 70 basis points from last year to 29% driven by the combination of our focus on productivity and efficiency and strong top line growth. We had been expecting the full year expense ratio to be around 29.5% but now expected to be more like 29% this year, getting down to that level a little sooner than we had expected. Turning to prior year reserve development. We had total net favorable development of $291 million pretax in the second quarter. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $202 million was driven by better-than-expected loss experience in workers' comp across a number of accident years and favorable movement in CMP partially offset by an increase in general liability reserves, including for runoff operations. In Bond & Specialty, net favorable PYD of $73 million was driven by better-than-expected results in Fidelity and Surety. Personal Insurance had $16 million of net favorable PYD with modest movement in both auto and home. After-tax net investment income decreased by 13% from the prior year quarter to $595 million. We were pleased that returns in our nonfixed income portfolio were strong, but as expected, they were less favorable than last year's record quarter. Fixed maturity NII was again higher than in the prior year quarter as the benefit of higher invested assets more than offset the impact of lower average yields during the quarter. With interest rates having moved higher during the second quarter, we are again raising our outlook for fixed income NII including earnings from short-term securities to approximately $470 million after tax in the third quarter and then to $495 million in the fourth quarter. New money rates as of June 30 are about 100 basis points higher than what is embedded in the portfolio. So NII should continue to improve as the portfolio gradually turns over and as the portfolio continues to grow. Recall that results for our private equities, real estate partnerships and hedge funds are generally reported to us on a 1-quarter lag. While not perfectly correlated, our non-fixed income returns directionally follow the broader equity markets, which were down significantly during the second quarter. Through the first half of the year, the S&P 500 was down 21% with about 3/4 of that decline occurring in Q2. Accordingly, we expect that to impact our nonfixed income results next quarter. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.4 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.6 billion. Interest rates increased and spreads continued to widen during the quarter. And as a result, our net unrealized investment loss increased from $1.4 billion after tax at March 31 to $3.8 billion after tax at June 30. As we've discussed in prior quarters, the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses generally do not impact how we manage our investment portfolio. We regularly hold fixed income investments to maturity. The quality of our fixed income portfolio remains, as Alan discussed, very high. And changes in unrealized gains and losses have little impact on our statutory surplus or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $112.37 at quarter end, up 2.4% from year-end and up 8.2% from a year ago. We returned $725 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter comprising share repurchases of $500 million and dividends of $225 million. We have approximately $3 billion of capacity remaining under the most recent share repurchase authorization from our Board of Directors. It's also worth noting that in June, we early renewed our $1 billion credit facility for a 5-year term. While the size of the facility and the group of participating banks was unchanged, we reduced our annual cost of the facility primarily through lower undrawn pricing while also improving other terms and conditions. In a time of rising borrowing costs and tightening credit terms, our financial strength, strong operating performance and consistent fiscal discipline still enable us to obtain very favorable terms. You can see all the details in our 10-Q. Similarly, during the second quarter, we issued a new 4-year cat bond, providing uninterrupted coverage upon the expiration of our prior cat bonds. The new bond, Long Point Re IV Ltd increases the amount of coverage available to $575 million. The recently expired cat bonds had provided $500 million worth of coverage. Specific terms are shown on Page 20 of the webcast presentation, and we're very pleased with the results. Here again, our disciplined underwriting and consistent outperformance in the property line enabled us to increase our coverage and attain a reasonable rate online at a time when some parts of the market are finding reinsurance capacity harder to come by. Also on Page 20 of the webcast presentation, you'll find a summary of our July 1 reinsurance renewals. The structure of our main cat reinsurance program is generally consistent with the expiring program. And while as expected, we did see some price increase. It was in line with the price increases we're obtaining on the direct property premiums we're writing. So there's no adverse impact on margins. It's also worth noting that we increased the coverage under our Northeast property treaty by $150 million to $750 million, part of $850 million, above the same $2.25 billion attachment point. So to sum it up, we had an excellent quarter with double-digit premium growth in all 3 segments, solid underwriting profitability and an improved outlook for fixed income NII, all of which bodes well for our future returns. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of business insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance continues to have a strong 2022 with another terrific quarter in terms of both financial results and execution in the marketplace. Second quarter segment income was $666 million, up about 4% from the prior year quarter driven by higher net favorable prior year reserve development and higher underlying underwriting income. The quarter's very strong underlying combined ratio of 92.4% was about 1 point better than the second quarter of 2021 driven by improvement in the expense ratio resulting from the combination of the leverage from higher earned premiums and the benefits of our strategic focus on productivity and efficiency. The underlying loss ratio was about flat to the prior year quarter, reflecting the benefit of higher earned pricing as well as elevated property loss activity in the current quarter. Net written premiums were up in all domestic markets and lines of business, reaching $4.4 billion for an increase of 10%. Premiums benefited from strong renewal premium change and retention, both of which were once again historically high. Turning to domestic production for the quarter. Renewal premium change of 10.3% was once again exceptionally strong. RPC includes renewal rate change of 4.9%, which was up 0.5 points from the first quarter and exposure growth of almost 6%. Retention was very strong at 86%. New business premium was about $500 million for the quarter. We're pleased with these production results and our strong execution in the marketplace. Given our high-quality book as well as several years of segmented rate increases and improvements in terms and conditions, we're thrilled to continue to produce historically strong retention levels. The rate gains we achieved in the quarter reflect deliberate execution given the significant improvements in profitability across the portfolio while continuing the price for the persisting headwinds and uncertainty in the current environment. As always, we will continue to execute our granular pricing, careful management of deductibles, attachment points, limits, sub-limits and exclusions to achieve profitable growth. As for the individual businesses, in select, renewal premium change was strong at over 9% while retention of 83% was up 3 points from the prior year quarter. New business was up 8% from the prior year quarter driven by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product. In addition to contributing to growth, the new BOP product is also contributing to improved margins in this business through industry-leading segmentation. Overall for Select, we're pleased with the improvement in profitability levels as well as the continued momentum in new business growth. In Middle Market, renewal premium change remained very strong at over 10% while retention remained historically high at 88%. Underneath the RPC of 10%, renewal rate change of 4.8% was up 0.5 point from the first quarter while exposure growth was nearly 6%. To sum up, Business Insurance had a terrific first half of the year. We continued to deliver strong results while investing in capabilities to enhance our data and analytics leadership, digitize the commercial transaction and develop sophisticated and relevant products to drive profitable growth for the future. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeffrey Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty had a terrific quarter on both the top and bottom lines. Segment income was $228 million, up 22% from the prior year quarter driven by a higher level of net favorable prior year reserve development and higher underlying underwriting income. The underlying combined ratio was an excellent 82.2%, an improvement of 1.2 points from the prior year quarter. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums grew a very strong 13% in the quarter to a record high with contributions from all our businesses. Domestic Surety posted exceptional 24% growth in the quarter driven by larger average bond premiums. In domestic Management Liability, we are pleased that we drove a 2-point improvement in retention while renewal premium change of 8.8% remains strong following 6 straight double-digit quarters. We're also pleased that we increased new business 16% from the prior year quarter. So both top and bottom-line results for Bond & Specialty were terrific this quarter, reflecting excellent execution across our business and the value of our market-leading products and services to our customers and distribution partners. And now I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. For the second quarter, Personal Insurance reported a combined ratio of 111%. While it's not unusual for us to generate an underwriting loss in the second quarter, it typically has the highest weather-related loss activity, this quarter's results were also impacted by the inflationary pressure that we and the industry have been experiencing for the past few quarters. In total, the combined ratio increased 11.5 points compared to the prior year quarter and included a higher underlying combined ratio, higher catastrophe losses and lower favorable prior year reserve development. The 5-point increase in the underlying combined ratio reflects elevated loss severity in both automobile and homeowners and other, and in comparison to a low level of automobile losses in the prior year quarter. Catastrophe losses were nearly 5 points higher than in the prior year quarter but not out of line with our assumption for second quarter catastrophes. Net written premiums for the quarter grew 12% driven by higher renewal premium changes in both domestic automobile and Homeowners & Other. In automobile, the second quarter combined ratio was 104.3% and the underlying combined ratio was 101.8%, an increase of about 10 points relative to the prior year quarter. The increase reflects elevated vehicle replacement and repair costs. To a lesser extent, the increase is also a result of a comparison to a prior year quarter that still reflected lower loss -- lower claim frequency related to the pandemic. Our primary response to the environmental challenge of inflation is higher pricing. We are pleased with our actions to increase rates over the past few quarters and remain confident in our ability to achieve further increases. As we have indicated in past quarters, it will take some time for rate actions to fully earn into our results. In Homeowners and Other, the second quarter combined ratio was 118% and included 29 points of catastrophes primarily from severe wind and hail events across several regions in the U.S. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter was 90.3%, comparable to the prior year quarter. We continue to experience loss severity related to a -- higher loss severity related to a combination of labor and material price increases, but that was largely offset by various items, including a comparison to a prior year quarter that included elevated non-weather losses as well as the current quarter benefits of earned pricing. Turning to quarterly production. We continue to make excellent progress in achieving pricing increases. For domestic automobile, renewal premium change was 6.3%, up a full 3 points from the first quarter of 2022. We continue to increase renewal premium changes and expect RPC to reach double digits by the fourth quarter. For domestic homeowners and other, renewal premium change increased about 1.5 points from the first quarter to a record high of 13.5%. The increase in renewal premium change was from both higher insured values and increased rate. While our primary focus is on improving profitability, we're not distracted from continuing to invest in capabilities to sustain our success. For example, in the quarter, we introduced new artificial intelligence-enabled aerial imagery to enhance our property underwriting and risk selection while simplifying the quoting process for agency customers. This is just one example of how we continue to advance our sophistication and risk expertise as part of our innovation agenda. With our focus on performing -- on both performing and transforming, we remain confident in our ability to improve profitability over time while continuing to build the business for the future. Now I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you, and we are ready to open up for Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from Michael Phillips from Morgan Stanley.
Michael Phillips:
I guess first question on auto, for personal auto. It feels like your rate activity has been a little bit later to take hold than peers and maybe still a little bit below loss trend. I just wanted to see if you agree with that. And then if so, kind of 2-part question of that. Just how do you view your profitability of the current book in auto? You're taking on some good new business there. So how is the profitability of the current book? And then I guess just -- we've seen some actions from others in prior period development. And I guess just confidence that that's not going to be the case for you guys.
Michael Klein:
Sure. So I'll take the rate activity question. This is Michael Klein, and then Dan will probably talk about prior period development. So Michael, I think we've talked about rate pretty much every quarter for the last 3 or 4. As I said in my prepared remarks, we're pleased with our progress. There are certainly some peers who have reported bigger headline rate numbers than we have. Although when we look at the overall marketplace and compare our rate filing activity and our rate levels -- and our rate increase levels with the broader marketplace, we're largely in line with the overall industry, if not a little bit ahead of the industry average. Again, there's a couple of peers in particular that have talked about bigger headline numbers than we have. But in aggregate, we continue to be very active in the -- on the rate filing front, continue to incorporate new data into our indications. And as I mentioned, our outlook is we're confident in our ability to continue to increase pricing to the point where we think RPC for personal auto will exceed double digits or get into double digits in the fourth quarter. So we continue to drive to improve profitability and make progress. And in terms of the new business, the 318 this quarter is up about 6% from the prior year quarter. More of that increase is from RPC now than it was a quarter before. And as you look at the PIF growth, it is starting to decelerate responding to the rate we're putting into the marketplace. So that's sort of the trajectory we're on. And again, the priority is to continue to drive pricing to improve profitability. Now I'll turn it over to Dan to talk about PYD.
Daniel Frey:
Mike, it's Dan. So on the PYD question, I guess I'd bring you back to accident years '20 and '21 when we were talking about seeing favorability largely frequency driven but we are seeing favorability in personal auto. We are seeing favorability in commercial auto. We're seeing favorability in non-COVID claims in the workers' comp line. And we said at the time that we were recognizing some of that favorability in our results, but that there was also uncertainty in the environment. And one of the things we talked about was uncertainty around what the ultimate severity of some of those claims might be. And in PI, we talked specifically about the fact that claims were happening at higher speeds and we were seeing some more severity. And so we said pretty consistently in 2020 and in 2021 that we were being cautious in our reserving in order to make sure that we were allowing for the additional level of uncertainty that we felt was possible. And so at least so far, the way things are playing out seems to bear that out.
Michael Klein:
Yes. And Michael, this is Michael Klein again. I just want to add one other comment on the pricing conversation, which is we get a lot of conversation about the headline rate number that people are getting today. It's also important, and we've talked about this in the past, to look back at the history. And our renewal premium change in personal auto never went negative. And we didn't talk about that as much back then when some other carriers had renewal premium change that was negative. So the starting point matters, I guess, is the point that I would add. Thanks for the question.
Michael Phillips:
Yes. Okay. Yes. Perfect. That's very helpful. Second, switching gears -- completely switching gears then on comp. Has there been any change in mix of the type of claims you're seeing recently in comp, either mix by permanent versus temporary or partial sources so that kind of mix change that might in fact impact the closure rates of your claims either faster or slower the past year?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Michael, this is Greg. We haven't seen any real material mix change. Of course, as we went through the pandemic, we had a certain mix of claims. And so as you normalize that, if we look at our claim mix today to pre-pandemic, there isn't any real material change.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Alex Scott from Goldman Sachs.
Alexander Scott:
I was hoping you could just comment on just the overall outlook for business insurance margins and for further underwriting margin improvement. Certainly, we can look at your renewal rate changes and then we can think about loss costs, which I think you've got to be getting impacted at least some by the CPI inflation that we're seeing. But there's obviously parts that aren't quantifiable for us and we'd just be interested in understanding some of those pieces and how you see it unfolding.
Alan Schnitzer:
Alex, it's Alan. Let me start and then I'll turn it over to Greg. And let me just start with -- we're starting from a pretty good place. The underlying loss ratio and the overall underlying combined in BI is starting at a very good place. And we don't give outlook on those measures. But let me just make a broad comment, which is if you look at where our overall pricing is today, we would say all other things being equal, it's ahead of loss trend. And so as that earns in, we would expect some improvement from there. Let me just caveat that with all things are never the same. And so this quarter, for example, we're calling out some elevated level of property loss activity. And it was just a couple of quarters ago when we were calling out favorable property loss activity. So that kind of stuff is always going to be a little episodic. But when we look at the factors that we would consider to be run rate for lack of a better word, and we look at where pricing is and where we think loss trend is, we think the outlook, again, from a pretty good place is positive.
Alexander Scott:
And for my follow-up question, I think you mentioned higher invest -- sorry, higher insured values when you're talking about the personal lines business. But I'd just be interested on the business insurance side of things. The growth is coming in pretty nicely there as well. We can see the exposure units going up. I mean how impactful are sort of the audits around the insured values for the growth? And how much do you expect that to be helping the top line here?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes. Alex, this is Greg. Yes, clearly, our underwriters are looking at terms and conditions and insured values in this environment and constantly trying to get the right insurance to value on the exposure to the right both new business and renewal. And so that's been an active lever very similar to the personal insurance side. That's more on the transactional side. And on the flow side of Select, we do have an inflationary protection guard that we're actively managing to make sure that, that keeps up with the inflation environment. So very much an active management lever for us on the business insurance side.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Greg Peters from Raymond James.
Charles Peters:
The first question I had is around what the market seems to be projecting or anticipating a recession either later this year or next. And I was wondering if you could talk about how you might think business insurance and domestic bond and specialty might perform and where the areas of pressure might be if there is indeed a recession? And then related to that, I'm just curious as you sort of strategize how you might change your approach to management of the company if this were to come to pass.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks for the question. And let me just make a couple of general comments and feel free to follow up if I don't scratch the edge. But in a recession, we're going to do what we do. We serve our customers. We serve our distribution partners. We take care of our communities. We take care of our employees. And so from that perspective, it's business as usual for us. Now we ensure the output of the economy. So we'd expect some impact to the top line, and that's going to impact everybody. But we're pretty well positioned. The work we've done to improve productivity and efficiency positions us well. And we've got the resources and financial strength continue to make investments in our business without interruption. In terms of credit sensitivity, as I shared in my prepared remarks, the investment portfolio is very high-quality -- high credit quality, as is our surety business. So I guess the only other point I would make in a recession again, you'd expect some maybe pressure on the top line. But if history is any guide, at least in the commercial businesses, maybe you get some relief on loss trend. So we run the business for the long term. We say that all the time. So there's really not a lot we need to do differently. And you can just look and see how we perform through various economic cycles over the years, including recession, financial crisis, et cetera. We think we're very well positioned and we'll do just fine.
Charles Peters:
Got it. Well, Dan, in your comments regarding investment income, you talked about the nonfixed income piece. And you mentioned the fact that the market was down, the S&P is down 21% year-to-date. Is it conceivable that the actual marks in this area of your portfolio might turn negative in the third and fourth quarter, considering the dramatic performance of the market? Or I guess, in a broader sense, versus saying it's just going to be worse, can you just give us some sort of context of what you think it might look like in the second half of this year?
Daniel Frey:
Yes. I think it's very hard to predict. And we've got a portfolio that is individually underwritten. And so that's why we say it's not going to be perfectly correlated. But directionally, if you see weakness in the equity markets, we'd expect to see at least some slowdown in the level of strength. We have, although rarely, seen negative returns in the alternative portfolio in times of extreme disruption like we did in the first or second quarter of 2020 at the onset of COVID. But over a pretty short period of time when the markets came back, we got all that back and then some. So we're not really in a position to give a forecast of whether we expect alternative NII to be less robust than it has or how low it might go. But again, we're doing this for the long term. And if you look at our results over a long term, even in really significant downturn for the broader markets, we've done probably better than most.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan:
My first question, I'm looking to get color on the BI margin. You guys called out higher earned pricing. You also called out elevated property losses. Could I get the impact of both of those on the current quarter?
Daniel Frey:
Yes. Elyse, it's Dan. So directionally, without going down to a very fine level of reconciliation, we've been talking about in recent quarters, the benefit of earned pricing being somewhere around 1 point. That's not going to change all that quickly. As written premium -- as written price over the last few quarters came down, you'd expect the earned basis to come down, but that takes time to come down. So that's still sort of the ballpark. And with the margins relatively stable from a year ago, that would sort of imply that the property piece going the other way relative to what we expected was about 1 point.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. And then my second question. You guys had talked about higher inflation on last quarter's call and said that inflation within Business Insurance was probably in the range of 5.5% to 6%. Did you guys see any movements in your loss trend assumptions in the second quarter?
Alan Schnitzer:
No, Elyse, we didn't. We -- I'll say two things. One, the loss activity you saw in the quarter was generally consistent with that. But two, loss trend is something we evaluate over a long period of time. So not typically -- doesn't typically gyrate around in a particular quarter. But I think to be responsive to your question, the loss activity we saw was consistent with what we expected.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Ryan Tunis from Autonomous.
Ryan Tunis:
Just in BI, how should we interpret the acceleration of written rate from 43 to 49?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Ryan, it's Greg. Yes, I'll give you a little bit of color from the prior quarter. It was broadly based across many lines led by auto, property and our primary GL lines. And our underwriters look at every account that come up for the renewal in that quarter. And they're focused on making sure that they've got the right price to risk, terms and conditions just to get the right rate adequacy. So in terms of -- on one hand, we feel great about that increase in pricing and returns are in a much better place based on the industry and our pricing over the past few years. But those headwinds that we've talked about, inflation and weather, et cetera, are still out there. So it's a headline number at an aggregate level. Our underwriters are going to continue to be focused on making sure that the accounts that come up renewal have the rate adequacy on it. And that -- hopefully, that gives you a little bit of color for the quarter.
Ryan Tunis:
And then for Michael, just curious from a frequency perspective, what are you observing, I guess? It's the summer, gas prices are lower. There's been some discussion of that impacting frequency trends. But just curious sort of like how are you thinking about frequency? What are you seeing right now?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Ryan. Thanks for the question. I would say two things. One, specific to your question on gas prices, and I think we talked about this a little bit last quarter, we don't see huge sensitivity in our miles driven data to gas prices. We actually think employment has a bigger impact on miles driven than gas prices do. So really, the impact of the price upswing we saw 2, 3 months ago and the slight relief we've seen over the last month or so isn't really driving change in driving behavior based on the data we're observing. And then in terms of frequency, again, I think two comments are important about this quarter. One, second quarter of last year still showed favorable frequency because driving levels were still depressed. And so they'll return towards pre-pandemic normal is a bad guide quarter -- or year-over-year. But in terms of driving behavior and claim frequency, we would say it remains in that space of approaching pre-pandemic normal levels.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Meyer Shields from KBW.
Meyer Shields:
I guess first question overall. I was hoping you could take us through how you're thinking about medical inflation potentially lagging the really high overall inflation that we've seen broadly and how that impacts loss trend selection?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Meyer, a couple of comments on medical inflation. So given that it impacts long-term lines like workers' comp and GL, you can imagine when we watch it very closely. And two, as we've shared before, we take a very cautious approach to reserving those long-term lines. Having said that, while medical inflation certainly isn't immune from the broader inflationary environment, the recent trends on the whole continue to be, I'd say, relatively benign. The other thing is you got to make a distinction between medical inflation and the types of inflation that impact loss costs. So workers' comp and GL, for example, are driven by a subset of medical costs. We're treating workplace injuries. We're treating accidents. We're not treating chronic diseases. And those components of medical inflation that impact workers' cost -- workers' comp and GL are increasing at lower than the headline medical CPI. Also in terms of workers' comp, for example, we've got fee schedules and other medical management practices that mitigate the types of inflation that could impact those loss costs. So there's a little bit of a narrative on medical inflation. Hopefully, that's responsible.
Meyer Shields:
No, that is very helpful. And then a quick question for Michael. Within -- specifically on the home side, other than actual rate changes, how do average premiums per policy respond to rising replacement costs?
Michael Klein:
Yes, Meyer. So in the home, really, RPC is a combination, right, of operate and those insured values. And so in terms of how they respond, that renewal premium change number that we share with you is a blend of the rate change we're getting on renewals and the impact of increased value. And I guess just one step deeper into the process. We evaluate replacement cost data on a regular basis and typically update our annual inflation -- our annual increased limit factors, what we call AIL on an annual basis. In this environment, we're actually looking at it more frequently and have actually updated it a second time this year, which is part of why you're seeing that RPC in home continue to rise. And that's why I mentioned in my prepared remarks that the increase in RPC in home is a combination of increased rate and increased limit.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. So that sounds like it's broadly margin neutral, if I'm understanding it correctly.
Michael Klein:
What I would say is both the rate and the increased limit are responsive to the inflation that we're seeing.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Brian Meredith from UBS.
Brian Meredith:
Just first, one quick clarification. Dan, on the business insurance kind of non-cat weather losses in the quarter, you kind of said about 1 point better than last quarter. I think last second quarter, you said it was 150 basis points below trend. Would that imply that this quarter was maybe 50 basis points below typical second quarter?
Daniel Frey:
No. Brian, if we think about the non-cat property losses that are in underlying last year, we said the -- as you pointed out, last year we said they're about 1.5 points better than what we would have expected in the second quarter. This year, what we actually said that it's about 1 point worse than what we would have expected. So there was actually a bigger swing in the underlying property losses, I think, north of 2 points. And then there's -- as there are frequently in other quarters, a number of other things, none of which were individually big, think mix, think segmentation that actually benefited the loss ratio in the quarter. And that got us back down to the neutral number.
Brian Meredith:
Got you. That makes sense. And then just one other just quick one. Workers' compensated insurance continue to see a nice improvement in premium growth there. Is that all just exposure growth that you're seeing at this point?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Brian, it's Greg. Yes. For the most part, that is absolutely some of the strong exposure growth. You can certainly relate to the increases in payrolls across the economy. So that's one of the key drivers of that in that line.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Josh Shanker from Bank of America.
Joshua Shanker:
I was looking at the 10-K, and you guys have duly warned us about the variable investment income in the back half of 2022. Obviously, the markets were not so strong in the first quarter this year. I would have thought that the 2Q results would have been weaker. And when I look at you saying, hey, the back half of the year be careful, is there more than a 3-month lag when we think about these things? Do we have any reason to think that 4Q should be particularly weak at this point in time?
Daniel Frey:
No, Josh, it's Dan. I don't think there's any change to our sort of historical commentary. We say generally, things are on about a 1-quarter lag. Second quarter was pretty strong from an alternative, if you consider it in the context of the broader market. But again, we're not necessarily going to follow that in lockstep. We've got individual investments within the quarter. Real estate did pretty well. We had some energy holdings that did pretty well. We had some transportation holdings that did pretty well. So it's going to be a function of what's actually inside of our portfolio. And that's really what you're seeing as opposed to any change in the live pattern.
Joshua Shanker:
All right. And then the renewal premium change is obviously a lagging indicator of what you're doing on rates. When you look at the -- I guess for Michael. When you look at the auto book or maybe even auto and the home book and you know what kind of rates you were getting, when do you hope that you are getting rates in excess or at least matching the loss trend? And I guess when do you think that a renewal rate trend will sort of be matching that on the net premium earned line?
Michael Klein:
Yes. Great question, Josh, and a really hard one to answer in this environment. I mean I think -- there's one conversation we could have around what those numbers are relative to a relatively long-term view of trend. Unfortunately, the environment that we're in and -- you can pick your statistic. I mean it's really a pretty unprecedented environment in terms of loss cost inflation in the personal lines of business. You can look at body work CPI, I think, is the highest it's been since 1980 in low double digits. You can look at shingles prices, lumber prices. The Manheim Used Vehicle Index right, was up 30-plus percent last year and it stayed there. So it's really hard to put a point on when the rate will exceed loss trend until we fully understand how long this elevated inflation is going to last. And so from that standpoint, that's why our focus really isn't on picking that point. Our focus is on continuing to incorporate the latest data into our pricing and underwriting processes, and continuing to raise rate as we see that evidence of further need. To your point, and it's a good one, the 6.3 RPC as an example that we reported in auto is the written impact of the rate we've taken essentially over the last 3 or 4 quarters as it hits renewals. And so one important point to make is even if we didn't file for any additional rate, which we are, that number would rise next quarter because we haven't yet seen the full written impact of the rate that we've already gotten filed and approved. But again, importantly we've gotten -- that rate already in the pipeline that will drive that number higher. And we are continuing to seek additional increases, which will continue to drive that number higher and, again, drive it into the double digits by the fourth quarter of this year, speaking specifically to auto.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Tracy Benguigui from Barclays.
Tracy Benguigui:
I'm just trying to reconcile your deteriorating underlying loss ratios in both BI and PI on a sequential basis in your premium growth achievement. I mean, is the idea that you're happy with your risk-adjusted returns, so you don't feel like you need to withdraw underwriting capacity just yet? I guess I'm just trying to figure out if you're trying to be more discerning where you're growing from here, even if it's just pockets of your business.
Daniel Frey:
So Tracy, it's Dan. I'll start. And I think we've done this before. But again, I think there's a reason that we don't look at combined ratio on a sequential basis. And part of that is what you see in the second quarter in particular because whether it's cat losses or underlying property, we expect more activity in the second quarter than the rest of the quarters of the year. To go back to the comments that Alan was making and that Greg made, if we look at where the underlying combined ratios are and the returns are coming out of 2021, in which we had north of a 13.5% core ROE in the first half of the year this year, that's 12.4% through the first 6 months of the year. We feel like the business as a whole is in a pretty good place. We've got a balanced portfolio. Some parts of the portfolio are going to be stronger than others at certain times. But we're managing the business for the long term. And we're not thinking about withdrawing capacity at this point. We've got plenty of capital. And we think there's plenty of good business in the marketplace to write that's going to serve us well in the long term.
Tracy Benguigui:
Okay. Could you maybe unpack your favorable prior development in specifically within CMP? Was that liability or nonliability? And the reason I'm asking is because you experienced unfavorable development in GL. And I noticed the releases from CMP came from recent accident years, which would make more sense for short tail lines.
Daniel Frey:
Yes. It's not a big number, Tracy. I'm just not going to break it down any further than that.
Operator:
Your next question comes from David Motemaden from Evercore.
David Motemaden:
Just a question for Michael on personal auto. Could you talk a little bit about how you're handling closing claims quickly and just claims resolutions? I would think that your book has more preferred business and newer cars that are more complex to repair, which -- it sounds like you guys feel like you're on top of that potential issue. But maybe you could just talk about how you're approaching closing claims in a timely fashion on the auto book?
Michael Klein:
Sure, David. So I would say yes, we're on top of it. Our claim team is top-notch. They're terrifically talented and capable. And we've got great discipline and process inside the claims organization. They're really just terrific partners in support of the business. That said, we're not immune from the environmental pressures that you read about and you've seen and heard others talk about. So while we are on top of things and while the way you described our portfolio makes sense, it is taking longer to get parts. It is taking longer to get a time slot in a body shop. That is putting pressure on the length of time it takes to make repair. That is putting pressure on average rental days for nondrivable repairs. We're doing a lot in really all we can to work with customers to help manage that. One example is being in dialogue with the customer and ensuring, for example, that if their vehicle is drivable, that they wait to take until the shop until we and they have verified the parts of the labor are available. So doing a lot of things to try to manage that. But the length of time to repair on average is extending. And it's really -- that's one element of the process. Salvage and subrogation takes longer these days for total vehicle availability remains a challenge. I mean those -- we're faced with all those challenges. But I think our claim organization is doing a terrific job of managing and navigating those.
David Motemaden:
Got it. And then just a question for Dan. I think you had mentioned that the expense ratio getting down to 29% for the full year, a little bit ahead of schedule. Should we be thinking about a lower expense ratio than 29% as we think about '23 or '24? Or are we -- do you feel like 29% is a good level to operate at going forward?
Daniel Frey:
Yes, David, we're not going to give '23 or '24 outlook here. I'd just say a couple of years ago, we were talking about being pretty comfortable with the 30. And then a quarter or 2 ago, we were talking about being more comfortable with the 29.5. We're not really setting a target expense ratio. We're managing the business as a whole to overall combined ratio and returns. We're making all the investments that we want to make. What we find is that we've been able to do that inside the still improving expense ratio. I think last quarter, we said we might get down to 29 sometime in the next year or 2 -- another quarter of success. It looks like we'll probably be there this year. I'm not really inclined to give an outlook beyond that.
Operator:
And we have time for just one more question coming from Yaron Kinar from Jefferies.
Yaron Kinar:
I guess first question for Michael around the loss trends in personal auto. I heard you talk a lot about physical damage. Are you also seeing a bodily injury component there? Because it's something that we've certainly heard from a lot of the other auto insurers as of late. So maybe you could quantify or qualify that?
Michael Klein:
Yes. Yaron, thanks for the question, and I'll qualify it probably and not quantify it. But similar to the comment I made last quarter, we haven't spiked out bodily injury loss trend as a driver in the sort of year-over-year comparisons and relative to expectation. Not because it hasn't been elevated and not because we haven't seen elevated bodily injury loss trend. But -- and in particular, we've seen elevated inflation in bodily injury. There's been a little bit of favorability in bodily injury frequency, offsetting some of that severity. And we had a pretty healthy assumption around what the bodily injury loss trend was going to be. And so it just hasn't jumped out as a delta relative to our expectation. But that doesn't mean we don't see pressure. It doesn't mean we're not observing it. It just means it's not a significant difference from what we had anticipated.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it. And then -- and this is probably a broader question maybe for Greg or for Alan. You guys are essentially the insurer of the U.S. economy, if you will. And with all this talk about a potential recession, fears of recession, is there any indicator that you're seeing in your conversations with clients today that would lead you to see that actually materializing? And if so, are there specific sectors or industries that you're seeing maybe pressure emerging in?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yaron, I'd say not yet. The business underlying fundamentals we're seeing from our customers are strong. I think the economic -- the macroeconomic data you see confirms that as the time continues to increase interest rates in an effort to bring down demand, I think we're all reading those tea leaves and imagining it's coming. But we're not seeing it in our data, not any significant degree.
Operator:
I will turn the call back over to Abbe for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much. We appreciate everyone joining us today. And as always, if you have any follow-up, please feel free to reach out directly to Investor Relations. Thanks.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first quarter results teleconference for Travelers. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 19, 2022. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our first quarter 2022 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our 3 segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Jeff Klenk of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks, and then we will take questions. Before I turn the call over, I'd like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release, in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. One more thing before I turn the call over to Alan, I'd like to direct your attention to our updated overview of Travelers' presentation that we posted on the Investors section of our website. There's a lot of terrific background and other content in this document. I would encourage you to take a look at it, whether you're familiar with Travelers or new to our story. And with that, it's my pleasure to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. We're very pleased to report excellent results this morning. But before we dive into the quarter, I want to acknowledge the geopolitical crisis and humanitarian nightmare unfolding in Ukraine. Our thoughts and prayers are with those under attack, the millions of refugees seeking life’s most basic necessities and the loved ones of those who have lost their lives. Turning now to our results. We're off to a terrific start for the year with an excellent bottom line results, growth in all 3 segments, strong and improved profitability in our commercial business segments, progress addressing the environmental headwinds facing the personal insurance industry and another quarter of progress on a number of important strategic initiatives. Core income for the quarter was $1 billion or $4.22 per diluted share, generating core return on equity of 15.5%. These results were driven by net earned premiums of $8 billion, up 9% over the prior year quarter and an excellent combined ratio of 91.3%. We're particularly pleased with the continued strong underlying results in our commercial businesses. Looking at the 2 commercial segments together. The combined BI, BSI underlying combined ratio was 90.2% for the quarter, an improvement of nearly 2 points from the prior year quarter. Underwriting results in Personal Insurance were impacted by auto loss frequency returning to more normal levels as miles driven has increased as well as elevated severity in auto and property. Against this challenging backdrop of environmental headwinds, PI results for the quarter were nonetheless solid, with a 95.3% all-in combined ratio. Turning to investments. Our high-quality investment portfolio generated net investment income of $539 million after tax for the quarter, reflecting reliable results from our fixed income portfolio, and strong returns from our nonfixed income portfolio. As you'll hear from Dan shortly, the recent rise in interest rates positively impacts our outlook for fixed income NII. Our excellent operating results, together with our solid balance sheet, enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 11% over the past year, and that's after making important investments in our business and returning excess capital to shareholders. During the quarter, we returned $773 million of excess capital to our shareholders, including nearly $560 million of share repurchases. In light of our strong financial position and confidence in the outlook for our business, I'm pleased to share that our Board of Directors declared a 6% increase in our quarterly cash dividend to $0.93 per share, marking 18 consecutive years of dividend increases with a compound annual growth rate of 9% over that period. Turning to the top line. Thanks to excellent execution by our colleagues in the field and the strong franchise value we offer to our customers and distribution partners. We grew net written premiums by 11% this quarter to a record $8.4 billion. Each of our 3 segments made strong contributions. In Business Insurance, renewal premium change was 9.1%, remaining near all-time highs. At the same time, retention of 87% was an all-time high. We have a very high-quality book of business and keeping it as a priority. Also as we've shared previously, strong retentions are a sign of a rational and stable pricing market. Underneath the headline numbers, execution at a segmented level is excellent, with higher retentions of our best business and more rate in those segments that need it. New business levels were also strong, up about 17% over the prior year quarter. All in, BI net written premiums grew 9%. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 22%, driven by strong production in both Management Liability and Surety. In Management Liability, renewal premium change was up 12% while retention remained high and new business was up 12%. In Surety, production was terrific with net written premiums up 29%. Notwithstanding some severity pressure from the inflationary environment, we're pleased to see continued written margin expansion in both of our commercial businesses, which, of course, will earn in over time. In Personal Insurance, net written premiums increased by 12%. Renewal premium change -- renewal premium change increased in both auto and homeowners as we execute to improve margins. As we expected, retention in new business growth moderated a little bit in response. We'll hear more shortly from Greg, Jeff and Michael about our segment results. Notwithstanding our terrific results and an economy that, in many respects, feels pretty good at the moment, there's a fair amount to pay attention to in terms of the macroeconomic outlook for the world in general and our industry in particular. There's a wide range of views on the outlook for economic growth and headline inflation is at a 40-year high. Geopolitical risk is at a decade high as war wages in Eastern Europe, tensions rise elsewhere, and the world nationalizes reversing a trend of globalization. Between the plaintiffs bar, regulatory uncertainty and weather severity, loss costs are as challenging as ever to predict. The global pandemic reminds us of the risk of unknown unknowns. And the one thing we know for sure is that the pace of technological change is accelerating. Travelers is built for this environment. For starters, a culture of unmatched underwriting and investment discipline positions us for nearly any environment. That's been the foundation of our success through the 2008 financial crisis, the most severe natural and man-made catastrophes like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, a major inflection in liability loss cost trends, the pandemic and now the war in Ukraine. Through all the twist and turns foreseeable and otherwise, we've consistently delivered industry-leading returns at industry low volatility. We didn't exactly predict any of those events, but managing our business for long-term success by carefully balancing risk and reward on both sides of the balance sheet positioned us to successfully manage through all of them. In terms of the economic outlook, if the economy continues to grow, we'll benefit from higher insured exposures, as you've seen in our results over the past few quarters. If we head into a recession, we're very well positioned having made significant progress and improving productivity and efficiency in recent years. In terms of higher inflation, there are several things to keep in mind. First, with respect to our fixed income portfolio, we would expect to benefit from higher net investment income as higher inflation is typically accompanied by higher interest rates. Second, on the underwriting side, we have a favorable business mix. Our domestic commercial GL and workers comp lines account for about 1/4 of our premiums, both have an audit mechanism for retroactive premium adjustment. And as we discussed, higher exposures, particularly from wages and sales, contribute to improved margins. The short-tail personal insurance lines and commercial property account for almost half of our premiums. In short-tail lines, we can identify and price for the impact of inflation reasonably quickly, and the reserves on the balance sheet are significantly less exposed to changes in loss inflation. Finally, we take into account the inflationary environment and the related uncertainties when we establish our loss picks and set our balance sheet reserves. When assessing inflation, we're generally cautious, especially during periods of elevated uncertainty. We're also well positioned in terms of geopolitical risk. We're primarily U.S.-based with more than 95% of our premiums coming from North America. And we have a focused international footprint with strong partnerships that provide us with the ability to place our customers' business all over the world. Consequently, our business is, to a significant degree, insulated from the heightened geopolitical risk environment. With our leading franchise in the U.S., we have the pole position in the largest, most advanced and most stable economy in the world. Given the size of the U.S. economy, even a modest rate of growth, generates substantial growth in dollar terms and therefore, substantial growth opportunities for Travelers. With our footprint, we have opportunities to continue growing through geographies, products, classes of business and distribution partners that we've known and understood for decades. And given our concentration as a primary insurer in Middle Markets, there are meaningful barriers to entry. Importantly, within the largest insurance market in the world, our business also benefits from significant diversification. We offer 9 major lines of insurance to personal and commercial customers. Our portfolio is balanced across these lines of business and further diversified across regions by distribution partner and by class and customer size. In this business, the one constant is if the loss costs are going to change, what's important is having the ability to quickly identify and react to the changes, and we do. We have an advantage in terms of the quantity and quality of our data and the sophistication of our analytics. We spent decades fostering a culture that knows how to balance the art and science of underwriting. We have a strong orientation towards risk-adjusted returns, and we have an incredibly tight feedback loop among our underwriting, claim and actuarial disciplines. All of that contributed to our early recognition of social inflation, positioning us to respond early in terms of underwriting and claims handling strategies. We've been similarly forward leaning indeveloping underwriting and claims strategies to address weather severity. As we've discussed a few times, over the last 5 years, we've outperformed our market share in terms of cat losses. Another thing that's crystal clear is the rapid pace of change in the world. While the current conditions require us to be laser focused on the here and now, and we are, the dramatic pace of change, together with our scale, industry leadership, deep domain expertise and talent advantage presents us with the opportunity to lead in transforming the way business is done. We have a well-defined innovation strategy and have demonstrated success over the past half dozen years or so in innovating with desired outcomes, growth, industry-leading returns and industry low volatility. In short, we feel very well positioned for continued success no matter what environment comes our way. In the meantime, we're innovating on top of the foundation of excellence to transform our business to competitive advantages that are relevant, differentiating and difficult to replicate. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the first quarter was $1.04 billion, up from $699 million in the prior year quarter, and core return on equity was 15.5%. The increase in core income resulted primarily from a lower level of catastrophe losses, partially offset by a lower level of favorable prior year reserve development and strong but lower returns in our nonfixed income portfolio. Underlying underwriting income was strong in both periods. Our first quarter results include $160 million of pretax cat losses, much lower than last year's record high first quarter of $835 million pretax. Our after-tax underlying underwriting gain of $580 million was consistent with the prior year quarter, reflecting higher levels of earned premium and an underlying combined ratio of 91.2%. Improvements in the underlying combined ratio in both Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty were more than offset by an increase in the underlying combined ratio in Personal Insurance. Greg, Jeff and Michael will provide more detail on each segment's results in a few minutes. The first quarter expense ratio improved in all 3 segments, with the consolidated expense ratio of 29%, nearly a full point below last year's 29.9%. We continue to make significant investments in strategic initiatives, while the combination of a strategic focus on expense discipline and strong top line growth, delivered a lower expense ratio. As we indicated in our fourth quarter earnings call, there will inevitably be some variation in any given quarter. We're still planning for a full year expense ratio for 2022 of around 29.5%. And we're on a path towards a full year expense ratio of around 29% in the next year or 2. Turning to prior year reserve development. We had total net favorable development of $153 million pretax in the first quarter. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $113 million was driven by better-than-expected loss experience in workers' comp and also includes an environmental charge of $45 million. In Bond & Specialty, net favorable PYD of $35 million was driven by better-than-expected results in the surety book. Personal Insurance experienced $5 million of net favorable PYD with modest activity in both auto and home. After-tax net investment income decreased by 9% from the prior year quarter to $539 million. Returns in our nonfixed income portfolio were strong, but as expected, were less favorable than we experienced in last year's quarter. Fixed maturity NII was higher than in the prior year quarter, as the benefit of higher invested assets more than offset the impact of lower fixed income yields. With the recent increase in interest rates, we are raising our outlook for fixed income NII, including earnings from short-term securities to approximately $440 million after tax in the second quarter, growing to approximately $460 million in the third quarter and then to $480 million in the fourth quarter. Remember, only about 9% of the portfolio turns over each year, so the higher new money rates will take a while to fully impact run rate NII. Recall that results for our private equities, hedge funds and real estate partnerships are generally reported to us on a 1-quarter lag. While not perfectly correlated, our non-fixed income returns directionally follow the broader equity markets, which were generally down during the first quarter. Accordingly, we expect that to be reflected in our non-fixed income results next quarter. Regarding reinsurance, as discussed during our fourth quarter results call, we renewed our underlying Property Aggregate Catastrophe XOL Treaty for 2022 and providing aggregate coverage of $225 million, part of $500 million of losses above an aggregate retention of $2 billion. Through March 31, we've accumulated $175 million of qualifying losses toward the aggregate retention. Our effective tax rate for the first quarter benefited from the favorable completion of an income tax audit for 2017 and 2018, which resulted in the release of $47 million of tax accruals related to those years. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.3 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.5 billion. As interest rates increased and spreads widened during the quarter, we moved from a net unrealized investment gain of $2.4 billion after tax at year-end to a net unrealized investment loss of $1.4 billion after tax at March 31. Remember, the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses do not impact how we manage our investment portfolio. We generally hold fixed income investments to maturity. The quality of our fixed income portfolio remains very high and changes in unrealized gains and losses have little or no impact on our statutory surplus or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses, was $112.19 at quarter end, up 2% from year-end and up 11% from a year ago. We returned $773 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $559 million and dividends of $214 million. And as Alan mentioned earlier, our Board authorized a 6% increase in the quarterly dividend to $0.93 per share. Sticking with the topic of capital management, you're likely aware that Standard & Poor's has proposed changes to its capital adequacy model. Without final guidance and the actual proposed models from S&P, it would be premature to draw a conclusion as to the potential impact. What I can say is that, as always, we are most interested in our own view of the appropriate level of capital to ensure our financial resilience, As we have consistently demonstrated, including with our excellent results in 2021 and the first quarter of 2022, our disciplined approach to risk selection, asset management, prudent reserving and thoughtful capital management come together to deliver profitable growth while ensuring that we have the financial strength to navigate even the most challenging of circumstances. While we believe it's important to remain very well capitalized and continued growth in the business will require higher levels of capital going forward, we will not maintain a level of capital beyond what we consider to be appropriate simply to obtain a certain rating level. Finally, as related to the hostilities in Ukraine, we don't have any direct exposure to Ukraine or the Russian Federation in our investment portfolio. And given the current scope of hostilities our insurance exposures in the impacted areas are not significant. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of business insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance is off to a terrific start in 2020 with an exceptionally strong first quarter. Segment income of $669 million was well over double the first quarter of 2021, driven by lower catastrophes and higher underlying underwriting income. The quarter's underlying combined ratio of 91.8% was almost 2 points better than the first quarter of 2021. The loss ratio improved by about 1 point, driven by higher earned pricing despite elevated severity, reflecting the inflationary environment. The expense ratio also improved by about 1 point, resulting from the combination of the leverage from higher earned premiums and the benefits of our strategic focus on productivity and efficiency. Net written premiums increased 9% to an all-time quarterly high of $4.5 billion, benefiting from historically high renewal premium change and retention as well as an increase in new business. All lines of business were up over the prior year quarter. Turning to domestic production for the quarter. Renewal premium change of 9.1% included renewal rate change of 4.4% and at an all-time high for exposure growth of 4.9%, reflecting continued improvement in our customers' outlook for their businesses. Retention of 87% was also a record high. And finally, new business of $544 million was up 17% from the first quarter of last year, driven by our success with large accounts in Middle Market as well as our continued success with our innovative BOP 2.0 product in Select. We're pleased with these production results and our superior execution in the marketplace. Given our high-quality book as well as several years of meaningful rate increases and improvements in terms and conditions, we're thrilled to have produced record retention levels. The rate gains we achieved in the quarter reflect deliberate execution given the significant improvements in profitability across the portfolio and through the benefit of higher exposures. Rate in workers' comp was a little more negative than we've seen over the past year, which is consistent with the strong profitability of the line. Having said that, overall renewal premium change in the workers' comp line was well in the positive territory, as exposure growth was at the highest level we've seen since 2006. Given the headwinds and uncertainty in the current environment, we will continue to execute our granular pricing, careful management of deductibles, attachment points, limits, sublimits and exclusions to achieve profitable growth. As for the individual businesses, in Select, renewal premium change was a strong 9%, while retention of 83% ticked up 1 point sequentially and was up 4 points from the prior year quarter. New business was up 16% from the prior year quarter, driven by the continued success of our BOP 2.0 product, as I mentioned earlier. With improved margins in this business, we're pleased with the higher retention levels and continued momentum in new business growth. In Middle Market, renewal premium change remained strong at 8.8%, while retention reached an all-time high of 89%. New business was up 20% from the prior year quarter, driven predominantly by our success with large accounts, as I mentioned earlier. To sum up, Business Insurance had a great start to the year. We continue to improve the profitability of the book while investing in capabilities to enhance our position as the undeniable choice for the customer and an indispensable partner for our agents and brokers. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeff Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty started the year with a terrific quarter on both the top and bottom lines. Segment income was $217 million up 58% from the prior year quarter, driven by higher underlying underwriting income, lower cat losses and a higher level of net favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio of 82.2% improved by 2 points from the prior year quarter, reflecting the benefit of earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trends. Also, the prior year quarter had about 1 point or so from some large cyber loss activity that didn't recur. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums grew an outstanding 22% in the quarter with strong contributions from all our businesses. In domestic management liability, renewal premium change remained in double digits and improved by a little more than 1 point from the fourth quarter. Retention remains strong, despite the impact of our ongoing strategy to nonrenewed cyber accounts that do not meet our minimum cybersecurity protocols, including multifactor authentication. That change in our underwriting is having a meaningfully favorable impact on cyber claim frequency. We expect to complete the execution of this strategy across our renewal portfolio by the end of the second quarter. Notably, domestic management liability new business increased 12% from the prior year quarter. We were also pleased with the strong production this quarter from our domestic surety and international businesses. So both top and bottom line results for Bond & Specialty were terrific this quarter, reflecting both excellent execution across our business and the value of our market-leading products and services to our customers and distribution partners. And now I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. Personal Insurance began 2022 with solid profitability in the context of an ongoing challenging environment. First quarter segment income was $225 million, down $89 million from the prior year quarter, as lower underlying underwriting margins and lower favorable prior year reserve development were partially offset by lower catastrophes. The total combined ratio was 95.3% for the first quarter with an underlying combined ratio of 92.8%, which was 7.4 points higher than the prior year quarter. This increase was driven by higher losses in both automobile and homeowners, which I will discuss in further detail in a moment. Partly offsetting this increase was a reduction in our underwriting expense ratio, which continues to reflect the benefit from higher earned premiums. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 12% and included higher renewal premium changes in both automobile and homeowners. In automobile, the first quarter combined ratio was 99.3%, an increase of 17.5 points compared to a prior year quarter that reflected low loss activity due to the pandemic. In the current year quarter, automobile loss levels increased due to a combination of coin frequency returning to more normal levels and higher loss severity as vehicle and replacement and repair costs remained elevated. During the first quarter, we increased rates in 23 states in response at an average rate of approximately 7%. Rate actions in additional states are scheduled to take effect in the coming months and quarters. As we indicated last quarter, although it will take time for these rate actions to earn into our results, we remain confident we're on track to address the near-term profit challenges. In Homeowners & Other, the first quarter combined ratio improved by 8 points from the prior year quarter to 91.2%, primarily driven by 17 points of lower catastrophes. As Dan mentioned, the prior year quarter had elevated catastrophe losses from winter storms and freeze events. Results for last year's first quarter also included higher net favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio of 86.9%, was 3 points higher than the prior year quarter, as we continued to see higher severity related to a combination of labor and material price increases. We will continue to seek increased pricing and response. As a reminder, for Homeowners, we expect the upcoming second quarter to be the seasonally highest quarter for weather-related loss levels. Turning to production. We were very pleased to deliver another strong quarter in both Automobile and Homeowners. For domestic Automobile, retention was strong, and as we expected, down slightly to 84% as renewal premium change increased by about 2 points from the prior quarter to 3.1%. We expect renewal premium changes will continue to accelerate in each of the next 3 quarters and approach double digits by the end of the year. In domestic Homeowners and Other, retention was 84% and renewal premium change was 12.3%. The increase in RPC was primarily due to increased insured values in response to the inflationary environment. Before I wrap up, I'd like to take a minute to address the important issue of increasing motor vehicle fatalities. More than 46,000 people lost their lives on U.S. roads in 2021, the highest total in more than 30 years, a grim reminder of the human cost of the increasing frequency and severity of auto accidents. Most research points to higher speeds and increased distraction as the most prominent drivers of the rise in fatalities. Recent data published by Cambridge Mobile Telematics, the partner that helps power our IntelliDrive program, showed that phone-related distractions in February of this year increased to the highest level they have ever recorded. Our own IntelliDrive data are aligned with this result. Further, the most recent addition of the Travelers risk index continues to show evidence of higher levels of distracted driving among those surveyed. In light of these observations and given April is distracted driving awareness month, I wanted to highlight a couple of ways Travelers is working to make a difference. In partnership with the Travelers Institute, we continue to support our Every Second Matters initiative, which empowers drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians to speak up set positive examples and play an active role in changing roadway behaviors to help prevent injuries and save lives. Additionally, the inclusion of distraction as a rating variable in our IntelliDrive offering shows some promise in terms of changing behavior. We've seen a reduction in distracted driving events for drivers enrolled since introducing this variable. Of course, we all play a role in keeping our roads as safe as possible. These are just a couple of examples of how we're raising awareness and trying to make a difference. Before I turn the call back over to Abbe, I'd like to welcome the Trove team to Travelers. We were pleased to be able to acquire technology assets and hire a team of talented people from Trove earlier this year. We look forward to applying their expertise and capabilities to meet our customers where they are, give them what they need and serve them how they want. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael. And operator, we are ready to open up for Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley.
Michael Phillips :
Alan, I guess just first high-level question for you, just about the cycle. It's obviously a different cycle just in terms of its longevity for a number of reasons. But we're pretty clearly at the tail end of that. And I think we're at the tail of end that at a time when there's pretty specific nuances that could possibly make somebody concerned that loss trends accelerate faster than they otherwise would at the tail end of a cycle. Things you mentioned in your opening comments, demand surge, voluntary policy, demand, demographic shifts, inflation, the list goes going on, and it seems to be added to on a daily basis. I guess, so -- the question we get, and I know you've heard this question before is, will those things that are kind of unique to the current situation make for pricing to kind of tick back up again, if you will? And it's not, I guess, for your book of business is different. So maybe you can talk to -- are you concerned about that? Are you surprised by that? Any concerns at all that BI pricing is indeed continuing to decelerate at the time when there's a lot of risk out there for low stress?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Thanks for the question. And let me paint a picture for you. So the pricing environment, despite what you're focused on, which I suspect is the right number, the pricing environment is actually quite strong. And you see that in BI and BSI with overall pricing near record levels, for earned and written continued debt -- our earned and written continues to exceed trends. Our margins on a written basis are expanding. When we look at the breadth of pricing gains, very good. The significant majority of our accounts continue to get positive rate And you look at retentions at near all-time high is that -- I mean, that tells you that the overall market is pretty stable. And what we're doing is deliver, right? That's -- you look at that retention and that tells you what we're doing is deliver. If we weren't able to achieve what we wanted to achieve, retention would be lower. You got to add to that, the pretty good progress we've made over -- actually, at this point, many years of very, very strong pricing gains. So you've got improving margins. And so that's sort of where we are right now. So having said that, as you point out, there are some clouds out there that we are very well aware of, I think the industry is very well aware of them. And as we price the marginal product, we're looking at what the expiring rate is, we're looking at what loss trend is, we're looking at what other factors that impact margins, and then we're putting a price on the product. And so we're not troubled by anything in this production environment that you see or the outlook, frankly.
Michael Phillips :
Okay. Appreciate that. Maybe a little bit more drill down question for my second one, and possibly for Michael. On personal auto, a lot of attention obviously on severity for physical damage side, but medical inflation has been kind of one of the best performers in the CPI index and yet there's concerns that it might tick up, but it hasn't yet. And I think BI liability is trending pretty high. Can you talk about that disconnect? And what you're seeing in your BI liability book?
Michael Klein :
Sure, Michael. Great question. I would say your assessment on medical inflation is right. I mean it's ticked up slightly, but from a low level. So something we pay attention to, but not a particular concern. It is interesting, we haven't spent a lot of time talking about bodily injury liability trend in PI, not because bodily injury liability trend isn't high but because it's not really high in excess of our expectation. So we've got a relatively -- I'll say, a high view of what model severity is. I think our views on it are consistent across commercial and personal lines. But again, we haven't been talking about it because it's not the item that's been the surprise, right? The vehicle severity items have been the ones that had the unexpected inflection point in the middle part of last year and remain elevated.
Michael Phillips :
Okay. Does that mean, Michael, that your BI liability is what we're seeing for the industry, it's above 10%?
Michael Klein :
I wouldn't put a specific number on it, maybe, Michael, but I would say we're in that neighbourhood.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research.
Ryan Tunis:
Question on Business Insurance margins. We improved year-over-year. I realized the past couple of quarters, we've been benefiting from some favorable non-cat weather. And I guess also some frequency related items and things like commercial auto. Could you just give us --pin is a picture of sort of like to what extent did those come back this quarter into the results that we saw?
Dan Frey:
Ryan, it's Dan. Yes, so not real big movements there. I think Greg gave you what's a pretty straightforward story to the quarter, about a point better in the loss ratio really tied to earned pricing being ahead of what we're seeing in the loss environment and about 1 point of improvement in the expense ratio. To your point, there are other things that will impact quarters differently and there's some variability from quarter-to-quarter. This quarter, the net of those things when we compare to what we saw in the first quarter of a year ago, it was just about a wash.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And then a follow-up on the Bond & Specialty side, just trying to get a feel for how the re-underwriting of that cyber book, like what type of tailwind that could be for underwriting margins? Can you just give us an idea of maybe what percentage of the Management Liability book has a cyber component?
Jeff Klenk:
Sure. Thanks for the question. This is Jeff Klenk. I think first and foremost, I'd remind you that we do have a significant reinsurance treaty on the book of business. And so that's something that's important to remember. We do feel really confident that the focus on the cybersecurity protocols is having an impact. Still early for us, right, because we started it effective in June, but we're seeing it on the frequency. And so more to come, but we definitely feel good about the results we're seeing so far.
Dan Frey:
Ryan, it's Dan. I'd just add, and I think you were getting to it in the tail end of your question. Cyber, it's not a huge percentage of the premium base within Bond & Specialty. So it's an important line of business that everybody is paying attention to, It's not a huge component of the book.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Greg Peters with Raymond James.
Greg Peters:
I guess I would like to focus in on the expense ratio. And I know you've spent some time recently with investors talking about some initiatives. Dan, in your comments, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seemed like you were suggesting that the full year expense ratio might move to around 29.5. And then a year out, maybe 29. And assuming that I correctly, I also noted in Jeff's comments that -- or excuse me, Michael's comments that the expense ratio benefited from higher earned premiums. So I guess I'm trying to bridge the gap between the expense ratio improvement that's coming from the higher than normal or typical premium volumes versus what the true underlying improvement in expenses is, if that makes sense?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Greg, it's Dan. I'm not sure that I would try to break it into its pieces. We're managing to a total return. And within that, we're trying to manage to what we are comfortable with from an expense ratio perspective. So we made a lot of progress in improving the expense ratio from where we were 5 or 6 years ago. We're pretty -- we said when it got down to the 30 level a couple of years ago, we were pretty comfortable somewhere around 30. Coming out of last year, we signaled that we thought this year would be around 29.5. And all I was really trying to give you in my comments was that's still sort of what we're planning for, for this year. I don't know exactly where it's going to come up, but that's the neighbourhood of where we would expect it to come out A little better than that in the first quarter of the year, that's partially due to the fact that premium volumes were a little stronger than we would have expected. It's also partially due to the fact that there's some timing from quarter-to-quarter in terms of what's going to come through expenses. But we are managing the strategic investments we're making to move the business forward balanced with expense discipline to make sure that we're continuing to improve productivity and efficiency, also balanced with what our view is of where the top line is going. So we're looking at all those -- all 3 of those things together and saying, we were in the 32s a few years ago, we got down to 30. We told you this year, we think that will go down to about 29.5 and then the next step will be to go down to 29. But it's really balancing all those 3 things together.
Greg Peters:
Got it. Makes sense. The second question I have would be just around the commentary on investment income. And I guess with the upward movement in interest rates, just trying to understand just within the fixed income component of your portfolio, where the new money yields are relative to expiring? And I know that you did raise your investment income guidance for the balance of the year. So just trying to understand some of the moving pieces behind that.
Dan Frey:
Sure, Greg. It's a good question because this is the quarter in which we actually flip from new money rates being below what's embedded in the portfolio as has been the case for the past several years. By the time we exit the quarter, we're -- and you see that in the fact that the portfolio is now in an unrealized loss position as opposed to an unrealized gain position. But exiting the quarter, we think that new money yields are somewhere between 50 and 70 basis points higher than what's running off. And so as the portfolio slowly turns over, and that is contributing to our increased view compared to the outlook that we had provided at year-end in terms of what will happen to fixed income NII increasing now as we get to the latter part of 2022.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan :
My first question, a couple of times, you guys mentioned elevated severity in this inflationary environment. So just curious, within Business Insurance, you guys had been running at a 5% loss trend assumption. Where did you guys take that to, this quarter?
Dan Frey:
So Elyse, it's Dan. I'll take that one and I'll say that we're thinking about, especially in this environment with exposure near all-time highs, you've got to compare what we're doing on the total pricing side, including the piece of exposure that behaves like rate with what's happening in the overall loss environment. So as you heard in Greg's comments and in Alan's comments, we have reflected a higher level of severity tied to inflation in our view of what we're booking for losses in business insurance. That's largely tied to higher levels of inflation. Higher levels of inflation also bring with it really an offsetting benefit as you think about what we'll earn in on a go-forward basis from higher exposures. So things like higher wages paid to the same workers. So we're going to get a higher exposure and a higher premium on the same risk as opposed to increases in exposure related to things like more workers where we're collecting more premium, but there's more risk because you've got additional workers. So our view of the loss environment is higher. Whether you put that in loss trend or whether you leave your loss trend unchanged and book a medium-term over-the-top severity on top, mechanically, you're going to get to the same answer. If you believe that the inflationary impact is going to be somewhat persistent at least over the medium term if you'd put it in loss trends, that's reflected in the numbers that Greg talked about in terms of a point of margin expansion in the quarter and in the commentary that on a written basis with the production results we saw this quarter, we expect margins to continue to expand going forward.
Elyse Greenspan :
Okay. I don't want to -- I get that it impacts both sides of the equation. I mean it seems like it probably went up maybe to 5.5%, maybe even 6%. Do you want to -- can you provide the magnitude of the increase? Or do you rather just talk through the components of the positive and the negative aspects of exposure and loss trend?
Dan Frey:
I think, directionally, that's the way to think about it, Elyse. But keep in mind, as you said, there is both sides of the equation, and we're going to and are seeing the benefit on the exposure piece as well.
Elyse Greenspan :
Okay. And then Alan and Greg, both of you guys also talked, right, about strong retention, just showing the stability of the market, and you guys saw pretty good growth in all of your businesses. But sticking with BI, if we're talking about elevated loss trend pricing getting close to that loss trend, can you just help us think through why now it seems like a good time to kind of show higher premium growth?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Elyse, just as a reminder, we've had this conversation over the years. We go out and hold up a sign that says grow or shrink. We execute one account at a time. And when there's an account out there and the pricing turns, we want to put in the portfolio we do. And this quarter, Greg and his team did a fantastic job. And the result of that, again, the accounts we want -- the pricing turns we want resulted in that growth. So it's not -- there's no sort of overall coaching message other than go out and execute the next account. Greg, you want to --
Greg Toczydlowski:
I think that's exactly right. I think through this cycle, we've been -- had the benefit of -- have a high-quality book of business. So we haven't really had to remediate broadly from an underwriting point of view. It has been just fun being for some of these perils that we've talked about. So we're very pleased with when we add up all the numbers and see the execution at a very granular level from our most profitable accounts to our least profitable what that retention slope looks like, and we're very comfortable with that.
Dan Frey:
And keep in mind, Elyse, we're talking about very strong margins at the time and saying, even at this level, we continue to expect that we're expanding margins. I mean these are some of the best underlying combined ratio that Business Insurance has seen in the last 14 or 15 years. So to have retention at all-time highs when margins are as strong as they are, feels great.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar with Jefferies.
Yaron Kinar:
A couple of questions on ROEs. So I think you had a 13% operating ROE last year. You have 3x investment leverage. So if you got another point of interest rates increases coming in through the portfolio, you get another 2 points of ROE. So you're essentially at the ROE target, I think, for the cycle with higher interest rates. So with that in mind, would you kind of expect to take the foot off the rate and terms and conditions pedal to achieve greater growth? Or do you think there is more for the underwriting side?
Alan Schnitzer:
I -- well, first of all, I think it's hard to talk with -- with such a broad brush. We've got -- I assume you're directing your comments to BI. It's a $16 billion book of business with lots of different products. So it's hard to paint with a broad brush. We will -- as you heard, this quarter, written margins continue to expand, that will earn in, and we continue to execute from here and to continue to improve margins. If we're going to try to be mid-teens over the cycle, that means at some point, ideally you get above it. Having said that, we got a 10-year treasury that it's on the move, but it's still not near sort of historical norms. It's even at 28 or 29, by historical standards is relatively low. So that does impact our earn rate and what we're trying to achieve. And then the last thing I'd say is, from here, the price change is going to increase in some lines of sub-businesses, its going to go sideways in some and it's going to go down in other. So it's -- that's just a function of granular execution.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. That's helpful. And then my second question on returns. I think the stock is currently at 1 6 book ex-AOCI, which I think would suggest that you need a roughly 16% ROE to breakeven on buybacks here. So with that, maybe you can talk a little bit about your preferred avenue of capital deployment at this time? Is it to really achieve more growth as margins are expanding? Or do you expect to do more buyback?
Alan Schnitzer:
Let me start, Yaron. So on the -- way we think about it -- and I think it's important to go through the whole chain here. We generate more capital than we need to -- that we can profitably deploy back into our business. And so when we have more capital than we need, we're going to get it back. And that is sort of a philosophical principle that we've operated under for a pretty long time. And so we've got a couple of options on how we're going to get it back. And we know we've got certain segment of our shareholder population that's looking for a dividend yield, and we're going to make sure that we're paying to be competitive. And then beyond that, we're going to buy our stock back. And we're not investing in our stock. We're not trying to time the market, we're trying to rightsize capital. And we've bought back plenty of stock at these levels over the years. And we started our stock buyback program in 2006, I think. And the average price per share, which we bought back the stock, is about $70. So I really to think about it in that broader context, it's been -- it's been an exercise in capital management for us, but it's been a fantastic investment over the years. And I think when you look back at this moment in time, years from now, you're going to say the same thing.
Dan Frey:
Yes, I echo those exact same thoughts.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Tracy Benguigui with Barclays.
Tracy Benguigui:
Just one question for me. It's a follow-up to Dan's comments about holding assets to maturity, reminding us on a statutory perspective that unrealized losses on investments doesn't really matter for regulatory capital purposes. I just wanted to ask if the same is true on your internal economic capital model and how you think about capital allocation?
Dan Frey:
Yes, pretty much, Tracy. I mean we -- which is one of the reasons why when we talk about book value per share, we almost always talk about adjusted book value per share, the unrealized gain or loss position in the portfolio, we think of as we have duration in the portfolio, interest rates are going to move, we're going to have an unrealized gain or loss, it's not really driving the economics of how we think about the capital position of the company.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with KBW.
Meyer Shields:
I was hoping to start with a question for Michael. I understand that we're ramping up rate increases and they going to earn in going forward for personal auto. But I guess I was surprised with the level of new business growth and retention, and I'm wondering whether the strategy now is to write a fair amount of business as competitors dial down advertising and count on overall market rates rising and therefore, the ability to retain some of that business? In other words, are you writing business below target margins right now in auto with the expectation that probably it picks over time?
Michael Klein :
Yes. Thanks, Meyer. It's Michael. I would say the strategy is to get the rate we need to improve the profitability. And the growth that you're seeing is a byproduct of how our rate shows up in the market relative to that of our competitors. And actually, when you look underneath it, on a state-by-state basis, you actually see quote volumes moving around based on industry rate level, I think more industry rate being taken in the state drives quotes into the market. You also see our close rate varying in one state versus another based on the rate level that we've taken and how that compares to our competitors. So it's really less about looking for growth on a tactical basis, it's really all about looking at the rate indications, recognizing that we need to make progress on pricing and filing the indications and the rate request with the states and getting them in as quickly as we can and the growth you're seeing is a byproduct. I would say, to your point, retention dipped a bit from 85 to 84, again, relatively consistent with what we would have anticipated given the change in RPC. And while new business production, the dollars were up 4%, which is the same number, they were up in the prior quarter, in the fourth quarter of 2021. More of that 4% is now represented by price change than was in the prior. So there's some slight deceleration kind of in the underlying growth. And we anticipate as we continue to push for rate, we'll probably see some more of that.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. No, that makes sense. I guess, bigger picture question, so maybe for Alan. Unlike last quarter, there was no mention at least that I could catch the pandemic have any impact on the underlying loss ratio. Is that a correct read? In other words, that that particular component doesn't seem to be relevant anymore?
Alan Schnitzer:
I would say, Meyer, and I'm looking at Dan, very small.
Dan Frey:
Yes. And it also gets, Meyer, sort more and more difficult. So in terms of did we have any sort of directly COVID-related charges that become a very -- it was never a big story for us in the first place, and it's certainly not a big story now. Then in terms of the underlying loss environment, other -- things that were indirectly impacted by COVID, I think it just gets sort of harder and harder to parse out what is a change in COVID and what is just the new normal in terms of whether it's people working from home or things like that. So I think your reading is right. There's not a big story in the quarter related to COVID.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker with Bank of America.
Josh Shanker:
A couple of questions. Can we speak to fourth quarter and first quarter? Obviously, there's a big change in the loss ratio underlying. Were there specific items? And if I read through the queue as quickly as I could, it didn't seem like you're calling out anything unusual there. And making the sequential comparison, is there anything that you want to point out between the 2 quarters? Anything we should think about?
Dan Frey:
Josh, are you talking about on a consolidated basis or one of the segments.
Josh Shanker:
I'm sorry, Business Insurance, of course. Yes, Business Insurance.
Dan Frey:
Okay. So I think there is seasonality in different parts of the segments. Greg did call out in his fourth quarter comments, whether property losses, not related to cat, were a little better than our expectations. And I think we've had this conversation, Josh, before. We really don't think about the think about that sort of sequential quarter-to-quarter reconciliation. There are different things that occur in different quarters. So I think the most apples-to-apples comparison in our view is Q1 versus Q1, and that's the way we do it.
Josh Shanker:
That's fine. And then on workers' compensation, obviously, a big part of the favorable development in Business Insurance in the quarter. Can we talk about what you're seeing in the segments? Or I should say, the lines of business other than worker’s comp on prior year development and whatnot?
Dan Frey:
Sure. So in BI for the quarter, we -- so again, the pieces I gave you, $113 million in total for the quarter for BI, the largest piece being comp, that was $80 million to $85 million. I gave you the -- we had $45 million of a charge for environmental related to the older years. So that leaves you with the other things. So the general liability lines, a fair amount of favorability spread across many accident years property, a modest amount of favorability spread across many accident years, CMP, net favorability from a number of accident years, and the international business showed some favorable development in PYD as well. None of those things were sort of individually significant, which is why I didn't call them out in my comments, but we saw favorable development in those lines as well.
Josh Shanker:
So it's fair to say universally favorable across all lines, the takeaway I would come with?
Dan Frey:
Yes. The one line I didn't mention was auto and not because it was a huge outlier, but I don't think that the net result of auto is much more than a wash within Business Insurance.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Alex Scott with Goldman Sachs.
Alex Scott:
First one I had was just a follow-up on cyber. And I was just interested in, if you could provide any commentary on the kind of war exclusions you have. And I know this is a real big business for you, but I'd just be interested in that. And any claims experience you're seeing so far from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, if at all?
Jeff Klenk:
Thanks, Alex. This is Jeff Klenk. Relative to the second part of your question, no active experience relative to the current situation. And there has been, obviously, a little more dialogue on this topic recently. Relative to our offering, we're comfortable with the cyber offerings exclusionary language, have no immediate plans to change it. As always, we'll continue to monitor our policy language in the context of evolving risks. But thanks for the question.
Alex Scott:
Got it. And maybe just one more follow-up on frequency. I think Josh and Ryan both asked about this a little bit. But any way you can quantify at all for us just any frequency benefits that still remain for workers' comp and GL specifically and BI? Just thinking through, I guess, that there's sort of a wash when you look at the items year-over-year comparison wise. But when we think about it relative to pre-pandemic and appreciate may or may not actually revert to those levels. But I'm just trying to gauge if there's still a benefit there we should be considering?
Dan Frey:
Yes, pretty -- to the degree that there's any, Alex, I think it's pretty small. The other thing that we've used to describe reserving in the uncertainty of the sort of COVID environment and core closure environment is that we've tried to remain cautious. And so I think we have tried to remain cautious. So even though -- some of the data might still be indicating some modest benefits from frequency, we're making sure that we're booking losses to allow for what might come through either later or on the severity side. So not really a big benefit coming through the quarter.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Alex, I'd just add on the workers' comp comment, obviously, as the economy starts opening up again, we would start to see some of the frequency normalization, which we have seen in the workers' comp line, but certainly add expectations, nothing above that. So like what we were expecting.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of David Motemaden with Evercore ISI.
David Motemaden:
I just had a question on Business Insurance and the commentary around written rate being above loss trend and really just trying to drill down and thinking about just how much exposure is acting like rate. And so if I just compare the 4.4 renewal rate change in Business Insurance with the loss trend of, call it, 5% to 6%, it implies that to expand margin, you would need around 1 point to 1.5 points of the exposure change that's acting as rate. I'm just wondering, is this the right way to think about it roughly just like 1 point of the 5 points of exposure change acting as rate?
Dan Frey:
David, it's Dan. I think, mathematically, if you just took a point in that equation, that would get you to somewhere around breakeven, and we're telling you that we think on a written basis, margins are still expanding. It is difficult, and I appreciate what everybody is trying to do. It's difficult to have a rule of thumb for how much exposure behaves like rate, because as I said in the answer to an earlier question, the things that are driving exposure can vary from period to period, whether it's inflation driven or units of risk driven, the lines of business mix changes from quarter-to-quarter and that impacts it. But I think the short answer, I would say is when we're looking at the level of exposure that we wrote in the first quarter, I think more than 1 point of that, we think of as behaving like rate, but I really wouldn't try to put much finer point on it than that. The other thing I'll just add, David, is loss trend for this purpose is really a very blunt instrument. And that sort of one number aggregating loss trend across that we look at it at a very granular level. So we just don't approach it at the sort of macro – sort of level that you do, which is I think why we're all sort of looking at each other wondering how to respond to that. And I get -- just trying to get to some measure of cost of goods sold, it's just a blunt instrument, and it's hard to do. And the other thing I'll say is loss trend frequency changes in long-term view of frequency and severity, that's just a mechanic for booking losses and there are other mechanics for booking losses. And so it's just -- it's really the only thing impacting a quarter. So I just – just cautioning you against the -- looking at something that seems very simple and thinking that's the answer.
Operator:
We currently have time for one final question. Your final question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS.
Brian Meredith:
Yes Alan, I want to chat a little bit about Business Insurance a little more, broadly speaking here. As we look at GDP in the U.S., as you guys look back, how closely correlated is exposure growth and RPC relative to GDP in the U.S.? Is there a lag effect? And then maybe take that also on loss trend? And what impact you typically see economic growth or deceleration having on loss trend?
Alan Schnitzer:
It's a really good point, a really good question. We do see exposure growth having a reasonably high, not 1:1, but a reasonably high degree of correlation with GDP. So I do think you're onto something there. Again, it's within a range and there's some lag to it. But -- and that's also sort of an overtime measure. I don't think you can look at GDP today this week, this month, this quarter and say that's what exposure is going to be. You do need to look at it sort of overtime as you generally get there. When you talk about the impact of economic activity and losses, that's also going to vary by line, and it's hard to paint with a broad brush. I do think probably just making an observation at a macro level, there is a correlation between an economy heating up and loss trend going up. I think there are several lines that would contribute to that. But what you do need to remember, again, to the first point is that as an economy heats up, you do get exposure growth that to 1 degree or another, offset that higher level of loss trend.
Brian Meredith:
Makes sense. And then my second question, just quickly here. You've talked a lot about the severity side on BI and inflation. I'm just curious, what are you seeing as the court system opens up in the U.S.? Are you seeing kind of a return to the old social inflation environment we were seeing back in 2018, '19?
Alan Schnitzer:
I will tell you, we absolutely expect that. I don't think the court system is opening up yet. I mean it's opening up and unwinding very slowly, and I think it's going to play out over a while. You think by now that it would be open and running at pre-pandemic levels, and it's just not. But our full expectation, Brian, is consistent with your comment, we would expect to see that pre-pandemic environment in terms of of social inflation.
Operator:
Ms. Goldstein, I will turn the call back over to you now for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you all very much for joining us. We appreciate your time. And as always, if there's any follow-up, please feel free to reach out to Investor Relations, and have a good day. Thank you.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being on January 20, 2022. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our fourth quarter 2021 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our Greek segment President, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Jeff Klink of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks, and then we will take questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The Company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. For the quarter and full year, we are very pleased to report excellent bottom line results as well as successful top line growth. We attribute these results to our strong franchise value and excellent execution day in and day out in every aspect of our business. At the same time, we're forcing ahead on strategic initiatives designed to position Travelers for continued success. Core income for the quarter was $1.3 billion or $5.20 per diluted share generating quarter turn on equity of 19.8%. These results benefited from strong underlying underwriting income, driven by record net earned premiums of $8 billion and a very strong underlying combined ratio of 88.7%. That brings full year core income to $3.5 billion or $13.94 per diluted share and full year core return on equity to 13.7%. Our full year core income includes record underlying underwriting profit, $2.9 billion pretax. Catastrophe losses that were once again favorable compared to our market share, more than $0.5 billion of favorable pretax prior year reserve development and outstanding investment returns. In short, we're firing on all cylinders. We are particularly pleased with the continued strong underlying fundamentals in our commercial businesses, where we are seeing the margin expansion we anticipated. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter improved by almost 4 points year-over-year in business insurance and almost 2 points in Bond & Specialty Insurance. Looking at the two commercial segments together, the combined BI, BSI underlying combined ratio was 90.4% for 2021, a significant improvement from 94.1% in the prior year. Underlying results in Personal Insurance were impacted by other loss frequency recurring to more normal levels as miles driven has increased and, to a lesser extent, elevated severity in both auto and property. Nonetheless, with a 96.5% all-in combined ratio, PI results for the year were solid. Our consolidated results demonstrate the value of our diversified group of businesses. Turning to investments. Our high-quality investment portfolio generated net investment income of $624 million after tax for the quarter and $2.5 billion for the year, reflecting reliable results from our fixed income portfolio and another quarter of terrific returns from our non-fixed income portfolio. Our very strong operating results, together with our solid balance sheet, enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 10% during the year. After making important investments in our business and returning $3.1 billion of excess capital to shareholders including $2.2 billion of share repurchases. In the fourth quarter, we repurchased $801 million of our stock. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums grew 10% to $8 billion. Each of our three segments again contributed meaningfully to the top line growth. In Business Insurance, net written premiums grew by 9% with renewal premium change of 9.2%, near an all-time high. At the same time, retention was higher. As we've shared before, strong retention is an important indicator of continued stability in the marketplace. New business levels were up 16%. Renewal rate change in business insurance was down about one point sequentially. Exposure growth was about 4.5 points, continuing an improving trend and reaching its highest level in 15 years. That's a very encouraging sign, both in terms of economic activity and its contribution to written margin expansion. Excluding the workers' comp product line, renewal rate change in BI for the quarter was nearly 7% and historically strong result. Rate in workers' comp was a little more negative than we've seen over the past year, which is consistent with the strong profitability of the line. Overall renewal premium change to no workers' comp line was positive as exposure growth was meaningfully positive about as high as we've seen in a few years. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, average hourly earnings rose at a nearly 6% annualized rate over the past six months, up from about between 0.5% in the first six months of the year. Wage inflation is a benefit in terms of margin contribution. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 13%, driven by strong renewal premium change of 10.9% in our management liability business, and continued strong retention. In both of our commercial business segments, written margins continue to expand as written pricing outpaces estimated loss trend and we expect that to continue for a while. In Personal Insurance, net written premiums increased by 10%. Renewal premium change in auto improved by more than 1 point. Renewal premium change in homeowners remained strong at 8.7%. Policies in force in both auto and homeowners increased to record levels. The innovation and technology investments we've been making over the past number of years have had a meaningful impact on our 2021 results, and we're confident that ongoing and planned initiatives will continue to drive successful top and bottom line results going forward. Our scale, profitability and cash flow support our ability to invest well over $1 billion annually on technology. By way of example, we're digitizing the value chain leveraging cloud technology, leaning into artificial intelligence for everything from simple automation to deep learning, tapping into new data sources and building increasingly accurate predictive models. With meaningful opportunities to transform the way business is done, scale is going to be an increasingly important differentiator. Through our focus on optimizing productivity and efficiency, we have been able to meaningfully increase our overall technology spend over the last five years, while at the same time, significantly reducing our expense ratio. Importantly, over that period, we have improved the mix of our technology spend. We have increased our spending on strategic technology initiatives by 50% while reducing routine but necessary expenditures. In 2021, our leading claim organization completed a strategic three-year plan we call Right Touch. That effort resulted in more than $125 million of annual run rate savings, which is reflected in our results. In addition to creating efficiencies for us, investments in digital capabilities over the past few years have enabled us to improve the customer experience. Our timing was good. Pre-pandemic, we anticipated a higher rate of digital adoption. And when the pandemic accelerated the trend we were prepared to meet the need. We are now using virtual claim handling capabilities on a significant majority of both auto appraisals and wind tail claims without the need for inspection by a travelers claim professional. We are also handling significantly more water claims virtually as compared to pre-pandemic levels. In other words, we're delivering great experiences for our customers and a more efficient outcome for our shareholders. Throughout Travelers, we see a lot of benefit and opportunity from artificial intelligence. We've shared in recent quarters the success we've had in deploying aerial imagery coupled with proprietary deep machine learning to accelerate damage assessment and claim resolution in the wake of catastrophes. In the recent Colorado wildfire, we were able to serve some customers before they even had a chance to return to their homes. In severe wind events, our latest model can identify the extent of exterior property damage with a high degree of accuracy. These are some of the capabilities we use to meet our objective closing 90% of all claims to rising out of catastrophe events within 30 days and exclusively with Travelers claim professionals instead of also relying on independent adjusters. Resolving claims quickly and to Travelers employees, again, it's about delivering great experiences for our customers and a more efficient outcome for our shareholders. Other initiatives across the Company leverage technology, data and models to support decision-making. We have more than 60 million data records related to businesses, individuals and distributors, including virtually every business in the U.S. These records are curated into well-designed proprietary data products. We leverage this with more than 2,000 external data sets including high-resolution aerial imagery covering substantially all property exposures in the United States. All of this data fuels our more than 1,000 advanced analytical models. Our models support risk selection and segmentation, pricing, reserving, claim response and more. Our tech data and analytics advantage is significant and hard to replicate. We deployed these capabilities across the value chain from customer acquisition to underwriting to claim handlers. For example, understanding the size, condition and geometry of a roof can be significant to segmenting risk. Most homeowners understandably wouldn't note that had a hip roof or a gable group level one sizer condition. So it's hard to get accurate information due to the application process. We've developed and trained AI to evaluate those roofing characteristics using aerial imagery and are integrating that intelligence into our underwriting segmentation and pricing. Powering all of this is our exceptional workforce. We start with world-class expertise in traditional insurance-related disciplines and enhance that with leading computer data and industrial engineers, design professionals, geophysicists, behavioral scientists AI experts, professionals and so on. It takes all 30,000 of our Travelers colleagues to deliver the financial performance and strategic achievements we're reporting today, and I'm grateful to them all. To sum it up, we are very pleased with our results for the quarter and the year with cutting-edge expertise and risk and risk management, complemented by the strength we've built digital excellence and innovation. We are well positioned to identify and execute on the most promising opportunities in our industry. By extending our advantage in risk expertise, delivering industry-leading experiences and continuing to improve productivity and efficiency, we will continue to deliver meaningful shareholder value over time. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the fourth quarter was a terrific $1.289 billion, which brings the full year results to $3.522 billion. For the quarter, core return on equity was 19.8% and for the full year, core ROE was 13.7%. Our strong and consistent performance has resulted in double-digit core ROE in 9 of the past 10 years, averaging 12.6% over that time frame. We have consistently delivered a meaningful margin over both 10-year treasury and our cost of capital, and we've done so with industry low volatility. Underlying underwriting income was a very strong $867 million pretax, reflecting increased levels of earned premium in all three segments and an excellent underlying combined ratio of 88.7%. As was the case in the third quarter, improvements in the underlying combined ratio in both Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance were offset by an increase in the underlying combined ratio in Personal Insurance. Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty results both reflected the benefit of earned price that continues to exceed loss trends. The higher underlying combined ratio in personal insurance resulted from the comparison to unusually low auto losses related to the pandemic in last year's quarter as well as higher severity in this year's quarter. Greg, Jeff and Michael will provide more detail on each segment's results in a few minutes. The fourth quarter expense ratio improved in all three segments and the consolidated expense ratio of 28.5% for the quarter brings the full year expense ratio to a historically low 29.4%. Even as we make significant investments in initiatives that we believe will drive our continued success, our ongoing focus on productivity and efficiency drove a 50 basis point improvement in this share's expense ratio, which is now more than 200 basis points lower than it was just five years ago. As we continue to grow the business and maintain our focus on productivity and efficiency, we expect to remain in this mid-29% range in the near term and then gradually move down to around 29% over the next couple of years. Of course, there will be variability in any given quarter, but on a full year basis, that is the path we're on. Our fourth quarter cat losses were $36 million pretax. In this year's fourth quarter, we recognized recoveries of $255 million from the Property Aggregate Catastrophe XOL Treaty. A $221 million benefit for the quarter's cat losses and a $34 million benefit to underlying losses. The cat benefits by segment was $109 million in Business Insurance, $108 million in Personal Insurance and the remainder in Bond & Specialty Insurance. The underlying benefit by segment was $10 million in Business Insurance and $24 million in Personal Insurance. Turning to prior year reserve development. We had net favorable development of $95 million pretax on a consolidated basis. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $74 million was driven by better-than-expected loss experience in workers' comp across multiple exiting years. The Bond & Specialty segment saw a net favorable development of $24 million, while in Personal Insurance, modest favorable PYD in homeowners and other was offset by modest unfavorable development in auto, with the net result to PI being $3 million unfavorable. After-tax net investment income of $624 million reflected another quarter of very strong returns in the non-fixed income portfolio and fixed income results that were modestly better than our expectations. Looking forward to 2022, we expect that after-tax fixed income NII, including earnings from short-term securities, will be between $430 million and $440 million per quarter, modestly higher than in 2021 as the benefit of expected growth in invested assets will be partially offset by a lower average yield on the portfolio given the continued low interest rate environment. Although interest rates have moved up somewhat recently, we still expect that new purchase yields will be lower than the yields on the bonds rang off. Page 20 of the webcast presentation provides information about our January 1 cat treaty renewals. Our long-standing corporate cat XOL treaty continues to provide coverage for both single cat events and the aggregation of losses from multiple cat events. While the treaty renewed on terms that were generally in line with the expiring treaty providing coverage for the $2 billion layer above the unchanged $3 billion retention, we increased our coverage in the $2 billion layer from 75% to 90% thus increasing the amount of coverage available from $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion. The 2022 renewal of the underlying Property Aggregate Catastrophe XOL Treaty resulted in placing 45% of the coverage layer. The treaty provides aggregate coverage of $225 million for the $500 million of losses above our aggregate retention of $2 billion. The per event deductible has increased from $5 million in 2021 to $10 million for 2022. Hurricane, wildfire and earthquake events once again have a $250 million per occurrence cap. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.7 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.5 billion. For the full year, operating cash flow exceeded $7 billion for our strongest year ever reflecting the benefit of continued increases in premium volume, strong profitability and lower-than-normal overall claim payouts as courtroom and other settlement activity remained below historical levels. As we've said previously, we are assuming that this lower level of payment activity is ultimately a timing issue. When establishing our reserves and when pricing our products, we assume that elevated severity related to social inflation has not abated at all. Our substantial cash flow gives us the flexibility to continue to make important investments in our business, return excess capital to our shareholders and grow our investment portfolio, which increased to $87 billion at year-end 2021. We've added an impressive $15 billion or more than 20% to our investment portfolio in just the past three years. Interest rates increased modestly during the fourth quarter, and accordingly, our net unrealized investment gain decreased from $2.7 billion after tax as of September 30 to $2.4 billion after tax at year-end. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses, was $109.76 at year-end, a healthy 10% increase from a year ago. We returned more than $1 billion of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising dividends of $216 million and share repurchases of $801 million. For the year, we returned $3.1 billion of capital to shareholders, including $2.2 billion of share repurchases. Overall, we had an excellent year with accelerating top line growth, strong and improved margins in our commercial businesses and improved expense ratio and a balance sheet that positions us very well for the future. And now, I'll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance had another strong quarter, rounding out a terrific year with respect to financial results, execution in the marketplace and progress on our strategic initiatives. Segment income for the quarter was $867 million, up more than $150 million from the fourth quarter of 2020 driven primarily by higher underlying underwriting income and net investment income. We're once again particularly pleased with the underlying combined ratio of 89.8%, which improved by 3.8 points from the fourth quarter of 2020. A little more than 1.5 points of the improvement was from earned pricing that continued to exceed the loss cost trends. Another 0.5 point came from the improvement in the expense ratio. The remaining approximately 1.5 points resulted from a combination of a lower level of property losses than we expected and a favorable impact associated with the pandemic. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 9% from the prior year quarter, benefiting from strong renewal premium change high retention and an increase in new business levels. We're very pleased with these outstanding financial results for the quarter and more broadly for the full year. Before turning to production, let me provide a little color on the full year results to put the quarter in context. The top line of $16.1 billion was an all-time high. Segment income was $2.4 billion and the underlying combined ratio of 91.7% were both excellent. These results were driven by the successful execution of our thoughtful and deliberate strategies, and we're well positioned for continued profitable growth. Turning to domestic production for the quarter. Renewal premium change was once again historically high at 9.2%, while retention remained exceptional at 85%. New business of $505 million was up 16% from the fourth quarter of last year, driven by our success with large accounts in middle market. The 9.2% renewal premium change was up one point from the fourth quarter of last year, with renewal rate change of 5.2% and continued improvement in exposure growth to levels we haven't seen in more than a decade. The 5.2% renewal rate was down a bit sequentially, similar to the trends we saw in the first three quarters. The rate gains we achieved reflect our deliberate execution given the significant improvements in profitability across the portfolio after several years of meaningful rate increases and improvements in terms and conditions. Written pricing, including the portion of exposure that behaves like rate remains in excess of loss trend. So all other things equal, margins will continue to improve as this price earns in. Given social and other inflation, the frequency and severity of weather-related loss activity and the persisting low interest rate environment, we will continue to see pricing gains to further improve the profitability of our business. As always, our execution in terms of rate and retention will be granular at the account or class level. In addition to our granular price execution, we also remain focused on careful management of deductibles, attachment points, limits, sublimits and exclusions, which also contribute to an increase in the price per unit of rest. As for the individual businesses, in select, renewal premium change was a strong 9.4% while retention was 82%. New business was up 12% from the prior year quarter, driven by the continued success of our new BOP 2.0 product, which is now live in 44 states. As a reminder, BOP 2.0 is our completely redesigned state-of-the-art product which includes industry-leading segmentation and a fast, easy quoting experience. Looking back on the year for Select, we're pleased with the progress we've made in improving the profitability of this business while continuing to invest for future growth. In middle market, renewal premium change remained strong at 8.8%, while retention was once again historically high at 87%. New business was up 25% from the prior year quarter, driven predominantly by our success with large accounts, as I mentioned earlier. To sum up, Business Insurance had a great fourth quarter and full year. We continue to improve the profitability of the book while investing in digital assets, analytics and industry-leading expertise to enhance our position as the undeniable choice for the customer and an indispensable partner for our agents and brokers. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jeff.
Jeff Klenk:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty ended a strong year with another terrific quarter. Segment income was $170 million, up 4% from the prior year quarter, driven by higher underlying underwriting income. The underlying combined ratio of 83.3% improved by 1.7 points from the prior year quarter, reflecting or pricing that exceeded loss cost trends and a lower expense ratio. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums grew a very strong 13% in the quarter with contributions from all our businesses. In domestic management liability, we achieved double-digit renewal premium change for the fifth consecutive quarter at a level of just modestly below our record high third quarter. Retention was higher sequentially and remained strong despite the impact of our strategy to non-renewed cyber accounts that do not meet our minimum cyber hygiene protocols. Early indications are that those underwriting actions are having a meaningful favorable impact on the frequency of cyber claims we're seeing. Domestic surety posted solid growth in the fourth quarter reflecting our market-leading position and continued investments in providing meaningful value-added products and services to our customers. Our international businesses again posted excellent growth, reflecting strong management liability, retention and rate. So both top and bottom line results for Bond & Specialty were terrific this quarter, capping off a great year and demonstrating the strong value proposition we offer to our customers and distribution partners and excellent execution across our businesses. And now, I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance for the fourth quarter, segment income was $327 million, and our combined ratio was 91.1%, both solid results in the context of a challenging environment. We were pleased that our top line momentum continued in the quarter with net written premium up 10%. In automobile, the fourth quarter combined ratio was 104.1%, an increase of 18 points compared to the prior year quarter, which reflected unusually low loss activity due to the pandemic. Automobile loss levels increased mainly due to miles driven and claim frequency effectively returning to pre-pandemic levels and to a lesser extent, higher loss severity as vehicle replacement and repair costs remained elevated. These profitability challenges are environmental, and we anticipate that they will persist into 2022. In response, we began implementing rate increases. Rate increases have taken effect in 11 states since August. We anticipate additional increases in approximately 25 states throughout the first quarter, with more actions planned in subsequent quarters. As we indicated last quarter, although it will take time for these rate actions to earn into our results, we remain confident we are on track to address the near-term profit challenges and continue to profitably grow our book over time. In Homeowners and Other, the fourth quarter combined ratio improved by 4 points from the prior year quarter to 77.8% despite the fact that we continue to see higher severity related to a combination of labor and material price increases. As a reminder, for homeowners, we expect the fourth quarter to be the seasonally lowest quarter for loss levels. So notwithstanding the relatively low fourth quarter combined ratio, the homeowners product line continues to experience elevated weather and non-weather loss activity, and we will continue to seek rate in response. In addition, we are increasing insured values to align with labor and materials inflation which will further contribute to higher renewal premium changes in the coming quarters. Turning to production. We were very pleased to deliver another strong quarter in both auto and home. Domestic automobile policies in force grew 6% to a record level, driven by strong retention at 85%, while new business growth slowed to 4%. Renewal premium change improved from the prior quarter to 1.2% as the impact of our recent rate actions started to take effect. Renewal premium change accelerated during the quarter, and we expect it to accelerate further over the next several quarters. Domestic Homeowners and other delivered another excellent quarter with policies in force up 7%, also to a record level driven by retention of 85% and renewal premium change of 8.7%. New business levels were strong and consistent with the prior year quarter. As I mentioned, we expect higher renewal premium changes going into 2022. Our Personal Insurance success continues to benefit from ongoing investments to modernize our suite of products, expand our distribution partnerships and leverage the power of technology. One notable example was highlighted in our press release last week regarding the introduction of IntelliDrive Plus in three states. IntelliDrive Plus builds on our existing IntelliDrive capabilities by capturing mileage in addition to driving behavior, demonstrating our continued investment in telematics solutions to offer customers even more options to personalize their insurance. Reflecting on the full year, we are pleased with our personal insurance results, which includes segment income of $760 million, a combined ratio of 96.5%, 10% net premium growth and record policies in force in both product lines. In closing, while we face some environmental headwinds in the near term, we remain confident in our ability to execute in the face of these challenges and are well positioned to profitably grow our business overtime. On behalf of Greg, Jeff and myself, I'd like to thank our distribution partners and our teams for a successful 2021. Now, I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael, and we're ready to open up for your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And your first question will come from Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Michael Phillips:
My first question goes to auto and -- first to auto and then speed to which I guess you think you can get improvements there given you're more of a package writer. So we've seen retention held study relatively steady. Others are seeing drops there as they kind of curtail growth. Your pricing of 1.2%, clearly not enough, obviously, but I'm sure you'll take more as you said. But is the fact that you're more of a package writer, more of a hindrance to your ability to get the improvements that you think you need over the course of the year versus peers that don't have as much package? Is that more of a hindrance? And will that create more of a slowdown in profitability as the year comes out?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Michael, it's Michael Klein. So I would say the short answer is no, but let me unpack that a little bit. So first, the fact that we're a package writer, I actually think the benefit of being a portfolio of solution providers showed through in our results this quarter with relatively strong performance in home balancing some of the challenges we see in auto, number one. Number two, because we have a balanced portfolio of about 50% property, 50% auto, our overall segment results are actually less sensitive to the trends in auto than the average competitor who was more, say, 60-40, 70-30. Probably most importantly, though, is there's nothing about our being a portfolio solution provider that influences our resolve to improve profitability in auto. As you mentioned, the 1.2% that we posted in the quarter is encouraging, but clearly not enough, which is why we're on a path towards accelerating renewal premium change over time. And we're in the process of continuing to evaluate our loss experience, final adjusted rates based on that loss experience and file for take and get approval for the rate we need to improve the profitability of the line.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, Michael. That's helpful. I appreciate that. And obviously, the package and the homeowner benefits really helps. So thank you. Second question is specific to reserves and specifically on COVID reserves that you set up at the beginning of COVID. So almost two years ago, everybody who's Sky's following it's going to be the worst industry ever, clearly not the case. But we've had delta with that Omicron and so there's still some concerns. But I guess last I've seen from you guys' comments on that is still the bulk of your reserves there, which I think are north of $250 million, far an IBNR. So at what point do you get comfort and saying that either comes down because they're not going to get reported? Or have you seen anything that's been reported is it still the bulk IBNR? So where do we get some comfort that -- where do you get comfort that it's time to maybe move that number down?
Alan Schnitzer:
Michael, it's Alan. Let me start, and then I'll just kick it over to Dan. But just to clarify, we never said the sky was falling. We never said this was going to be the worst Just to clarify industry commentary. But let me -- let me turn it over to Dan for the substantive response.
Dan Frey:
Sure, Michael. So it's a fair question. We say the same thing exiting 2021, as we've been saying for the past several quarters, which is when we look back, back to the beginning of the pandemic and the reserves that we established related to losses specifically for the pandemic sitting here at the end of 2021, it's still the case that the majority of those losses are sitting in IBNR. And as we've said in each of the last few quarters, I think we've taken a cautious approach in that regard. I think there's uncertainty as to what the ultimate severity may be for some of those claims. We know courts are not yet fully reopened. So, reporting patterns may be slowed we're just going to continue to take a cautious approach. Having said that, within our PYD figures, there is favorability from accident year '20, there's also favorability from accident years, '19, '18, '17, '16, '15, '14 and so on. So I think we're trying to be cautious. We're not ignoring where there's good news. I just think the degree to which we're reacting to that good news has been pretty cautious.
Operator:
The next question is from Brian Meredith with UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
A couple of questions here. First, I'm just curious, when we take a look at the renewal rate trends here and take -- and your historical kind of loss trend that you've talked about, I think it was around 5%. How close are we to that? And I think I just want to clarify, I think you also said that you're expecting to continue to take rate that will kind of be margin accretive throughout 2022.
Alan Schnitzer:
Brian, it's Alan. I think we said price and the industry observers get very, very focused on that rate and loss trend number. And I think in some circumstances, that's appropriate and some is just you look at the overall 9.2 points of price, if you look at our effective execution and segmentation of that across the book that 9.2, if you look back over 15 or 20 years, you can't find that many quarters with price at that level. And so the combination of the rate we're getting and the exposure continues to contribute to written margin expansion.
Brian Meredith:
Got you. Makes curious, taking a look at your full year underlying combined ratio in your business Insurance, I mean it's probably as low as it's been in the last decade or more. I guess my question there is are you thinking there fees to get lower here? Or are you kind of at an acceptable level kind of from a return perspective at this point?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think we're going to stay away from giving a lot of specific forecasts. I mean, Greg, I think, did speak to that in his prepared remarks. So we do think that there are continue to be headwinds, and Greg specified what they were. We continue to think that we've got to do more to offset those. And so we'll continue to to price and execute to do that. But I think we're going to avoid giving specific outlook on a metric.
Operator:
The next question will come from Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
I had a couple on the ag treaty. First of all, was there any benefit on the underlying loss ratio this quarter for the recoveries on that? Or was it all just cats?
Dan Frey:
Ryan, it's Dan. So I know I go through the comments fast, but in my comments, I gave you $34 million of benefit to the underlying in the quarter, which was $10 million to BI and $24 million to PI, but the lion's share 220 plus was to cats.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And then follow-up is, I think in the past, you sort of set the self-retention on that treaty in central way kind of in line with your view of what -- internally of what your cat load was. Should we interpret the higher self-retention in the aggregate as you guys having raised your internal view of your cat load? Or was that just a function of renewal discussions, harder terms and conditions?
Dan Frey:
So a couple of comments there, Ryan. One, I think some of the analysts have assumed that the attachment point was a proxy for our for our cat load. We've never said that and it doesn't work quite that way. Having said that, the increase in the attachment point is generally going to be reflective of the growth of our business. So, as the business is bigger, we would expect cat losses on a dollar basis to grow. And then, the attachment point and the change from $5 million deductible per event to a $10 million deductible per event. That's the combination of what was available in the marketplace and what we felt was an appropriate deal to pursue.
Operator:
The next question is from Jimmy Bhullar with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Jimmy Bhullar:
I had a couple of questions. First, just on the auto business. You mentioned the 1.2% increase on rates that you got. Can you compare that to what you're actually speaking in terms of price hikes and just the process of sort of getting approvals and how they should flow through? Just trying to get an idea on whether you think margins can begin to improve if inflation does not cool down? And then I had another one.
Michael Klein:
Sure, Jimmy. Thanks for the question. It's Michael. So the 1.2%, right, is the written renewal premium change across the portfolio. You could sort of think of it as including a weighted average of the rate we've achieved in the states we've gotten it, right? So 11 out of, call it, 46 states, we got rate in. The other important thing is the 11 -- the number, the 11 that I gave you is a new business effective date, not a renewal effective date. So there's a little bit of a lag in the impact on renewals. Underneath that 1.2% -- what I would say is in terms of the process, we are largely being successful in achieving the rate we're asking for state by state. Obviously, every state is a little bit different. But as I mentioned, we're pursuing the right we think we need based on the trends we see. Your point about what happens with severity and loss trend from here is a really good one, right? The filings we got approved in the fourth quarter of last year, were based on our experience and our outlook for trends at that point in time. And as we seek additional rate as we move into 2022, we'll continue to update those assessments and those assumptions, and that will drive the rate we request on a state-by-state basis. But the 1.2% is really mostly a function of the fact that it's in 20% of the states we're writing in. And as we get more rate approved in more states, that will drive that acceleration.
Jimmy Bhullar:
And besides California, are there any major states where you're having a hard time getting price increases because I think California hasn't approved anything so far?
Michael Klein:
Again, I would say most of the states that we are working with, we've been able to get approved what we thought, and I really wouldn't point to any states that have made a particular challenge.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay. And then on workers' comp, I think there's been hope for almost two years now, the pricing would turn. What are you seeing? And what are your expectations on pricing for that line?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Jimmy, this is Greg Toczydlowski. In Alan's prepared comments, you mentioned that we saw a little more of a negative than we have in prior quarters on that. And that really is generated based on the strong industry profitability and profitability from ourselves also. So a couple of quarters back, we would have thought that we would have been getting above zero, but the pandemic had -- with the contraction of the economy. Some very favorable results overall on frequency on workers' comp. And so the bureaus that really regulate that particular product or all at a state level looking at direct COVID losses and indirect COVID losses, and they do a pretty good job of predicting where the future loss costs are. And so think it's going to be a little bit longer than what we did a couple of quarters ago just because of that strong profitability before it might get above zero.
Operator:
The next question will come from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Elyse Greenspan:
My first question on the related to inflation and loss trends. Are you guys seeing any upward factor on offense and full-term closing climate gains or any other factors? And then I know it came off a couple of times on the call, but can you just confirm that within BI, you loss trend assumption does still sit at that 5% level that you've been talking about?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Elyse, yes, we have not changed our general view of loss trend in BI. But remember, loss trend is a long-term view of a loss inflation. And there are other levers for us to account for other sort of loss activity going on that we don't necessarily think as part of long-term trends. So we can change the base here. We can book losses relative to what we see in any particular quarter. And so I think you heard from Michael, in particular, I know your question was about BI, but you heard from Michael, in particular that we did book some losses in PI and BI as well for severity, think labor and material inflation. So we did see a little bit of that, and that's reflected in our numbers. I think you heard from Dan in his prepared remarks that in terms of social inflation, while I would say what we're seeing maybe is a little bit better than what we saw a few years ago, but we're assuming that's due to distortion in the data, and that hasn't abated at all. So we continue to account for that. And you mentioned climate change. Climate change is a hard one to think about in any given period because you think about weather patterns over a long period of time. But clearly, if you just look at four of the last five years, our cat experience was worse than what we would have expected. And so whether that's climate change, whether that's other factors, think demographic changes, people moving into harm's way, people building larger homes. I mean there's all sorts of things that are contributing to that. But we do see weather patterns, and we do take weather patterns into account in our loss picks and our pricing.
Elyse Greenspan:
Great. And then my second question, Alan, you made the comment that within win price should outpace lasted for a while. And I know when you make that comment, you responded to an earlier question, right, that you're more looking at the RPC for that 9.2% as it relates to the trend. But how should we think about thinking about the gap, I guess, continuing to narrow between that nine and that five? And would you expect, you say some time, is that a comment sustaining to all of 2022?
Alan Schnitzer:
As we look out into the future, and this is always the case, there's nothing unusual about this moment in time, but the crystal ball gets a little bit easy sometimes. And so, it's hard for us to be very specific about how long anything is going to last. Any trend is going to last in this business. But when we look at overall pricing in BI in excess of nine and think about where loss trend is, we're comfortable where the trends are heading. And I shared as we do from time to time that our pricing ex workers' comp was seven, which is also a historically very strong number. And so we look at all that and say it's going to continue to -- certainly based on our view of estimated loss trends, continue to contribute to margin expansion for exactly how long, I don't know, and it's going to vary by line. Greg pointed out and you can see in the data we've been getting pretty good price increases for a while now, which has changed our overall return profile and view of rate adequacy. So from here, some lines are will keep going up. Some will go sideways, some -- the rate of increase will decrease. But we're very comfortable. We executed on a very deliberate basis. We've got the data. We've got the insight. And really importantly, we've got the underwriting expertise at the point of sale to know what we want to do on that marginal account. So it's about getting the right price on the account and either putting it in the portfolio if we don't have it or keeping it if we do. And so we're very comfortable with the execution and what the outlook is.
Operator:
The next question is from Alex Scott with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Alex Scott:
The first one I had is on Bond & Specialty. If we consider the COVID that I think was included in the year ago number, I want to say it was 2 points or so. Underlying loss ratio got to touch worse despite a lot of rate being taken. So just I was interested if you could unpack that for us a little on what some of the drivers were?
Dan Frey:
Alex, it's Dan. So just to be clear, you're looking at the Bond & Specialty underlying combined ratio for the fourth quarter?
Alex Scott:
Yes. Just the year-over-year, I think, by our math, it got a little worse when we exclude COVID, although I'm not totally sure exactly if there was any COVID impact that maybe it was in this quarter, but could you just talk about sort of that year-over-year comp, ex COVID and what some of the drivers are?
Dan Frey:
Yes. We're really -- so the printed number just to make sure we're looking at the same thing as an 83.3% this quarter, down from an 85% last quarter. That's mostly driven that improvement is mostly driven by the impact of earned price relative to loss trend. COVID in the fourth quarter of last year was not a big factor.
Alex Scott:
Got it. Okay. Then maybe switching over to Business Insurance for my second question. As mentioned, I think, a couple of times that there's a lot of other factors beyond just the pure rate versus loss trend. And some of those being exposed to acting like rate, terms and conditions changes. And you spoke a lot about what you're doing on claims handling and becoming more efficient. Is there a way for us to think about order of magnitude impact from some of those things and how much improvement could kind of continue from those elements that are a little harder to quantify?
Dan Frey:
Yes. Alex, I don't know that there really is. I mean there's a lot of potential things in there. In addition to pricing and whoever interest rates go, you've got risk selection and mix and reinsurance and claims handling expenses, terms and conditions. And I think frankly, it's hard on the inside to calibrate to calibrate the impact of those. And we've obviously got more insight into it than you do and methodology for doing it. But I'm not sure how you do it from the outside. Dan, am I missing something?
Dan Frey:
I don't think so. There's a lot of things around the edges. I think the fundamental point is it's not -- margins are not just going to necessarily behave in line with the headline rate versus trend.
Operator:
The next question will come from Paul Newsome with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.
Paul Newsome:
Congratulations on the quarter. up my questions on auto. And I don't even know if we have enough data, but my sense is that driving behavior changed. And so even though frequency is kind of back where it was pre pandemic, people are driving at different times in different ways. Is there any way to quantify that impact? Because I think we're thinking of severity as sort of a pure inflation impact, but I don't know if that's the case. And just wondering if your data suggests one way or the other.
Michael Klein:
Sure, Paul. Michael, it's Michael. It's a great question. I think it's something that we continue to monitor. I would say that there are a couple of places that we have data that demonstrate changes in driving behavior. One is just the driving patterns, right, commuting versus noncommuting, time of day. And whether you look at external data sources, whether we look at our own IntelliDrive data, we do see a shift in those driving patterns. The other item that, again, I think you'll see in here, talk about quite a bit is just change in driving behavior. And so in the context of those new driving patterns, we and industry observers have observed increased speeds. When you look at the -- unfortunately, the continued rise in fatalities on highways, some of the data shows increased evidence of fewer people seatbelts, having an impact on fatality data. And again, our own data and that from others also indicates increases in distracted driving, interacting with the phone while operating the vehicle. So I think we do see changes in again, time of day, type of driving and actual driving behavior that will have an impact on losses. Quantifying exactly how much of the change is driven by that is more challenging. Frankly, when we look at increased severity in auto, the biggest drivers continue to be used car prices and labor in parts to repair vehicles, particularly in the context of coverages like collision and property damage.
Paul Newsome:
And then my second question is Business Insurance. Normally, at least my normally when I think of seeing exposure increases that has essentially a related claims increase, as you can imagine, higher exposures. But there's also an embedded piece of effective price increase in exposure, which ordinarily is very hard to figure out if it's there. Is there anything that would make this time different from the past with the impact of exposures because what we're seeing today is exposure is rising in some parts because of relief from COVID as opposed to what I think you normally think of a sort of ordinary economic growth?
Alan Schnitzer:
I don't know how to answer that question with great precision. I mean, it's in part why I chose to point out the wage inflation from the Bureau of Labor statistics because wage inflation relative to headcount increase, for example, you'd think of as a relatively larger increase to margin contribution. But other than that -- and it's all sort of a blunt instrument. We spent a lot of time thinking about how we should be thinking about the contribution of exposure to margins and it's complicated for us. And again, another place we probably have more insight into the data. But it's a complicated analysis and there's a lot of judgment involved. But at least one component to think of is wage inflation versus headcount increases.
Operator:
The next question will come from Josh Shanker with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Josh Shanker:
It was an outstanding quarter in the homeowners a silo. And obviously, you guys are taking rates there. Are we to rate adequacy in homeowners? And when we look at the margins in homeowners versus auto, when you're thinking about a bundled customer, do you need to make profit in both the home and the auto part? Or do you look at the customer and let's make a profit on the customers' complete package of policies?
Michael Klein:
Sure. Thanks, Josh. It's Michael. I would say the answer to the second part of your question is yes. We like to make money on the customer, but we really do. We price at line of business. And while we talk about account pricing sort of across the organization, Greg talks about it all the time in business insurance, the way that pricing works in the personal line space, you get rate filed and approved by product. Now we have some interline dynamics in terms of the way our pricing models work, but we really do seek to earn our target margins by line and in aggregate, whether that's across the business or customer by customer. In terms of the profitability in home, again, I think in my prepared remarks, I indicated this, right? I wouldn't overreact to the 78 in the fourth quarter. We're pleased with it. We're happy with it. That said, the full year is still at 98, which is up from last year. Underlying is an 85 from last year. So the fourth quarter really hasn't changed our resolve in terms of our need to continue to drive price and terms in property. And then the other thing, I think, is an important dynamic to watch for in 2022 is RPC for property will also be impacted by insured values. And I mentioned it in the script, but we're seeking to increase values in the homeowners' line in response to home prices and labor and material inflation. And so you'll see that start to show up in pricing in 2022.
Operator:
The next question will come from David Motemaden with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.
David Motemaden:
I had a follow-up just for Alan. You gave a 7% renewal rate change in business insurance, and that was excluding workers' comp. Could you just talk about how that's trended over the last few quarters and maybe some of the drivers behind it?
Alan Schnitzer:
David, we typically actually don't give that number. We get it from time to time episodically when we think it's relevant for providing an insight into the results we're achieving. But we don't give it routinely. I'm not even sure I know of and how that number is necessarily trended, although I would probably just pull the lens back a little bit and say, over the last few years, pricing has been very strong. And so I mean that's probably the lens I'd give you on that.
David Motemaden:
Got it. And then maybe just moving -- I guess, sticking in Business Insurance and great to see the premium written growth this quarter. Even -- you mentioned renewal premium change, obviously, the 9.2, but I noticed that new business really moved the needle this quarter, and that's a change versus prior couple of quarters. So I'm just wondering, did something change in terms of your appetite for new business, any enhancements that you've made this quarter versus the last few I'm just trying to get a sense for how sustainable you think the 9% growth is as we head into 2022.
Greg Toczydlowski:
David, this is Greg. In my prepared comments, I did share with you that we were more successful in some larger accounts in middle market. And if you go back, I've shared with you that that's lumpy at times. Last quarter, we didn't hit that as many large accounts in the quarter before we did. And so you get a little bit of lumpiness when you get into accounts greater than 500,000. And that was one dynamic. But generally, also our underlying combined ratio is across our full portfolio of the book of business, and that includes new business. So as we continue to improve the margins on the business, we continue have better outlook in terms of what our new business is. Our underwriters are incredibly disciplined around risk selection and they want to be active partners for our agents and brokers and our as our business continues to improve. We continue to be more active with our hits on our new business.
Alan Schnitzer:
And David, I'll just share just stepping back from the results in the quarter. Key to everything we do and key to I think the success we had in BI is franchise value. It's having products and services, our customers, agents and brokers value. It's having the data and analytics to segment the risk and get the right price on it. It's making sure we've got great experiences for all of our constituencies. It's a lot of hustle. And all of our innovation priorities and all the investments we're making are generally speaking, aligned to those things. So I do think that has an impact on everything. It's on our retention and our ability to get the pricing did and on the new business.
Operator:
The next question is from Tracy Benguigui with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Tracy Benguigui:
Just a quick follow-up question on your Jan 1 underlying aggregate reinsurance renewal. If I just look at the upper limit, it looks like your $225 million coverage is down from $350 million last year. So I guess I'm wondering, was the objective to remain cost neutral in response to rising reinsurance pricing or less appetite by reinsurers to offer aggregate cover.
Dan Frey:
Tracy, it's Dan. It's really more of the latter. So if you look at -- this is now the fourth year we've had this treaty. And it's always covered a $500 million layer. How much of that lighter we place each year is a function of our view of appropriate price in terms and conditions and the reinsurers view of appropriate pricing terms and conditions. And so, we went from 86% the first year down to 56% the second year. This last year was up to 70%. This year is in at 45%. It's -- we're not trying to manage the total cost of the treaty. Pricing did not move that significantly on the treaty. It's really just an intersection of our appetite and the reinsurance market's appetite.
Tracy Benguigui:
Got it. And then just a quick follow-up on personal auto. Similar to last quarter, it sound pretty confident of all the rate increases you're taking. But I noticed your 6% TIF growth was pretty high number year-over-year for Travelers. Do you think that's something that could slow down in subsequent quarters? Or could that be like a new normal given some of the strategic stuff you're doing like IntelliDrive?
Michael Klein:
Yes, Tracy, great question. I would say you got to look at both the year-over-year and sequential quarter numbers there. 5%, 6%, 1%, 2% sequential quarter growth we do think it's driven by the investments we're making in the product. But it's also a function of our pricing relative to the market notwithstanding the fact that the 6% is up from 5%. Policies grew less than 40,000 in this quarter versus more than 40,000 in the prior two, which is why you see the sequential quarter growth coming down. And then again, in my prepared remarks, I talked about the fact that new business production has slowed. So again, we're focused on the rate we think we need to drive into the product and improving the profitability in response to the loss trends. The growth is really going to be an outcome as opposed to a target, and we'll see how our pricing strategy plays out relative to the market over the next next several quarters.
Tracy Benguigui:
Okay. Got it. If I could just sneak sorry, one more in. I think there has been a lot of earlier talk about packaging. But if I could just focus on your policies being written on 12-month paper for auto. Do you think you have to push rate increases a little bit harder because others are just talking about taking multiple bites on the apple, so they may be more agile?
Michael Klein:
Yes. So again, it's Michael. I'd say those are two different things. right? So one is your filing strategy, the other is your product mix. We do tend to write more 12-month policies than a lot of our auto mono line or autofocus competitors, but we do write a mix of 12 and 6-month policies. The fact that we write more 12-month policies, though it doesn't mean that we can't take multiple rate changes in a jurisdiction in a year. And so we may, in some states take a couple of rate increases in 2022, and those will hit the renewals as they hit them depending upon the policy terms. But I think our filing strategy, we can be as agile as anyone else, what that impacts renewals will vary a little bit based on our policy. But we don't see it as a significant barrier in terms of our ability to make progress.
Operator:
The next question is from Yaron Kinar with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Yaron Kinar:
So my first question, maybe a little bit long-winded, but hopefully, you bear with me. So in personal auto, looking back to the 2014 to '16 cycle, I think many had pointed to the deterioration of bodily injury severity, particularly for high-limit policies, whereas this time around I think the deterioration is really coming from physical damage severity. So if you agree with that premise, is it reasonable to think that Travelers given that it is more weighted to higher limit preferred insurance would need less rate then more standard and nonstandard books and therefore would maybe benefit from market share gains here?
Michael Klein:
I guess I would say that it's reasonable to -- I wouldn't assume it. I think it's reasonable to monitor that. I would say that our pricing strategy is reflective of our book of business and our loss experience. And so in many respects, we have a different rate need than another competitor because of the profile of our book, the mix of our book, we also do tend to write more full coverage. So even the product we're providing to the customer, right, when you get into the nonstandard market, you tend to see a little more liability only. And so that's going to change the pricing dynamics. But again, I would say we're seeking the rate we think we need based on our loss experience and the trends we see. But profile and mix of business could definitely in addition to what you just described, state mix is going to also have an impact on the aggregate headline number than any given carrier needs.
Yaron Kinar:
Right. Okay. That's helpful. And then my second question, probably for Alan, so you talked about the investment in technology, I think as over $1 billion -- well over $1 billion in annual spend. I don't remember and acquisition related to technology at least since simply business 2016. I was wondering maybe you could elaborate on why are we not seeing more through is it a function of valuation that the idea doesn't be outside are not compelling enough. Maybe you can help us understand that.
Alan Schnitzer:
Your question came through a little bit garbled, and we couldn't quite understand it here. Could you try one more time?
Yaron Kinar:
Sure. I'm trying to get a better understanding of the investment in technology. I don't remember seeing any M&A from Travelers simply business back in 2017. And I'm just trying to understand why is it that you're choosing to really build all of this organically as opposed to pursue maybe opportunities that are presented through third parties. Is it a function of valuations only? Is that a function of just the ideas that are presented by these third parties not being compelling enough for the Company? What's driving the choice to build organically?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Well, I guess that's not exactly true. I mean for -- just to give you an example on the top of my head, we acquired Insurer match not too long ago. But I think you're asking a philosophical questions we'll give you a philosophical answer we approach it pre agnostically. So we're happy to buy it. We're happy to build it and are happy to license it. And in virtually every significant investment we make, we take a step back and we say, what are the capabilities we need and what's the fastest, most cost-effective, least risky way to get it. And if it's proprietary, we want to own it or control it or buy it or develop it. If it's not, we're happy to go get it in other ways. But in any significant investment we make, we do a very thorough evaluation of all the opportunities.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, we do have time for one final question. That question will come from Mike Zaremski with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead.
Michael Zaremski:
Maybe moving to auto. I guess, are you seeing a frequency benefit from a spike in pandemic sorry, in COVID cases? Because otherwise, it just feels like there's still a big gap between severity, just overall loss trend and the pricing you're seeing?
Michael Klein:
Yes. Great question, Mike. It's Michael. I think our own data in terms of miles driven and external sources, whether you look at Department of Transportation or others, show a little bit of a slowdown in the back half of December. I'd say it's too soon to call that a trend. You've got the holiday in there, you've got weather impacts in there. There's a lot of noise around whether you got a good baseline comparison in terms of the data we're seeing, but it's certainly something we're paying attention to. But again, broadly speaking, in the quarter, we saw miles driven in claim frequency, again, largely approaching pre-pandemic levels across the period.
Michael Zaremski:
Okay. Great. And my follow-up is on Bond & Specialty. Greg mentioned non-renewing of a number of cyber accounts having a meaningful favorable impact. Any kind of color you can provide on whether cyber was -- has been a negative impact in '21? And which might kind of help results into '22?
Jeff Klenk:
Yes. Thanks for the question, Mike. This is Jeff. We've been fairly vocal that the cyber trends for the last few years relative to ransomware has been an impact, not just for us, but you've also seen that in the broader marketplace. We took actions in the middle of 2021 and to get pretty affirmative and deliberate relative to the cybersecurity protocols, multifactor authentication on our new business. And while the results are still early, we did think that it was important to point out we're seeing that the quality of the cybersecurity does have a value to the organizations that have it in place. We're already seeing it in the frequency, and we thought that it was important not to mention that just for our own results, but for the broader market.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, everyone. We appreciate you joining the call this morning. And as usual, if there's any follow-up, please reach out directly to Investor Relations. Have a good day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference call. You may all disconnect at this time.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Third Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 19, 2021. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers discussion of our Third Quarter 2021 results. We released our press release financial supplement, and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors Section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO, Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer, and our three Segment President, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance, Jeff Klenk of Bond and Specialty Insurance, and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They we'll refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take your questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes Forward-looking statements. The Company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the Forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under Forward-looking Statements in our earnings press release, and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update Forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement, and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now I'd like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abby. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us today. We're pleased to report strong top and bottom-line results for the quarter. And the first 9 months of the year, including very strong underlying underwriting profitability and healthy top-line growth. Core income year-to-date of $2.2 billion is about $800 million higher year-over-year, generating Core Return on equity of 11.6%. Core income for the quarter was $655 million or $2.60 per Diluted shares. Generating core return on equity of 10.1%, despite a high level of catastrophe losses. Our Cat losses were well below our market share, well above the prior-year quarter and the 10-year average for the quarter. Underwriting income of $632 million pre -tax was 6% higher than in the prior-year quarter, driven by record net earned premiums of $7.8 billion and a very strong underlying combined ratio of 91.4%. We're particularly pleased with the continued strong underlying fundamentals in our commercial businesses. The underlying combined ratio improved by almost 4 points in Business Insurance, and more than 5 points in Bond and Specialty Insurance. As you'll hear in a few minutes from Michael, underlying results in Personal Insurance were impacted by out of frequency returning to pre-pandemic levels, and elevated severity in both auto and property due to higher costs for labor materials. Our consolidated results demonstrate the value of having a diversified group of businesses. Turning to investments, our high-quality investment portfolio generated net investment income of $645 million after-tax, reflecting reliable performance in our fixed income portfolio and very strong returns in our non-fixed income portfolio. These results together with our strong balance sheet and cash flow, enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 10% over the past year. After making important investments for the future and returning significant excess capital to our shareholders. During the quarter, we returned $821 million of excess capital to shareholders, including $601 million of share repurchases. Turning to the top-line, net written premiums grew 7% to a record $8.3 billion. Each of our 3 segments again contributed meaningfully to the top-line growth. In Business Insurance, net. Written premiums grew by 5% with renewal premium change of 9.9% up more than 200 basis points year-over-year. And near all-time high renewal premium change was driven by continued strong renewal rate change and higher exposure growth. Importantly, at the same time, retention was also higher. Our ability to continue to drive price change at historical highs while increasing retention reflects excellent marketplace execution and the stability of the pricing environment. In Bond and Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 19%, driven by record renewal premium change of 13.6% and our Management Liability business and continued strong retention. We are also pleased to report strong production in our surety business. In our commercial businesses, written pricing continues to outpace estimated loss trend, which will continue to benefit margins as it earns in. Given social and other inflation, the frequency and severity of weather-related loss activity, and the low interest rate environment, we expect the pricing environment to remain strong. In Personal Insurance net written premiums increased by 7%. Policies in force in both auto and homeowners were at record levels, driven by continued strong retention and growth in new business. Before I wrap up on results, I'd like to spend a minute discussing how our leading data and analytics and risk expertise contributed to our relatively favorable loss experience with Hurricane Ida. As I shared in our in our first quarter earnings call, our share of the industry's property cat losses over the past 5 years, have been meaningfully lower than our corresponding market share. And while there's always the potential for us to have outsized exposure to an event, it was no accident that we again outperformed in Hurricane Ida. Our leading underwriting expertise supported by cutting edge data analytics are key to an effective assessment of risk and reward. For us, third-party models are starting point for our more advanced proprietary cat modeling. At the portfolio level, the insights from our models warned us away from the coast to where Ida made landfall. Given the impediments to achieving an appropriate risk-adjusted return. In the other states, in Ida's path. We effectively managed risk selection, pricing, and other terms and conditions by putting sophisticated data and analytics at the fingertips of our frontline underwriters. These include robust flood risk scoring, location intelligence down to the parcel level, hail dashboards, and output from our risk control engineers. Within Personal Insurance, we continue to see the benefits from our highly segmented Quantum Home 2.0 products, which is now hold out in more than 40 states. In the Northeast, extreme rainfall from Ida resulted in significant claim activity for the industry, including from water and drainage backup, which is a coverage we provide in our QH 2.O products. The model underneath the product leverages data and analytics to underwrite and price dot coverage on a very granular basis. In addition to underwriting, data and analytics are increasingly informing our claims handling strategies. For example, our AI-assisted claim damage detection model was a key part of our Ida claim response. This model uses AI and high-resolution aerial imagery to detect the extent of damage to individual properties as soon as a day after an event. Within two days of impact, we were collecting and analyzing aerial imagery of customer properties along Ida's path as it moved across 20 states. This enabled us to remotely identify which of our customers properties had sustained exterior damage and effectively organize our claim response. In some cases, we can use this technology to adjust and pay total losses before the customer has even been able to return to their home. We also utilized other virtual capabilities in our IDA response, such as image share and live video capture, on a majority of claims with interior damage. These leading edge capabilities, enhancing claim experience for our customers by cutting significant time out of the claim process. Expediting an accurate loss assessment and in many cases, eliminating the need for physical inspection. Again, with IDA, we successfully closed 90% of all homeowners plans within 30 days. All of this also results in a more efficient outcome for our shareholders. As strategic as the data and analytics are, maybe even more important is the culture that brings it all together. Our collaborative approach to developing a holistic, 360-degree view of risk, incorporating underwriting, claims, actuarial risk-control, legal and regulatory inputs is an important differentiating factor in effectively managing risk and reward. That culture is decades in the making and very hard to replicate. Before I turn the call over to Dan, I'd like to welcome Jeff Klenk, president of our Bond and Specialty Insurance segment of the call. I shared last quarter, Jeff is a 22-year veteran at Travelers most recently as a member of Tom Kunkel leadership team and head of our Management Liability business. Jeff succeeded Tom, following his retirement last month. We're fortunate to have Jeff in the role and you will hear from him in a few minutes. To sum it up, we're pleased with our results for the quarter to year-to-date. Our significant and hard to replicate competitive advantages position us very low and continued to deliver meaningful shareholder value over time. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey :
Thank you, Alan. For our income for the third quarter was $655 million compared to $798 million in the prior-year quarter. For the quarter, core Return On Equity was 10.1% and on a year-to-date basis, core ROE was 11.6%. The decline in core income was driven by prior-year reserve development and catastrophe losses. Recall that last year's PYD, benefited by approximately $400 million of subrogation recoveries from PG&E. Those unfavorable year-over-year comparisons were partially offset by increased investment income and a higher level of underlying underwriting income. Underlying underwriting income increased 6% to $632 million pretax, reflecting a higher level of earned premium in all 3 segments, and a strong underlying combined ratio of 91.4%. improvements in the underlying combined ratio in both Business Insurance and Bond and Specialty were offset by an increase in the underlying combined ratio and Personal Insurance. Business Insurance and Bond and Specialty results reflected the benefit of our pricing efforts, as earned price continues to exceed loss trend. We expected a higher underlying combined ratio in Personal Insurance, given that last year's quarter benefited from unusually low auto losses related to the pandemic. As Alan mentioned, the underlying combined ratio in PI was further impacted by higher severity in both the auto and homeowners products. Greg, Jeff, and Michael will provide more detail on each segment's results in a few minutes. On a consolidated basis, the underlying loss ratio for the quarter improved slightly to 62% compared with last year's 62.2%. The expense ratio of 29.4% was in line with the prior-year quarter and in line with our expectations. We've improved the expense ratio by more than 2 points from where we were 5 years ago. Having added roughly $7 billion to our annual net written premiums over that period, while maintaining a focus on productivity and efficiency, all while adding significantly to the level of strategic investment we're making to ensure our future success. Before turning to catastrophe losses, I wanted to point out that within our underlying combined ratio. Non-Cat weather was higher than we would have assumed for the quarter, although lower than the unusually high levels we'd experienced in last year's third quarter. Our third quarter Cat losses were $501 million pre -tax compared to $397 million a year ago. Remember that in last year's third quarter we had a full recovery under the property aggregate catastrophe XoL treaty. In this year's third quarter, we recognized a partial recovery of $95 million from the treaty, $83 million benefiting the Cat line with $43 million in Business Insurance and $39 million in Personal Insurance, and $12 million benefiting our underlying results with 3 million in Business Insurance and 9 million in Personal Insurance. That leaves us with $255 million of potential recovery in the fourth quarter, depending on the level of qualifying losses we actually experienced. In terms of the level of Cat losses relative to our assumptions. Third-quarter Cats were elevated compared to what we would have assumed for a typical third quarter. Although our losses from Hurricane Ida are well below our relative market share, the sheer size of Ida, on top of the other Cat losses in the quarter, resulted in overall Cat losses that were higher than our assumption. Turning to prior-year reserve development and Personal Insurance, $30 million of pretax net favorable PYD resulted from better-than-expected experience from recent years in the property line and Bond and Specialty Insurance, $22 million of pre -tax net favorable PYD was driven by favorable loss experience in the surety product line for recent [Indiscernible].years. In Business Insurance, net unfavorable PYD was $108 million pretax. Our annual asbestos review resulted in a charge of $225 million, as the level of claim activity did not decline as much as we had assumed in our previous estimate. Excluding the asbestos charge, Business Insurance had net favorable prior year reserve development of $117 million driven primarily by better-than-expected loss experience in workers comp across multiple accident years. Net investment income improved to $645 million after-tax this quarter, our non-fixed income portfolio delivered another strong result, contributing $224 million after-tax. As you can see from the detail provided on Page 6 of the webcast presentation, our recent results in the non-fixed income portfolio have been unusually strong, and I would caution you that this level of returns is not likely to continue. Consistent with our expectations, fixed income returns were down slightly from the prior-year quarter, as the benefit from higher levels of invested assets was more than offset by a decline in yields. For the fourth quarter of 2021, we expect NII from the fixed income portfolio, including earnings from short-term securities of between $425 and $435 million after-tax. For 2022, we expect that figure to be between $420 and $430 million per quarter. Turning to capital management, operating cash flow for the quarter of $2.5 billion was an all-time record. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels and we ended the quarter with holding Company liquidity of approximately $2 billion. The market value of the bonds in our fixed income portfolio declined as U.S. treasury yields increased and credit spreads widened during the quarter. Accordingly, our after-tax net unrealized investment gain decreased from $3.2 billion as of June 30th to $2.7 billion at September 30th. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $104.77 at quarter-end, up 5% since year-end, and up 10% since September 30th of last year. We returned $821 million of capital to our shareholders during the third quarter with $220 million of dividends and $601 million in share repurchases. Overall, a very good quarter for us with healthy top-line growth, strong, and improved underlying margins in our commercial businesses. Excellent cash flows and a terrifically strong balance sheet. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance had another great quarter with strong financial results and terrific execution in the marketplace. Segmenting gold was $558 million for the Quarter up more than 50% from the prior-year quarter. The improved year-over-year result was driven by higher underlying underwriting income. Prior year reserve development. And higher net investment income, partially offset by higher catastrophe losses we're once again, particularly pleased with the underlying combined ratio of 90.2%, which improved by 3.8 points from the third quarter of 2020, primarily attributable to three things. First. Of up two points of the improvement resulted from third, pricing that continued to exceed loss - cost trends. The other nearly two points resulted from a combination of a favorable impact associated with the pandemic and a lower level of property losses. Turning to the top-line, net written premiums were up 5%, benefiting from strong renewal rate and exposure levels as well as high retentions. As for domestic production, renewal premium change was once again historically high at 9.9% while retention increased to an exceptional 85%. The 9.9% renewal premium change was up more than two points from the third quarter of last year with strong renewal rate change of 6.3% and continued improvement in our customer's exposure growth. In addition to our granular price execution, we've also focused on careful management of deductibles, attachment points, limits, sub-limits, and exclusions, which can also contribute to an increase in the price per unit of rest. New business was down from the prior-year quarter as we continue to be thoughtful about balancing risks and reward for new business in the marketplace. For the individual businesses, in select renewal premium change was a strong 9.7% while retention improved for recent periods to 82% underneath RPC, renewal rate change was 4.1% up well over a point from the third quarter of 2020. We're also encouraged with the improving exposure, which was up about three points as the economy continues to reopen it. New business was up a bit from the prior year, driven by the continued success of our new BOP 2.0 product, which is now live in 39 states. In middle-market, renewal premium change of 9.5% and retention of 88% were both historically hot. Renewal rate change of 6.2% remains strong. As always, we remain disciplined around risk selection and underwriting. To sum up, Business Insurance had another terrific quarter. We're pleased with our execution and further improving the underlying margins in the bus, and we continue to invest in the business for long term profitable growth. With that, I'll turn the call over to our new partner in the room, Jeff Klenk.
Jeff Klenk:
Thanks, Greg, and thank you, Alan, for that welcome. I'm very pleased to be here. We built an industry-leading insurance and management liability franchise, and we look forward to continuing to perform, innovate and transform to profitably grow these businesses into the future. Turning to the results, Bond and Specialty delivered excellent returns in growth in the quarter. Segment income was at $174 million, up about 50% compared to the prior year quarter, driven by the impact of higher net earned premium. A significantly improved underlying underwriting margin, and favorable prior-year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio of 83.4% improved by 5.5 points from the prior-year quarter, reflecting lower pandemic-related loss activity, earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trends, and a lower expense ratio. Turning to the top-line, net written premiums grew an exceptional 19% in the quarter with strong contributions from all our businesses. In domestic management liability, renewal premium change was a record 13.6% driven by record renewal rate change. Retention remains strong at 86% consistent with recent quarters, but down a few points year-over-year. As we continue to non-renew cyber policies for accounts that don't meet our updated minimum requirements for cyber hygiene. Notably, research indicates that implementing affordable cyber risk mitigation controls, such as multi-factor authentication to prevent the vast majority of rents more to tax. Domestic surety also posted strong growth relative to the pandemic impact to prior-year quarter. In addition, our international businesses again posted excellent growth, including strong management, liability, retention and rate. Both top and bottom line results for bond and specialty were terrific this quarter, demonstrating our thoughtful approach and strong execution across our businesses. And now, I'll turn the call over to Michael.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jeff, and welcome. Good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance, bottom-line results were impacted by weather, our return to pre -pandemic claim frequency in auto, and higher loss severity impacting both Auto and Home results. Segment income declined by $394 million from the prior-year quarter. $262 million of that decline is attributable to lower favorable prior-year reserve development as the prior-year quarter benefited from the PG&E settlement Dan referenced. The remaining unfavorable variance was primarily driven by lower underlying underwriting results. Our underlying combined ratio increased by 6.5 points to 95.2%. We were pleased to see our top-line momentum continue in the quarter, with net written premiums up 7%. Automobile underwriting results reflected higher loss levels for the quarter. The combined ratio was 100% and included 3.4 points of catastrophe losses, mostly from Hurricane Ida. The underlying combined ratio was 97% up approximately 15 points from a prior-year quarter, which reflected our unusually low loss activity due to the pandemic. The underlying combined ratio increased mainly due to claim frequency effectively returning to pre-pandemic levels. In line with the trend we referenced in our prior quarter call. To a lesser degree, higher severity -- higher loss severity impacted the combined ratio as well, as the vehicle replacement and repair costs remained at elevated levels. We believe these profitability challenges are environmental, and in response, we are executing on our plans to file rate increases in about 40 states over the next three quarters. As we indicated last quarter, it will take time for future rate actions to earn into results. But we do expect to have higher rates in market in several states by year-end. In Homeowner and Other, the third quarter combined ratio increased by 16 points from the prior-year quarter to 109.3%, driven by a 24 point reduction in net favorable prior-year reserve development primarily related to the PG&E recovery from last year. The combined ratio included 17.6 points of catastrophe losses, mostly from Hurricane Ida. Homeowners' catastrophe losses were 4.7 points below a very active prior-year quarter. The underlying combined ratio was 93.3%, an improvement of 3.5 points over the prior-year quarter, which experienced a very high level of loss activities. That said, the underlying combined ratio was above our expectations, reflecting elevated non-catastrophe weather and non-weather loss activity, both of which included higher severity related to a combination of labor and materials price increases. Again, we believe these trends are environmental and we continue to see price increases in response. We're short -- Before I shift to discussing production, I'll remind you that looking ahead to the fourth quarter, there tends to be a good amount of seasonality in our combined ratio results by line of business. With the fourth quarter auto losses typically higher and fourth quarter homeowners losses typically lower than our annual average levels. Turning to production, we were very pleased to deliver another strong quarter in both auto and home. Automobile policies in force grew 5% to a record level, driven by strong retention at 85%, and continued growth in new business, which increased by 8%. Renewal premium change was essentially flat, reflecting the continued impact of the rate increases we filed in response to the pandemic. Domestic Homeowners and Other delivered another excellent quarter, with policies enforced up 7%, also to a record level, driven by retention of 85% and new business growth of 5%. Renewal premium change increased to 8.8%. In the quarter, we continued to deliver solutions that meet customers where they are, give them what they needed and serve them how they want. A couple of highlights from the quarter include, our new digital self-inspection process for property customers, which improves their on-boarding experience and provides valuable information to our underwriters and Intel will drive our proprietary auto telematics offering, which now has distracted driving as a rating variable in 40 U.S. markets and Ontario Canada, providing valuable feedback to drivers and continuing to advance our sophisticated pricing segmentation in automobile. We will continue to invest in new capabilities like these for our customers and distribution partners. Despite a challenging third quarter on the bottom line, we remain pleased with our overall performance and we are well-positioned to profitably grow our business over time. Now, I will turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks Michael. Turn to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] roster. Your first question comes from the line of Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley.
Michael Phillips:
Thank you. Good morning, everybody. First question, Alan, I think might be to your opening comments on BI and expect, you listed a number of reasons why price and environment should remain strong. I guess maybe, help us define or think about what you mean by strong and how we can think about maybe margins into next year the back half of next year. We have pricing now kind of close to where loss trends are, so just kind of help think about what those reasons why pricing should remain strong. Should we expect this pricing to, it seems like start to converge with well, loss trends are which obviously could have some impact on margins into 2022. So just comments on what you mean by strong there.
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning and thanks for the question. You're very narrowly I think focusing on rate versus loss trend. And by the way, there's still a margin there. And even if you look at your rate over some long historical periods, the rate we continue to get is actually a pretty good number. But if you look at the overall pricing number, I mean, at 9.9, that's, you know, practically an all-time high and there's a lot of margin in that exposure, so we continue to see a nice spread between written price and loss trend and I do think that's the right way to think about it. Nonetheless, as we know what our product returns are, we know what headwinds are, we know what our objectives are in terms of our returns and we know what we need to do, so I think that from here, pricing will continue to be strong. Now, we've also been getting pretty good pricing for some time now and it's been compounding for a while and so you've got different lines in different places. Some need more help and others. And so, from here the rate of increase is going to be impacted by that. Some lines or the rate of increase will be higher, some will go sideways, some -- there still be an increase, the rate of increase may go down. But overall, we continue to expect pricing to remain strong. I'm not sure we're going to put much more dimension around it other than that, but hopefully that gives you some color that's helpful.
Michael Phillips:
It does, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Alan. I appreciate that. Second question for you or Mike, maybe, on personal auto. And Mike, I appreciate your comments on -- it was more of a frequency backed to preventing a little to a lesser degree the environmental issues with loss severity. So, I guess, do you think the loss severity side there on auto, has it peaked? Will it get worse from here do you think? And how long lasting will that be? I asked that because I wonder if it's to a lesser degree that the 97% core. It's not that much higher than where you were pre-pandemic, 96, 95 in that range. So I ask those questions because I wonder how much rate you think you need in personal auto if those things have already peaked, I'm not sure if they have, or how long they might last? And your comment was there to a lesser degree anyway. So any comments there would be appreciated.
Michael Klein:
Yeah, sure, Michael -- and it's Michael here. I would -- I would say a couple of things about that. So dimensional that a little bit more for you, the auto underlying combined was up 15 points in the quarter. We say three quarters of that was loss experienced returning to pre -pandemic levels, and about the remaining quarter of that is the trend then increased costs to repair and replace that we talked about last quarter that essentially continued into the quarter. In terms of how long it's going to last, I can point you to a little bit of external data that might help there. There's certainly pressure on the system. A lot of the costs relates to total losses and replacement costs values for total vehicles, which tracks pretty closely with used car prices. And inside the quarter, we were actually encouraged by the July and August data from places like the Moody's Used Car Price Index that looked like the peak had happened in May and June and was starting to decline in the first part of the quarter. Now, that data picked back up again in September, and I think it's kick back-up reflects the pressure on the system. You had Ida occur in the quarter. Estimates are that over 200,000 vehicles were destroyed in that events. At the same time, that you have vehicle inventories in the U.S. at historic lows. And so you know, I think we're going to -- we're going to see continued pressure on the cost to repair and replace. Related to supply chain, related to labor, and related to used car parts and prices. But again, that was about a quarter of the 15 points and we will factor that into our underwriting pricing decisions as we move forward.
Alan Schnitzer:
And I would just add to that, the good news is this is impacting short-tail lines where we can see it very quickly and react to it and the reserves are obviously significantly way less leveraged, given the duration of those liabilities.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, thank you guys. Appreciate it.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Mike Zirinski with Wells Research.
Mike Zirinski:
Greg, good morning. Maybe moving to, focusing on the business segments. In Greg's commentary parsed apart the year-over-year improvement in the underlying loss ratio, and it was noted that 2 points came from a favorable impact from the pandemic. Maybe you could give us more details on that. And I believe that's a more favorable impact versus what you've laid out in previous quarters.
Dan Frey:
Hey Mike, it's Dan Frey. Just to clarify Greg 's comments of about a 4 point improvement, you had about two points come from current price versus trend, and then 2 points come from the combination of favorable impact of the pandemic and some favorability in non-Cat property losses. You're right in terms of the impact on Business Insurance from the pandemic. Last year, into the third quarter, we gave you that the favorable impact was about a 0.5 point, and that was the net of direct charges that we took related to COVID I think things like workers comp charges for COVID-19. Somebody contracts the disease and that was more of an offset by indirect impacts, things like lower frequency on commercial auto. This year, you've got a larger net impact, but it's really the impact of the absence of those direct charges. We're not seeing that anywhere near the same level we saw a year ago. But the 2 you're talking about was not just attributable to COVID, it was attributable to the combination of COVID and non-Cat property experience.
Mike Zirinski:
Got it. And has any, if we parse through all the loss costs commentary between commercial lines and personal lines, I know there's a lot of moving parts. But would you say on a -- on a 100 thousand foot view that Travelers had kind of an updated view of loss trend?
Dan Frey:
So a little different between the two in Business Insurance, you've got a lot of moving parts, including mix of business, but we haven't seen a meaningful change in our view of long-term normalized trend, and Personal Insurance, given Michael 's comments we've taken slightly increased view of what we say as our view of long-term normalized trend.
Mike Zirinski:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question is from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks. My first question is on personal auto as well. You guys were talking about trying to take some price, I believe you said over the next few quarters. Are you concerned as you look for greater price that there could be some pushbacks from regulators, right? And you've, obviously, loss trend have spiked [Indiscernible], but it seems like you're also looking at 2020, which was an extremely profitable year for the industry. So how do we think about regulators and just the level of price you're looking to take within the [Indiscernible]
Michael Klein:
Sure. It's Michael. Thanks for the question. And before I address the question, I think I may have misspoken in the script. I think I said that auto RPC was impacted by the rate increases we filed in response to the pandemic. Obviously, we didn't file rate increases in response to the pandemic. Those were rate decreases, which by the way I think is relevant to your question. So as we are in the conversation with regulators which are active and ongoing as we speak, we're in conversation with them about that loss history. We're also in conversation with them about the actions we took in response, which included rate decreases in a variety of jurisdictions, which included premium refunds to customers in a variety of jurisdictions. And so we're having conversations with them around how we align pricing with loss costs over time. and are engaged in discussions with them about how to view the 2020 loss experience in that context. If I take a step back and think about the process a little bit more broadly, What we would say about the process of getting rate on is that it, you know, it is an ongoing dialogue between us and the regulators. It's about an exchange of information to justify the pricing that you think you need on a go-forward basis. And generally speaking, what we have found is we've been able to get to a point where we can align price with loss costs over time. You will, you will have some challenging conversations in some jurisdictions and maybe less challenging conversations in others. To put a little bit of a point on the 40 jurisdictions, we do expect some of those increases to become effective in Q4, and actually, a couple of them literally this month. So we're on the way to getting those increases filed and approved. And then, as we've talked about, it'll take time for them to get written and then earned into the book of business. But we're making progress.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thanks. And then my second question just goes back, I guess, to the prior question as well. You guys have been within VI at around that 5% overall loss trend for, I think, 6 quarters now. Obviously, it sounds like things have been slow to fully get back to normal with the pandemic. But as of course it started to be open in that anything you guys are paying attention to on the inflation side, as we think about loss trend just as well as expectations going into 2022.
Michael Klein:
Yeah, as you'd imagine, we're looking at all the data that comes in every quarter and there are some things that are moving up, and there are some other things that are moving down. It varies by line. We've got still some frequency benefit and the commercial auto space. There are some severity in certain elements, but those are things that we are more levered to in Michael's business than we are in Greg 's business in terms of the relative next to loss cost. So we've got our finger on the pulse of all those things and our aggregate conclusion is there's not much of a change there.
Alan Schnitzer:
And [Indiscernible] I'd add to that. There is nothing unusual about this quarter relative to any other quarter. We're always looking at frequency and severity in every line and usually there's something a little here and there. But again, this is a view of long-term trend and -- so nothing really unusual in the quarter.
Elyse Greenspan:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, good morning. I just had a couple from Michael. The first one is, figuring about your auto book is being largely preferred. I guess, in your mind, what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of having a preferred book versus a less-preferred book when we think about the loss trend environment post-pandemic?
Michael Klein:
Good question, Ryan. I think there's a couple of things there. We generally, I would say, are going to be impacted by commuting patterns that are more related to office jobs. When you think about the general profile of a preferred book. I think the other dynamic you see in a preferred book though is newer vehicles with more technology. And so when you think about them, the cost pressures on repair and replacement costs, that's going to put upward pressure there. And I would say that while we saw I think some differences over the past 12 to 18 months that you could point to in different parts of the country, different books of business in terms of how the pandemic impacted different segments differently. As we sit here today, the economy is broadly recovering, the country is broadly recovering so you don't see quite as many differences. I don't think geographically or by segment that are driving differences in loss experience across the bit segments of the industry. The other thing that's true of our book of business is, it's heavily rounded and so it's a -- well, we talk a lot about the individual line of business, we certainly look at customers and the total portfolio as we look to manage it.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And my follow-up is, hearing you say that frequency is back at pre -pandemic levels, I guess I've always thought about pre -pandemic as being a ceiling for frequency where it would return to. Is that how you're thinking about it or based on what you're seeing, the auctioning frequency can run above pre -pandemic levels?
Michael Klein:
Yeah, it's a great question, Ryan. I would say underneath frequency, we look at driving activity, we look at trips, we look at mix of activity, and a lot of the patterns that we've talked about in the past, we continue to see. So on the one hand, we continue to see whether we look at our own IntelliDrive data, whether we look at Google mobility data. Again, fewer commute trips. On the other hand, we actually see elevated shopping trips and recreational trips. And so the mix of miles has changed, but mileage broadly, when you look at Department of Transportation data, again, our IntelliDrive data, MS2 sensor data is back to pre -pandemic levels as is frequency. Again, the mix looks a little bit different, but miles-driven trips broadly are back close to where they had been. And so, as we talked about a little bit earlier, we see their frequency return in line with the trends we outlined last quarter coming into this quarter.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of a Jimmy Bhullar with JP Morgan.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Hi, good morning. I had a couple of questions both on the commercial side. First, can you talk about what you're seeing in terms of pricing in some of your remain lines, specifically, commercial lotto, and then workers comp, have you seen a bottom in [Indiscernible] or is it still soft [Indiscernible]? another one.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yeah. Good morning. Yeah, we continue to see workers' comp, this is Greg by the way, good morning. Workers' comp below the water level and so we had a slight negative with workers comp. Other than that, we continue to be led with excess casualty at Umbrella automobile in property that gives you just a little bit of color, in terms of the range of rate activity from the most positive to least.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay. And then what do you think about inflation affecting loss costs in commercial lines? I think Alan had mentioned last year, assuming loss costs were fairly stable, but have you seen inflation begin to have an impact or do you not think that's a factor on the commercial side?
Alan Schnitzer:
Jimmy, we certainly see it but you've got to start with, what are we seeing relative to our expectations because we certainly expected some levels of inflation. Also on the commercial side, say relative to Personal Insurance, you got to think about the impact on a mix adjusted basis. So you've got the casualty and the property in there. You don't see this cost of goods sold type of inflation so much on the casualty side. And while we did see a little of it on the commercial side, there was an offsetting frequency benefited here; I heard both Greg and David talked about. So it's not that we don't see it, it's not that we're not aware of it, but we expected some and it just doesn't have the same overall impact on that segment.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay. And if I could just ask one more. On personal auto, I think you were talking about thinking about raising prices on the call last quarter as well, and it doesn't seem like any of that was in your results this quarter. Have you already started implementing price hikes or is it more of the benefit going to flow through in 2022, just given the timing of getting -- often getting permission and then implementing those?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Jimmy. I t's Michael, I think first of all, we would not have expected any rate increases to take effect this quarter. As we talked about it last quarter, where we were beginning to the process of seeking rate which means we've got to put together the filing package, we've got a file that with state, we've got to negotiate with state, we've got to get it approved, We've got an agree upon an effective date which is always in the future from the date you get the approval. So there's a fairly long tail on the front end of any rate filing process up or down. And so we really wouldn't have expected any of those increases to take effect in the third quarter. As I mentioned, we've got 40 plan need over the course of the next three quarters and a couple two or three will likely take effect this month on several, call it another handful will take it back, probably before year end again, all subject to getting approvals from the states that we are working towards those effective dates with. And then the remainder will be in the first or second quarter of next year. The few that we have likely to take effect in the back half of this year will represent 25%, 30% of the written premium volume we have across the country, so it's a relatively small number, but it should be impactful on a written basis, but again, I'll just caution you, it takes time for that to earn into the book. But we've started and we are making progress.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome with Piper Sandler.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning. Thanks for the call, everyone. I want to ask about social inflation and if you believe on how we should think about the mechanism of regular CPI inflation sweeping into the social inflation side of it. Is it something where we should expect some sort of lag there as courts assess the damages overtime.
Alan Schnitzer:
Paul, good morning. I don't think it's entirely unrelated or uncorrelated, but I think it's less leveraged. I think of social inflation is being driven more by things like aggressive tactics by the plaintiffs bar, and advertising, and litigation finance, things like that. Now, of course, that -- the whole debate on damages, in any case, starts with the underlying compensable damages, and to the extent there's inflation in that, maybe the starting point goes up a little bit, but -- so it's not completely uncorrelated, but also not so leverage.
Paul Newsome:
All right. And then my second question, unrelated auto entire question. There it seems to be efforts in the industry to effectively replace credit scoring with telematics, and that just using together. What do you think of those efforts and is that something that Travelers has a particular view on?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Paul. It's Michael. Certainly, there are conversations that link the two. I guess I'd start by separating the two, right? There are certainly conversations with state regulators and a handful, I would say, that are talking about and/or actively pursuing the removal of credit scoring as a variable on pricing auto insurance. The two most notable are Washington and Colorado. Colorado has a bill that was approved by the state legislature, that's in the rule-making process, around removing credit score in that state. In the state of Washington, again, pretty widely followed, but Commissioner Kreidler issued an emergency rule to ban the use of credit scoring in auto insurance. That rule -- that emergency rule was actually just overturned by a judge in Washington earlier this month. So we're in the process and that -- the overturned by the judge is now being challenged by the commissioners, so there's a back and forth in Washington, those are probably the two most widely viewed views on credit scoring. As respects credit scoring and telematics, what we would say is, first of all, credit is a powerful variable and pricing auto insurance, it's very predictive off claim experience. And if you remove it, then you have subsidization in your rate plan between higher-risk drivers and lower-risk drivers. And in fact, in the context of a telematics program, the credit score and the telematics data are powerful together. If you're in a situation where you don't have credit and can't use credit, telematics is very valuable, probably becomes increasingly valuable. And in that kind of a world, we're encouraged by the capability we've got, the tools we have, the success of our IntelliDrive program, and the power that it has in segmenting loss experiencing and helping us segment pricing.
Paul Newsome:
It sounds like you're agnostic to use some [Indiscernible]
Alan Schnitzer:
I wouldn't say we're necessarily agnostic. I think as Michael pointed out, it is highly predictive and, so we support and promote risk-based pricing. But you end up with some subsidization and so it is what it is. The fact is we compete without it in places like California just fine and we'll continue to compete without it. And in that world, having the data and scale to invest in other rating methodologies is important and we think we have that. So I think either way will be just fine.
Paul Newsome:
Thanks folks, appreciate the help.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks Paul.
Paul Newsome:
For your next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker with Bank of America.
Josh Shanker:
Thank you for taking my question. Guess what? More personal auto, I apologize. I'm just wondering, it looks like that used car severity peaked in May and then again in September, and vehicle traffic levels seemed to get back to normal by about May. Yet, the 2Q loss ratio on personal auto was materially higher than the RX of the 3Q [Indiscernible] higher than the 2Q loss ratio. Is there any intra -year development in that? What's there between the 2Q and 3Q loss experience you guys had?
Michael Klein:
Josh, I would say the difference is precisely what you just described. You talked about driving levels in May, which is partway through Q2, you talked about severity in May, which has partway through Q2. And so, as we talk about -- in the second quarter, we saw a frequency trending towards the pre-pandemic levels throughout the quarter, which means it was below at the beginning of the quarter. And similarly, some of the severity impacts we've been describing really started to impact the results in the back half of Q2 and into Q3. That's really, I think, what's going on there and there's no interim period, our entry year, adjustment to talk about.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, Josh, it's not a catch-up of our second quarter loss, it looks pretty consistent with where we had coming out of the second quarter. It's really the difference of a full quarter of the higher frequency and severity Q3 versus Q2.
Josh Shanker:
Great, thank you. And your growth looks fairly strong. I think we can all agree that the price is under priced right now. Can you talk about growing your book at a period of time when the price is below rate adequate levels?
Michael Klein:
Sure Josh. Michael again, as we've talked about pretty consistently. Our goal is to profitably grow the portfolio over time. We remain confident in our ability to do so. And again, as we've talked about, really the profit pressure at the moment really is timing. And it's a mismatch between our ability to get rate filed and approved [Indiscernible] relative to the loss experience we're seeing at this point in time, but we expect that's going to align with loss costs over time. We've seen movies like this before, right where, where we've written business, we've grown the business, we've improved the profit on that business we wrote over time and so. That's the path we're headed down. As we do start to put more price in the market, could that impact growth on a go-forward basis? Certainly could. But again, we're comfortable with our ability to profitably grow the auto book over time.
Josh Shanker:
Do you think we're --
Alan Schnitzer:
[Indiscernible]
Josh Shanker:
Yeah. Go ahead, please.
Alan Schnitzer:
Just to put a finer point on that, we had this experience a few years ago in personal lines and we ended up with a larger book of very profitable business, and we would expect this to play out in exactly the same way. So very pleased with the volume we are putting on.
Josh Shanker:
I'll leave it at that, and thank you.
Michael Klein:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of David Motemaden with Evercore ISI.
David Motemaden:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. I had just a quick question on the Holdco cash balance. It fell versus last quarter, but still well above your target. I think it was 800 million. Is that still just a function of the debt that you raised? I think it was last quarter. Have you -- you just haven't put that down into the operating companies for growth, or is that sort of excess capital at the Holdco that we can think about to be used for M&A, or share repurchases, or other uses?
Michael Klein:
David, I'm not too terribly worried about cash at the Holdco at any quarters, and we're really looking at overall capital position and still feeling very strong about that and I think you see that in the capital actions that we took this quarter. The decline from where we were, we also because of the strength of the position that we started with didn't need to bring up as much from the underlying companies. We're not signaling anything there with a variability in the holding Company liquidity, we're really just trying to make sure that we've got what we need to cover, and if we've got a little more than that at any point in time, that's fine.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Okay. Thanks. And then maybe a question just for Greg. I was a little surprised that the workers' comp net premium written is still down year-over-year. I know you said that the rate is still slightly negative. I guess could you maybe talk about some of the other drivers of the decrease, I would think that there is some wage inflation in there and the exposure base, I would think, is up versus last year. But maybe just talk about the puts intake that takes there and when you think we should start to see some growth in workers' comp net premium written.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yeah, David. Let me give you a bit of color on what's underneath the quarter of number. Clearly, as I said earlier, we still have a slight negative in rates. So that's going to have a large weight, the overall net rate, and premium. We had strong retention overall if there's an area that that brought the number down was on a new business basis. And when we look into the marketplace and particularly larger accounts for this quarter, where we saw the clearing price relative to our price to risk to make sure that we're getting an adequate value over the long term, we didn't hit on some larger deal. So really, it's a functional disciplined underwriting. So the combination of all those drove that minus 3.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS.
Brian Meredith:
Yes. Thank you very much. Just quickly on workers' comp, I'm just curious. Are we getting to a point where maybe we start to see underlying loss ratio start to re-stabilize or improve here given rate versus trend, are we still ways away from that happening?
Alan Schnitzer:
You know what? Loss trend has been pretty benign in w workers' comp, but it hasn't been negative, it's been positive, and the rate, the overall pricing has been closer to 0, so below that. if you look at a calendar-year basis, that was being equal yet expect some compression. Of course, we've had a lot of prior-year development so the line has been on a -- is been -- if you look back and actually we're more profitable than we would have predicted the time. And we would have predicted some quarters ago that we would have hit a bottom and made a turn. But again, we've had pretty good results in that line throughout the pandemic and so, I think the outlook is probably going to continue to bounce around, call it 0ish for a little bit longer before it makes a turn. But it will. It'll bounce around, but it will make a turn and go north from there.
Brian Meredith:
Great. And then, just quickly, I know you talked a little bit about cyber and all that's going on there with respect to tightening terms and conditions and rate, etc. I think you said that you're declining in cyber right now. I would've thought this would be a really good time there to maybe stepping the accelerate a little bit and drive some more growth in cyber to maybe give us a little bit more perspective on what's going on there.
Alan Schnitzer:
Jeff, you want to take that?
Jeff Klenk:
Yeah. Thanks for the question, Brian. Cyber flow remained strong and consistent with broader demand in the marketplace, including first-time buyers. Like I mentioned earlier in this elevated risk environment, our hit ratios are understandably down given those dynamics. We've tightened underwriting requirements. Like multi-factor authentication, like I mentioned, we're also aggressively pursuing needed rate on both new and renewal. So that's the dynamic that's still out there in the market in our results.
Brian Meredith:
Got you. So you just pushing harder than the rest of the market. Is that what it is or are people just not buying as much?
Michael Klein:
You know, it's just a combination of, we're pushing consistent with our strategies and others are executing on their strategies, but it's pretty well known how the cyberdynamic has been in the marketplace.
Alan Schnitzer:
Brian, I would also add two things. One, we've been very, very disciplined about enforcing minimum cyber hygiene and I don't know that other markets are necessarily as disciplined about that. So when that business leaves us, it's presumably going somewhere. And given the profitability challenges in that line, we're just fine with that.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with KBW.
Meyer Shields:
Great. Thanks, I really appreciate you're fitting me in. Michael, can you update us on severity trends in personal auto liability? We've talked a lot about the physical damage side, I just wanted to get a sense of what's going on liability side.
Michael Klein:
Sure, Meyer. I would say we talked a lot about property damage and liability because that's the place where it's really elevated relative to our expectations. I think on the personal line side, there are certainly is a loss trend in bodily injury liability, but it's much closer to what we would have expected.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Perfect. And a brief follow-up, if possible. I just was hoping I could tease or parse out that 2 points that Greg had talked about between the weather-related losses and the PI. I'm sorry, and the COVID impact.
Michael Klein:
I understand that the risk of getting to o granular, we'd rather not parse that out. You could think of them as being fairly equal in terms of their contribution.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
And we have time for just one more question and we'll take that question from Tracy Benguigui with Barclays.
Tracy Benguigui:
Thank you for fitting me in. Just really quickly on the commentary of that net favorable impact to COVID on Business Insurance. I'm looking here at 10Q and it looks like Travelers benefited from reduced claims settlement activities largely due to the disruption in the judicial system related to COVID-19. So how much of that thought process played into your underlying VI combined ratio improvements this quarter? And could you contextualize how that may change going forward?
Dan Frey:
And Tracy, it's Dan. So really what you're seeing in the current quarter is the impact on commercial auto, and that's a frequency event. So I think what we'd expect there over time is we get to a full post-pandemic recovery. If things go back to the way that we're pre-pandemic, I don't think we'd expect that frequency benefit to persist. I think the language -- we could take it offline, but I think the language you're reading out of the queue is more specific to the cash flows related to the operations in the quarter, and that would be lower claim payments. If you look at paid to encourage on a year-to-date basis, it's almost identical to where paid-to-incurred was on a year-to-date basis for the first 9 months of last year, when we were talking about the fact that ports were closed and it was taking a long time to get settlements out the door.
Tracy Benguigui:
That's helpful. Also, Greg mentioned that you've focused on your deductibles, attachment points, supplements, and exclusion, and that's also really important, rather than just looking at a blunt rate direction discussion. Could you just let me know your view of loss trend or rate adequacy that's driving those underwriting decision in which business lines, those actions are the most evident?
Michael Klein:
Tracy, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at with that. I think the point we were trying to make is, we are always very disciplined underwriters, starting with risk selection and then evaluating the terms of every single deal that we underwrite, paying attention to all the levers that contribute to price per unit of risk. And so I think that's the point we were trying to make. Those -- that's important. It's not overpowering to the results in any quarter, but those things compound over time. And to the extent that we are making those types of changes on an individual risk, it will improve the price per unit of risks that's not apparent in the production statistics. And also, that tends to unwind more slowly than read online s over time. But I don't think we meant to make more of it than that.
Tracy Benguigui:
Okay. So it sounds like just normal course of the business. I appreciate you taking my questions.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tracy.
Operator:
At this time, I will turn the call back over to Ms. Goldstein for any closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, everyone for joining us today. We appreciate your time and as always, if there's any follow-up, feel free to reach out directly to get [Indiscernible]. Have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes this conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter Results Power Conference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder this conference is being recorded on July 20, 2021. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abby Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers discussion of our second quarter 2021 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be, Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Tom Kunkel of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statements involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplements and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I would like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abby. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We are very pleased to report excellent underwriting investment results for the second quarter and first half of the year. Core income for the quarter was $879 million or $3.45 per diluted share, generating a total return on equity of 13.7%. In terms of underwriting results, higher underlying underwriting income and net favorable prior-year reserve development, as well as the lower level of catastrophe losses, all contributed to higher core income. Underlying underwriting income was 8% higher than in the prior quarter driven by record net earned premiums of $7.6 billion and an excellent underlying combined ratio of 91.4%. We are particularly pleased with the continued strong underlying fundamentals of each of our three business segments. In Business Insurance, net earned premiums were higher and the underlying combined ratio improved by 3.7 points and the Specialty Insurance and Personal Insurance, both delivered meaningful increases in net earned premiums and continued strong margins. Turning to investments, our high-quality investment portfolio generated net investment income of $682 million after-tax, reflecting very strong returns on our non-fixed income portfolio. These excellent results together with our strong balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 13% over the past year after making important investments for the future and returning significant excess capital to our shareholders. During the quarter, we returned $625 million of excess capital to shareholders including $401 million of share repurchases. Turning to the top-line, the combination of the strong franchise value we offer to our customers and distribution partners, together with excellent execution by our field organization produced terrific results. During the quarter we grew net written premiums to $8.1 billion, an increase of 11% or 8% after adjusting for the audit premium refunds in the prior year quarter. Each of our three segments contributed meaningfully to the top-line growth. In Business Insurance net written premiums grew by 5% driven by retention which ticked up almost a point in renewal premium change at a near record high 9.5% and 9% growth in new business. Combination of strong pricing and high retention reflects continuing strength in the pricing environment. Inside of renewal premium change, pure renewal rate change was a strong 7.1%. Greg will share more detail about the texture underneath renewal rate change in a few minutes. Renewal premium change also included the highest exposure growth we've seen in nine quarters, and encouraging sign of improvement in U.S. economic activity. In Bond & Specialty insurance, net renewal premiums increased by 15%, driven by record renewal premium change of 12.7% in our management liability business, while retention remained strong. In our commercial businesses, written pricing continues to comfortably outpace estimated loss trend, which will continue to benefit margins as it runs in. Continuing strong pricing and retentions reflect the industry's clear eye view of the ongoing headwinds impacting returns to the industry, including weather volatility, low interest rates and social inflation. We expect pricing to continue to outpace loss trends for some time. Turning to Personal Insurance, production was again excellent this quarter. Net written premiums increased 8% after adjusting for the other premium refunds in the prior year quarter. Policies in-force in both auto and homeowners are at record levels driven by continued strong retention and growth in new business. While the impact of the pandemic and claim frequency seems to be attracting a lot of attention when it comes to personal auto. We've been equally focused on time accompanied by Perform and Transform Mandate to this business. We are very pleased with the results. We've accelerated our domestic other policies in force growth from 1% to 4% over the last six quarters bringing PIP count to a record high. This demonstrates the ongoing success of our three-pronged strategy in Personal Insurance to meet customers where they are, serve them how they want and give them what they need. Going forward we will continue to invest in advanced segmentation also channel distribution and provide great experiences to continue to deliver profitable growth. Michael will share more detail in a few minutes. Our excellent top and bottom line results this quarter for the first half of the year demonstrate the continued successful execution of our strategy to grow the top-line at attractive returns, as well as the effectiveness of our well defined and consistent investment philosophy. Our focused and well executed innovation agenda has been an important contributor to the growth and profitability we have achieved. We will continue to relentlessly pursue our priorities of extending our lead and risk expertise, providing great experiences to our customers, distribution partners and employees and improving productivity and efficiency. With the momentum we have and the best talent in the industry, we are well-positioned to continue to create meaningful shareholder value over time. With that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the second quarter was $879 million compared to a core loss of $50 million in the prior year quarter. The significant improvement was the result of positive factors across the business, including a lower level of catastrophe losses, improved results in our non-fixed income investment portfolio, more favorable prior year reserve development and increased underwriting income. Our second quarter results include $475 million of pre-tax Cat losses compared to $854 million from last year's second quarter. This quarter's cash were somewhat below what we have assumed for typical second quarter, but year-to-date Cat losses are still above what we would have assumed given the high level of losses in the first quarter. On a year-to-date basis, we have accumulated about $1.5 billion of qualifying losses toward the aggregate retention of $1.9 billion on a property to aggregate catastrophe XOL Treaty. The treaty provides $350 million of coverage on the first $500 million losses above aggregate retention in a month. Underlying underwriting income increased 8% to $617 million pre-tax reflecting a higher level of earned premium in each of our segments and a strong underlying combined ratio of 91.4% consistent with the prior year. As you'll hear from Greg, Tom and Michael, improvements in the underlying combined ratio in both Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty were offset by an increase in the underlying combined ratio in Personal Insurance. Some of the increase in Personal Insurance was expected given that last year's quarter benefited from unusually low auto losses as a result of the pandemic. The underlying loss ratio came in at 61.7%, up 1.3 points from last year's second quarter as the beneficial impact of earned pricing in excess of loss trend was more than offset by the comparison to a very low pandemic related personal auto loss ratio in the year ago quarter. Expense ratio of 29.7% is 1.3 points lower than the prior year quarter, as last year's result was elevated primarily due to the premium refunds we provided to our personal auto customers. Turning to prior-year reserve development, in Personal Insurance, both auto and property losses came in better than expected from recent accident years resulting in $65 million of pre-tax net favorable PYD. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, $44 million of pre-tax net favorable PYD was driven by favorable loss experienced in Surety and Fidelity related to recent accident years. In Business Insurance, net favorable prior year reserve development of $73 million was driven by better-than-expected loss experienced in Workers Comp across multiple accident years partially offset by reserve strengthening at our run-off book . Net investment income improved to $682 million after tax this quarter. Our non-fixed income portfolio turned in particularly strong results this quarter reflecting performance in the equity markets contributing $265 million after tax. Consistent with our expectations, fixed income returns were down slightly from the prior year quarter as the benefit from higher levels of invested assets was more than offset by a decline in yields. For the remainder of 2021, we expect fixed income NII including earnings from short-term securities of between $425 million and $435 million after-tax per quarter. Turning to capital management, operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.8 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $2.4 billion. During the second quarter we took advantage of favorable market conditions and raised $750 million to help fund future growth with a 30-year debt issuance at 3.05% representing our second lowest 30-year coupon ever and achieving one of the highest spreads ever for a 30-year note issued by an insurance company. The market value of the bonds in our portfolio generally rose as US treasury yields declined and credit spreads tightened during the second quarter and accordingly our after-tax net unrealized investment gain increased from $2.8 billion as of March 31, to $3.2 billion at June 30. Adjusted book value per share which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses was $103.88 at quarter end up 4% since year-end and up 13% year-over-year. We returned $625 million of capital to our shareholders during the second quarter with $24 million in dividends and $401 million in share repurchases. Coming back to reinsurance for a moment, let me direct your attention to Slide 20 of the webcast presentation for a summary of our July 1 renewals. The structure of our main Cat reinsurance program is generally consistent with the prior year. We've renewed our Northeast Cat Treaty back on July 01 on substantially similar terms and pricing that was up only slightly on an exposure adjusted basis. Our Cat bond 1.3 [ph] is now in the final year of its four-year term. In the annual reset for the 2021 hurricane season, the attachment point was adjusted from $1.87 billion to $1.98 billion while the total cost of the program was flat year-over-year. A more complete description of our Cat reinsurance coverage, including our general Cat aggregate XOL treaty that covers an accumulation of certain property losses arising from multiple occurrences is included in our 10-Q which we filed earlier today and in our 2020 Form 10-K. Before turning the call over to Greg, I'd like to make a few comments about inflation as the consumer price index has gotten a lot of attention lately. We are relatively less leveraged to overall CPI type inflation as compared to say medical inflation and social inflation. One place CPI type inflation can impact us is in our short tail lines. Notwithstanding our strong profitability in PI as you'll hear from Michael, we are experiencing a degree of elevated severity. However, relatively short tail periods and short tail lines limit the impact of that exposure and although it takes time to earn in over the policy period, we can price for those increases reasonably quickly. Additionally, it is important to remember that we have some natural hedges in our business that mitigate the effects of inflation. First, higher inflation is often associated with stronger economic activity as most higher wages and asset values, all of which contribute to higher insurance exposures. And as we've discussed before, higher exposure contributes to improved margins. Second, although we're not seeing it at the moment, to the extent interest rates are correlated to inflation, we would benefit from higher returns on our investment portfolio as inflation increases. Finally, when we reiterate that we are conscious of the inflation environment and the uncertainties surrounding it when we establish our loss rates [ph] and our balance sheet reserves. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks Dan. Business Insurance had a great quarter with strong financial results and terrific execution in the marketplace. Segment income was $643 million for the quarter compared to a loss of $58 million in the prior year quarter. Higher net investment income, lower catastrophe losses, higher underlying underwriting incomes and favorable prior year reserve development, all contributed to the year-over-year improvement. We're particularly pleased with the underlying combined ratio of 93.3% which improved by 3.7 points from the second quarter of 2020, primarily attributable to three things. First, about 2 points of the improvement resulted from earned pricing exceeding loss cost trends. Another capital point reserve resulted from lower non-Cat weather. And third, the improvement also reported the comparison to the modest net charge we took in the prior year quarter related to the pandemic. In terms of non-Cat weather, while the year-over-year improvement was about 0.5 point favorable as I've just mentioned, this quarter's result was about 1.5 better than what we assumed for the quarter. Turning to the top-line, net written were up 5% benefiting from strong renewal premium change including both strong renewal rate and the exposure levels that are trending back to pre-pandemic levels and higher year-over-year new business volume. As for domestic production, renewal premium change was 9.5%, but historically higher result and up almost 4 points from the second quarter of last year. Underlying the RPC, we achieved strong renewal rate change of 7.1% and healthy exposure growth that reflects improving trends in our customers outlook for their businesses. As Alan said, our ability to continue to achieve historically high pricing with improved retention, speaks to the stability of pricing in the markets. New business was up more than 9% with both select and middle markets contributing. I'll discuss those results in more detail in a moment when I get to the individual businesses. We are very pleased with these aggregate production results and our marketplace execution. We've generated written pricing that has been in excess of estimated loss trend for some time now resulting in significant improvement in the profitability of our [indiscernible]. For this quarter renewal rate change of 7.1% remains well in excess of loss trend, it was a little over sequentially. Let me provide a little more context around that. A substantial majority of the decrease is attributable to a rational moderating of rate in our two specialty business units. Excess Casualty, which is inside Middle Market and National Property. The more recent comes after three years of very strong compounding rate increases in these two businesses. So the tempering of rate is appropriate concerning the improved return profile. Also while renewal rate change was down sequentially for those businesses, rate increases were still in double-digit. More broadly, the rate increases we are seeing across Business Insurance continue to be stable and widespread across both our lines of business and our distribution of accounts. As demonstrated on Slide 12, in our Middle Market and National Property businesses we achieved rate increases at 84% of the accounts that renewed in the second quarter, up from 81% in last year's second quarter. Given persistent loss pressures and low fixed income yields, we will continue to seek rates to further improve our margins. We will also continue to focus on all of the non-rate levers to improve the risk profile and profitability across our portfolio. For example, in our National Property business, our underwriters continue to focus on improving terms and conditions transaction by transaction. Changes in terms like increased deductibles, management of supplement [ph] and reinsurance optimization are meaningful tools in enhancing our profitability and our underwriters continue to be active in utilizing all those levers. As for the individual businesses in select renewal rate change was 4.3%, more than 2 points higher than the second quarter of 2020, while retention was 80%. These results reflect deliberate execution as we pursue improved returns in certain segments of the business and we're pleased with the progress we're making in this regard. Exposure growth was up over 4% for the quarter which is an encouraging sign as they come into our business. Lastly, new business was up 6% over the prior year quarter driven by the continued success of our new BOP 2.0 product which is now live in 31 states. This state-of-the-art product includes industry-leading segmentation and a fast easy quoting experience. We are encouraged with our agents' adoption of the new product as both submissions and new policies are up. In Middle Market renewal premium change of over 9% and retention of 87% were both historically high. Renewal rate change at 7.4% remained strong and well in excess of loss trend. Finally, new business was up 16% over the prior year quarter driven by success with larger accounts as well as some improvement in the quality of the flow in the market. As always we remain disciplined around risk selection and underwriting. To sum up, Business Insurance had a terrific quarter by all measures. We're pleased with our execution and further improving the underlying margins in the BOP and we continue to invest in the business for long term profitable growth. With that, I'll turn the call over to Tom.
Tom Kunkel:
Thanks Greg. Bond & Specialty posted excellent returns and growth in the quarter. Segment income was $187 million, considerably more than double the prior year quarter, driven by favorable prior-year reserve developments and significantly improved underlying underwriting margin and higher business volumes. The underlying combined ratio of 83.4 improved by over 3.5 points from the prior year quarter as pricing that exceeded loss cost trends drove a lower underlying loss ratio. Turning to the top-line, net written premiums grew an exceptional 16% in the quarter with solid contributions from all our businesses. In management liability, renewal premium change was a record 12.7%, driven by near record rate. Retention remained strong at 86%. New business increased 6% from the second quarter of last year, our first quarterly increase since the beginning of the pandemic with strong new business pricing. Surety also grew for the first time since the beginning of the pandemic and international again posted meaningful growth including strong retention and rate. So Bond & Specialty results were excellent and reflect our ability to successfully manage this business through a variety of business and economic cycles. And now I'll turn it over to Michael for Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks Tom and good morning everyone. We're very pleased with our second quarter Personal Insurance results. Segment income of $121 million was up $111 million from the prior year quarter, benefitting from lower catastrophes, higher net investment income and higher net favorable prior year reserve development. Partially offsetting these improvements was a lower underlying underwriting gain which I will discuss in more detail in a moment. Our second quarter combined ratio improved from the prior year quarter by about 1.5 points to 99.7%. Net written premiums grew 16%. Recall that in the prior year quarter we provided $216 million of premium refunds to automobile customers in response to the impact of the pandemic. Adjusting for these premium refunds, net written premiums grew a very strong 8% with domestic homeowners up 12% and domestic automobile up 4%. Automobile delivered another excellent quarter with a combined ratio of 91.6%. The underlying combined ratio was an impressive 92%, although up 6 points from the prior year quarter, which reflected lower loss activity during the initial months of the pandemic. The current quarter results reflect the benefits of modestly lower claim frequency compared to pre-pandemic levels. As we exited the quarter, claim frequency was closer to pre-pandemic levels and we would expect that trend to continue into the third quarter. Our strong current quarter profitability also reflects increased severity, particularly in collision and third-party physical damage claims driven primarily by higher costs of used vehicles and parts. As auto loss experience approaches pre-pandemic levels, we plan to begin filing for rate increases in selected states later this year, as we continue to balance business volumes and profitability. While it will take some time for future rate actions to earn into our results, we are well positioned to continue to profitably grow in auto. In homeowners and other, the second quarter combined ratio of 108.3% was six points lower than the prior year quarter, driven by a 13.5 point reduction in catastrophe losses. Partially offsetting the catastrophe favorability was an 8 point increase in the underlying combined ratio. Approximately 1/3 of this increase reflects non-catastrophe weather losses which were in line with our expectations, but elevated over a less active prior year quarter. The remainder of the increase reflects continued elevated frequency and severity of fire and non-weather water losses. The increased severity we saw in the second quarter includes higher repair costs due to a combination of labor and material increases. We continue to see great increases in response to these trends, and will continue to actively monitor inflation and loss cost trend changes to factor them into our pricing and underwriting decisions. Turning to quarterly production, domestic automobile retention was up slightly to a strong 85%, new business increased by 19% and policies in-force grew 4%. Domestic homeowners and other delivered another excellent quarter with retention remaining strong at 85%, renewal premium change increasing to 8.2%, and new business growth of 28% reflective of increased quote activity and increase in average premium, along with the ongoing successful rollout of Quantum Home 2.0. Policies in force grew 7%. As Alan mentioned, our policies in-force growth across both auto and homeowners are at record levels. Actually, our policies in-force across both auto and homeowners are at record levels, reflecting our ongoing effort to perform and transform in Personal Insurance. When we launched Quantum Auto 2.0 we designed it with a modular product structure to give customers what they need and to deliver long-term performance. This has enabled us to seamlessly introduce new rating variables such as vehicle history, prior insurance history and telematics, allowing us to continually improve our pricing segmentation. Regarding telematics, we've seen take-up rates for IntelliDrive increase by 30% since the launch of our second generation offering, which features a fully redesigned mobile experience, monitors distracted driving and improves our ability to match price to driving behavior. Our momentum in auto aligns very well with our goal of providing total account solutions for customers. The Quantum Home 2.0 product is now available in over 40 states, generating consistent growth and policies in-force, while distributors and customers continue to see value in our combined auto and property offerings. Our multichannel PI distribution strategy allows us to meet our customers where they are. As a result of the success of our new products, our existing relationships continue to perform well. Additionally, we've seen more demand for agent appointments, which is contributing meaningfully to our growth. In order to serve customers how they want to be served, we are also investing in our digital capabilities. With the advancements in our MyTravelers mobile app, we continue to digitize the customer journey with over 600,000 customers already downloading the app since it launch earlier this year. Going forward, we will continue to invest in solutions that meet customers where they are, give them what they need, and serve them how they want while working with our distribution partners to deliver profitable growth. Now I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael. Before we open it up for Q&A, I'd like to turn the call back over to Alan for a moment.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Abbe. As bittersweet as it is, we have one last piece of business this morning before we turn to Q&A. I want to acknowledge and thank our partner and friend, Tom Kunkel will be retiring in September after a spectacular 37-year career at Travelers and to impact as the leader of our very successful Surety and Management Liability businesses has been profound. In addition to delivering exceptional financial results over many years, Tom and his leadership team fostered a culture of care, community and excellence that extends throughout our Bond & Specialty organization and throughout Travelers. It's one of the many reasons why I'm so pleased with Jeff Klenk, currently a member of Tom's leadership team and Head of our Management Liability business will succeed Tom. Jeff has been Travelers for more than 20 years. He's a proven leader and the perfect candidate to take up the reins from Tom. You'll hear from Jeff in October on our third quarter earnings call. Tom, we're all going to miss you personally and professionally. And with that, we're happy to take your questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We have our first question from the line of Michael Phillips from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Michael Phillips:
Thank you, and good morning everybody. I want to drill first, I guess, Michael, in some of your comments on personal auto and your comment, I think towards the end, you said you'll begin to file some rate increases later in the year. A question kind of centered around the timing of that frequency benefit for you seemed to be lasting a little bit longer than some of your peers. Maybe that's some mix of business issue that you might have a little more preferred. Maybe you can confirm that. But what's driving -- if frequency is starting to come back to pre-pandemic levels, and you expect that to continue, I guess why not take rate now, why wait till later in the year and what's driving that need for rate, if it's not frequency and maybe it is, is it more of the severity? So kind of a couple pronged question there, but more on the timing of the rate, why not now? And then really kind of what's driving it? Is it more of the frequency or severity that's driving your need for rate? Thank you.
Michael Klein:
Sure, Michael. Thanks for the question. Really, the timing is really just a function of the process. We're actively putting together, filing packages and engaged in conversations with State Insurance Departments as we speak. So it's not a question of waiting to get rate. It's just a function of the process of working with regulators to get rate increases filed and approved. And to your question about frequency and severity, again I think in my comments about the quarter in particular, we're seeing frequency coming out of the quarter returning more towards pre-pandemic levels and we are seeing severity pressure, I flagged out some of the physical damage pressures and I can give you just a quick example there, right? You've all seen the news about used car prices being up 50%. That particularly impacts us in the case of total losses, where the average cash value of that total loss is up pretty significantly. There's a little bit of an offsetting good guy there, because we get more for the salvage recovery on that total vehicle. But net-net that's putting upward pressure on severity and that's one example total -- cost to repair vehicles is up while the injury severity is also got upward pressure on it. So we're responding really to both frequency and severity to answer your question on the drivers.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, that's helpful Mike and maybe just a follow up on that. If the timing, you say is more of a process, it sounds like you'd rather do something sooner rather than later. Does the, I mean, your margins today in the second quarter, were still better than 2Q 2020, 2Q 2019 I'm sorry, still better than pretty good, but you expect things to change. So -- with margins still better do you expect much of a pushback from anybody at the state level to say, you guys, and maybe some of the industry still have really good profit here. So that might be a bit of a push back on, I don't know how much you expect to get from rate, but there might be some pushback on the ability to get rate that you want given pretty decent returns still?
Michael Klein:
Yes, Michael, I think it's a -- I think it's a great observation and it is part of that process that I described is really a conversation with regulators about what the historical experience has been. But also pointing out that part of that favorable experience is really due to the extraordinary event that was the thing that is the pandemic. And so we're in conversations with them about how to weight historical experience versus prospective views of trend. And also, state-by-state experience varies and our starting point varies by state. We've talked in prior quarters about the fact that we did take rate reductions in over 20 states across the country. And so those are certainly some of the places we're looking initially to see if we could take some of that rate back, which is a different conversation maybe than in the state where we didn't file a rate increase historically. So again, great observation and really all part of that process that we're engaging in as we speak.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, Michael, thank you very much for the details. I appreciate it.
Operator:
Thank you. The next question is from the line of Ryan Tunis from Autonomous Research. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. Good morning. Can you guys hear me?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes.
Ryan Tunis:
Sorry about that, just got back to the office today, so getting used to the old phone. So I just wanted to keep it on personal auto, when we think about where you're seeing some of the elevated loss trend, Michael, is it more geographic or is it preferred versus more standard? I mean, like what are kind of the variables that you're looking at the most to kind of think about? Where you're seeing loss trying to come back the most?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, great question, Ryan and good morning. Welcome back to the office. We are seeing it, there are variations across geographies. We look at things like return to normal indices. We look at driving data by state and by geography. But broadly speaking, most areas of the country are seeing driving activity return again to a close to a pre-pandemic levels, closer in some places than others. We also continue to monitor as we've talked about the past, commuting miles versus non-commuting miles. And there is still a different mix of miles today than there has been historically, but when you put all that together, and you look at clean frequency, the frequency benefits we saw and that's part of my comment about as we exited the quarter, the frequency benefits we've seen over the past few months and quarters, have started to wane and wanes throughout the second quarter, which is part of our comment about trends returning to pre-pandemic levels.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And I guess my follow up is one the home side. So the home attritional loss ratio is above 60. That's clearly somewhat elevated. But we've seen the price of something like lumber, timber is come down quite a bit since mid 2Q, how much of an alleviating factors should we think about that moving forward in terms of the type of pressure that's putting on the loss ratio on home, or was putting on the loss ratio on home?
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure. It's a great question Ryan. I would say a couple things. First, in my remarks I did talk about frequency and severity and particularly, frequency and severity of fire and non-weather water losses driving some of that underlying deterioration. So clearly, the lumber prices are a severity item, not a frequency item and we are seeing, we did see uptick in the quarter in both. I would take just a quick step back as we're talking about auto and property though and just make a couple of observations and then come back and finish the answer to your question. If you take a step back and look at the segment combined ratio on both an overall and an underlying basis, it's very consistent with the long run average for this business. And when you look at the Auto combined ratio, not surprisingly in the quarter, it still ran below the long term average. And in property in the quarter, the combined ratio is, call it, 4 to 6 points above those long-term averages on a total and an underlying basis. So that just sort of gives you a little bit of an order of the magnitude of what we're talking about here. I'd also remind you that property, in property, the combined ratio, the highest combined ratio we see in the year is the second quarter. So you got to sort of put the second quarter into context. But that said, the severity pressure we saw on the quarter was a combination of labor and materials. So certainly the 50% plus increase in the lumber are in there. Double-digit increase in roofing materials is in there. High single-digit to low double-digit increases in labor is in there. And when we look at our property loss cost mix, it's really labor followed by contents, followed by materials. So even if the short answer to your question I think is even if lumber prices come back down, that's still a relatively small component of the loss costs. But we do see period-to-period volatility in frequency and severity in attritional office property. So, again, that's part of why I gave you that long run view of where the quarter was relative to history. And at the end of the day, we take a step back, and we look at the renewal premium change we're driving in property, and our focus really is to continue to drive rate in property to address some of those pressures.
Ryan Tunis:
That's really helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. The next one is from the line of David Motemaden from Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.
David Motemaden:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. I just wanted to just follow-up a bit more on the on the auto side. So maybe, Michael, I'm just wondering, I guess, obviously you're taking rate, but how are you thinking about balancing taking rate versus what could be maybe short lived severity increases or is the view that these increases in severity that you're witnessing are not transitory and might be more sustainable?
Michael Klein:
Yes, it's a great question. And certainly, as we've talked about severity trend over time, we've pretty consistently talked about the fact that, that we take a long run view of trend when we set our prices. Now, if the starting point is elevated, because we've seen an uptick in severity, and that's in our loss costs, the question is, is your starting point elevated and are you training off that elevated starting point? Or is your experience you're seeing or is the experience we're seeing in this quarter an anomaly? I think if I broke apart frequency and severity for you, I'd say again, we continue to see the frequency trending towards the pre-pandemic level that's continuing. How much of the auto materials cost, physical damage cost inflation is transitory or not, is a key question. And, there's a lot of varying opinions around that and we'll factor our best estimate into that assessment as we factor in what we think we need to rate on a go forward basis.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, let me just add to that, weather inflation, our view on weather inflation is transitory. We're certainly looking out over the duration of the liability. So what we're talking about CPI type inflation, again lumber, used cars, et cetera, that's impacting your relatively short tail line. So we don't really have to forecast long term in that case. And because it's short tail, the claim activity comes in pretty quickly, we see it reasonably quickly and we can react to it pretty quickly.
Michael Klein:
Yes. Great point, Alan.
David Motemaden:
Got it. That makes sense, that's helpful. And then maybe a question for Alan just on the investment in Fidelis. I was hoping maybe you could elaborate on the thought process behind that, and maybe sort of the thinking around your own non admitted offering and sort of aspirations there?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, thanks. Thanks for that question. We've got a fair amount of interest in this, which I'm thrilled to have any interest in, we're interested in it as well. Let me just put it in a little bit of context. As you can infer from the fact that we didn't disclose terms it is not a material investment for us. So I think that's just important background to start with. But having said that, when we think about investment activities, we're and as we said, we're interested in things that provide some strategic capability. And, we've said for a long time that we're underweight E&S and this gives us a window into a successful innovative management team that, that has a lot of expertise in the niche, not even non-admitted space. And in progress and geographies that could teach us something as well. So it really is about a learning exercise for us.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. The next one is from the line of Jimmy Bhullar from JP Morgan.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Hi, good morning. So first, just sort of a question on what you're seeing in the Workers Comp market in terms of pricing? I think there's been an expectation that things would begin to turn are you seeing that? And then I have a follow up.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Good morning, this is Greg. Yes Workers Comp continues to bounce around. We thought that we were going to hit the bottom a couple of quarters back and then with the pandemic, there's clearly been some favorable frequency activity around Workers Comp and bank wages, payrolls, et cetera. As we continue to work with the bureaus in terms of their loss cost recommendations, they are coming in less negative and I think the key will be around how they treat 2020. That's an anomalous year, or if they're going to factor that into the overall ratemaking. So the overall book of business, we didn't quite hit a positive rate number. We were slightly negative in the quarter, but we do see improvement on it every quarter.
Jamminder Bhullar:
And then on toward costs and sort of social inflation with sort of the reopening of courts, should we assume that we should start to see a little bit of a pickup in social inflation? And how does that affect your loss ratio and have you been assuming, have you been incorporating continued high social inflation in your loss fix through the past few quarters?
Dan Frey:
Hi Jimmy, it is, Dan, I'll take that one. We have taken the view that social inflation has gone nowhere, and that the elevated level of losses that we saw, call it pre-pandemic are going to persist and that the elevated level of loss trend even off of that higher level of losses was going to persist. So that's what we've assumed as we continue to make our loss picks and assess and assess our reserves. And I think it's going to be a while before we see courts work through the backlog of having been closed for much of the past year. Priority in some jurisdictions is going to be given to criminal cases over civil cases, whether the courts are reopening for in-person discussions or virtual is still a question in some jurisdictions. So I think it's going to be a while before we know the answer. I think we said pretty consistently last year that there's uncertainty in that environment and because there's uncertainty, we were taking a cautious view in our view of loss trends and reserves. But the short answer to the question is, we think social inflation is as strong as ever and that's reflected in our numbers.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Okay, and then just lastly, I think Alan noted that the fact that you didn't disclose the price on Fidelis means that it wasn't a large investment, should we assume that there should be any impact from the investment on your share buyback plans for this year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Jimmy it’s - and part of our overall capital management strategy, that's not going to be sort of almost by definition, it's not going to have a meaningful impact on our capital position.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. The next one is from the line of Josh Shanker from Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Joshua Shanker:
Yes, good morning, everyone. I just want to talk about, I know there's been a lot of questions on personal auto, but I have one more. You -- this has been the best month for growth in terms of new policies that you guys have seen since back in 2016. Given that you firmly expected frequency to return, is there a risk that you've put on customers who came in because of a good price in the pandemic, but the price won't be adequate price post pandemic and they might leave?
Michael Klein:
Yes, Josh. It’s Michael, I suppose there's always a risk and certainly there's pressure on retention when you start to increase prices. That said, we feel comfortable with the pricing levels that we've been putting business on the books. I mentioned IntelliDrive, as a key driver of some of our growth distribution expansions. It has been a driver of some of our growth, there's a lot of things that you can point to, including elevated quote activity, that are drivers of growth and auto. We've seen some slight improvement in close rate in auto over the past few months, as we've maintained our PC essentially flat. But there are a lot of other drivers of growth than just price that we can point to you that probably alleviates some of that.
Dan Frey:
Hey Josh, it's Dan, just want to comment on that. I think we've done a terrific job in the auto book over recent years in terms of understanding our appetite and having a consistent appetite, and I've pointed to the last time we did take significant pricing in auto back in 2017, 2018 timeframe. We did not shrink discount in that environment.
Joshua Shanker:
Good point, good point and an unrelated topic, but sort of interest with the court reopening and whatnot. Can you talk about whether in 2Q you're seeing convergence between model loss cost trends and actual experience? I assume that you prepare for a lot more losses on an incurred basis during the pandemic that didn't occur because of the nature of courts. Is that narrowing right now are we still experiencing loss cost far below the model overall?
Michael Klein:
To make sure I understand the question, Josh, you mean, the trend in the loss ratio or you mean the level of incurred losses relative to ultimate losses?
Joshua Shanker:
I mean, in every line of business, you assume that the loss cost turns to be 4%, 5%, 6%. But during the pandemic, it wasn't that because of courts and other reasons, but you assume that, that's just the delay. Is your loss experience coming closer in line with your model protections? Or are we still have a huge backload of reserves for claims that haven't come through because pandemic conditions persist?
Michael Klein:
Yes, I think closer to the latter. So, we still have, for example, low paid to incur ratios. We still have, for example, the majority of the ultimate losses we recognized were from COVID, sitting in IBNR. And to the earlier question on court reopening, again, I think people are maybe jumping the gun on that. I think it's going to be quite a while before we work through the backlog here and see. So we are still expecting longer periods of development in terms of how long it's going to take to get to ultimate. And again, as we said previously, even though the data itself looked good, we took a cautious view in terms of our loss picks and our reserves, with assumptions more in line with our normal long term loss trend.
Joshua Shanker:
All right, well I'll dig in a little bit later. But I don't want to keep up the line. Thank you very much.
Michael Klein:
Thanks Josh.
Operator:
Thank you. The next one is from Tracy from Barclays. Please go ahead.
Tracy Benguigui:
Thank you. Dan, you mentioned that Travelers is less leveraged to overall CPI type inflation. Are there better macroeconomic indicators we should be looking at if CPI is a lesser measure for long tail lines? I have muscle memory from a formal role that there are other indices you look at, that is more nuanced for your businesses to measure claims inflation?
Alan Schnitzer:
Let Tom Kunkel start and Dan can fill in whatever I miss. We're actually not trying to forecast CPI or inflation generally. We're trying to forecast loss costs. And we do that by analyzing our own data and incorporating forecasts from third parties. And we do that on a very granular basis. So, take Workers Comp, for example. We're not forecasting medical inflation. We're looking at components. So, think prescription drug prices, durable medical equipment, et cetera. And we're doing that in the same niche that those lost costs, contribute to our actual losses. So, it's hard, I mean, obviously, we can't give you a single number and it's hard to say, if we go look at this index or that index, because we're doing it on a very granular basis, in part by combining our own data and squaring triangles and by reference to third party sources.
Tracy Benguigui:
Okay. So all those nuance factor that you're looking at, does that worry with respect to inflation, if CPI is not the indicator we should be super focused on?
Alan Schnitzer:
No, there's nothing about, there's nothing about loss costs or inflation that's worrying us at all. In fact, the way we -- the emphasis in the conversation here is because to a degree, we are seeing it but we saw pretty good profitability and personal lines. And it's into the short term line. And the consequences of that is, we can see it very quickly and react to it very quickly. And contrast that to say social inflation, which was an issue for us a few years ago, where takes a little bit longer for us, although I will say that I think as compared to many we saw that very, very quickly. And there's not nearly as much leverage on the balance sheet. So, there's not as much risk in the reserves, and we can pay for it relatively quickly. So, there's actually nothing at all about the inflation environment that's of concern to us at the moment in short term lines or long term ones.
Tracy Benguigui:
Okay, great. Just one follow-up on Fidelis it's also reinsurer, so I'm just wondering if this partnership could look like a sidecar where you can see your own premiums, this platform where could potentially compete what reinsurers on your panel?
Alan Schnitzer:
Certainly not at the moment, not as the way we've contemplated this. It really is just the way we've presented it. It's pretty simple. It's a really interesting business model. It's a fantastic management team. They've got a great track record. There, that the cultures are very compatible. What they do is very interesting to us and we wanted to learn more. And that's for the time being that's really all there is to it. And maybe over time we'll collaborate with them and there will be business opportunities. Who knows, but for the time being, it really is just as we've laid it out.
Tracy Benguigui:
Thank you for taking my questions.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Tracy.
Operator:
Thank you. The next one is from Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. Alan, I guess my first question is on the Fidelis investment as well. Through the years, you've said, you guys weren't interested in reinsurance deals. Obviously, there are unique features of this investment away from just reinsurance. But I just want to get a sense of just as we think about M&A, like because your stance on reinsurance changed. And then you guys issued $750 million of debt in the quarter, and it was earmarked for business growth. So, I'm just trying to -- are you tying that capital into potential M&A or is that more earmarked for organic business growth?
Alan Schnitzer:
Let me start with Fidelis and I'll ask Dan to comment on the capital raise. So, there's just nothing at all about this that signals any shift in our thinking about reinsurance. We are primarily focused on being a primary writer with very limited interest in reinsurance and that remains the case it, it just so happens that Fidelis writes some of their business in the form of reinsurance, but that's just one of their four pillars of business. There are some interesting aspects of their reinsurance business. They've got really powerful risk management tools, are really powerful with risk and reward. And so, there's the potential for us to learn something in terms of managing our own cap portfolio. And I will point out why it hasn't been and I don't expected to be any significant focus for us. We do write a little bit of reinsurance where it's complimentary to our core business. So for example, we've got a Boiler Re business. So it's not completely foreign to us. It's a very, very, very small part of what we do. No change in strategic focus. But it's not alarming to us and in this respect, we think that there's something for us to learn.
Dan Frey:
And Elyse, regarding the capital, capital question, no change at all in our philosophy or urgency around M&A or lack of urgency around M&A. It's really coincidental the timing of when these things came together. And again, the Fidelis investment was small enough that it wouldn't have necessitated much in the way of capital management anyways, I think if you go back into transcripts, six, or even eight quarters ago, we were talking about, eventually we would have the need to issue more debt just to keep up with growth in the top-line and to maintain the debt-to-capital ratio that we're comfortable with.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thanks. And then my second question on, can you guys quantify the impact that exposure had on your premium growth in the quarter, and then within select accounts within Business Insurance, I noticed that the premiums declined in the quarter, but I thought exposure would have benefited that business line as well.
Dan Frey:
So Elyse it's Dan. I'm going to, I guess resist the temptation to sort of try to do a reconciliation of written premiums at the degree that there's positive exposure, the same way that to the degree that there's positive rate, that just means that the accounts that renewed would have renewed at that much more. Having said that, it's applicable to the accounts that renewed, that's the measure that it would apply to. Alan do you want…?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, I mean, just a little bit more color on select. We've shared with you that we've been very focused on improving the profitability of that business. And so, we've certainly been very thoughtful around production and pursuing margin improvement for rates and terms and conditions and that sort. I will tell you also in the Select business, during the pandemic because of some of our ability to have a little more flexibility for a customer, we suspended some billing and some cancellation activity. And now that's back in play in the marketplace, so you have a little bit of drag in the top-line with that just back to normal activity, but when comparing that to the base period that has a little bit of an impact also Elyse.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thanks for the color.
Operator:
Thank you. The next one is from Brian Meredith from UBS.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. Most of them have been asked. Just I'm curious, wildfires are kind of kicking up here in the West Coast. Maybe you can talk a little bit about what you've kind of been doing over the last couple of years to kind of manage your exposure to wildfires?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Brian, this is Michael and certainly we're managing our exposure to wildfire across the business, but I'll start with Personal Insurance. I think a lot of the actions are common across the place, but Greg can chime in if I miss anything on the commercial line side. It really is a continuation of the conversation that we've been having with you in terms of the way we've been managing it. I think, we've talked a lot about California, in particular, in the context of wildfires, but certainly the parallel is a parallel that exposes us across more states in the West, then just California. So one specific development I would point you to in 2021 is, we've extended our agreement with Wildfire Defense Systems to apply to Colorado in addition to California. So we've got that sort of risk prevention partnership extending across an additional state in the West, which we think on the margin is helpful. And then maybe just an update on our progress in California, in addition to the launch of the new product, which we successfully got in market in 2020, we're now converting California policies to that new product. So think new pricing, segmentation, think new rate level, think new eligibility, as respect to wildfire exposure. And just last month, we got an additional 6.9% rate increase approved on the Property product in the state. So we continue to manage through rate eligibility our terms and conditions. And we do continue to work our way through the non-renewal activity, subject to the lifting of the moratoriums as they expire, as another level we're polling and again, a lot of those are specific California comments, but you can think about those in terms of again, segmentation modeling, exposure management, applying more broadly across the west.
Brian Meredith:
Thanks. I guess, a quick follow up here. Just curious, you continue to have some really strong growth in your commercial property lines, can you talk a little bit about what the kind of market dynamics are in that line? That's the one area that I thought we're seeing pricing really kind of moderate the quickest.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, as you saw we had plus 9% across the property line. And really those are primary amount of growth underneath that is RPC growth. And that's why, we gave you that supplement exhibit where Excess Casualty and National Property were two of our many specialty lines that we have, but two have certainly been the poster children for some REIT momentum over the last couple of years, and as I said, still get in double-digits but moderating, somewhat, but that's what's driving that growth.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. We have time for one more question and that will be from Meyer Shields from KBW. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Great, thank you so much for fitting me in. One last -- well, obviously last question on personal auto, can you talk about the trajectory of frequency month-by-month in the second quarter just so we can assess what's going on?
Alan Schnitzer:
Meyer, I don't know if I'm going to give you a numbers more specifically inside the quarter. I think what you said, we'll let stand which is, that as we exited the quarter frequency was closer to pre pandemic levels. You sort of know where it had been running, I think coming into the quarter and again, it approached pre-pandemic levels as we left the quarter.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, fair enough. And then I guess this is for Greg. When we look at the presentation on Select accounts, the RPC for the first quarter of 2021 showed up as 8.8%. When you actually reported 1Q, it was 6.7. That seems from the outside like a big change. I thought you could talk about the process, and how we should think about the inherent estimates in the RPC?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Meyer both of those quarters, both the fourth quarter and the first quarter developed up, as you said, about 2 points. And I'll just remind you, that's an estimate of what we believe the current force is going to look like in terms of the exposure growth. So we're always estimating that and when you have a V impact in the economy, your models sometimes don't keep up with that really quick and adroit change that's happening. So we basically shorten the model period. So if we were using a six-month moving average, think we moved to a three-month moving average to try to keep up with that change in the marketplace. And that gives us a little bit changed the development. So we think we'll be in front of that going forward, but that was basically the methodology underneath that.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, perfect. That's exactly what we needed, thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. Ms. Abbe Goldstein, please continue.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone's time and for joining us this morning, and as always, if there are any follow-up questions get in touch with Investor Relations and good day everyone.
Operator:
This concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Travelers First Quarter 2021 Results Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. Please be advised that Today's conference is being recorded Tuesday, April 20 2021. [Operator Instructions]. Thank you. I'd now like to hand the conference over to Abby Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, please go ahead.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers discussion of our first quarter 2021 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the investors section. Speaking today will be, Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Tom Kunkel of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under the forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplements and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I would like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abby. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We are very pleased to report, first quarter core income $699 million or $2.73 per diluted share, both up from the prior year quarter. Despite our highest ever level of first quarter catastrophe losses. A higher level of core income for the quarter was driven by very strong underlying underwriting income, as well as higher levels of favorable prior year reserve development and net investment income. All of which more than offset the record level of catastrophe losses. Underlying underwriting income of $735 million pre-tax was nearly 25% higher than in the prior year quarter, driven by an increase in net earned premiums to $7.4 billion and an underlying combined ratio which improved almost two points to an excellent at 89.5%. We are particularly pleased with the strong underlying fundamentals in all the three of our business segments. In Business Insurance, the underlying combined ratio improved by more than three points, which again included the benefit of earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trend. On Specialty Insurance and Personal Insurance, both benefited from higher earned premiums and continued strong margins. Turning to investments, our high quality investment portfolio continue to perform well, generating net investment income of $590 million after-tax for the quarter, up 14% from the prior year quarter. These results together with our strong balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 9% over the past year, after making important investments in our business and returning excess capital to shareholders. During the quarter we returned $613 million of excess capital to shareholders, including $397 million of share repurchases. In recognition of our strong financial position, confidence in our business. I'm pleased to share that our Board of Directors declared a 4% increase in our quarterly cash dividend to $0.88 per share, marking 17th consecutive years of dividend increases, with the compound annual growth rate of 9% over that period. Our Board also authorized an additional $5 billion of share repurchases. Turning to production, we remain pleased with the execution of our marketplace strategies. During the quarter we grew net written premiums by 2% to $7.5 billion. Our premium growth once again reflects strong renewal premium change and retention in each of our three segments. In Business Insurance, renewal premium change increased to 9.2%. Its highest level since 2013 and four points higher than the prior year quarter. While retention remains strong. Workers compensation, pure renewal rate change was slightly negative, but continued on an improving trend. Workers comp renewal premium change, which includes exposure was positive for the first time in a number of quarters. Both renewal rate change, annual premium change in every other product line, were near or above recent record highs. Net written premiums in business insurance were down a little bit year-over-year, driven overwhelmingly by the workers comp product line, primarily reflecting the impact of the pandemic on payrolls. As we're comparing a pandemic impacted quarter in the current year, to a largely pre pandemic quarter in the prior year. Bond & Specialty Insurance net written premiums increased by 9%. Driven by renewal premium change of nearly 11% in our management liability business, while retention remained strong. Across our commercial businesses, the pricing environment continues to be rational and favorable, with written pricing well above estimated loss cost trends. Overall pricing levels continue to be near record levels and while margins have improved, given the continued headwinds impacting returns for the industry. We expect pricing to continue to outpace loss trend for some time. Turning to Personal Insurance, production was excellent in the quarter. Net written premiums increased by nearly 7%, driven by renewal premium change of almost 8% in our homeowners business, strong retention in new business in both auto and home. New business for both auto and home combined was up 17% compared to the prior year quarter, which is the ninth consecutive quarter of double digit growth in new business, demonstrating the ongoing success of our product, distribution and customer initiatives. Before I turn the call over to Dan, given the elevated frequency and severity of catastrophes in recent years, including the recent severe winter weather, I'd like to take a minute and highlight the work we've done in terms of the strategic management of our catastrophe exposure. Some number of years ago when consistent with our approach generally of recognizing, assessing and addressing trends rapidly, we took decisive action in anticipation of continued whether volatility. Our efforts started with talent. We got an experts in data science, meteorology, geophysics, and environmental engineering, among others, for our Cat Management organization. We also established dedicated teams for each catastrophe peril, with the goal of developing industry leading scientific and underwriting expertise. We have incorporated the results into our product development, risk selection, pricing, capital allocation and claim response. The insights we have developed have enabled us to supplement standard vendor cat models, with our own sophisticated peril-by-peril view. This gives us a refined granular view of cat risk, incorporating proprietary variables such as complex route characteristics, tree and brush density, and location intelligence down to the parcel level. These variables are incorporated into our product developed enhancing segmentation. They're also integrated into proprietary algorithms that we use at the point of sale, to inform risk selection and decisions about terms and conditions. Those of our claim response, our data scientists and other experts have developed geospatial tools, artificial intelligence and analytic models to facilitate a more effective tailored deployment claim resources. This has resulted in a more satisfying experience for our customers and a more efficient outcome for us. Taken together these efforts have enabled us to more effectively manage our exposure to catastrophes. While there's always the potential for us to have outsized exposure to an event. Over the past five years, our share of property catastrophe losses relative to total property catastrophe losses for the domestic P&C industry has declined significantly, compared to the five years prior to that. Our property cat losses over the past five years have also been meaningfully lower than our corresponding market share. Advancing our understanding of the risk and reward of catastrophe underwriting is an ongoing effort for us. As a footnote, but importantly, we've made these and other strategic investments in our business while we improved our expense ratio. So to sum up, the strength of our underwriting and investment expertise enabled us to deliver strong profitability in this quarter, notwithstanding the severe winter weather. As a result, we're off to a terrific start for the year. We're particularly pleased with the strong underlying fundamentals in all three of our business segments. Our proven strategy, strong track record of execution, leading analytics, talent advantage, give us confidence that we are well positioned to capitalize on opportunities as the economy recovers. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the first quarter was $699 million, up from $676 million in the prior year quarter, and core return on equity was 11.1%. Increase in core income resulted primarily from a higher level of net favorable prior year reserve development, improved underlying underwriting results and increased net investment income, largely offset by a much higher level of catastrophe losses. Our first quarter results include $835 million of pre-tax cat losses, an all-time high for our first quarter cats and an increase the $502 million compared to last year's first quarter. This quarter cats include $703 million from the February winter storms, which impacted Texas and a number of other states. Prior year reserve development, for which I'll provide more detail shortly, was net favorable $317 million pre-tax in the quarter. Our pre-tax underlying underwriting gain of $735 million was 24% higher than in the prior year quarter, reflecting higher levels of earned premium and an underlying combined ratio, which improved by 1.8 points from a year ago to 89.5%. The improvement in the underlying combined ratio resulted largely from the continued impacts of earned pricing exceeding loss cost trends in our commercial businesses, and continued favorable loss conditions in personal auto. These improvements were partially offset by the comparison of more typical non-cat weather this year to relatively benign non-cat weather in last year's first quarter. After-tax net investment income increased by 14% from the prior year quarter to $590 million, as higher returns in our non-fixed income portfolio were partially offset by the impact of the expected decline in fixed income yields. Consistent with our comments on the fourth quarter earnings call and in our 10-K, we continue to expect that for the remainder of 2021 fixed income NII, including earnings from short term securities, will be between $420 million and $430 million per quarter after-tax. Turning to prior year reserves development, total net favorability of $317 million pre-tax in the quarter included a $72 million benefit from a subrogation settlement with Southern California Edison related to the Woolsey fire of 2018. $62 million of that benefit was recorded in personal insurance, with the remainder recorded in business insurance. Beyond that subrogation benefit, net favorable PYD and personal insurance reflected both auto and property losses coming in better than expected for recent accident years. In Bond and Specialty, net favorable PYD was driven by better than expected results in the surety book. In business insurance net favorable PYD was driven by better than expected loss experience in workers comp, partially offset by some adverse development on losses for environmental exposures in our runoff book. Regarding Reinsurance, as discussed during our fourth quarter results call, we renewed our underlying property aggregate catastrophe XOL Treaty for 2021, providing aggregate coverage of $350 million part of $500 million of losses above aggregate retention of $1.9 billion. Through March 31, we have accumulated $915 million of qualifying losses toward the aggregate retention. Turning to capital management, operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.2 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.8 billion. Our net unrealized investment gain decreased from $4.1 billion after-tax at year end to $2.8 billion after-tax at March 31, as interest rates rose during the quarter. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses, was $101.21 at quarter end, up 2% from year end and up 9% from a year ago. We’ve returned $613 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $397 million in dividends of $216 million. Following this quarters share repurchase activity, we have a little more than $800 million remaining under the previously authorized repurchase program. In order to provide appropriate capital management flexibility and reflecting its confidence in our business, the Board authorized an additional $5 billion for share repurchases. And as Alan also mentioned, our Board authorized an increase in the quarterly dividend to $0.88 per share. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance produced $317 million of segment income for the first quarter, a 10% increase over the first quarter of 2020 driven by higher levels of underlying underwriting income, net favorable prior year reserve development in net investment income, which more than offset higher catastrophe losses. We're particularly pleased with the underlying combined ratio of 93.7%, which improved by 3.6 points, a little less than two points [ph] to that resulted from earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trends. The improvement also reflects the comparison to the net charge we took in the prior year quarter related to the pandemic. Turning to the top line, net written premiums were down 2% primarily due to lower net written premiums in the workers compensation product line as a result of the impact of the pandemic on payrolls. Net written premium benefited from strong retention, higher renewal rate change in a return to positive exposure growth, reflecting an improving trend in our customer’s outlook for their businesses. Turning to domestic production, renewal rate change remained strong at 8.4%, up 2.5 points from the first quarter of last year, while retention remained high at 83%. Written pricing for some time now has been exceeding loss trend, and is significantly improving the margins of our book. Importantly, we believe we have a high quality book of business in seek to maintain high retention. With that in mind, we continue to execute deliberately and granularly on an account by account and class by class basis, we remain exceptionally pleased with our execution. As for the individual businesses, in Select, renewal rate change increased to 4.5%, up almost three points from the first quarter of 2020. Retention of 78% reflects deliberate execution as we pursue improve returns in certain segments of this business. As I mentioned above, we're pleased with the segmented execution underneath the aggregate result. New business of $95 million was down $24 million from the prior year quarter, also driven by our focus on improving profitability as we remain disciplined around risk selection, underwriting and pricing. Importantly, we have not slowed down our commitment to invest in product development and ease of doing business, which position us well for the long-term profitable growth in this business. As an example, in previous quarters, we've highlighted our completely redesigned BOP 2.0 small commercial product, which includes industry leading segmentation and a fast, easy quoting experience. During the last three months, we rolled out the new product in an additional seven states, bringing the cumulative total to 30 states, representing approximately 60% of our C&P new business premium. We're encouraged with our agents adoption of the new product as both flow and new business premium are meaningfully improved as compared to the legacy BOP product. In middle market, renewal retains was strong at 9.1% up almost three points from the first quarter of 2020, while retention remained high at 86%. Additionally, we achieved positive rate on more than 80% of our accounts this quarter, a 10 point increase from the first quarter of last year. New business was down $12 million, driven by certain business units and geographies where returns are not meeting our thresholds. To sum up, we're pleased with our execution and further improving the underlying margins in the book, we continue to invest in the business for long-term profitable growth. With that, I'll turn the call over to Todd.
Tom Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty posted strong returns and solid growth in the quarter, despite the ongoing headwinds of COVID-19. Segment income was $137 million, an increase of 12% from the prior year quarter, driven by an improved underlying underwriting margin and higher business volumes. Elevated cat losses related to the Texas weather event were largely offset by favorable prior year reserved development. The underlying combined ratio of 84.2% improved by a 0.5 due to an improved expense ratio, primarily reflecting higher earned premiums. Earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trends was largely offset by the impact of COVID-19 and other loss activity. Turning to the top line, net written premiums grew 9% in the quarter, primarily reflecting strong management liability production. Decreased demand for new construction surety bonds due to the economic impacts of COVID-19 were largely offset by strong commercial surety production. In our management liability business, we are pleased that the renewal premium change remained near historic highs of nearly 11% while retention was a strong 87%. Management liability new business for the quarter decreased $8 million, primarily reflecting our disciplined underwriting in this elevated risk environment. Consistent with recent quarters, submissions were up, while quote activity was down. These production results demonstrate the successful execution of our strategies to maintain underwriting discipline and pursue rate where needed while maintaining strong retention levels in our high quality portfolio. So, Bond & Specialty results were again strong, despite the challenges in the current environment. And now I'll turn it over to Michael, to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thank you, Tom. And good morning, everyone. Personal Insurance began in 2021 with strong profitability and growth. Segment income was $314 million and net written premiums grew 7%. The combined ratio of 90.3% rose about two points from the prior year quarter, primarily due to higher levels of catastrophe losses, partially offset by higher net favorable prior year reserve development. On an underlying basis, the combined ratio was a strong 85.4%. Before I turn to product line results, let me remind you that we have updated the presentation of certain financial and statistical data, for our automobile and homeowners and other product lines, to include the results of direct-to-consumer and International. This new presentation provides a more comprehensive view of product line results. Automobile delivered another very strong quarter, with a combined ratio of 81.8% an improvement of more than nine points compared to the first quarter of 2020. The improvement comprises five points of higher net prior year reserved development, and an underlying combined ratio that is four points better than the prior year quarter. These results reflect the ongoing effects of the pandemic, namely lower claim frequency due to fewer miles driven. That said, we have begun to see miles driven moving back toward pre pandemic levels as restrictions have eased and economic activity is picking up. We're actively monitoring current trends and incorporating them into our state specific pricing decisions, as we continue to balance business volumes and profitability. In homeowners and other, the first quarter combined ratio of 99.4% increased by 15 points relative to the prior year quarter. Driven by catastrophe losses of 22 points up over 11 points, with most coming from the February winter storm and freeze events and an eight point increase in the underlying combined ratio, primarily due to a comparison to unusually mild winter weather in the prior year quarter. Along with about two points of elevated fire losses, many of which relate to extreme winter weather, often resulting from the use of alternative heating sources. The increases were partially offset by five points of higher net favorable prior reserve development, which included the subrogation benefits of the Woolsey wildfire that Dan mentioned. Turning to domestic production, automobile net written premiums grew 3% with 14% growth in new business, while retention remained strong at 84%. Renewal premium change was about flat consistent with our plan to align pricing with our loss experience in auto. We are very pleased with our ongoing balanced execution in this line, which has resulted in 4% year-over-year policies in force growth at attractive returns. Homeowners and other delivered another strong quarter with net written premium growth of 12%. New business was up 21% from the prior year quarter, retention remained strong at 85% and renewal premium change was 7.7%. As Alan mentioned, we have achieved double digit new business growth across auto and home for each of the past nine quarters. Our ongoing new business success is driven by a combination of strategic investments and initiatives, including Quantum Home 2.0, IntelliDrive, and new and expanded partnerships and distribution relationships. In addition to delivering strong results for the quarter, we continue to roll out new and expanded capabilities to deliver value in the eyes of our customers. Recent examples include closing on the acquisition of InsuraMatch, our digital independent agencies that expands our capabilities to serve customers and distribution partners, improving our customer self service capabilities with the rollout of our new MyTravelers mobile application, continuing the rollout of our digital quote proposal to further enhance our agents digital capabilities, further expanding our new version of IntelliDrive into Canada and eight additional states. And adding digital auto discount in nine more states for customers who leverage paperless, telematics and mobile applications. In summary, we're off to a great start to the year and are well positioned to continue to deliver profitable growth. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael. We're ready to open up for Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley, your line is open.
Michael Phillips:
Thanks, and good morning everybody. First question on Business Insurance, I guess as we kind of think about the rest of the year and Alan, your comments on pricing continue to outpace loss trends. I guess want to get your take on, how the renewal price renewal premium change should -- we should expect that to continue to rise, given the impact of maybe better exposure growth for the year and how you think about that, versus maybe a continued deceleration in pricing. So how we can think about maybe the RPC for Business Insurance?
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning, Michael, thanks for the question. We stopped giving outlook on price change, but I'll make a couple of comments that hopefully are responsive. We are now several years into compounding year-over-year improvement in rate and price. The three sequential quarters prior to this one, I think in Business Insurance anyway, all made record prices. So that's pretty good progress, as consequences are improving. But having said that, the drivers of price change overall are environmental and still relevant. So, we expect that overall pricing and pure rate for that matter, we’ll continue to be at levels that that results in expanding margins for a while. Whether prices in particular lines go up, down or sideways. I don't think we're going to try to predict that, but it's all pretty rational, it's all pretty relative to the rate what we needed. And again, there's always a lot of focus on that headline number because that's what we provide. But we're looking hard at the granular execution underneath that takes into account all the variables of account rate adequacy. So we feel great about this pricing level, we are near all-time highs in pricing, and we expect to continue -- the favorable environment to continue for some time.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, thanks, Alan. I guess one more if we could switch over then through the authorization. Anything to read there on that that would signify any interest or lack of interest in any kind of large scale M&A?
Alan Schnitzer:
Dan, you take that.
Dan Frey:
Michael, it’s Dan. No signal at all, that’s simply the math I gave you by the time we did the repurchases we did in the first quarter of this year, we were down to $800 million of authorization remaining under the share repurchase. If you look at, our history over the last 10 or 12 years, every time we sort of get down to this level the Board authorizes an additional buyback and this was just the timing to do that.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, perfect. Thank you, guys.
Dan Frey:
Thank you.
Operator:
Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research, your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. Good morning. Just following up on that one with rate, just trying to get a feel for, if we look at the eight-four [ph] rate increases, are we seeing more accounts that are closer to rate adequate and that eight-four is a product of some accounts needing a lot and some not needing much at all? If we were to look at across the book of renewals, is it safe to say that you're still getting positive rate on kind of the vast majority of accounts that are renewing?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Good morning, Ryan. This is Greg. Yes, we absolutely are in -- the vast majority of our accounts are getting rate and as Alan said, with nine consecutive quarters with year-over-year rate change, certain pockets, of course, are becoming more rate adequate. And knell up just as a reminders we've shared with you in the past, we really empower our local underwriters to look at every single account based on its own merit, and that we think they've been doing a terrific job of retaining the book and continuing to get some pricing change across the portfolio.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. Again I guess, for Alan, I guess, looking for an update on your current thinking around M&A strategy there, I think in the past, you haven't done any larger deals. I think, maybe simply business might have been the last one I remember, which was, I think, less than a bill. How are you thinking about scale, how are you thinking about M&A appetite?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Ryan, I understand the question and probably the thought process behind it. There's no change in our approach to M&A and that's not to say that that we're not interested. Our shareholders should expect that all the time, we are evaluating transaction opportunities and thinking about them. And we often say some of the best deals we've done and the deals we didn't do. But that's not to say that we're not often looking and thinking strategically about what's out there. And so we have a view on all the things out there and all the markets we're in that might be attracted to us, and under what terms and conditions we'd want to do them. And I would have given you the same answer a year ago, or five years ago, frankly, and as we've said many times that the lens we would use for whether we would do a deal or not are doesn't improve our long-term return profile, does it reduce volatility? And or would it create shareholder value through some other important strategic benefit? So I mean, of course, we do the analysis as granularly and detailed as hopefully you would expect from us. But essentially, that's the lens and that hasn't changed.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you,
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
David Motemaden with Evercore ISI, your line is open.
David Motemaden:
Hi, good morning. I guess I had a question for Greg. Was there just in Business Insurance. I'm wondering if there was any sort of COVID benefit that you guys had underneath -- in that underlying loss ratio that we should be thinking about?
Dan Frey:
Hey, David, it's Dan Frey, I'll take that. COVID did interest in this quarter in that, we've been living with it for about a year now. Last year as it emerged, it was pretty apparent what we thought the impact was of COVID, because you were looking at an immediately pre COVID environment versus something new, doesn't feel that way anymore. It's sort of woven into the fabric of the economy and overall results. That's one of the reasons that even going back to last year, we chose to leave everything related to COVID in our underlying combined ratio. And when it's really not feasible, to be able to specifically spike out, what do we think the impact of COVID was in the quarter. Having said that, qualitatively, we have we have some idea. You heard Michael talk about the impact of COVID on miles driven in BI didn't get a mention in Business Insurance because we think it was pretty modest. There was, again, some level of direct charges related to COVID specific losses and things like workers comp, but very modest. And we'd say probably largely offset, if not slightly more than offset by related benefits and non-COVID frequency.
David Motemaden:
Got it, great. That's helpful. And then maybe if I could just follow-up on that. Obviously great to see the margin expansion little under two points of underlying loss ratio improvement in BI that increased from -- I calculate around 150 basis points in the fourth quarter. It feels to me like that, you'd continue to improve at a better -- at an increasing rate. But when I look at the amount of renewal rate change that you guys have gotten over the last five to six quarters, I would have thought that there would have been a bit more than two points of improvement this quarter. So maybe you could help me just think about some of the moving pieces here, as we think about margin improvement going forward?
Dan Frey:
Sure, David. Its Dan again. I think the numbers that we see coming through business insurance for rate versus trend align with what we've seen from written results over the last several quarters, if you just factor in what's earning its way through. So we did see a steadily increasing level of rate increase over last year, and we are seeing a steadily increasing level of improvement in terms of the earned impact of rate versus trend. It moves slowly, and it moves within sort of tenths of a point, changes at a time. Because the other thing I'd say to keep in mind is, it's not just the simple math of if we got eight points a rate versus five points a trend, that's three points of margin expansion, it's not, its rate versus trend. That's a three percentage point difference. But if you translate it into loss ratio points, when you consider, say, theoretically as 60 is loss ratio that translates into little less than two points of margin expansion. So being close to two points of margin expansion, and expecting that number to increase maybe very slightly from here as the higher rates aren't through is right, where we thought we'd be.
David Motemaden:
Great, thank you.
Operator:
Josh Shanker with Bank of America, your line is open.
Josh Shanker:
Yes, good morning, everyone. A few out of left field questions that I hope I can get some information on. As you restated the personal line segment and I guess folded the direct to consumer business into homeowners and personal auto segments. What does that say about Travelers interest in the direct to consumer as a channel going forward, should we expect that Travelers will be a player in that market, or it's not really important to your P&L in the long run, and makes more sense just to fold it in?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Josh, it’s Michael. I would say very specifically, the restatement of the financial doesn't say anything about our commitment to direct to consumer, one way or the other, it's still an important capability for us, still a segment of the business we're investing in. Frankly, it got to the point where and you can see it in the restatement that we gave you, it was north of $400 million worth of revenue as of the end of last year. And it was a big enough portion of the business, frankly, that leaving it to the side of the line breakout on the P&L, didn't make sense. Not that it moved the needle on those numbers that much, but it was an important part of the business that we thought it should be fully included in the P&L statistics and then in the domestic production statistics, so that when we do make investments say in for example, marketing and advertising, that drive growth in direct to consumer, we want that to show up in the production results that you see. So I would say it doesn't indicate a change in our emphasis. And if anything, I would, I would say reinforces the importance of that business to us both as a business segment and as an essentially a place to continue to build and test and learn and build capability.
Josh Shanker:
And similarly, how should I think about simply business going forward sort of two parts; one, how big is it, how big does the Travelers think it's going to be over the next few years and two, nothing that we need numbers. But when you are taking a quote in from a direct to consumer manner in business, is the loss ratio materially different then is from your agency directed book?
Dan Frey:
You’re talking about simply business, Josh in that [Indiscernible].
Josh Shanker:
Yes, absolutely.
Alan Schnitzer:
Just as a reminder there, we're the intermediary in that business, we're not the market behind it. So we wouldn't comment on the profitability of that. And I would say about simply business, it continues to be a medium term initiative that we feel urgent about, we're not going to break it up more than that. But we are investing in it, it is a very important capability for us. So far, the small commercial market hasn't really adopted a direct approach to buying the product other than at the very micro end. But we're not betting that's going to stay the same. And we're investing in capabilities to make sure that we're prepared to address that market as it matures. Greg, anything?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Just give you a little more color on geographies. But the thrust of a premium is still in the UK, but we've invested in infrastructure in the United States to capture some of that value that that Alan just articulated, but that we believe is going to take some time.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thrust of the revenue, Greg. Not coming through premiums.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Correct.
Josh Shanker:
Well thank you. Thank you for the answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Josh.
Operator:
Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo, your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. My first question is on, going back to the Business Insurance discussion. So it sounds like you guys are kind of looking for a stable rate, I guess across your businesses hoping to kind of confirm, I guess that would be the case kind of stable through the balance of this year, just based off with some commentary? And then would you guys expect workers comp, it sounds like that feels slightly negative. With respect that to inflect this year, or perhaps that's something that we should more we thinking about in 2022?
Alan Schnitzer:
Elyse, on a go forward view of rate, we actually didn't give a view of direction other than to say we expected to continue to be at levels that will continue to contribute to margin expansion. We're just trying to get away from given outlook and prognosticating. We feel great about what we achieved in terms of pricing this quarter and we feel very good about the outlook for pricing. In terms of workers comp. We said in in recent quarters that it feels like we're pretty close to making a bottom and turning around and we continue to feel that way. We saw progress in the quarter both in terms of pure rate, which was slightly negative but a steady improvement over the last several quarters. Premium change, as I said, including exposure was positive for the first time in a few quarters, which we think is really speaks to our customer’s confidence. So that was a really good thing. So that's what we would -- that's what we share about that. I guess the other point, I would say Elyse is, it turns out that the workers comp experience to COVID, at least so far, and we're being cautious about this, but at least so far, what we see in the data is that it's a little bit better than we expected and that could impact pricing going forward. I don't -- I think the likely result of that is maybe instead of hitting the bottom and inflecting positively, it hits the bottom and bounces around there a little bit before making the term positive. But again, not a bad sign, it's reflective of the profitability the line which is been very strong. And we continue to think we're making a bottom and moving towards a turn north.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, great. And then my second question, going fast on the M&A discussion. Alan, I think you said, you guys were considered deals with the caveat of not wanting to add to the volatility of the company. As you think about transactions on are there certain business lines that are higher up on the list as you evaluate potential M&A? Can you just help us think through potential transactions from where you might want to add on to business offering?
Alan Schnitzer:
I guess what we said, the comment was, of the three prongs to the lens as we think about reducing volatility is one of the virtues that we might look for. And I guess to your question when we think about our portfolio, we think about our capabilities, we think about the breadth and depth of our business, we feel great. There's nothing missing from our portfolio of businesses, we can we can keep going exactly the way we are and compete very successfully. Having said that, there are various opportunities and some of them could be for scales, some of them could be for products, some of them could be geography, I mean, there's all sorts of things that in one circumstance or another might contribute to an attractive acquisition opportunity for us. So it's hard for me to say, gee, this is what we're looking for. That's what we're looking for. Again, no gaps in capabilities, but potentially some opportunities.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thanks for the color.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Elyse.
Operator:
Mike Zaremski, with Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Mike Zaremski:
Craig [Ph], good morning. Maybe sticking with a Business Insurance. You gave us some nuggets about kind of recent loss trend, I think you said, there might have been a slight benefit. Workers comps trending a little better than expected. And I know you guys for longer tail lines, you probably don't want to take a lot of good news in the near term. But maybe you can kind of give us a sense, other commercial long tail lines are you seeing frequency benefit or severity benefit of kind of has the world in terms of the kind of the courts kind of gotten back to normal or maybe even more than normal in the digital age, zoom age? So kind of curious if you could give us some kind of color on the near term loss trends you've been seeing in commercial long tail lines?
Dan Frey:
Sure, Mike its Dan. So I'll take that maybe in a couple of parts. On the quote question in sort of that activity. Let’s say, we see that to continue to be pretty slow. We talked about it last year, in terms of there's definitely a change in the in the data from the fact that quotes were courts for a long time and other settlements on uses have been less active and I think that continues. And I think we'll probably take a while to work through, what could be the backlog there. So what we've done in terms of both our view of current accident year and prior accident, reserve adequacy is to assume that nothing really has changed. So the data might tell you that things look a little bit favorable, we're not really going to react to that. Our assumption is that, once things do get back to normal, ultimately, what we're going to see is social inflation, at the levels and the trends that we've seen it before. Loss cost trend at the elevated rate that we talked about, even in the second quarter of last year, and then ultimately, these things will all settle out in reflection of those levels. So, to the degree that we talked about some favorability last year, and we had some favorability and prior year reserve development this year, a lot of that is frequency driven where the losses themselves and simply not emerged, but from a severity perspective, we're still going to take the view that that we think that's a verity pressure is not really going away. And that's one of the reasons that you see us continuing to pursue rate in Business Insurance, to the degree that we are.
Mike Zaremski:
That's very helpful. And my follow-up is probably for Dan, on the investment portfolio. Curious if you can update us on approximate new money yields in the fixed income portfolio versus the expiring portfolio yield. So there's going to a pickup in interest rates. I believe there's still a gap there that you guys are trying to overcome?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Mike, there is still a gap. So it's just -- it is a little less than it was. Last quarter, we were talking about that gap being maybe 150 basis points, now, maybe it’s closer to 90 or 100 basis points, but it's still a negative. And a reminder, just the portfolio turns over slowly enough that even when we factored in the current environment, that didn't actually change, because we gave you a $10 million range around our quarterly view of fixed income NII on a go forward basis. So it moved to the needle, but only very, very modestly. Still a gap, new money yield still below what's maturing out of the portfolio.
Mike Zaremski:
Thank you,
Operator:
Brian Meredith with UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thank you. A couple of just quick ones here. First, I'm just curious, could you comment on workers compensation insurance. As we start to see payrolls increasing here, should that have a positive benefit on margins?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey, Brian, good morning. This is Greg. The short answer on that is, yes. And we saw that this quarter, as Alan said, on an RPC basis, workers comp was up. And obviously we don't project where exposure is going to go long-term. But we have shared with you that we are a broad solution of the economy. So as the economy hopefully corrects and improves, we'll see positive and payroll, mostly from new employees in shares. And certainly we'll see some of that on the GL side, with sales receipts increase and also.
Brian Meredith:
Right. Which in favorably impacts margins, not just topline.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes, Brian. Margins to the -- you get two pieces of exposure coming through comp, one could be more workers, for which there's not really an expected margin benefit related to that, in and of itself, to the degree that wages go up, and we collect more premium for effectively the same risk, that's when we have historically set a portion of exposure can behave like rate, that's what you see that. So it's a little bit of both to the degree that workers are being added to the payroll that brings with it additional risk, higher wages bring higher exposure, as well.
Dan Frey:
And obviously, as volumes go up, regardless of which of those it comes from, you get some expense leverage.
Brian Meredith:
Makes sense. And then can I just focus a little bit on the premium in Business Insurance. Worker's comp, I understand also saw CMP continue to be down. Is that just purely related to what's going on from the economic activity? Or are there other things that are going on right now there where you're calling your portfolio underwriting initiatives to stuff that are potentially pressuring that top line? And perhaps are there any kind of programs in place to kind of recharge that growth at some point?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes, Brian, this is Greg. Really its two drivers in that. The first one, I mentioned in my prepared comments. We've really been trying to prove the profitability of that book and you can see that with the RPC increasing five points over the last five quarters. And so that's the primary driver. But we are still feeling the COVID impact, flow overall, and in terms of submissions from the volume from our agents is down also. But I would also say that's a secondary driver.
Brian Meredith:
Great, thank you.
Operator:
Yaron Kinar with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Yaron Kinar:
Good morning, everybody. My first question is in personal lines. Can you talk about the uptick in the expense ratio, considering that premiums aren't for up quite a bit where if that maybe it would remain a bit flatter? Where are you investing?
Michael Klein:
Sure, this is Michael. Particularly the expense really is volume related costs and commissions think, report ordering. We do continue to make investments in the business and increase our investment level slightly, but really, the driver of the uptick in the expense ratio was just volume related costs in the business. And I wouldn't pay too much attention to a one quarter change, in expenses we still feel good about the expense ratio, the efficiency in the business.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. And then my second question in Bond & Specialty. I was just curious about the comment that new business declined due to discipline. I'm just trying to read that with effect the management liability rates are near all-time highs. I would have thought that, even with discipline, you'd have more opportunities to write new business. Could you maybe talk about the dynamics there?
Michael Klein:
Sure. The new business flow is actually, when you think of some of the lines that we write, the situation we've been through economically speaking, can create more risks. So think of things like employment practices liability, think about some of the trends that have been in place for public company, D&O. So there are a number of things going on that at this point in time, it makes sense to really be prudent about the risk you're selecting. And we really actually feel quite comfortable with where our new businesses coming in.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it. Appreciate the responses. Thank you.
Michael Klein:
Thank you.
Operator:
Tracy Benguigui with Barclays. Your line is open.
Tracy Benguigui:
Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on BI rates. Is there seasonality in your first quarter business mix, I realized that workers comp renews on one on one. So I'm just wondering if that might be impacting your wage story for this quarter versus last.
Michael Klein:
There's a little bit more workers comp in this quarter typically, but not a meaningful amount.
Tracy Benguigui:
Okay. And then we also talk about the child victim more broadly than just the Boy Scout Association that's getting a lot of attention. In our research, we saw that 31 states introducing fact sheet [ph] of limitation reform bill, and you commented in the past on New York, but wondering how you feel about this strength in you reserve light at potentially higher reviver cases, beyond New York.
Dan Frey:
Tracy, its Dan. I think we were very early to tackle Child Victims Act stuff. Remember, we took our charge related to New York, in the first quarter of 2019. So I think, pretty far ahead of the market, we've been very cognizant of abuse, molestation and CVA type exposures. We are, as you would imagine, staying very up to speed on developments and potential developments, not only across the state, but with stories like Boy Scouts, where we're very cognizant of our exposures and what the latest news may mean for those exposures. And we continue to be quite comfortable with how those things are reflected in our reserves.
Tracy Benguigui:
If I could just sneak in. Would you be willing also to enter into a settlement on the Boy Scouts, similar to one of your competitor?
Dan Frey:
I think will comment on any specific matter.
Tracy Benguigui:
Okay, thank you.
Operator:
Meyer Shields with KBW. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Great. Thanks, Tom, in your comments you mentioned, I guess, other losses of the category within the segment that are at play [Indiscernible].
Tom Kunkel:
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the last part of the question.
Meyer Shields:
I am sorry. I hope you could flesh out what you were talking about the underlying loss ratio in Bond & Specialty. You mentioned something about other losses, but I'm not sure what you were referring to?
Tom Kunkel:
Yes. So the other losses, we are having some elevated COVID losses versus the first quarter last year. And so that's a significant piece of it. And then you typically have various miscellaneous things, as well as things like mix issues. And so in this particular case, we had some cyber claims this quarter and those actually hit our numbers a little bit, but generally it was COVID and a variety of other things.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, that's helpful. And then question for Michael, if I can. I know there's been some news about California's Insurance Commissioner, looking for more data and possibly more rebates. How you think about that for Travelers?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Meyer, good question. And I would say certainly, California is one of a number of states that continue to examine rate levels and premium relief. First and foremost we're working closely with state regulators across the country and continue to remain in contact and respond to requests for information. For the most part, our approach to balancing rate level of woodlots experience has been to manage it through rate and I've mentioned it before, but since the onset of the pandemic, we've actually now filed decreases in about 20 states across the country. California doesn't happen to be one of those. You may recall in later half of 2020, we actually provided an additional premium refund to California policyholders, partly in response to the ongoing dialogue with State of California. But broadly speaking, I would say remaining in contact in conversation with the Department of Insurance, including California and are working to be responsive to, again request for information and or requests for level adjustments, et cetera. So we just continue to monitor and manage the situation.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, Understood. Thank you so much.
Operator:
This finishes the time allotted for the Q&A session. It is now my pleasure to turn the call back over to Abbe Goldstein for closing comments.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you all for joining us this morning. We really appreciate your time. And as always, if there's any follow-up, reach out to Investor Relations. And have a great day. Thank you.
Operator:
This concludes the Travelers first quarter 2020 results conference call. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning and thank you for holding. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on January 21, 2021. At this time, I would now like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you so much. Good morning and welcome to Travelers discussion of our fourth quarter 2020 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, CFO; and our three segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Tom Kunkel of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplements and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I would like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone and thanks for joining us today. Before I address our fourth quarter and full year results a quick comment on current affairs. Yesterday, we witnessed the most American of events, the peaceful transfer of power from one democratically elected administration to the next. It’s not a political statement, but a patriotic one to say that we want to see this next administration succeed. We have significant challenges to overcome, a pandemic threatening the health and safety of our loved ones and neighbors, a distressed economy imperilling the lives and livelihoods of millions, and a deeply divided society, which undermines our collective sense of security and well-being. Let’s hope yesterday marks the beginning of our political leaders on both sides of the aisle taking a constructive approach to addressing these challenges. And with that, I will turn to results. I am pleased to report a very strong finish to the year with fourth quarter core income of $1.3 billion or $4.91 per diluted share and core return on equity of 20.5%, each up meaningfully from the prior year quarter. We are also pleased to report full year core income of $2.7 billion, generating core return on equity of 11.3%, a substantial margin of the risk-free rate and our cost of equity. Our ability to deliver these results in the face of an historic pandemic, a record high number of PCS catastrophe events and record low interest rates is a testament to the strength of our franchise. More specifically, to our talented and committed workforce, the value of our hard to replicate competitive advantages and our expertise in balancing risk and reward to achieve industry-leading returns over time. The principal driver of the higher level of core income for the quarter was very strong underlying underwriting income, resulting from record net earned premium of $7.5 billion and an underlying combined ratio that improved 3.4 points to an excellent 88.7%. We’re pleased with the underwriting results in all three segments. We once again recorded a sub-30% consolidated expense ratio for the quarter and the full year, demonstrating that our strategic investments in improving productivity and efficiency continue to pay off. Turning to investments, this quarter, our high quality investment portfolio performed well, generating net investment income of $572 million after-tax as the non-fixed income portfolio continued to recover from the pandemic-related impacts earlier in the year. Our operating results together with our strong balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 7% during the year after returning $1.5 billion of excess capital to shareholders, including $672 million of share repurchases, which we resumed in the fourth quarter. Turning to production, notwithstanding the challenges in the economy, we continued to successfully execute on our marketplace strategies to generate growth in top line. Net written premiums in the quarter grew by 3%, driven by strong renewal rate change broadly across the book and continued strong retention in all three segments. Given the headwinds facing the industry, we expect the favorable pricing environment to continue for some time. Business Insurance in our core middle-market business, renewal rate change was a record 9.1%, up 4.5 points over the prior year and about a point sequentially, while retention remained strong. Segmentation and pricing is key in this business. And to that end, the quality of the execution underneath the headline production numbers was excellent. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 12% as renewal premium change in our domestic management liability business achieved a record 10.9%, driven by record renewal rate change, while retention remained strong. In Personal Insurance, net written premiums increased by 7% driven by strong renewal premium change in our agency homeowners business and strong retention and new business in both agency auto and agency homeowners. Fourth quarter production contributed to full year record net written premiums of almost $30 billion, up 2% compared to last year. Adjusting for the premium refund to be offered to our Personal Insurance auto customers, net written premiums were up 3%, a strong top-line result in the context of this year’s difficult economic environment. Taking a step back, let me direct your attention to Slide 18 of the webcast presentation and put this year’s results into a broader context. I’ve shared before our belief that any commitment to delivering industry-leading return on equity over time requires a strategy to grow over time. To that end, a few years ago, we laid out a strategy to achieve profitable growth in the context of the forces of change we have previously identified is impacting the industry. As you can see on the slide, despite the challenging economic and operating environment, 2020 was another successful year of the execution of that strategy. Since 2016, we have grown net written premiums at a 4.5% compound annual rate, substantially outpacing both GDP growth over the same period and rate over the prior years in the decade. We accomplished that while maintaining a stable underlying underwriting margin. In other words, we haven’t grown by under-pricing the product or changing our risk profile. The growth has come organically from customer segments, products, geographies and producers that we know well. Over that same period through our ongoing and relentless focus on optimizing productivity and efficiency, we’ve also improved our expense ratio by about two points compared to the run rate from earlier in the decade. As you can also see on the slide, the result of all that is significantly higher underlying underwriting income, meaningfully higher cash flow from operations and double-digit growth in invested assets. Those results have contributed to our ultimate objective of creating shareholder value and industry leading return on equity over time. Our core return on equity has increased in each of the last three years and averaged 11% over that period. And that 11% is after bearing the impacts of significant cat and non-cat weather activity and meaningful increase in social inflation, historically low interest rates and the global pandemic. In short, our performance this year and over recent years is the result of a sound strategy and the successful achievement of our strategic objectives. Looking forward from here, thanks to our team, our strategy, our capabilities and our strong track record of innovation and execution, we feel very well positioned to capitalize on the opportunities ahead as the economy continues to recover and beyond. Before I turn the call over to Dan, I want to acknowledge and thank my 30,000 colleagues, many of whom are listening this morning, for their tireless efforts over this past year. Notwithstanding concerns for their own safety and responsibilities for taking care of loved ones and educating their children, they never wavered from our purpose of taking care of the people with privilege to serve or our mission of creating shareholder value. I couldn’t be more proud of this team. I also want to acknowledge and thank all those who have been involved in the extraordinary effort of developing and manufacturing COVID vaccines in record time. From the scientists to the regulators to those who volunteer to participate in trials, it’s a remarkable feat. The sight of those vaccines rolling off the line inspires optimism for the coming year and the sheer human will and ingenuity behind the effort inspire hope for the future. And with that, I am pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the fourth quarter was $1.262 billion, up from $867 million in the prior year quarter and core ROE was 20.5%, up from 14.8%. Improvement in both measures was the result of very strong underlying underwriting results. Our fourth quarter results include $29 million of pre-tax cat losses compared to $85 million of pre-tax cat losses in last year’s fourth quarter. Recall that last year’s fourth quarter cat losses included a $101 million benefit from recoveries under the underlying Aggregate Cat Treaty, whereas in 2020, we exhausted the Cat Treaty in the third quarter. So, there were no recoveries under the treaty in this year’s fourth quarter. This quarter’s cat results include about $40 million of favorable development in our loss estimates for events that occurred earlier in the year. PYD in the current quarter, for which I will provide more details shortly, was net favorable $180 million pre-tax. The underlying combined ratio of 88.7% which excludes the impacts of cats and PYD improved by 3.4 points from the prior year quarter. Our pre-tax underlying underwriting gain of $804 million increased by nearly 50% over the prior year quarter, reflecting the benefit of higher levels of earned premium and higher margins, driven by earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trend and continued favorability in personal auto loss experience. For the quarter, losses directly related to COVID-19, totaled a modest $31 million pre-tax, split about evenly between Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance. More than offsetting those losses were lower levels of auto claims in both Personal Insurance and Business Insurance. The net impact of the COVID environment on the consolidated underlying combined ratio amounted to a benefit of about 2.5 points, mostly in Personal Insurance. We continue to take a cautious approach in estimating the net impact of COVID-related losses given the ongoing uncertainty in this environment. As has been the case throughout the year, the majority of direct COVID losses that we have booked through year end, remains in IBNR. Looking at the full year net impact of COVID costs and benefits, including the impact of premium refunds to policyholders, our consolidated underlying combined ratio benefited by about a point. The fourth quarter expense ratio of 29.4% brings the full year expense ratio to 29.9%. While throughout the year we continued to make the investments necessary to fuel our continued success, our ongoing focus on productivity and efficiency once again resulted in a sub-30% expense ratio despite the downward pressure on earned premiums from the impact of the soft economy on insured exposures and the premium refunds we issued to our personal auto customers. We continue to be comfortable with the consolidated expense ratio of around 30%. After-tax net investment income improved by 9% from the prior year quarter to $572 million, as strong returns in the fixed income portfolio and a higher level of invested assets were partially offset by the expected decline in fixed income yields. Looking forward to 2021, we expect that after-tax fixed income NII, including earnings from short-term securities, will be between $420 million and $430 million per quarter as we project that the benefit of higher average levels of invested assets will be more than offset by a lower average yield on the portfolio in the lower interest rate environment. Turning to reserves, net favorable prior year reserve development occurred in all three segments and totaled $180 million pre-tax in the fourth quarter. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $124 million was driven by better than expected loss experience in workers’ comp, primarily from accident years 2017 and prior, partially offset by an increase to reserves related to very old years in our runoff book. In Bond & Specialty, net favorable PYD of $32 million resulted primarily from better than expected loss development in the surety book. And in Personal Insurance, net favorable PYD of $24 million was driven by the automobile line. With our combined 2020 Schedule P is filed earlier in the second quarter, the line of business analysis will provide more detail on the loss trends we have noted in our commentary throughout the year with favorability in workers’ comp, commercial property and the personal lines coverages and some strengthening in the commercial liability lines, much of which was in very old accident years relating to our run-off book. Page 19 of the earnings presentation provides information about our January 1 Cat Treaty renewals. Our longstanding Corporate Cat XOL Treaty renewed on terms in line with the expiring treaty and continues to provide coverage for both single cat events and the aggregation of losses from multiple cat events. Regarding the underlying property aggregate catastrophe XOL treaty we first purchased for 2019, we have renewed the treaty again for 2021. While the treaty will continue to address qualifying PCS-designated events in North America for which we incurred losses of $5 million or more, the 2021 renewal includes a $5 million deductible per event. In prior years, PCS-designated events had cost us more than $5 million accounted towards the treaty from $1. Treaty provides aggregate coverage of $350 million, part of $500 million of losses, above our aggregate retention of $1.9 billion. The aggregate retention for 2021 increased from 2020’s $1.55 billion, largely reflecting recent years’ experience and anticipated growth in our property book. Hurricane and earthquake events once again have $250 million per occurrence cap. And for 2021, wildfires are also capped at $250 million per event. Incorporating our assumptions about cat and non-cat weather for 2021, we expect the full year impact of the treaty on our underlying combined ratio to be roughly half a point. And we anticipate only a minimal impact on the total combined ratio. Both of those impacts are consistent with the assumptions we had in each of the past two years. Turning to capital management, operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.9 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels. And we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.7 billion. For the full year, operating cash flow exceeded $6 billion for the first time ever and reflected the benefit of continued increases in premium volume subrogation recoveries from PG&E related to the 2017 and 2018 California wildfires and lower overall claim payouts as court room and other settlement activity slowed throughout the year due to COVID-related shutdowns. Higher levels of cash flow give us the flexibility to continue to make important investments in our business, return excess capital to our shareholders and grow our investment portfolio. Interest yields decreased modestly as credit spreads tightened during the fourth quarter. And accordingly, our net unrealized investment gains increased from $3.8 billion after-tax as of September 30 to $4.1 billion after-tax at year end. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses was $99.54 at year end, a 7% increase from a year ago. We returned $419 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising dividends of $218 million and share repurchases of $201 million. For the year, we returned $1.5 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Finally, on a financial modeling note, let me turn your attention to Slide 20 of the webcast presentation. As we entered 2021, we again thought it would be helpful to highlight the seasonality of our cat losses over the prior decades. As shown in the data, the second quarter has regularly and noticeably been our largest cat quarter. Cat losses in the second quarter have been about twice as much as any other quarter on average. And the second quarter has been our largest cat quarter in seven of the past 10 years. To wrap it up, we are very pleased with the quarter and full year results, especially given the challenging circumstances. And now, I will turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. For the fourth quarter, Business Insurance produced $713 million of segment income, an increase of almost 60% over the fourth quarter of 2019. Higher net favorable prior year reserve development, underlying underwriting income and net investment income as well as lower cat losses, all contributed to the favorable year-over-year increase. We are pleased with the underlying combined ratio of 93.6%, which improved by 2.8 points from the prior year quarter. We benefited again from earned pricing that exceeded loss trend with an impact this quarter of a little more than a point and a half. There is also a point and a half of improvement due to the favorable comparison to the fourth quarter of 2019, which was elevated due to the re-estimation of losses for prior quarters. Turning to the top line, in light of the ongoing macroeconomic challenges, we remain pleased with the resilience of our business. Net written premiums were only slightly lower than the prior year quarter with strong rate and high retentions mostly offsetting modestly lower levels of insured exposures as well as lower new business. The lower insured exposures reflect lower levels of economic activity as well as impacts from our active management of terms and conditions and deal structures, including deductibles, attachment points and limits. Turning to domestic production, we achieved a record renewal rate change of 8.4%, up almost 4 points from the fourth quarter of last year, while retention remained high at 83%. This quarter marks the eighth consecutive quarter and with renewal rate change was higher than the corresponding prior year quarter. We continue to achieve higher rate levels broadly across our book as rate increases in all lines other than workers’ compensation were meaningfully higher during the quarter as compared to the prior year. Importantly, we continue to feel great about our deliberate and granular execution in terms of rate and retention on an account-by-account and class-by-class basis. The segmentation beneath the headline numbers was once again excellent. Also, one other thing that’s not apparent in the headline numbers is the contribution to margins from the active management terms, conditions and deal structure that I mentioned a minute ago. We are doing this broadly across the book, but most notably, in our National Property business. The tighter terms tend to persist beyond the rate cycle. New business of $440 million was down $35 million from the prior year quarter. Given the lower levels of economic activity and given the hardening market conditions, there is a higher proportion of distressed business in the market. Our new business production reflects our disciplined approach to that business. Risk selection is particularly important during circumstances like these. As for the individual businesses, in Select, renewal rate change increased to 4.2%, up more than 2 points from the fourth quarter of 2019 and more than one point from the third quarter of this year. Retention of 77% was down from recent periods, a result of deliberate execution as we pursue improved returns in certain segments of the business. As I mentioned above, we’re pleased with the segmented execution underneath the aggregate result. Importantly, we have not slowed down on our commitment to invest in product development and ease of doing business, which position us well for long-term profitable growth in this business. In middle-market, renewal rate change increased to 9.1%, while retention remained at 86%. Renewal rate change was up 4.5 points from the fourth quarter of 2019 and almost a point from the third quarter of this year. Additionally, we achieved positive rate on more than 80% of our accounts this quarter, a more than 10 point increase from the fourth quarter of last year. To sum up, we feel terrific about our results and execution, especially given some of the unusual economic challenges related to the pandemic. We continue to improve the profitability of the book, while investing strategically for the future. These investments include enhancing the experiences for our customers and distribution partners, developing new insights for our underwriters, digitizing the underwriting transaction and creating efficiencies. Examples of capabilities released this year include, rollout of our completely redesigned BOP 2.0, small commercial product which includes industry-leading segmentation and a fast easy quoting experience. This new product is now available in 23 states and performing consistently with our expectations. Advancement of our industry-leading strategic work intake initiatives which allow for automated receipt of submissions from the various technology solutions our agent partners use and the seamless routing of those submissions which improves the experience for our distribution partners and is more efficient for us enhancing our MyTravelers customer self-service application. And lastly, our Simply Business and Zensurance platforms continue to advance their digital capabilities and offerings in the alternative platform space. We’re as confident as ever that strategic investments like these together with our meaningful competitive advantages position us well for long-term profitable growth. Concluding, I would like to acknowledge and thank our employees, agents and brokers for their partnership as we seamlessly delivered virtual solutions for the benefit of our combined customers. With that, I will turn the call over to Tom.
Tom Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty delivered strong returns and double-digit growth in the quarter despite the ongoing headwinds of COVID-19. Segment income was $164 million, nearly flat with the prior year quarter as the benefit of higher business volumes and a higher level of net favorable prior year reserve development were offset by an underlying combined ratio, which while still strong at 85%, was higher than the prior year quarter, the underlying combined ratio of 3.7 points driven by the impact of higher loss estimates for management liability coverages, primarily losses attributable to COVID-19 related economic conditions. As we discussed last quarter, the products that we write in this segment are susceptible to elevated loss levels in times of severe economic downturn. We experienced that during the financial crisis, and again, in recent quarters due to the impacts of the pandemic. Nonetheless, with the strong rate levels we’re achieving, we expect that the underlying combined ratio in 2021 will improve a little bit from the roughly 87% in the second half of 2020. Turning to top line, net written premiums grew an outstanding 12% in the quarter, reflecting continued improved pricing in our management liability business with nearly flat Surety production despite the continued economic impact of COVID-19 on public project procurement and related bond demand. In our domestic management liability business, we’re pleased that renewal premium change increased to a record 10.9%, driven by record high renewal rate change, while retention of 89% remained near historical highs. These production results demonstrate the successful execution of our strategy to pursue rate in light of elevated loss activity, while maintaining strong retention levels in our high quality portfolio. We will continue to pursue rate increases where warranted. Domestic management liability new business for the quarter increased $13 million, primarily reflecting our thoughtful underwriting in this elevated risk environment. Consistent with last quarter, submissions are up, while quote activity is down. So, Bond & Specialty results were again strong despite the challenges brought on by COVID-19. Beyond the numbers, notwithstanding our focus on managing through the challenging environment, we continued to invest in differentiating our businesses in the eyes of our customers and agents and broker partners, while positioning ourselves for continued profitability and competitiveness in the future. Some highlights from 2020 include, continuing investments in our surety business to help our contractor clients more effectively manage risk, while providing insights that will enable them to more profitably manage their business, piloting digital platforms that will improve the speed and convenience of accessing management liability and small surety products for our agents and brokers and investing in a new sales management platform that will enhance productivity, optimize workflow management and increase sales. Lastly, I’d like to thank our employees and distribution partners for their commitment to creatively and effectively addressing the needs of our customers in these most unusual times. And now, I will turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tom and good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance, we are very pleased with our fourth quarter and full year results. For the fourth quarter, segment income increased to $457 million and our combined ratio improved to 84.1%. Full year’s segment income was $1.2 billion and the combined ratio was 89.7%. The significant improvement for both periods compared to the prior year is primarily driven by lower frequency of automobile losses as well as the benefit to underwriting income from higher business volumes. In addition, the full year results include higher net favorable prior year reserve development and elevated catastrophe losses. Net written premium growth for the fourth quarter and full year was 7% and 5% respectively with continued strong retention and higher levels of new business, resulting in record net written premiums of more than $11.3 billion for the year. Agency Automobile profitability was very strong with a combined ratio of 86.5% for the fourth quarter. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter improved 12 points, continuing to reflect favorable frequency levels. Approximately one-third of the improvement in the quarter is from favorable reestimates of activity for prior quarters in 2020. We continue to observe lower claim frequency as a result of fewer miles driven, reflecting the ongoing impact from the pandemic. We will continue to analyze and incorporate current trends into our state-specific underwriting and pricing decisions as we balance business volumes and profitability. In Agency Homeowners & Other, the fourth quarter combined ratio of 81.9% increased relative to the prior year quarter, driven by a higher underlying combined ratio and an increase in catastrophe losses. The fourth quarter included one catastrophe, Hurricane Zeta, with no recoveries from the Catastrophe Aggregate Reinsurance Treaty. The underlying combined ratio of 78.5% was 5 points higher than the prior year quarter due to higher non-catastrophe weather-related losses, and to a lesser degree, increases in other losses, specifically elevated fire losses. The full year combined ratio of 93% was comparable to the prior year with increased favorable prior year reserve development and improved underlying results, offset by elevated catastrophe losses. The underlying combined ratio of 82.9% was almost 3 points better than last year, driven by lower non-catastrophe weather-related losses. This improvement demonstrates the success of our continuing efforts to improve returns in property, while growing the business. Turning to quarterly production, overall results were again very strong. We are pleased with our momentum in Agency Automobile. Retention was 84% and new business increased 12%, contributing to the 3% year-over-year growth in policies in force. Renewal premium changes were lower given our pricing actions in response to the favorable loss environment. We continue to see growth in this profitable line. Agency homeowners and other delivered another excellent quarter with retention of 85% and a 21% increase in new business, while renewal premium change again exceeded 8%. Policies in force were up 8% from a year ago. These results reflect our continued efforts to grow, while improving profitability. Looking back, 2020 was both a challenging and successful year for Personal Insurance. We achieved record levels of segment income, net written premium and policies in force. Our continued success reflects the execution of our strategy to meet customers where they are, give them what they need and serve them how they want. Examples include, nearing completion of our Quantum Home 2.0 rollout, which is now available in over 40 states, increasing the take-up of IntelliDrive by enhancing our auto telematics offering in 17 states. And just this week, we introduced IntelliDrive in Canada as well, improving our customer self-service capabilities with our new MyT mobile app, which will be rolled out more broadly throughout the first quarter of 2021. Planting an additional 500,000 trees for customer enrollment in paperless billing, bringing the total number of trees planted through our partnership with American Forest to 1.5 million. And just recently, announcing the acquisition of InsuraMatch, an innovative digital online platform that allows customers to compare offerings for more than 40 carriers across the United States, we expect to complete the acquisition in the first quarter of 2021 subject to customary closing conditions. Before I wrap up, I would like to add my thanks to our team and our distribution partners for continuing to deliver value to our customers despite a challenging and uncertain environment. We have strong momentum going into 2021 and are well positioned to deliver profitable growth, while investing in capabilities that will continue to enhance the value of our franchise. Now, I will turn the call back over to Abbe.
Tom Kunkel:
Michael, this is Tom Kunkel. I just want to jump in quickly and mention that I did misspeak when I was discussing management liability new business. I believe I said it increased by $13 million and it actually decreased by $13 million.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Tom. Thank you. And operator, we are now ready to turn to questions.
Operator:
Certainly. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley, your line is open.
Michael Phillips:
Yes, hi, everybody. Can you hear me?
Alan Schnitzer:
We can. Good morning.
Michael Phillips:
Good morning. Thanks. I have had a choppy connection. So I apologize if you couldn’t hear me. Congrats on the quarter. I guess I will start on Business Insurance, we are seeing nice, nice improvement still in the core margins, a bit of a slowdown, I guess in the renewal rate change, still strong, it’s your highest you said in quite a while, but a bit of a slowdown from prior quarter. I guess any reason to think and I think Alan, you said again, I am sorry, I was a bit choppy. I think you said you expect rates to continue to move up if I heard you correctly. I guess given the margin improvement and what I have seen is a bit of a slowdown in the renewal rate change, is there any reason to not think we are close if not already at a peak in pricing for Business Insurance?
Alan Schnitzer:
Michael, we are at record levels and we are compounding on compounding, so it’s hard to look at this execution and find any negative in that. And from here, the outlook is positive also on the historical numbers the segmentation is really important and I think the point Greg made in his prepared remarks up about the benefit of the tightening terms and conditions and other numbers, so all that’s really important. And from here, I think this plays out for a while and it’s a function of rate adequacy. All the drivers are environmental. So, primarily loss activity think about social inflation, think about weathers, think about wildfires, if you got the interest rates that appear to be lower for longer costs and availability of reinsurance, pandemic losses impacting the industry and I suspect for some markets, maybe so reckoning with social inflation. So, I expect that as the favorable rate environment to continue and to persist at levels that will result in expanding margins for a while.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, thank you very much for that. And then second question I guess, Greg, you mentioned I apologize also a little bit choppy, but you mentioned comp and pricing there on comp what we are hearing from external sources and a lot of the market’s results that it’s bit of a inflection in comp pricing and not much, but a bit of a turn at least. I guess, what are you seeing in comp? Your PYD there was strong. Loss trend seems to be pretty favorable there. So maybe comment on if you are seeing a bit of a turn in pricing and comp kind of what’s driving that and should we expect that to last given the lowest transits you would be pretty favorable there as well? Thanks.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes. Good morning, Michael. This is Greg. Yes, we continue to think we are at or near a bottom in workers’ comp and the evidence that we will get as the bureau loss cost recommendations and our own rate structure. And so yes, we continue to believe that and I’ll just remind you that we are an account solution and we feel terrific about our entire book of business. Workers’ comp is usually just one of the many solutions that we are offering our customers, but yes, we continue to believe we are at or near the bottom.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, great. Thank you, Greg.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. Good morning. Just a question for Alan, I guess I haven’t seen the 4Q numbers, but through the third quarter, you had really substantial increases in IBNR and economically exposed lines, like commercial auto and GL. So obviously, reported claims have been slow to come in relative to your picks. I guess I am curious what you are learning as courts reopen and things like that. Is that starting – is that still starting to look conservative or are you seeing a higher pace of reported claims that would support those initial loss estimates?
Alan Schnitzer:
You are right, I think the best way I can explain it is obviously going back a few years, we saw some elevated loss activity. We responded to that over a couple of quarters. And I would say that more recently, we have been sticking to that higher level. And what we are seeing in the data frankly might be a little bit favorable to what we would have expected, but we are not responding to that, because you think there is some disruption in the data and so for now we are going to stick with our view of the longer term trends. Is that responsive?
Ryan Tunis:
Yes, that’s helpful. And then I guess for Greg, just looking at the growth in Business Insurance similar to last quarter, but look like some of the KPIs look better exposure was a little bit better sequentially and even new business wasn’t down quite as much. It looked like a lot of that was workers’ comp. I am just trying to think about how are we trending into 2021 based on what you are seeing relative to the negative 3% that we posted during the fourth quarter?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes, as you said, Ryan, we have seen improvement with exposure. As the economy starts picking up we have shared with you for some time now that we do believe we are highly correlated with the overall GDP in terms of the GL workers’ comp, the ratable products that follow payrolls and sales receipts of that sort. And so as that starts picking up, we we believe we will see some as we are starting to see in our book already, some improvements in our production, specifically through the exposure metric.
Alan Schnitzer:
I will just add to that, Ryan that our book is – Greg’s point is exactly right. There is a correlation there. But I just think given the high quality of accounts and business that we write we have actually done a little bit better than even we might have thought related to relevant – relative to economic activity.
Ryan Tunis:
Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Tracy Dolin-Benguigui with Barclays Research. Your line is open.
Tracy Dolin-Benguigui:
Thank you. Good morning. In the tort liability arms race who is ahead, pricing or loss trend, I guess I’m mindful that the economic slowdown just means less court activity?
Dan Frey:
Tracy, it’s Dan. You broke up a little bit at the beginning of the question. Do you mind repeating it?
Tracy Dolin-Benguigui:
Absolutely. Apologize for that. I am just thinking about the tort liability arms race. We think about it in a race who maybe ahead pricing or loss trend. I guess I’m mindful that given the economic slowdown, there is less court activity?
Dan Frey:
Yes. So, I remember Tracy, when we talked about loss trend in BI that’s all in and that’s including our more recent views over the last couple of years of elevated loss environment for things like social inflation. And so when we are looking at – and now earned rate numbers that are coming through Business Insurance, that’s clearly ahead of loss trend. I think to your second point, where we are looking at the data as it comes in now and not assuming that that’s the new normal, we are assuming that what we are seeing is slower levels of claim payments that won’t necessarily ultimately be lower levels of claim payments. So we have stuck with our more normal long-term view that we think those lost costs are higher, but having said that, where rates are now we think rates ahead of lost trends.
Tracy Dolin-Benguigui:
Okay, excellent. And then from my follow-up Greg was talking about improvement in terms and conditions, I am wondering if you could just unpack that maybe give an example like I have heard on the reinsurance side, they have been a little bit tighter on silent cyber. And I don’t know if Tom had any views for our management liability?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes, sure, Tracy. Just to give you a sense, you have two different dynamics between the property and the casualty wise. Property, you have a lot more opportunity on terms and conditions, I think deductibles insured the value margin clause language changes that help improve the margins for us and provide some coinsurance back to the customer. In terms of – I reference the term deal structure you can think of that more on the casualty side. And so umbrella, attachment points are increasing in women’s management making sure that we are putting very thoughtful capacity around the limits that we offer. So, that’s some of the activity that we are doing across the portfolio.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Tracy, just to – in BI, just to give you a specific example, because you asked for that, we do think about we do add, for example, communicable disease exclusions in, you know, industries and segments and customers where we think that’s important to do so, Tom?
Tom Kunkel:
And the way it looks really in the management liability businesses is the focus has been largely on pricing, but certainly a lot of work on deductible, self-insured retentions and limits coming down in a number of cases. And if we are really going to see a change of policy terms in the near future, cyber would certainly be the most likely place where that would occur in the short-term.
Tracy Dolin-Benguigui:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. My first question was on the Business Insurance margin, you guys said as we have 150 basis points on just a rate exceeding trend in the quarter. Was there anything else like one offset to that within the margin? And then could you give us a sense of the net, sorry if I missed it, the net COVID benefit, including the frequency impact within BI in the quarter?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Elyse, it’s Dan. I will take that. So, price versus trend, I think Greg’s comments was a little more than a 1.5 point, so think about that as being between a 1.5 and 2 points. The other thing that Greg called out, which we would say in terms of the comparison might be a little unusual remember, in last year’s fourth quarter, we told you we took about a 1.5 point of sort of prior quarter catch up as we adjusted our view of the liability loss ratios last year. So that impacted the year-over-year comparison as well. To the COVID question, very modest as it was last quarter, so not really big enough to mention a small favorable, but think about that in the 10s of points, which is why it didn’t get attention in the scripts.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, that’s helpful. And then my second question is on the expense ratio side, I think last quarter you guys have pointed to kind of seeing like around 30s like a good run-rate. But you continue to come in better than that and especially within Business Insurance and expense ratio continued to improve this quarter like it did last quarter. Is there something related to COVID expenses or as kind of expense ratio bogey was down a little bit when we think about where you guys could come in on a go forward basis?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Elyse, COVID has had some pluses and minuses on the expense side. On the one hand, there have been some higher provisions for things like bad debt, but there have been savings in things like travel and expenses. When you step back and look at the full year and on a consolidated basis, I am not at all surprised where we were I think coming out of last year, we said we would be happy with something around the 30, the full year this is at 29.9, I said again, in my comments, we are probably pretty comfortable at this level. So, I think we have settled and we are probably going to say on what we are thinking about expense ratio.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thank you for the color.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Elyse.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Jimmy Bhullar with JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Hi, good morning. So, I had a question first on just your views on business interruption exposure and it seems like it is sort of trending in the favor of the insurance industry so far at least in the U.S., but what your view is in terms of your exposure and whether the FCA decision makes you reassess your exposure in Europe?
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning. Our view on business interruption exposure for us remains unchanged. There is nothing in that FCA decision in Europe that causes to think any differently about our exposure or the reserves that we’ve put up for it. More recently, there was a decision earlier this week in Ohio related to another insurance company that was adverse to that company. And generally speaking, we prefer not to comment on pending litigation whether it’s ours or anyone else’s, but since you asked a question, I would just point out that our standard policy language is different from the language issue in that case in some very key respects. And so in Ohio and elsewhere, we remain very confident in our policy language and feel no differently about our business interruption exposure. And I guess I would just caution everybody to keep in mind that over the last few months and across the country, the vast majority of these cases have been in the favor of insurers.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay. And then secondly just what are your views on pricing in commercial auto, obviously, recently, litigation activities declined a lot, but do you think prices have caught up to lost costs, it’s sort of social inflation litigation go back once the virus sort of abates?
Alan Schnitzer:
Jimmy, there is just not much more competitively sensitive than our pricing strategy. So, I think we are going to probably stay away from where pricing is going by line. But I will just reiterate what we said before, which is we think this is a favorable pricing environment that that’s going to play out for a while and it’s a function of rate adequacy and there still is a rate need in commercial auto. So, to one degree or another, we will continue to I think benefit from the rate environment in commercial auto.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay, thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski with Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Mike Zaremski:
Hey, good morning. Thanks. First question, I am thinking about top line versus kind of buybacks. I recall a number of pre-COVID, you guys kind of talked about given top line was picking up just you wanted to make sure we understood that buyback levels might not resume at the same ratios as in the past. Kind of trying to think through the dynamics going forward, earnings are healthy and improving, but the top line is still, the outlook, I am not going to put words in your mouth, that seems maybe still to be a little weak due to the economy. So, should we be thinking that there might be more room for buybacks in the near-term?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Mike, it’s Dan. I think just thinking about the right dynamics, I don’t know that this necessarily leads you to conclusion about what we are going to do in the near-term. And again, we are going to think about this over a longer period of time, to the degree that, as Alan commented, we have experienced and been able to generate more top line growth in recent years than we had historically, the current COVID environment sort of notwithstanding, that’s something that we look to do on a go forward basis. And even this year plus 3%, when you adjust for the personal insurance auto refunds that we made, the comments that we made a year or so ago would still hold true, I think to the degree that the top line grows, that’s going to require us to hold more capital, because everything that requires capital grows with it, reserve balances grow, your investment portfolio grows. And the only point we were really trying to make when we made those comments a year or so ago was don’t think about us perpetually being able to return 100% of earnings in the form of dividends and buybacks. We are going to have to hold some of that for growth. So that would still be true, the amount by which we would have had to increase capital this year might be slightly less than we would have expected coming into the year, because COVID had a little bit of a dampening effect on the top line, but directionally all those same things would still hold true.
Mike Zaremski:
Okay, understood. That’s helpful. And lastly, shifting to workers’ comp specifically, I guess, some firms have talked about and it sounds like you guys too are – talked about less claim frequencies during the pandemic, but still kind of holding you said to like broadly in the BI segment kind of still holding your picks conservatively. Historically, have you seen kind of a -- more of a catch up or later claims filings in workers’ comp, maybe after previous recessionary periods? Is that dynamic you guys are contemplating?
Dan Frey:
Yes. Let me just give you a little bit of color on how we see or thinking about the workers’ comp loss activity. So, first of all, the, the COVID related claim rate is relatively low relative to the infection rate and lower than we might have expected. And the severity on COVID related workers’ comp is also coming in a little better than we had thought. There is – there continues to be some benefit from non-COVID related frequency as people are working from home, but there still is in our minds a degree of uncertainty to your point about how COVID related workers’ comp claims are going to play out over time. So we have been pretty cautious in the way that we have been looking for workers’ comp losses to make sure that we don’t get surprised by that. Now, historically, putting COVID aside historically, in a recession, you get sort of offsetting forces in workers’ comp, you got people who want to stay on the job. So, they are less inclined to go out and so frequency is down a little bit. But severity goes up a little bit, because once people go out, they tend to stay out longer on workers’ comp, but historically for us in recessionary periods, the net of those two things have been a little bit of a positive. You mean every circumstance is different and so hard to know for sure, but that’s generally what we have seen in the past. And so, I think that’s sort of the landscape as we see it on workers’ comp loss activity.
Mike Zaremski:
And Alan that will follow-up to a follow-up with just you, I was kind of trying to allude to okay, I figure out post-recession, did you see a kind of a jump or any kind of spike in frequency? I appreciate the comments about during the recession there was a net benefit, just curious if there was kind of a catch up sort of a post-recession?
Alan Schnitzer:
I just don’t have that data in front of me from prior recessions. And so I am a little hesitant to shoot from the hip. I am just not sure. I mean, as we are looking around the room at each other, I don’t think there is anything that we think would be all that particularly significant, but again, I just don’t have the data in front of me to be responsive to that.
Mike Zaremski:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
David Motemaden with Evercore, your line is open.
David Motemaden:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. I guess just another question on the Business Insurance underlying loss ratio and that’s 150 basis points of core improvement now in 4Q that’s improved, I think last quarter, you said it improved 100 basis points year-over-year. I guess as we think about obviously rate earning in above the 5% loss trend. Is there any reason to think that, that shouldn’t continue to accelerate as we head into 2021?
Dan Frey:
Hey, it’s Dan. All else being equal, no, you have seen mathematically, I think what you have seen in the last couple of quarters is what you would have expected to see based on the comments that we started making a year ago when we felt that we were reaching the point where rate was reaching or exceeding loss trend and then that would start to come through on an earned basis to the extent that written pricing has continued to increase. We would expect the earned impact of that to continue to increase on a lagging basis. Again, all else being equal and rarely is all else equal but looking at those two things, yes.
David Motemaden:
Right. Okay, thanks. I appreciate that, Dan. And I guess Greg just a question on exposure growth and specifically, you had mentioned the dampening impact of terms and conditions and then the impact that, that had on exposure growth. I guess maybe, is there any way to quantify that? And maybe as we think about heading into 2021, any sort of view in terms of how this may impact terms and conditions may dampen exposure growth as we enter into 2021?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey, David. It’s Greg. Yes, that’s just competitively sensitive. So, we give you exposure overall, we give you rate, we give you our PC, but we really don’t breakdown exposure in terms of the insured exposure versus deal structure and terms and conditions. So that’s just something we don’t provide.
David Motemaden:
Okay, that’s fair. Thank you.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Hey, thanks. The first one, Greg, just on the Select business, if I take a look at the retention rates dropped pretty meaningfully from the second quarter. I guess my question there is that due to just the economy and the impact that’s having on small businesses or is it that you are kind of pushing rate terms and conditions here and that’s having an effect on your retentions and at what point do you need to layoff maybe a little bit to kind of get that retention ratio back up?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes, good morning, Brian. Yes, it really is a combination of both our profit improvement initiatives, which isn’t just for Select, as we have been sharing, that’s across the entire BI portfolio. But when we look at the uptick in rate and the offset in retention, our product managers and underwriters can see the variance of the loss ratios versus what we retained and what we – what lapse that we feel very comfortable with the tradeoff between those two. So we are going to continue to improve the margins on that Select business. And then in terms of your comment on the pandemic, we have certainly seen since the pandemic, the Select business has felt the flow, the most reduction with the pandemic on smaller businesses. And so new business has absolutely felt that, but we feel great about the quality of the new business that we are writing in the Select business right now.
Alan Schnitzer:
And if I just…
Brian Meredith:
That could affect your retention too, couldn’t it?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Sure. You sure could, yes.
Alan Schnitzer:
Brian, just to put a finer point on Greg’s comment which I agree with, we have been at these types of retention levels before in Select. So, this isn’t an unusual place for us to be and I guess you are all looking at headline numbers we are looking at a very granular set of data underneath that shows us exactly what the execution is in terms of rate retention loss ratios. So, we feel very, very good about this execution.
Brian Meredith:
Great. And then my follow-up here, Alan, how are you all thinking about potential liability exposures to back to work plans as eventually the economy reopens? And do you have protections in some of your policies to maybe mitigate some of that exposure and what are your thoughts on that?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, it’s a great question. I am glad you asked. We would have hoped that there would have been some federal liability protection, I just think given the way things have played out that’s probably less likely to happen. But there are a couple of things that still help one, there have been a number of states, I think more than 30 states that in one form or another have taken some kind of action to provide some COVID liability protection. At the federal level, we have got a more right leaning bench today than we did 4 years ago, certainly. So, that helps a little bit. And then we can address it through things like rate and risk control and risk selection. And as I mentioned before, in some industry classes, we have started to put in communicable disease exclusions where we think that could be important. So we are – it’s an exposure, it’s out there. I think it’s unfortunate, because I think it’s the plaintiff’s bar that benefits at the expense of economic recovery, but we will manage to it just fine.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker with Bank of America. Your line is open.
Josh Shanker:
Thank you. I wanted to [Technical Difficulty]
Alan Schnitzer:
Hey, Josh. We can’t hear you at all.
Josh Shanker:
Okay. [Technical Difficulty]
Alan Schnitzer:
Hey, Josh, are you there? Why don’t we take the next caller – Josh, yes, go ahead.
Josh Shanker:
Sorry about that. I guess those headphones don’t work that I was trying to use, okay, the $0.50 solution. Anyway, I was an area that we doesn’t really get enough attention to national accounts, because we all talk about Business Insurance ex-national accounts. Can we talk about the – what is the trend there in terms of premium? How much of the falloff in that area do you think is temporary how much comes back? What’s the distribution of that business in terms of premium volume to think about as we get to the end of COVID, I guess?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey, Josh. This is Greg. Yes, national accounts was down 5% for the year and that’s a business where a couple of large accounts can make up a quarter or a year and that was the case for us in 2020 where we just had more loss larger accounts than new and we felt that on the top line. Now, as you said, that it’s an important part of our portfolio where we are encouraged around the national accounts. And we have recently re-launched a service entry for claims service and we continue to invest in it and it’s an important part of our portfolio.
Josh Shanker:
And to the extent in terms of the accounting for that, I think there is a lot of audit accounting. Are we still in the audit accounting phase for that and now we are earning through and as the economy picks up, we will see audit accounting go the other direction, how should we expect that to trend?
Dan Frey:
Josh, it’s Dan, I am not quite sure I understand your question, but to the degree that, a lot of our Business Insurance accounts are subject to audit, including some business and national accounts. Generally speaking, in this year, we have seen a lower level of audit premium additions not surprisingly given the lower level of overall economic activity. I don’t have the data in front of me I don’t know that we have heard anything that’s particularly different in the national accounts front than say in middle market. So I think broadly speaking, we have seen audit premium activity behave probably not surprisingly in response to what you are seeing in the more general economy.
Josh Shanker:
Yes, I guess I will stop, but are we more or less through that audit account period by 4Q or it was a bigger issue in 2Q and 3Q and now the sort of premium submissions are in line with the exposures or are we still at a period of time where we are seeing that headwind comes through on your premium numbers due to weaker audit accounts?
Dan Frey:
Yes. And I would be careful about thinking headwind in terms of year-over-year there is less audit premium than there was last year. We haven’t yet reached the point where in aggregate audit premiums have turned negative, they are just lower, positive. So, it impacts the growth rate year-over-year. And to your point, it will continue for a while because in many cases, you are doing audits, 15 months after the policy terms were set in the first place. And so there is still a while to work through the COVID impact on policies that haven’t yet reached that maturity level.
Josh Shanker:
Alright. Well, thank you. I probably have some more questions, but I’ll take them offline. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Josh.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with KBW. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Great. Thanks. So, one quick question on personal insurance and then a follow-up on Business Insurance, Michael, are you pricing auto for normalized driving or are you trying to adjust pricing for sort of the short-term but fluctuating driving behavior that we are seeing during COVID?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Josh. Yes, this is Michael. I would say that we are as I mentioned sort of continuously adjusting pricing levels to reflect our outlook and again, driving levels have continued to be depressed. Therefore, frequency levels have continued to be depressed. And our view is that in 2021 that will start to normalize, but we think we are going to be at depressed driving in frequency levels for a period of time. And so we are factoring that into our pricing. And as I mentioned last quarter, we filed a handful of decreases in about 5 states in the fourth quarter and we have some more plan in the first part of 2021, again, to respond to that better than long-term, normalized loss experience.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, that’s helpful. And then I guess a follow-up for Greg, I am wondering whether it’s fair to say that maybe Business Insurance results were better than they look, because presumably there was some headwinds from the exposure that acts like trend and because also presumably workers’ compensation represented a smaller percentage of earned premiums and I was hoping you can comment on those two factors?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Meyer, it’s Dan. So, mix will contribute as you suggest right in the degree that there are different loss ratios in different parts of the book are growing at different paces, that’s going to have an impact. I will jump in here on this one, because on the exposure front, we have said when exposure is positive that a portion of exposure behaves like rate and therefore can be helpful to margins. It’s not necessarily the case that when exposures are modestly negative as they are here that the same holds true on the inverse. Here, what you are seeing is generally lower levels of insured exposures, fewer employees, lower levels of cash register sales, things that drives GL type exposure, unless you actually got to the point where say there was wage deflation and the price per risk was going down, but you don’t at least at this point have the same kind of adverse impact on margins from negative exposures that you do help to margins when exposures are running positive.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, fantastic. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome with Piper Sandler. Your line is open.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning and congratulations on the quarter, quite remarkable. Greg, you made a comment about a higher proportion of distressed business in the market. And I just want to make sure I was interpreting the comment correctly, are you talking about essentially more of a business going into excess and surplus lines or are you thinking more along the lines of just the businesses themselves are struggling with the economy?
Alan Schnitzer:
Paul, let me just jump in. And I will let Greg fix whenever I get wrong. But I think neither actually, what in a market like this where in some cases, you got some capacity issues where you got firming rate distribution generally is solving problems in the market and so the accounts that end up in the market for trading are just more difficult risks to write. So, it’s not that it’s necessarily moving to E&S and it’s not their business is necessarily with economic issues, these are just difficult from an insurance risk perspective.
Paul Newsome:
Okay. And then just quickly investment income is also very, very strong I thought, anything in there we have been so focused on the underwriting, anything in there that we should consider this as a good run-rate or is there anything we should just be taking note of all the investment income results?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Paul, it’s Dan. So, I guess I point you to the net investment income slide in the webcast presentation and I’d point you to Page 6. So, we gave you some outlook in terms of what we think the run-rate looks like for the fixed income portfolio. The variability that we have seen in the last three quarters has really been in the non-fixed income portfolio. And so if you look at the bottom right hand quadrant of that chart, it shows non-fixed income over the last eight quarters or so. And what you could see is sort of pre-COVID that was the last three quarters, pre-COVID had been $70 million or so of non-fixed income, then you see a big dip in the second quarter. And remember, at that time we talked about that was the impact of the disruption to the equity markets that happened in the first quarter coming through our results on a lagging basis in Q2. And then as markets have come back, we have seen some of that rebound to come through our numbers. And so what you see in Q3 and Q4 are very strong results in the non-fixed income portfolio. But if you just look at that chart, you should get the sense that part of that is to bounce back from the big dip we saw in the second quarter. And so I wouldn’t take that as indicative of a new run-rate on the non-fixed income base.
Paul Newsome:
Great. Thanks, folks and congrats on the quarter again.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks a lot.
Operator:
We have time for one final question. Phil Stefano with Deutsche Bank, your line is open.
Phil Stefano:
Yes, thanks for squeezing me in at the end here. So, you had mentioned the court case in Ohio and that there is a difference in the terms and conditions and I was hoping you could just remind us what the difference in the policy wordings is that continues to give us this confidence that the BI issue is less so for Travelers than it might be for others just given how that court case went?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. So, circumstance subject to continuing pending litigation, so I am hesitant, particularly without the policy wording, there is – or certainly right in front of me to start parsing the language for you. So, maybe we can take that offline and figure out a way to do it, but probably right now, it’s not the right venue. I will say, we have said from the very beginning that we have got confidence in our policies in the way we think it would respond to business interruption. So far in virtually every case we have had, we haven’t had a bad outcome anyway. So I think I will just reiterate our confidence in the language that we have and say that we don’t feel any differently about our business interruption exposure and leave it at that for now if that’s okay.
Phil Stefano:
No, that’s fine. I figured that was the answer, but it’s always worth a shot. The second follow-up for you just looking at the underlying loss ratio in auto and trying to compare and contrast third quarter to fourth quarter results, is it felt like we had the story of miles driven being down auto accident frequency benefiting, but we are looking at a difference of 700 basis points give or take of underlying, how much of this is miles driven coming back, how much of this is potential short-term pricing actions that you are contemplating? How do we look at these two quarters to help us as a base for what the forward COVID impact could be?
Dan Frey:
Phil, it’s Dan. Let me jump in. I think we look at both of the last few quarters as extremely good results and the third quarter was maybe an outsized good result. Remember, as we have gone throughout the year, we’ve been trying to set our expectation of when you look at miles driven when we then filter that through what are the specifics of our book, what do we expect to see for losses then as months and quarters go by, losses actually emerge. So, it’s a little bit of a moving target. The variances have been significant, I wouldn’t put a tremendous amount of stock in and the difference of what came through the loss ratio in one quarter versus the next, I think, as Michael probably indicated and as you would not be surprised by on a go forward basis, we wouldn’t expect margins to continue to be that strong in auto and you see that reflected in our pricing actions in the most recent quarters. So I’d step back more and think about the year in aggregate, which has definitely had a benefit – definitely had a benefit from the COVID environment and recall that in response to that we have also returned more than $200 million of premiums to policyholders. I don’t know I can give you anymore specific answer than that.
Phil Stefano:
No. Great, thanks.
Operator:
The question-and-answer session has ended. It is now my pleasure to turn the call back over to Abbe Goldstein for final remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Hi, thank you all again very much for joining us. We appreciate that. And as usual, if there is any follow-up, please get in touch directly with Investor Relations. Thanks and have a great day.
Operator:
This concludes the Travelers’ fourth quarter 2020 results conference call. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the third quarter results teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question and answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 20, 2020. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our third quarter 2020 results. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, CFO; and our three segment presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you Abbe. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. We are very pleased to report third quarter core income of $798 million or $3.12 per diluted share, and core return on equity of 13.5%. Our bottom line result this quarter reflects strong underlying underwriting income resulting from record net earned premium of $7.4 billion and an underlying combined ratio that improved 2.6 points to a strong 91.5%. We’re pleased with the underwriting results in all three segments with improved underlying profitability in both business insurance and personal insurance. In business insurance, the underlying result improved due to margin expansion as earned rate exceeded loss trends. In personal insurance, the benefits from lower frequency in the auto business more than offset higher levels of non-catastrophe weather and wildfire losses. In bond and specialty insurance, the underlying combined ratio was elevated consistent with the outlook we shared on the call last quarter. I’ll note that the combined and underlying combined ratios were still under 90%, generating a solid return in a challenging environment. Profitability in all three segments continues to reflect the benefits of our strategic focus on productivity and efficiency, resulting in a [indiscernible] consolidated expense ratio. Core income for the quarter also included catastrophe losses of $397 million pre-tax, which were meaningfully above the 10-year average for the quarter. I want to acknowledge the devastation caused by recent catastrophes. We hope for a quick recovery for all those who have been impacted. I also want to express my gratitude to our dedicated claims team for taking care of our customers during these extraordinary times. Of the 100,000 or so claim notices we’ve received so far this year arising out of the record number of PCS catastrophes in the U.S., our claims team met our objective of closing more than 90% of the claims made in 30 days. A quick resolution results in a better experience for our customers and a more efficient outcome for us. I also want to acknowledge the actions our underwriting and risk management teams have taken over recent years to manage our exposure to weather volatility. In addition to the property cat aggregate treaty which has mitigated our losses, recent actions to improve the balance of risk and reward meaningfully reduced our exposure to the wildfires. To illustrate the point, in the areas impacted by the five costliest California wildfires this season, our exposure is about a third lower than it was two years ago. Turning to our investment portfolio, this quarter we again benefited from our well defined and consistent investment philosophy with our high quality investment portfolio generating net investment income of $566 million after tax. Lastly, before I turn to the top line, I’ll share that the uncertainty surrounding business interruption claims continues to result favorably and consistent with our expectations, so we remain confident on that front. In terms of the top line and production, we continue to generate strong results. Net written premiums in the quarter grew by 3% driven by strong renewal rate change and retention in all three segments. In our commercial businesses, exposure change on renewed accounts was only modestly negative for both the quarter and year to date compared to a much more significant reduction in economic activity. We believe that in addition to generating a better underwriting result, our high quality portfolio of accounts is more resilient to economic hardship. In business insurance, we achieved record renewal rate change of 8.2%, four points higher than the prior year quarter while retention remains strong. We achieved higher renewal rate change year over year and sequentially in each of our lines of business other than workers’ compensation. In bond and specialty insurance, net written premiums increased by 4% as renewal premium change in our domestic management liability business rose to 8.1%, including record renewal rate change, while retention remained at an historical high. In personal insurance, net written premiums increased by 8% driven by strong retention in new business in both agency auto and agency homeowners. In our agency homeowners business, we achieved renewal premium change of 8.2%, its highest level since 2014. Across all of our businesses, we’ve made good progress achieving rate gains and managing other levers of profitability to improve the outlook for returns in those lines that need it and will continue to execute to meet our return objectives. For all the reasons we’ve discussed previously, from the loss environment to the interest rate environment, we expect continued momentum in the marketplace. Notwithstanding our focus on successfully managing through the pandemic and addressing other headwinds impacting the industry, it’s important to note that we haven’t been distracted from pursuing our strategic agenda. We remain focused on leveraging our scale and resources to continue to invest and innovate. As we’ve said before, we believe the winners in our industry will be those with deep domain expertise that can deliver industry-leading results while innovating successfully on top of a foundation of excellence. From a position of strength, we continue to focus our efforts on extending our advantage in risk expertise, providing great experiences and improving productivity and efficiency. In our commercial businesses, we continue to make progress in digitizing virtually every aspect of the value chain while at the same time enhancing our advanced analytics. Just as one example, our BOP 2.0 small commercial product which we launched in 2019 benefits from both. In the states in which we’ve rolled it out, we’ve seen about a 15% increase in both submissions and new business premiums. This product uses AI and third party data to improve underwriting segmentation, operational efficiency, and the agent experience. To that point, the artificial intelligence eases the burden on the agent and has resulted in a substantial improvement in classification accuracy. In personal insurance, we’re balancing sophisticated total account solutions with streamlined agent and customer experiences. For example, we completely redesigned the experience of our IntelliDrive auto telematics offering and introduced a distraction reading. We rolled this out in nine states during the second and third quarters and have plans to launch in an additional 10 states in the fourth quarter. We’re observing a nearly 30% increase in the rate of adoption for IntelliDrive and have received strong agent feedback. Also in the fourth quarter, we’re rolling out an enhanced customer self-service tool in the new mobile app. In our claim organization, we’re advancing the rollout of virtual end-to-end claims service tools, embracing the pandemic-driven trend that accelerated digital adoption by individuals and businesses. Customer and agent satisfaction are up while payout discipline remains strong. To sum it up, we’re pleased with our performance in the face of a pandemic and a challenging underwriting environment. It reflects the importance of a strong underwriting culture, the benefit of data and analytics, and the franchise value we offer to our customers and distribution partners. All of that, together with our highly engaged and talented workforce, we’re confident that we’re well positioned to capitalize on opportunities as the economy continues to reopen. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you Alan. Our core income for the third quarter was $798 million, generating core ROE of 13.5%, both up significantly from core income of $378 million and core ROE of 6.5% that we reported in the prior year quarter. These increases resulted primarily from this year’s favorable third quarter PYD compared to net unfavorable PYD in last year’s third quarter, as well as a significant increase in underlying underwriting profit. More on both of those items in a minute. Our third quarter results include $397 million of pre-tax cat losses compared to $241 million in last year’s third quarter. This quarter’s cats included Hurricane Laura, Tropical Storm Isaias, the severe straight-line winds that impacted the Midwest in August, and several large wildfires in the western United States. The increase in the level of cat activity was even more pronounced than those numbers suggest as our net cat result in the quarter was tempered by recoveries under the aggregate catastrophe XOL treaty. We have recognized a full recovery under that treaty in our third quarter results with $233 million pre-tax benefiting the cat line and $47 million pre-tax benefiting non-cat weather in our underlying results. Recall that last year, we did not have any recoveries under the treaty until the fourth quarter. Of course, the full recovery in this year’s third quarter means that there is no coverage remaining from this treaty as we enter the fourth quarter. The underlying combined ratio of 91.5%, which excludes the impacts of cats and PYD, improved by 2.6 points from 94.1% in last year’s third quarter. The underlying loss ratio improved by 2.4 points and benefited from favorable auto frequency related to COVID-19 and the impact of earned pricing in excess of loss trends, partially offset by an increase in non-cat weather losses, including wildfires. The expense ratio of 29.3% is two-tenths of a point favorable to last year’s third quarter results and reflects our strategic focus over a number of years on improving productivity and efficiency. Setting aside quarter to quarter variability, our year-to-date expense ratio of approximately 30% is a figure we’re comfortable with. Our top line proved to be resilient with a 3% increase in net written premium as continued strong renewal rate change and retention in all three segments more than offset modestly lower insured exposures in the commercial businesses. For the quarter, losses directly related to COVID-19 totaled $133 million pre-tax with $92 million in business insurance driven primarily by workers’ comp and $41 million in our bond and specialty business predominantly driven by management liability. More than offsetting those losses were lower levels of auto clients and, to a lesser extent, fewer non-COVID workers’ comp and GL claims due to lower levels of economic activity. The net impact of the COVID environment o the consolidated underlying combined ratio amounted to a benefit of about two points, mostly in personal insurance. Given the ongoing uncertainty in this environment, we continue to take a cautious approach in estimating the net impact of COVID-19 related losses. Consistent with my commentary last quarter, the majority of direct COVID loses that we’ve booked year to date through September is still sitting in IB&R. Looking at the year-to-date impact of direct COVID losses net of related frequency benefits in other underwriting items, our underwriting results have benefited by a little more than $100 million pre-tax or about half a point on the consolidated underlying combined ratio, including the impact of premium refunds to policyholders. However, year-to-date net investment income reflects the significant adverse impact on our non-fixed income portfolio. Turning to prior year reserve development, as previously disclosed, third quarter includes approximately $400 million of pre-tax benefit from the PG&E subrogation. About 80% of that benefit is reflected in personal insurance with the remainder reflected in business insurance. Setting PG&E to the side, PYD results in the quarter were as follows. In personal insurance, net favorable development of $40 million pre-tax was driven by auto results coming in better than expected for recent accident years. In bond and specialty insurance, there was no net impact from PYD. In business insurance, we recognized unfavorable development of $295 million pre-tax as a result of our annual asbestos review. While there was some slight improvement in several of our asbestos indicators, the overall level of paid losses and general claim activity has persisted at levels higher than we had anticipated. This year, as we do every few years, we reviewed certain macro assumptions underlying our actuarial analysis. Our updated view of ultimate asbestos related losses resulted in an increase in the low end of the actuarial range. This year’s asbestos charge is greater than last year’s charge as a result of our updated view of the range for ultimate losses, not as a result of increases in paid losses or severity. There are some indications that the environment is improving in terms of the emergence of new asbestos claims going forward. Page 19 of the webcast presentation includes the most recent annual data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which shows that the total number of deaths from mesothelioma in 2018 decreased by nearly 6% compared to 2010, but note, as you can see on the bottom two lines of the table, the decline in mesothelioma deaths was much more pronounced in all of the younger age groups. This trend is directionally consistent with our expectation that over time, the high risk group of people actually exposed to asbestos in the workplace prior to the late 1970s will get smaller and will not be replaced by younger people, as those who entered the workforce sometime in the 1980s should not have been exposed to asbestos to nearly the same degree as their predecessors. Excluding the impacts of the PG&E settlement and the annual asbestos review, there was virtually not net prior year reserve development in business insurance. Favorable development in workers’ comp was offset by an increase to the reserves for legacy liabilities in our run-off book related to a single insurer arising out of policies issued more than 20 years ago. After tax net investment income increased by 7% from the prior year quarter to $566 million. The increase was driven by our non-fixed income returns, where results for our private equity hedge fund and real estate partnerships are generally reported to us on a one-quarter lag. Because of that reporting lag, the recovery experienced in the broader markets during the second quarter benefited our non-fixed income results in the third quarter. Fixed income returns decreased by $31 million after tax as the benefit from higher levels of invested assets was more than offset by the decline in interest rates, consistent with our comments on last quarter’s call. Also consistent with our prior commentary, we expect after tax fixed income NII in the fourth quarter to be down $35 million to $40 million compared to a year ago. Looking ahead to 2021, our current expectation is for after tax fixed income NII to be between $420 million and $430 million per quarter. Turning to capital management, operating cash flows for the quarter of $2.3 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $2.3 billion, well above our target level. Recall that in April, we pre-funded the $500 million of debt coming due in November with a new 30-year $500 million debt issuance, so our holding company liquidity at September 30 is temporarily elevated by that amount. Investment yields decreased as credit spreads tightened during the third quarter, and accordingly our net unrealized investment gain increased from $3.6 billion after tax as of June 30 to $3.8 billion after tax at September 30. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $94.89 at quarter end, up 2% from year-end 2019 and up 5% year-over-year. We returned $218 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter via dividends. We did not repurchase any shares during the quarter. Looking ahead, there is no change in our approach to capital management - until there is more clarity on the state of the economy, we may buy back some shares in the coming quarters or we may continue to choose to buy none. Now I’ll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of business insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks Dan. Business insurance produced $365 million of segment income for the quarter, a significant increase over the prior year quarter with prior year development, underlying underwriting income, and net investment income all contributing to the year-over-year increase. The underlying combined ratio of 94% improved by almost two points, driven by more than a point of earned rate in excess of loss trends. A modest favorable net impact from the pandemic contributed about half a point to the improvement. As for the top line, net written premiums were 1% lower than the prior year quarter with strong rate and high retention mostly offsetting modestly lower insured exposures and lower levels of new business. As Alan mentioned, we are very pleased with the resilience of our top line in the face of the ongoing macroeconomic challenges. Turning to the domestic production, we achieved record renewal rate change of 8.2%, up four points from the third quarter of last year and almost a point from the second quarter of this year, while retention remained high at 83%. We feel very good about the headline number but as we’ve shared before, the quality of the execution and segmentation underneath the headline numbers are just as important. To that point, while we achieved meaningful rate increases in all product lines except workers’ comp, our underwriters are making deliberate and granular decisions with respect to rate and retention on an account by account or class by class basis. Thanks to our focus on continuous improvement of data and analytics at the point of sale, the quality of the execution is as good as I’ve ever seen. New business of $505 million was 9% lower than the prior year quarter. We attribute the decline to lower levels of economic activity as well as careful risk selection by our underwriters. In our core middle market business, for example, while submissions are up, our quote ratio is lower as we have taken a disciplined approach given our view of quality new business in the market. As for the individual businesses, in select renewal rate change increased to 2.9%, marking the seventh consecutive quarter in which renewal rate change was higher than the corresponding prior year quarter. Retention of 80% was down a couple of points from recent periods, largely driven by policy cancellations that were deferred through the second quarter due to our pandemic related billing relief program. In middle market, renewal rate change increased to 8.3% while retention remained strong at 85%. The 8.3% was up by more than 4.5 points from the third quarter of 2019 and we achieved positive rate on more than 80% of our accounts this quarter, up from about two-thirds in the third quarter of last year. To sum up, we feel terrific about our results and execution in a challenging underwriting environment. We also feel very good about the investments we’re making for the future and the benefits we’re seeing from those investments. Those investments include enhancing the experiences for our customers and distribution partners, digitizing the underwriting transaction, and creating efficiencies. For example, we’ve recently launched multiple pilots to automatically incorporate data from our distribution partners’ agency management systems directly into our systems, substantially reducing the time and friction in the process while also improving data quality. We’re as confident as ever that our meaningful competitive advantages position us well for long term profitable growth. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Tom.
Tom Kunkel:
Thanks Greg. Bond and specialty delivered solid returns and growth in the quarter despite the ongoing headwinds of COVID-19. Segment income was $115 million, a $24 million decrease from the prior year quarter as the benefit of higher volumes was more than offset by a higher underlying combined ratio. The underlying combined ratio of 89% increased 5.4 points primarily driven by estimated losses from COVID-19 and related economic conditions. Given the products that we write, we expect the results of this segment to be impacted in times of severe economic downturn. We experienced that during the financial crisis and we’re seeing elevated loss activity in the current environment. We contemplate economic volatility in our underwriting and in our pricing, and as Alan said, in these circumstances we feel good about the returns we generated in the quarter. We expect that the underlying combined ratio will continue to be elevated at around this level over the near term. Turning to top line, net written premiums grew 4% for the quarter, reflecting strong growth driven by improved pricing in our management liability business, partially offset by lower surety production due to the continued economic impact of COVID-19 on public project procurement and related bond demand. In our domestic management liability business, we are pleased that the renewal premium increased to 8.1% driven by record rate. This marks the eighth consecutive quarter in which RPC is higher than the corresponding prior year quarter. Retention remained at a historically high 90%. These production results demonstrate the successful execution of our strategy to pursue rate where needed while maintaining strong retention of our high quality portfolio. We will continue to pursue rate increases where warranted. Domestic management liability new business for the quarter decreased $14 million, primarily reflecting our thoughtful underwriting in this elevated risk environment. Similar to what you heard from Greg in business insurance, submissions are up while quote activity is down. The bond and specialty results remain resilient despite the challenges brought on by COVID-19. We continue to be pleased with our strong execution and feel confident about our ability to navigate through this challenging environment and continue to deliver strong returns over time. Now I’ll turn it over to Michael to discuss personal insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks Tom, and good morning everyone. In personal insurance this quarter, we are very pleased with our continued execution in the marketplace as we delivered excellent profitability and grew net written premiums by 8%, achieving record levels of domestic policies in force. Personal insurance segment income for the third quarter was $392 million, up $261 million from the prior year quarter driven by the pre-tax impacts of an improvement of $163 million in the underlying underwriting gains and $343 million of higher net favorable prior year reserve development, partially offset by $174 million of higher catastrophe losses that have reinsurance. Our combined ratio for the quarter was 86.4%, an improvement of 11.6 points from the prior year quarter driven primarily by the increase in net favorable prior year reserve development. Higher catastrophe loss experience in the quarter was largely offset by improvement in the underlying combined ratio. The improved underlying combined ratio reflects the continuation of favorable auto loss experience in the quarter partially offset by higher non-catastrophe weather related losses. I’ll discuss both of these dynamics in a bit more detail next. Agency automobile profitability was very strong with a combined ratio of approximately 80% for the quarter. The underlying combined ratio of 81% improved nearly 12 points, continuing to reflect favorable frequency levels. Approximately eight of the 12 points of improvement relate to current quarter favorability. The remainder results from favorable re-estimates of activity in the first half of 2020. We continue to observe lower claim frequency as a result of fewer miles driven in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. For the third quarter, data from our IntelliDrive program indicates that miles driven increased relative to last quarter but continue to be down from pre COVID-19 levels. In response to this continued favorable loss experience, we filed modest rate reductions in a handful of states during the third quarter. We will continue to analyze and incorporate current trends into our underwriting and pricing decisions as we balance business volumes and profitability. In agency, homeowners and other, the third quarter combined ratio was 92.8%, an improvement of 9.2 points from the prior year quarter resulting from 26 points of higher net favorable prior year reserve development, mostly from the PG&S subrogation recoveries, partially offset by elevated levels of catastrophe losses and an increase in the underlying combined ratio driven by higher non-catastrophe weather-related losses. Our catastrophe and non-catastrophe experience reflects a very active quarter with a record 31 PCS events. West coast wildfires represented almost half of the total PCS events in the quarter. Consistent with Dan’s comments earlier, the quarter’s catastrophe losses for personal insurance were also impacted by the Midwest [indiscernible], Tropical Storm Isaias, and to a lesser extent Hurricane Laura. In addition to pursuing rate increases in property as we have been for some time, we continued to review and modify terms and conditions and to implement loss mitigation actions in response to the elevated loss activity. Our actions to date have enabled us to reduce or avoid losses we would have otherwise incurred and improve returns as we continue to grow the line. Turning to quarterly production, our domestic agency results were again very strong. Our retentions remained high, quotes and new business were up versus the prior year quarter, and we remain pleased with our policies in force growth. Agency automobile retention was 84% and new business increased 9% from the prior year quarter, both contributing to accelerating growth in policies in force. Renewal premium change was again lower as we continue to moderate pricing in response to favorable loss activity. Agency, homeowners and other delivered another very strong quarter with retention of 86% and a 22% increase in new business. Renewal premium change increased to 8.2% as we remain focused on improving returns in property while growing the business. During the quarter, we continued to respond to the needs of our customers and distribution partners. First and foremost, let me add my thanks to our claims professionals for delivering on our commitment to be there for our customers and distribution partners in response to the significant number of catastrophe and weather events in the quarter. At the same time, we continued to deliver new capabilities in the marketplace. Alan already mentioned both IntelliDrive and our new My T-Mobile app, both of which are key tools in helping us attract and retain customers. We also expanded the availability of our digital quote proposal that gives agents and brokers the ability to send a Travelers Insurance quote to their client’s mobile phone and interact with them digitally about the terms of the proposal, making the transaction more seamless for both the agent and the customers. After reaching our goal of planting one million trees for customer enrollment in paperless billing, we extended our partnership with American Forests to plant an additional 500,000 trees by Earth Day 2021. We have already achieved that milestone well in ahead of schedule, providing our customers the digital experience they seek while benefiting the environment. These examples and others illustrate our ability to develop and deliver the capabilities our partners and customers value. We are very pleased with our performance so far this year and I’m proud of our teams’ efforts to continue to deliver results while investing in the business for the future. Now I’ll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much. Operator, we’re ready to start Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski from Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Mike Zaremski:
Hey, good morning, thanks. First question, if we can talk about some of the reserve changes during the quarter. Thanks for all the commentary. I believe, Greg, when you were talking about business--the BI segment, you didn’t mention any additions to general liability, and I believe that had been--you’d been adding to that in prior quarters. Can you confirm if that was indeed the case, and maybe just overall too, Alan or Greg, if you guys can talk about whether your view has changed at all on overall loss expense trend.
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning Mike, it’s Alan. Let me start with loss trend and then maybe I’ll turn it over to Dan to talk about prior year development. In the quarter, putting aside for a second the direct COVID losses in the quarter, generally what we saw was favorable loss activity primarily related to COVID, and so think people staying home, less economic activity, lower levels of frequency. As you heard us say last quarter and as you heard us repeat again this quarter, we’ve taken a very cautious approach to recognizing that favorable news. There is still a fair amount of uncertainty, and so we’re going to be cautious about that; but we didn’t see anything in the quarter that surprised us or caused us to think that loss trends were deteriorating. Dan, why don’t you comment on PYD?
Dan Frey:
Sure. Mike, just to go through business insurance’s PYD just for a second, a quick recap of the summary. It ended up being about $220 million unfavorable all-in, that’s driven by about $295 million, as we said, on asbestos, then there was favorability from BI’s portion of the PG&E settlement, and I said that was worth about 20% of the $400 million, so that’s $80 million of a good guy. That gets you to about 215 compared to the 220, so the other moving parts you could think about are as net offsets, and those are favorable in workers’ comp, unfavorable for a single account in run-off from policies that we issued more than 20 years ago. And then, we didn’t mention the other lines because it was really very modest activity in the other lines, some pluses and some minuses that basically net to zero.
Mike Zaremski:
Okay, that’s helpful. My last question is, I guess, in regard to the overall competitive environment. Alan, in your prepared remarks, you talked about expected continuing momentum in the marketplace. I think what we’re trying to get comfortable with is the investment income levels - thank you for the guidance. Clearly, they’re under a lot of pressure, and I think in our shoes, we haven’t been in a firm to hard marketplace in a while, so we’re trying to get comfortable that the pricing momentum in excess of loss trends will continue because it seems like to offset BI pressure, we have to get to meaningful better combined ratios in outer years. Maybe just some more color on if you guys--you know, when you say continued momentum, do you expect pricing to continue moving higher or are these levels kind of good enough for you guys to start chipping away at offsetting some of the investment pressure?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well clearly, Mike, written rate is ahead of loss trends, so we’re definitely making progress at these levels, and we’re not going to give pricing outlook but we do choose our words pretty carefully. I’ll tell you that the fact of the matter is that for us and for the industry broadly, there are just many lines of business that are not yet rate adequate, and the drivers are clearly environmental. On the loss side, social inflation isn’t going away. We’ve got weather losses, we’ve got wildfires that are burning. As you pointed out, interest rates are lower for longer - that’s going to be a driver of the outlook for returns. We do have some capacity issues in some lines as there are some markets that are pulling back on capacity, so we think this broader environmental--all of these broader environmental trends will continue to provide positive momentum in the marketplace.
Mike Zaremski:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey thanks, good morning. I guess my first question is it sounds like the COVID benefits you’re enjoying are frequency based, mostly short tail lines, so I should take that to mean that you’ve continue to book in lines like commercial auto similarly to the type of loss trend that you thought coming into the year, which I would think would be above your average loss trend, correct?
Dan Frey:
Yes Ryan, it’s Dan. That’s right. As we’ve said, I think last quarter and this quarter, we’re trying to be cautious in our assessment of the net impact of COVID. There is some benefit in the shorter tail lines, but we’re trying to be pretty cautious in terms of how much of that we recognize in the current accident year.
Alan Schnitzer:
But in terms of the casualty coverages, as you mentioned, yes - that’s correct.
Ryan Tunis:
I totally understand that. Just trying to get some perspective on--clearly we don’t know what frequency is going to be. There could be delays in reported claims, etc., but just from your seat looking at the type of claim activity that’s coming through the door, if that were to hold true, what’s the type of frequency benefit on commercial auto that, I guess, we’re not at this point seeing in results yet?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, you know, we’re reluctant to put a number on that. I think we’re not going to do it, Ryan. Frequency - you know, it does develop, but it develops certainly a lot more quickly than severity does. You know if the phone rings or if the phone doesn’t ring, but I think we’re going to leave it as we recognized some of it because there was enough of it that we couldn’t not recognize some of it, but we’ve been pretty cautious in the assessment.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. Then the other follow-up I had, I guess probably for Dan, is thinking about just the aggregate treaty, I guess it kind of worked this year but is also kind of didn’t, because we’re going into the fourth quarter and we’ve gone through the top. How are you thinking about the strategy about reinsuring cats, I guess headed into ’21? Are you thinking about doing more aggregate cover or maybe going lower? Is that something that we should expect potentially to be a catalyst for next year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Ryan, before Dan answers that question, I’ll just insert that I think the treaty actually worked just fine. It was the weather that didn’t work so well. Dan, do you want to take--
Dan Frey:
Ryan, I think we’ll do as we would do for reinsurance in any--going into any year. We’ll make an assessment of price versus risk and then decide what and how much we’re going to buy. I think I’d say in summary, we’re glad that we’ve had that treaty for the last two years. To your question specifically about do we go to a lower attachment, I wouldn’t think so. We’ve got a growing business and if anything, we probably would go naturally to a higher attachment point, just to reflect the growth in the business. But maybe we’ll buy that reinsurance again and maybe we won’t. It will depend how we feel about the risk transfer relative to the pricing that we can get, because again we’re writing with the idea that we’re a gross lines underwriter, and we said a couple years ago it felt like there was a little more uncertainty in the weather environment and so we wanted to have that treaty, and we’re glad we had it. We’ll see how that plays out going into next year.
Alan Schnitzer:
The other thing I would add to that, Ryan, is--and Dan’s exactly right, we bought that because we wanted to acknowledge the incremental uncertainty that we felt after some wildfire losses, I guess in ’17 and ’18. But as I mentioned in my prepare remarks, we’ve taken pretty substantial steps to try to get that risk-reward in balance, so that would also factor into our view of the value of that reinsurance treaty and the terms we can get it on next year.
Ryan Tunis:
Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. My first one, I guess, is maybe some commentary about workers’ comp. I think that given where interest rates are, at some point we should start to see that line see some positive rate momentum, and that’s an important component. But what are your thoughts on that line right now?
Alan Schnitzer:
Greg, you want to take that?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes, you bet. Good morning, Brian. First, we like our longstanding competitive and economic advantages that we’ve got out of that line, and that’s why we’re the largest writer in it in the U.S. Sure, there’s a little bit of pricing reductions going through that line right now and that always puts some pressure on existing margins, but we aren’t standing still. We continue to invest in our claim practices specifically around medical management sophistication, and our underwriters, we’re always giving them new tools and new insight to make sure our risk selection and our renewal segmentation offset some of those price reductions. Workers’ comp is just one piece of our portfolio. As we remind you all the time, we’re more of an account solution than an individual monocline writer, and we’ll continue to write our customers with accounts in additions to workers’ comp, so we continue to feel good about the portfolio and the future of that line.
Brian Meredith:
That improvement in select, was that due to comp maybe getting less competitive, the rate in select?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Well, both select and middle market are clearly going to follow the linear trend of the bureau’s loss cost recommendations, and so in the select business where it’s more of a flow business, where you file that rate structure, you feel it more there than you would in middle market where you have experience mods and discretionary pricing, and you look at the individual exposure rather than file it at a state level, so a little more sensitive to the reductions in select than you would see in middle market.
Brian Meredith:
Great, then just one quick follow-up for Dan. The aggregate cover this quarter, is it possible to break out how much of that benefit is non-cat weather versus cat losses?
Dan Frey:
Yes Brian, I gave it actually in my prepared remarks.
Brian Meredith:
Oh sorry, I missed it.
Dan Frey:
It’s quite all right. We said $280 million was the total recovery, $233 million went to cat and $47 million went to underlying.
Brian Meredith:
Got you, and that’s largely in the personal lines?
Dan Frey:
The split is a little different between the two. The cat split is about 50/59 PI/BI. The non-cat split goes more like 70/30 PI/BI.
Brian Meredith:
Great, very helpful. Thank you.
Dan Frey:
Sure.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thank you. Good morning. My first question is also on the aggregate cover. Given that you guys have exhausted that cover, and this is a comment that is specific to business insurance, how can we think about the improvement within the underlying loss ratio that you could see there in the fourth quarter? I guess we could expect some kind of headwind from non-cat weather, just given the absence of the aggregate, or how should we think about the fourth quarter?
Dan Frey:
Elyse, it’s Dan. The aggregate is, as I just said in response to Brian’s question, is not a big deal to the underlying or business insurance in the third quarter, so it got about 30% of the $47 million that was non-cat, so you could think about that for BI as not being more than 20 or 30 basis points in terms of its impact on the quarter.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, so if we adjust BI for that and then also for the COVID benefit that you guys pointed out earlier, is that a good type of run rate to think about for the margin improvement that we could see in the fourth quarter?
Dan Frey:
Well, I don’t think I’d expect the COVID impact to cease as of September 30. Certainly the cat recovery, the treaty recovery is all contained in the third quarter and you could take that out for sure. I’m not sure anybody knows what exactly the impact of COVID is going to be in the fourth quarter.
Alan Schnitzer:
Or what weather volatility is going to look like. I think we’re going to get away generally from trying to forecast margins, but happy to take modeling questions offline if that’s helpful, Elyse, to the extent we can.
Elyse Greenspan:
Yes, and then my second question was on the expense ratio. Dan, I think you said that 30% was kind of a good run rate, but as we’re thinking--and maybe this is less guidance, but I think you guys did guide with at least that, as you’re getting a good amount of price and that’s earning in, should we expect that we could see some improvement in the expense ratio just due to the denominator, or is it counterbalanced by some investments that you pointed out that you guys have been making internally?
Dan Frey:
I think those are the considerations, Elyse, that will go into what it ends up being. I do think to the degree that we can get some bottom line growth, we would be in a position to continue to see some leverage on the expense ratio. But as we’ve said a number of time over the last couple years, what we like about productivity and efficiency that we’ve generated is it gives us the optionality of whether we make additional investments in places that we feel are going to provide a bigger bang for the buck down the road, or let some of that come through the bottom line. All it was really trying to communicate was that we don’t--we’re not seeking a dramatic change in the expense ratio from where we are right now.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, that’s helpful. Thanks for the color.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks Elyse.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Josh Shanker:
Yes, good morning everybody. Two unrelated questions. The first one is about surety, and can you tell us a little bit about the premium volume - it looked pretty reasonable in the bottom, especially business. What are we seeing in terms of COVID economy for construction starts and whatnot?
Tom Kunkel:
This is Tom, Josh - good morning. When you think about surety, if you break it up the non-construction and the construction side, our regular non-construction surety is holding up quite nicely, but with all of the decline in tax receipts and the difficulties that various public bodies are having funding public works projects, that’s what is really driving the drop-off in surety written premium. You know, we will have to wait and see what the federal government does with any stimulus that might involve construction, because certainly states and other entities have shovel-ready projects.
Josh Shanker:
Is there implication for things that have already begun construction? Is there a risk that we start seeing issues with surety claims because they’re not able to be finished?
Tom Kunkel:
They’re two different issues. As far as the projects stopping, unless they’re ordered to stop by government authority, I wouldn’t expect to see a project that is ongoing stopping. Then as far as the slower economy causing additional defaults, that certainly is possible. It really depends on the contactors’ and the surety’s portfolio and how sound their financial position was going in, and how they handle pursuing work or not pursuing work and shrinking the size of their company when times are lean. We take a lot of pride in our contractors when we manage that portfolio, and we think different sureties will perform differently throughout this.
Alan Schnitzer:
Josh, I’d just add to that, that we’re underwriting that commercial surety book, the construction surety book today the same way we did in the financial crisis, and it performed pretty well through that. We can’t give any assurances - who knows, but we feel pretty good about our underwriting practices and the people who are making the decisions to put business on the books.
Tom Kunkel:
Yes.
Josh Shanker:
Then a philosophical question. If we go back in time maybe 10 years, I don’t know when, when you came up with the Travelers’ definition for catastrophe, and of course it varies from the PCF definition, it seems as time goes on, the risk associated with non-cat weather gets greater and greater in terms of volatility on your margin. Is the variance between your definition and the PCF definition still useful, or have we gotten to a point where the reasons for that difference are starting to create a certain volatility in results that we wouldn’t otherwise hope to see?
Alan Schnitzer:
Josh, we think about that a lot, so I appreciate the question. Maybe someday offline, we’d love to get your thoughts on it. Our view is from an economic perspective, the losses are going to be what they’re going to be, whether they get reflected in a cat line or in an underlying line. Frankly, we report the numbers we way we manage the business, and we think that there is a level of loss activity that is defined as a PCF event that is in a working layer, if you will, and that ought to be managed day in, day, out, year in, year out by the underwriters that are managing it, as compared to a catastrophe loss which we obviously define as a higher level which gets managed and addressed over a much longer period of time. We think it’s the right way to manage the business. We think it’s the right way to talk about the business internally, and we make the decision to talk about it externally the same way we manage it internally. I get that it might from time to time cause some modeling issues or definitional issues, but we think the consistency and the thoughtful approach to managing it is sort of the right way to run the railroad.
Josh Shanker:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome from Piper Sandler. Your line is open.
Paul Newsome:
Hey, good morning. Thanks for the call, for the answers. I was hoping you could hone in on the competitive environment in the auto insurance business in particular. We’re seeing in the market different things from the rate environment. Obviously you’re doing what you’re doing, but was it a materially more competitive market today than it was recently, and--and I’ll just give you my follow-up question, which is I’d like to know how that competitive environment links up with what you’re doing in the home insurance business, where you’re clearly growing and my sense is the home insurance business is pretty much an outright hard market, so a different situation. Those are my two questions.
Alan Schnitzer:
Michael?
Michael Klein:
Thanks Paul, it’s Michael Klein. On the competition in auto, certainly we are seeing market rates drop, and I think it’s fair to call it an intensifying competitive environment. That said, for the most part, notwithstanding some of the headline numbers you see from some key competitors, it’s still a relatively moderate adjustment in personal lines auto pricing, and from our perspective largely reflective of the improvement in experience in the line, some of it COVID related but, frankly, some of it consistent with longer term trends of favorable frequency that we and other competitors have talked about. In terms of our ability to compete in that environment, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks and you see in the webcast script, we’re pleased with our improving [indiscernible] growth in auto as we moderate pricing, again intentionally to keep pace with those loss trends. Again as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, that does include taking some price decreases in a handful of states to, again, match premium to loss, pricing with loss experience. That’s sort of our view on the PI competitive environment. Jumping to your second question about home, I would agree - if you look at the personal insurance industry right now, it’s a little bit of a tale of two cities, right? You’ve got improving loss experience and moderating frequency in auto putting downward pressure on prices. You’ve got a lot of what we’ve been talking about here this morning - catastrophes, non-catastrophe weather, there are still folks in the industry talking about non-weather water losses as well, but the pressure on loss costs in the property business is upward. We’re pleased with our progress in RPC in property. We’re pleased with the performance of our Quantum Home 2 product as we’ve rolled that out, and again as we look at the property market in personal insurance as we’ve described it, our objective is to grow property while improving profitability, and that’s the path we’ve been on and we’ll continue to be on.
Paul Newsome:
I guess what I was trying to ask is, how much is the link between the willingness to grow in home versus the auto?
Michael Klein:
I would say we look at it as a portfolio. Our strategy is to be a portfolio provider and work with our partners to provide total account solutions to customers, and so we are actively seeking to grow both lines and, again, at target returns.
Paul Newsome:
Great, thank you. Appreciate it.
Michael Klein:
Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of David Motemaden from Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
David Motemaden:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. Just had a question just on NII and the impact it has on ROE for the firm. The NII guide of 420 to 430 after tax per quarter, do you think that you can get enough margin expansion to offset the NII drag to keep ROE stable in this environment, and is there enough pricing and margin expansion underneath where you can actually improve ROEs in this interest rate environment?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes well, we think the answer to that is yes, and if you look at written rate versus loss trend, margins are improving from here. We’re not going to give guidance so I’m not going to predict whether we will or whether we won’t, but certainly interest rates and investment income are an input into our pricing model, and so there’s certainly a very direct link between the investment return we’re getting on the product and the price we’re charging for it.
David Motemaden:
Okay, great. Thanks. Then just another follow-up - you know, you mentioned, I think Greg mentioned getting rate in excess of loss trend of over a point in BI. I guess I’m just wondering if you could elaborate a bit on what gives you confidence that you’re getting rate in excess of trend, just given the uncertainty around the loss environment, courts being closed, and just generally the unpredictability of losses in the current environment.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, so just to be clear, we look at rate versus loss trend on a written basis, and that’s the rate number you see in production statistics, and we’ve shared before our view of loss trend. That one point was sort of the earned impact of rate and earned loss trend, so two different bases there. You know, at this point where we’ve got rate in excess in 8% and we’ve got loss trend which we shared last quarter we view on a long-term basis at 5%, yes, there’s some uncertainty but that gap is big enough that we feel some confidence in that. It’s true that in the circumstance like this where you’ve got a disruption in the economy and some disruption in the data coming through, and in the claim process there’s a little more uncertainty than usual, but as I shared previously, what we’re seeing in losses is actual favorability. Again, not perfect clarity into it and it’s going to take some time for us to get more clarity and for that uncertainty to resolve, but the thing that we’re not reacting to is favorable news, not unfavorable trend.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Yaron Kinar:
Hi, good morning everybody. First question around workers’ comp, clearly--or I’m assuming there is a frequency benefit from non-COVID claims; on the other hand, I would think that that frequency benefit could ultimately result in some severity increase further down the road. Is that a fair way of thinking about it, and if so, how are you thinking of the loss picks with that dual dynamic?
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s certainly a possibility, and we contemplate that. Yes, there is some favorability in non-COVID related frequency, but we do contemplate when we think about longer term trends and when we think about the profitability of the product, that there could be down the road some increased severity due to really delayed access to healthcare, so we do contemplate as a possibility.
Yaron Kinar:
And is that reflected in the picks already or is that something that you’ll be thinking about as you move into 2021 and beyond?
Dan Frey:
It’s Dan. I’d say both, which goes to the comment that we’ve made a couple time about being cautious in our view of the net impact of COVID, and we’ll continue to consider that as we think about the product on a go-forward basis.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it. Then Alan, I know you and the firm, you’ve been vocal about social inflation trends, particularly in commercial auto the last couple years. With courts being shut down, now starting to reopen, are you seeing any change in the trend or is it too difficult to tell, just given all the COVID-related noise today?
Alan Schnitzer:
I guess what I can share is we didn’t see anything that caused us to believe that there was any deterioration in those trends, and what we saw was, again as I said a few times, favorable. We think the extent to which it’s favorable is a temporary phenomenon, so I guess that’s how I’d answer the question. Nothing in the quarter that caused us to think anything was deteriorating.
Dan Frey:
Yes. At the same time, we certainly don’t think that social inflation has gone away, and so our long-term expectation is that the sort of elevated levels of losses that we’ve seen related to social inflation probably persist.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it. Thank you for the answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jimmy Bhullar from JP Morgan. Your line is open.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Hi, good morning. First, I just had a question on pricing in the workers’ comp line - obviously it’s been declining. Are you seeing any signs of stability in that, or what are you views on where that’s headed?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think, Jimmy, I’d repeat what we said last quarter, which is when we look at our data, we look at the data coming out of rating bureaus, we would think that we are somewhere near an inflection point. Whether it’s now or in the coming quarters, not really sure, but we would expect in the relatively near-ish term for that pricing to come back to negative, and then turn positive. It’s impossible to pick the exact quarter or date that’s going to happen, but that would be our near term outlook.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay, and then you mentioned you’ll evaluate price versus risk on reinsurance. It seems like the reinsurance prices are obviously going up a decent amount. Any sort of initial indications of your views on price versus risk, given what’s going on in the reinsurance markets versus last year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, we certainly expect reinsurance pricing to go up - that’s one of the factors that’s driving our pricing and the pricing generally in the primary market going up, and we think that’s going to persist. I guess the thing I would add as it relates to us is we are, as we’ve said many times, a gross line underwriter. We like our underwriting, we intend to keep it, and so compared to many of our--many in the industry, we buy on a relative basis less reinsurance, and frankly we could buy even less than we do. We could buy a little more, we could buy a little less depending on the risk and reward that we see in that purchase. To the extent that we’re relatively less reliant on reinsurance than others, the fact that reinsurance pricing’s going up is probably a benefit to us.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay, and then just lastly, what are some of the things that you’re watching to determine whether to start buying back stock again?
Dan Frey:
I think Jimmy, there’s still overall economic uncertainty, right, so even as we sit here today, what’s the depth and duration going to be of economic downturn, is there going to be a second dip in the economy, how quickly are COVID cases going to be brought under control, how quickly are things going to reopen, there’s just still a lot of uncertainty that could impact both our top line and the loss environment in which we’re operating, so we’re choosing to be a little cautious here still. Clearly through the third quarter, on top of all that, we had a very active cat quarter, so it just didn’t feel like the right time to be restarting buybacks.
Jimmy Bhullar:
Okay, thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
We have time for one further question. Our final question today will come from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Great, thanks. I think it was Dan before - and I apologize for not knowing for sure - that talked about how you were taking a conservative view of accident year loss picks in light of uncertainty, and only recognizing the frequency benefit that you had to. Was there a sort of similar approach taken to reserve reviews in the quarter?
Dan Frey:
Meyer, it’s Dan. I’m not sure I quite understand the question. The reserves will be a result of the loss picks that we made in the current accident year during the quarter.
Meyer Shields:
Right, so if I understand correctly, there is an overall conservatism because of the fact that things are developing differently as we work our way through COVID and the economic ramifications, and I’m wondering whether that conservatism had an unusual impact on the selections you made with regard to reviewing prior period reserves as well.
Dan Frey:
Yes, I wouldn’t think so. I think the comment that Alan just made a few minutes ago around the impact of courts being closed and settlements being down, we see some disruption in the data but we’re not taking that as a favorability in the development patterns that we’re assuming on a long-term basis.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, that’s helpful. A second follow-up if I can, really quickly. How should we think about the impact on return on equity or on indicated pricing if corporate tax rates go up?
Alan Schnitzer:
Taxes are an input in the income statement, like any other expense, and so it flows through the models.
Dan Frey:
Yes, so that would be one of the many things that gets factored into our pricing. Obviously it wouldn’t just impact us, it would impact the economy more broadly, and as Alan said a bunch of times, I think if we feel like we’ve got a level playing field with our experience and our risk section expertise, we’ll do just fine. But for sure, it will be an input into what the pricing environment needs to be going forward.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, fantastic. Thank you so much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks Meyer.
Operator:
I would now like to turn the call back to Abbe Goldstein for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you all very much for joining us this morning, and as always, if you have any follow-up, please feel free to reach out to Investor Relations. Hope everybody has a good day. Thanks.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time, you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 23, 2020. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, please go ahead.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our second quarter 2020 results. We released our press release, financial statement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. As we shared in our pre-release last week and again this morning, we reported a small net loss for the quarter due to a high level of catastrophe losses and, as we expected, a loss in our non-fixed income investment portfolio. Dan will have more to say about both shortly. Our underlying underwriting income of $572 million pre-tax was up $254 million over the prior year quarter, benefiting from solid net earned premium and a 3.5 point improvement in the underlying combined ratio to a strong 91.4%. The pandemic and related economic conditions had only a modest net impact on our underwriting results. As I shared in my prepared remarks last quarter, there will be COVID-19-related loss activity, but there will be some offsetting decline in losses due to people across the country sheltering in place. For us, in the quarter, $114 million of direct losses and $63 million of audit premium adjustments were about offset by initial estimates of favorable loss activity, most of which is in short-tail lines. Given the continued uncertainty, we’ve taken a cautious approach to recognizing the net impact of COVID-19-related loss activity. Some industry observers have speculated about the aggregate level of insured and investment losses arising out of the pandemic. We don’t doubt the losses will be significant, but they won’t be borne evenly across insurers. Our manageable COVID-related insurance losses so far this year are a reflection of our disciplined approach to risk selection, as well as terms and conditions. And as we shared with you in some detail last quarter, we manage our investment portfolio with a similar regard to balancing risk and reward. Last quarter, I commented on the potential future impacts the pandemic might have on each of our key lines of business. I’ll review that again with a quarter’s worth of experience. In personal auto, we’ve seen a meaningful drop-off in auto frequency, although that is moderating as economic activity picks up. At the same time, we’ve taken into consideration the potential for some offsetting impact in terms of auto severity due to factors such as collisions occurring at higher speeds and driver distraction. In workers’ compensation, COVID-related claims mostly relate to healthcare workers and first responders, which do not represent a significant part of our book of business. Also, the frequency of those claims stabilized during the quarter, which might be attributed to an improved supply of PPE and the healthcare community having the benefit of more experience with managing COVID patients. More probably beyond the healthcare sector, data from some of the state workers’ comp systems suggests that the COVID-related claim rate is low relative to the infection rate. That’s likely partly attributable to the fact that the population most seriously affected by COVID-19 skews older and is not the workforce. Nonetheless, in developing our loss estimates, we’ve taken into consideration the potential for the delayed reporting of claims and additional claim activity associated with recent spikes in infection rates, as well as uncertainty related to the longer-term implications of the disease. As we anticipated, some states have effectively expanded the scope of workers’ comp coverage by creating presumptions of compensability. In most cases, states have taken a thoughtful approach protecting workers appropriately, but not unreasonably burdening the workers’ compensation system. Where states have acted to expand compensability, we’ve adjusted our loss estimates accordingly. In terms of non-COVID workers’ comp losses, we’ve seen the lower volume of workers’ comp claims as workers have stayed home. This will abate as people get back to the workplace. In addition to taking that into account, we have contemplated that severity could be adversely affected by injured workers delaying treatment due to the stay-at-home work environment. Having said all that, our experience is that there’s a low level of worker’s comp claim activity associated with economic recessions. During periods of elevated unemployment, workers tend to be more motivated to stay at their jobs and the workforce tends to be more seasoned. In management liability, as we expected, we’re seeing the elevated level of claim activity, typically associated with stock market volatility and workforce reductions. The underlying combined ratio this quarter in Bond & Specialty reflects that, as well as other loss activity. And we expect that the underlying combined ratio will continue to be elevated at this level or somewhat higher over the near-term. This is not the likely experience we had in the aftermath of the financial crisis a decade ago. Nonetheless, we expect the return from this segment will continue to be healthy. Turning to the surety business. We’ve been pleased to see that work is continuing on the vast majority of construction projects. However, the depth and duration of stressing the economy continues to be risk factors of the surety business The line will also be impacted by other factors, such as the financial strength in the bonded firms. As I shared last quarter, our high-quality surety book was effectively stress tested in the 2008 financial crisis and performed well, and our underwriting approach has remained disciplined since that time. In that regard, so far, we haven’t seen anything that has caused us to change our surety loss estimates. In terms of business interruption coverages under commercial property policies, there’s a fair amount of litigation challenging coverage. As a reminder, our commercial property insurance policies that include business interruption, including as a result of civil authority, require losses to be caused by direct physical damage to property from a covered cause of loss. In addition, our standard policy forms specifically exclude loss or damage caused by or resulting from a virus. A few court decisions we’ve seen so far, one in New York and one in Michigan, have both upheld the physical damage requirements in the context of COVID-19. On the legislative front, efforts to retroactively expand coverage for business interruptions seem to be diminishing. Finally, with respect to liability coverages. As people shelter in place, we are seeing fewer commercial auto accidents and slip-and-fall type claims. Anecdotally, we are also seeing some movement by the Plaintiffs’ Bar to settle claims faster, but it’s too soon to know how significant that benefit might be. We’re also encouraged by states that have adopted COVID-related liability protections and similar efforts that are underway in other states and at the federal level. We shouldn’t let frivolous lawsuits undermine the nation’s recovery. Nonetheless, we expect the Plaintiffs’ Bar to continue to be active. Turning to the quarter on the top line, we’re very pleased with our production results. Excluding the auto premium refunds we provided to our customers, net written premiums grew by 2%, as the impact of COVID-19 on insured exposures was more than offset by strong renewal rate change in all three segments. In Business Insurance, we achieved renewal rate change of 7.4%, the highest level since 2013 and close to the record level we achieved that year. Excluding workers’ comp, renewal rate change was double digits. Importantly, retention levels remain strong. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 3%, as our domestic management liability business achieved a record renewal rate change, while maintaining strong retention. In Personal Insurance, excluding the other premium refunds, net written premiums increased by 6%, driven by strong retention and new business in both Agency Auto and Agency Homeowners. In our Agency Homeowners business, renewal premium change remained strong at 7.7%, and we hit a record for new business. Let me take a minute to comment on the commercial rate environment. Before the pandemic struck, there were a number of industry-wide factors putting upward pressure on prices, namely increased volatility of weather-related losses, interest rates at historical lows, and a growing recognition of higher loss trend in the liability lines. All of those conditions persist. And now, at another quarter with a very high-level of weather-related losses, interest rates that are likely to be lower for longer, and while it hasn’t been a significant factor for us, the reinsurance market that is hardened. And on top of that, the pandemic and related economic fallout add a sense of incremental uncertainty, making this feel like one of those times, not unlike in the wake of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, when the market recalibrates risk. With that as the background, we’ll continue to seek rate gains and manage other levers of profitability to improve the outlook for returns. I’ll close by saying that I couldn’t be more grateful to my Travelers colleagues for their grit and commitment to taking care of our customers, our business partners, our communities and each other. Also, the work they’ve done in recent years to advance our innovation agenda has equipped us with state-of-the-art digital tools and other capabilities that make all the difference in this environment, we were well prepared. And from here, we’re well positioned. Free from financial and operational distractions, we’ll continue uninterrupted, managing our business and investing for long-term success. In short, we’re confident in our ability to continue to succeed through these uncertain times and to benefit from the strength of our franchise as the economy recovers. And with that, I’ll turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Our core loss for the second quarter was $50 million, compared to core income of $537 million in the prior year quarter. The change resulted primarily from a higher level of catastrophe losses and, as expected, lower net investment income. For the quarter, the net impact related to COVID-19 is included in our underlying results, not as part of our cat figure and was modest, more on that in a minute. Our second quarter results include $854 million of pre-tax cat losses, compared to only $367 million in last year’s second quarter. This quarter’s cats include severe storms in several regions of the United States, as well as $91 million of losses related to civil unrest. Regarding our property aggregate catastrophe XOL treaty for 2020, as of June 30, we have accumulated about $1.4 billion of qualifying losses towards the aggregate retention of $1.55 billion. The treaty provides aggregate coverage of $280 million, or $500 million of losses above that $1.55 billion retention. The underlying combined ratio of 91.4%, which excludes the impacts of cats and PYD, improved by 3.5 points compared to 94.9% in last year’s second quarter. The underlying loss ratio improved by more than 4 points, and benefited from a lower level of non-cat weather losses, favorable frequency in personal auto from the shelter in place environment, net of related premium refunds, and the impact of earned pricing in excess of loss trend. The expense ratio of 31% is 0.8 point higher than the prior year quarter and above our recent run rate. This change was, as expected, due to the reduction in premiums associated with the pandemic’s impact on the economy, along with the premium refunds to our personal auto customers. The net impact of COVID-19 and its related effects on the economy were modest in terms of our overall second quarter underwriting income. Our top line was resilient. Excluding the premium refunds in Personal Insurance, net written premiums increased by 2%, driven by strong renewal rate change in all three segments that more than offset lower insured exposures. In terms of operating expenses, results were adversely impacted by modest increases in the allowance for bad debt and the accrual for supplemental commissions. Those expense increases, however, were roughly offset by lower expenses in other categories, for example, travel costs were down as our employees continue to work primarily from home. The economic impacts related to COVID-19 also affected our underlying losses. For example, losses directly related to COVID-19 totaled $114 million, primarily workers’ comp in Business Insurance and management liability losses in our Bond & Specialty business. On the other hand, we experienced significant reductions in auto claims, as there were fewer cars on the road during the second quarter, and to a lesser degree, recognized the benefit, reflecting fewer traditional workers’ comp claims as more people work from home. As you heard from Alan, given the uncertainty in the current environment, we took a cautious approach in estimating the net impact of COVID-related losses. We have recorded the estimated cost for all losses incurred through June 30, including incurred losses for which claims have not yet been recorded. All losses have been recorded at our estimate of ultimate, and the majority of the COVID-19-related insurance losses we have booked in the first and second quarters are still sitting in our IBNR reserves. We have not recognized losses or benefits from COVID-19-related insured events that we anticipate will occur subsequent to the end of the quarter. Taking a step back on a year-to-date basis, the impact on our results, excluding net investment income from COVID-19 and its related effects is a net charge of about $50 million pre-tax. Turning to prior year reserve development. In Personal Insurance, both auto and property losses came in better-than-expected for multiple accident years. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, we saw larger losses than expected in management liability, resulting in prior year strengthening of $33 million, largely offsetting the favorable development in Personal Insurance. In Business Insurance, there was no net prior year reserve development, as better-than-expected loss experience in workers’ comp and commercial property, was largely offset by unfavorable results in our other casualty lines. Each of the movements this quarter was relatively small compared to the reserve base. As you saw in our July 14 press release, we expect to record subrogation benefits in our third quarter PYD of approximately $400 million pre-tax related to PG&E successful emergence from bankruptcy on July 1. As a reminder, third quarter PYD will also include the results of our annual asbestos review. After-tax net investment income decreased by 54% from the prior year quarter to $251 million, somewhat better result than we had previewed in our call last quarter. The decrease was driven by our non-fixed income returns, where results for our private equity hedge fund and real estate partnerships are generally reported to us on a one quarter lag. Accordingly, the impact of the disruption in global financial markets that occurred in the latter-half of the first quarter impacted our second quarter results. As the broader markets have recovered in the second quarter, that should, at least to some extent, benefit our non-fixed income results in the third quarter. It’s worth mentioning here that recoveries may not be reflected in the private equity and hedge fund results as quickly as the downturns were. Given continued economic uncertainty, fund managers will report their results to us and may take a more measured approach and not be as quick to write back up the valuations they just marked down, particularly in light of what may be continued challenging prospects for the earnings and cash flows of the fund’s underlying investments. Fixed income returns decreased by $24 million after-tax, as the benefit from higher levels of invested assets was more than offset by the decline in interest rates and the mix change, as we chose to maintain a somewhat higher level of liquidity and held more short-term investments than in prior quarters. For the remainder of 2020, we expect that fixed income NII will decrease by approximately $35 million to $40 million after-tax per quarter, compared to the corresponding periods of 2019. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.7 billion were again very strong, all our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of slightly more than $2 billion well above our target level. Recall that in April, we prefunded as we normally do $500 million of debt coming due in November with a new 30-year $500 million debt issuance at 2.55%. So our holding company liquidity is temporarily elevated by that amount. Investment yields decreased, as credit spreads tightened during the second quarter. And accordingly, our net unrealized investment gains increased from $1.8 billion after-tax as of March 31 to $3.6 billion after-tax at June 30. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $92.01 at quarter-end, down less than 1% from year-end and up 2% year-over-year. We returned $218 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter via dividends. We did not repurchase any shares during the quarter. As we indicated in our first quarter earnings call, our capital management strategy remains unchanged. With the ongoing economic uncertainty and with hurricane season upon us, it still feels to us like holding on to a little more capital is preferable to holding on to a little less. Until there’s more clarity on the state of the economy, we may buy back some shares in the coming quarters, or we may continue to choose to buy none. Coming back to reinsurance for a moment, let me direct your attention to Slide 19 of the webcast presentation for a summary of our July 1st renewals. The structure of our main cat reinsurance program is generally consistent with the prior year. We renewed our Northeast cat treaty effective July 1 with substantially similar terms and pricing that was up only slightly on an exposure adjusted basis. Our cat bond, Long Point Re III, is now in the third year of its four-year term. In the annual reset for the 2020 hurricane season, the attachment point was adjusted from $1.79 billion to $1.87 billion, while the total cost of the program is flat year-over-year. A more complete description of our cat reinsurance coverage, including our general cat aggregate XLO treaty that covers an accumulation of certain property losses arising from multiple occurrences is included in our 10-Q, which we filed earlier today and in our 2019 Form 10-K. Lastly, let me take a minute to address thoughts on our top line going forward. Looking at premium volume, we expect to experience the impacts of economic disruption. How much of an impact we feel and for how long will depend on the extent and duration of the negative economic impacts related to the pandemic. Because earned premium typically lags written premium, we expect to feel the effects on an earned basis beyond the end of the year. As Alan said last quarter, we do not intend to take disruptive actions – expense actions in response to what may prove to be a short-term impact on premium volumes. Accordingly, in coming quarters, the expense ratio will likely remain somewhat elevated compared to the corresponding periods of 2019 due to the expected impact on earned premiums. Now, I’ll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Let me start by expressing my deep appreciation to all my Travelers’ colleagues, as well as our agent and broker partners for continuing to provide exceptional service to our customers during these unprecedented times. As for the quarter’s results, Business Insurance had a loss for the quarter of $58 million, due to lower net investment income and higher catastrophe losses, as both Alan and Dan discussed. The combined ratio of 107.1% included more than 10 points of catastrophes, impacted by both weather-related losses and civil unrest. The underlying combined ratio of 97% improved by 0.4 points, reflecting a 0.2 point improvement in each of the underlying loss ratio and expense ratio. The net impact of COVID-19 and related economic conditions was modest. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums were 3% lower than the prior year quarter due to the impact of the economic disruption on insured exposures. Thanks to excellent execution by our field organization. These impacts were largely offset by strong renewal rate increases and high retention. Turning to domestic production. We achieved strong renewal rate change of 7.4%, while retention remained high at 83%. The renewal rate change of 7.4% was up almost 4 points from the second quarter of last year and more than 1 point from the first quarter of this year, notwithstanding the persistent downward pressure in workers’ compensation pricing. We continue to achieve higher rate levels broadly across our book, as rate increases in all lines other than workers’ compensation were meaningfully higher during the quarter as compared to the second quarter of last year. We achieved positive rate on about 80% of our middle market accounts this quarter, which was up from about two-thirds in the second quarter of last year. Importantly, we’ve achieved this progress in a highly segmented manner and with retention remaining strong. At these rate levels, our rate change continues to exceed loss trend, even after about a 0.5 point increase to our loss trend assumption. New business of $473 million was down 10% from the prior year quarter. New business flow was down, which we attribute largely to disruption caused by the pandemic. New business was also impacted by our continued focus on disciplined risk selection, underwriting and pricing. These production results reflect superior execution by our field organization in a very challenging environment. As for the individual businesses, in Select, renewal rate change was up to 2.1%, making the sixth consecutive quarter where renewal rate was higher than the corresponding prior year quarter, while retention was strong at 82%. The headwind from workers’ compensation pricing is most pronounced in the Select business. New business was down significantly, driven by the economic disruption caused by the pandemic. While the current environment is challenging, we’re confident that we’re well-positioned in investing in the right strategic capabilities to profitably grow this business over time. In Middle Market, renewal rate change was up to 7.9%, while retention remained strong at 86%. The 7.9% was up almost 4.5 points from the second quarter of 2019 and 1.5 points from the first quarter of 2020. New business of $255 million was down from the prior year quarter, driven by both economic disruptions and our continued focus on disciplined risk selection, underwriting and pricing. To sum up, we believe our meaningful competitive advantages, including our strong distribution relationships and our talent and expertise, position us well as we navigate through these uncertain times and continue to serve our customers and agent and broker partners. With that, I’ll turn the call over to Tom.
Thomas Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty delivered solid returns and growth in the quarter, despite the impacts of COVID-19 and related economic conditions. Segment income was $72 million, a decrease of $102 million from the prior year quarter. As Dan mentioned, the combined ratio of 93.8% reflects unfavorable prior year reserve development in the quarter, as compared to favorable PYD in the prior year quarter and the higher underlying combined ratios. The underlying combined ratio of 88.1% increased 7.1 points from the prior year quarter, primarily driven by the impacts of higher loss estimates for managing the liability coverages, about half of which was due to COVID-19 and related economic conditions. Remaining half of the increase is due to a few smaller drivers, such as elevated claim activity under employment practices liability coverages and ransomware losses under cyber policies. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums grew 3% for the quarter, reflecting strong growth in our management liability and international businesses, partially offset by lower surety production. In our domestic management liability business, we are pleased that renewal premium change increased to 7.8%. This marks the seventh consecutive quarter, where RPC is higher than the corresponding prior year quarter. As Alan noted, renewal rate change was a record for the quarter, while retention remained at a historically high 89%. Similar to Business Insurance, RPC in the quarter was also impacted by lower insured exposures. These production results demonstrate the effective execution of our strategy to pursue rate where needed, while maintaining strong retention of our high-quality portfolio. We will continue to pursue rate increases where warranted. Domestic management liability new business for the quarter decreased $13 million, reflecting the disruption associated with COVID-19 and our thoughtful underwriting in this elevated risk environment. Domestic surety net premium – net written premium was down $24 million in the quarter, reflecting the impact of COVID-19, which slowed public project procurement and related bond demand. International BSI posted strong growth in the quarter, with record rate in our UK management liability businesses. So Bond & Specialty results remain resilient despite the challenges brought on by COVID-19. These results reflect the excellent work of our agents, brokers and employees who have adapted to operating in new ways to continue to provide leading products and services to our customers. We feel confident about our ability to navigate through this challenging environment and continue to deliver strong returns over time. And now, I’ll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tom, and good morning, everyone. Personal Insurance segment income for the second quarter of 2020 was $10 million, down from $88 million in the prior year quarter, driven by a higher level of catastrophe losses and lower net investment income. These impacts were partially offset by an improvement in the underlying underwriting gain. Our combined ratio for the quarter was 101.3%, an increase of 1.1 points and the 12.5 point increase in catastrophe losses was largely offset by a 10.6 point improvement in the underlying combined ratio. The underlying combined ratio benefited from lower non-catastrophe weather-related losses and lower automobile losses net of premium refunds. The increase of 2.6 points on the underwriting expense ratio was primarily driven by the reduction in net earned premiums, resulting from the auto premium refunds. Turning to the top line. Excluding the impact of premium refunds of $216 million, net written premiums grew 6%. Agency Homeowners and other net written premiums were up an impressive 13% and Agency Automobile net written premiums were up 3%, excluding premium refunds. Agency Automobiles delivered strong results with a combined ratio of 85.7% for the quarter. The loss ratio improved over 12 points, while the underwriting expense ratio increased by about 4 points. The increase in the underwriting expense ratio was primarily driven by the impact of the premium refunds I described earlier. The underlying combined ratio of 84.2% improved 9.6 points relative to the prior year quarter, continuing through reflect improvements in frequency, primarily due to fewer miles driven as a result of the pandemic. Data from our IntelliDrive auto telematics program indicates miles driven were down significantly from pre-COVID-19 levels during the second quarter, reaching a weekly low point in early April and partially rebounding as the economy has started to reopen. In response to our improved auto loss experience, we implemented a stay-at-home auto premium credit program for personal automobile customers. In the U.S., the program provided a 15% premium refund on April, May and June premiums. In Agency Homeowners and other, the second quarter combined ratio was 113.9%, 9.4 points higher than the prior year quarter, due primarily to higher catastrophes, partially offset by a lower underlying combined ratio. Historically, the second quarter is our highest catastrophe quarter. This quarter, we experienced significant storm activity, resulting in 34 points of catastrophe losses, an increase of 21 points compared to the prior year quarter, where catastrophes were relatively low. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter was 81.4%, down over 11 points from the prior year quarter, driven primarily by lower non-catastrophe weather-related losses. The majority of the improvement is due to elevated non-cat weather in the prior year quarter. Non-catastrophe weather-related losses this quarter were also better than our assumptions. Turning to quarterly production. Our domestic agency results were solid, despite the challenging environment resulting from COVID-19 and its related economic impacts. Our retentions remained strong, closed and new business were up versus the prior year quarter, and we remain pleased with our policies in force growth. Agency Automobile retention was 85% and new business increased 7% from the prior year quarter. Renewal premium change was 1.5%, as we continue to moderate pricing, given the improved performance in our book over the past few years. Agency Homeowners and other delivered another very strong quarter, with retention of 87%, renewal premium change of 7.7%, and a 17% increase in new business, as we continue to seek to improve returns while growing the business. Higher new business levels again benefited from the successful rollout of our Quantum Home 2.0 product now available in over 40 markets. During the quarter, we continue to deliver new capabilities and products to our customers and distribution partners. We introduced Quantum Home 2.0 in four new states, including California. In addition, we launched IntelliDrive 2.0, which adds distracted driving monitoring to our auto telematics product and delivers significant improvements to the user experience. And after reaching our goal of planting 1 million trees for customer enrollment and paperless billing, we extended our partnership with American Forests to plant another 500,000 trees by Earth Day 2021. To recap, Personal Insurance is off to a strong start in the first-half of the year, particularly in light of a challenging environment. I’m proud of our team’s efforts to continue to work together to meet the needs of those we’re privileged to serve while investing in the business for the future. Now, I’ll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael. Before we begin Q&A, there’s one topic that we expect might be on people’s minds. So we thought we would kick off Q&A by addressing it. So before we open up the line, I’d like to turn the call back over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thanks, Abbe. There has been some discussion by industry observers about the timing of the recognition of COVID-related losses. So let me reiterate that our reserves reflect our best estimate of ultimate losses incurred as of the balance sheet date. In applying accounting principles, we would not record a reserve for a loss that has not yet occurred as of the balance sheet date. Using auto claims as an example, at the beginning of the year, we have an assumption as the volume of claims we will see over the course of the year and what the average cost of those claims will be. But when we report our second quarter results, including our balance sheet loss reserves as of June 30, those reserves do not include estimated amounts for auto accidents that will occur at Thanksgiving or on New Year’s Eve. Those would be fourth quarter events, and accordingly, they will be recognized in our fourth quarter results. The same principle applies when we consider losses related to COVID-19. While only some losses have been reported to us so far, the losses we booked in both the first and second quarter reflect our estimate of the ultimate amounts that we’ll pay for all losses and related costs that have been incurred as of June 30, including those for which we have not yet received a claim. In fact, as I said earlier, the majority of the COVID-related insurance losses we have booked through June 30 are still sitting in our IBNR reserves. That said, the pandemic is clearly not over, and tens of thousands of new infections are being confirmed in the United States each day. It is foreseeable that a healthcare worker, for example, who, to this point, has not contracted COVID-19, will become ill from COVID-19 as a result of their job duties in December. But again, that loss activity will be included in our fourth quarter results. We similarly would not advance the recognition of any continued favorability from lower frequency and non-COVID workers’ comp claims. Finally, I’ll remind you that on a year-to-date basis, setting aside net investment income, the impact on our results from COVID-19 and its related effects is a net charge of about $50 million pre-tax. And with that, operator, we’re ready to take questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Michael Phillips:
Thank you. Good morning, everybody, and thanks for the clarification, Dan, on your last comment, so that’s helpful. I guess, I want to try to get arms around Business Insurance and margins and pricing. Trying to kind of pull out the effect of COVID, you said, COVID was pretty modest in the quarter. Pricing was clearly very strong. Yes, core margins improved 40 bps or 20 bps on the well side. So, I guess, trying to understand, is – does that mean – and Alan, you gave us great commentary on pricing. Does that mean that the current level pricing still isn’t enough to expand margins today? Or kind of how do we think about that versus the level of conservatism that might be baked into the – to the current numbers?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Michael, good morning. It’s Alan. I’ll start by giving you a response to what’s on your mind. At the current levels, written rate is in excess of loss trend. So, looking narrowly at those factors, we are on a written basis expanding margins. Is that where you’re getting at?
Michael Phillips:
It is. Yes, it is. I guess in business interruption, you had 20 basis points of improvement. So, not as much as maybe one would expect given a level of pricing. And so that’s what I’m trying to get my arms around.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. So, as always, there are a number of factors that are driving the underlying combined ratio in the quarter, and that’s true for any business. So you’ve got weather. So year-over-year, that was better. And in this quarter, sort of within the normal level of variability, we would expect for that. You’ve got the earned impact of rate that, as I said, on both written and earned basis, rate is ahead of loss trend. We’ve had improved performances in some business. You’ve got some impact of COVID, it was modest, but not zero. You’ve got the year-over-year sort of ongoing carry-on impact of social inflation that I’ll call old news, what – the – what we’ve recognized in prior periods and it continues to roll through. So, those are – given the relative stability, we’re not going to quantify the pieces. But essentially, those are the pieces.
Michael Phillips:
Okay. No, thank you. That’s helpful. Thanks, Alan. I guess, I didn’t see you mention – and I guess, this is good news, didn’t see you mention of anything on the commercial auto side for PYD. And so maybe could you speak to kind of that piece? And does that mean that there has been possibly some leveling off of the paid activity that’s been part of the concern there?
Dan Frey:
Michael, it’s Dan. Yes, as we had last quarter, so we had some movements in PYD, some puts and takes, some continued good news in comp, some continued pressure in the other liability lines. There were small adjustments in commercial auto and the general liability lines in CMP. But as I said in my remarks, relatively modest compared to those reserve bases.
Michael Phillips:
Okay. Thank you, Dan.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. Good morning. I just wanted to get a better feel for just – forget about the net benefit from the COVID. Just from the direct losses alone or the direct impact, what was the hit that, that had in business interruption on the combined ratio?
Alan Schnitzer:
Business interruption specifically or Business Insurance?
Ryan Tunis:
I’m sorry. I’m sorry, Business Insurance without considering the offsetting benefits, what was just the direct loss impact or direct hit impact on that number?
Dan Frey:
Yep. Ryan, it’s Dan. I don’t think we’re going to give the pluses and the minuses. But within the – we told you that there was $114 million of directly related charges. And while that included some charges for the management liability coverages in Bond & Specialty, the majority of what we took came through Business Insurance.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay. And then, in terms of thinking about the benefits that we’re seeing, I think, in the preannouncement, you said it was mostly short-tail lines. But – so should we take that to me – I mean, first of all, outside of the short-tail lines, are you seeing actual to expected look a little bit better in some areas in terms of the frequency? And is that not something – and if so, is that something that you’re not recognizing yet? You’re being conservative and waiting to see if that continues to be the case?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Ryan, it’s Dan, again. So we are, for sure, seeing some favorable indications relative to what you would otherwise expect in this current environment. And when we look at that, there was too much favorability to simply say, zero is the right reaction. But as Alan said in his comments and as I tried to reiterate in mine, I think, we’ve been very cautious in terms of the degree to which we’d recognize any good news in anything other than the short-tail lines. But there’s some, because it’s very apparent in the data.
Ryan Tunis:
And then just one more real quick. I was, I guess, a little bit surprised exposure growth held in – I think, especially in Select lines, retention has only declined modestly. How should we interpret that? Is retention – is it capturing cancellations? Or is that modest dip, mostly a function of you guys taking more rate? I’m just trying to figure out how to interpret those numbers that seem relatively modest, given what’s happening in the macro landscape?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes, Ryan, let me take – this is Greg. Let me take both of those in the order that you took on. Number one, in terms of exposure change, if you’re looking at relative to Middle Market, that’s really a product mix dynamic. In the Select business, we have – the thrust of the premium is two product, CMP and workers’ comp. In the CMP product, the rating on that is driven more off of property than the GL. And so, we’re continuing to see pricing and inflationary pressure on the property. And so there’s some inflationary impact that, that impacts on the CMP product. And so you don’t see as much of a drag on exposure on Select that you do on Middle Market, where the GL product is more on a standalone-rated basis. And then the retention overall, for Select, we certainly put our estimate of what we see in terms of business insolvencies, bankruptcies, and that’s all inside the 82% number.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with KBW. Please go ahead.
Meyer Shields:
Great. Thanks. Greg, if I heard you correctly in your prepared comments, you talked about a 50 basis point increase in loss trend. And I was hoping you could flush that out a little?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Sure, Meyer. Yes, we look at loss trends every quarter and across the full portfolio, and that’s obviously a headline number. What we did this quarter is, we looked at the impact of the new economy that we see in front of us. We also look at some of the social inflation or liability dynamics that Dan just talked about. When we roll that all up in aggregate, we believe we’ve got a 50 basis points increase in our loss trend in front of us.
Alan Schnitzer:
The thing I’d add to that, Meyer, is that, that is reflected in the underlying combined ratio we reported for the quarter as is a piece of that, that would be catch-up from the first quarter.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, perfect. That last point is exactly what I was looking for.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes.
Meyer Shields:
Second question, I guess, with workers’ compensation being the most vulnerable to exposure unit pressure, does that impact rate need on the expense ratio side?
Alan Schnitzer:
Say the question again?
Meyer Shields:
I’m trying to understand, I know that in general, workers’ compensation pricing has been coming down, because the industry experience has been good, but we seem to be seeing a fairly significant exposure unit headwind. And I’m trying to get my arms around what that implies for indicated pricing?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Meyer, there’s a heavy regulatory component to pricing, as you know, and it tends to be a little bit backward looking. And it sort of factors in the overall profitability of the line, which is, as you know, has been very favorable over the years and that will continue to be the case. So, clearly, exposure will be one impact on profitability today, which will impact pricing tomorrow. But it’s really hard to isolate any one in – any one factor and its impact on profitability, because everything goes in, you’ve got – you start with your expiring rate and then you’ve got whatever the rate change is and you’ve got exposure change, you’ve got loss trends, things like that. So it’s definitely a factor. It’s hard to isolate what the extent of the impact is.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, understood. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning, Elyse.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, good morning. Could you hear me?
Alan Schnitzer:
No. That – we hear you now.
Elyse Greenspan:
Sorry. Thank you. In terms of Business Insurance, I was hoping for the COVID-19 losses. And I recognize in response to an earlier question, maybe you aren’t giving just the loss impact in Business Insurance, specifically by line. But could you give us a sense of where you saw the majority of your COVID losses, that’s ignoring the favorable impact in the second quarter just specifically within Business Insurance?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes, Elyse, so that’s what I had tried to do. So we took $114 million across the enterprise in direct COVID losses. None of that was in Personal Insurance. There was some component of management liability within Bonds & Specialty Insurance, which Tom described and going through their combined ratio. But the majority of those dollars came through Business Insurance.
Alan Schnitzer:
So, Elyse, are you asking for a breakdown by product line?
Elyse Greenspan:
Yes. I was hoping by product line, even if not in terms of dollars, you could just give us a sense of which Business Insurance product lines saw the majority of your COVID losses?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes. The largest line, for sure is workers’ comp, some property losses, both domestically and internationally. And then dribs and drabs, I would say, in other lines, but those are the two drivers with the comp by far being the largest.
Alan Schnitzer:
And, Elyse, I’d point you to my prepared comments or what I did share that this was a modest net impact when we look at the offsetting of the favorable frequency on some of those lines also.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thanks. And then my second question is maybe a follow-up on the prior question on workers’ comp. We’ve heard a few folks in the industry, it seems like starting to point towards the bottom of costs in terms of just the pricing dynamics there. But if I go back to your comments throughout the call, it doesn’t sound like you guys are thinking that the rate declines that we’ve seen in that business are close to coming to an end. So if you could just help us think about worker’s comp in terms of the pricing dynamics there, and whether we might hit an inflection, and I’m not just talking 2020, perhaps even into 2021 as well?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Elyse, it’s a great question. When you look at the information coming out of some of the rating bureaus and when we look at our own, we would say that we are sort of at or near a bottom in workers’ comp pricing.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, that’s helpful. One last numbers question. Could you give us a – you said that they were small numbers. But is there – could you give us a sense of the dollars in terms of the adverse development within general liability and commercial multi-peril in the quarter?
Dan Frey:
We’re not going to do that, Elyse. They’re all pretty modest.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the color.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of David Motemaden with Evercore. Please go ahead.
David Motemaden:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. And, Dan, I guess, I appreciate the comments that you made just before the Q&A. But I guess, I’m just wondering if you could give us some sense of how you’re thinking about COVID-related adverse impacts throughout the rest of the year. Just looking through your portfolio of exposures and thinking how it might be affected by COVID, even if the losses haven’t occurred yet in the first-half. And you have the exposure and you think there’s a possibility that there could be a loss on it. Just wondering to get some thoughts there. I figured I’d take a shot at that?
Alan Schnitzer:
David, good morning. It’s Alan. Let me start with that. And if I miss anything, I’d like Dan to take it up. We’re not going to forecast future losses. Our obligation under GAAP is to report the incurred and unreported losses as of the balance sheet date, and that’s what we’ve done. It’s hard to forecast the future. There’s some uncertainty. We don’t know the trajectory of the disease. We don’t know when we’re going to have a vaccine. We don’t know what the outlook for the economy is. And frankly, it’s – probably the uncertainties for the economy that have the biggest impact on – of the pandemic on us. But I do think it’s relevant to – and that’s why we pointed it out a few times that our net losses in the first-half of the year were – net charges were about $50 million putting aside the investment side. And we’ve put up that net number with a high degree of caution. So I can’t give you a number. We – I tried in my sort of line by line review to tell you some of the factors that we think about. But I think it’s not irrelevant to that assessment to think about our experience in the first-half of the year.
David Motemaden:
Okay, great. That’s helpful. I appreciate that, Alan. And then just one more. So excluding workers’ comp, the renewal rate change, so it was pretty strong, you said double digits. Wondering if we could get a finer point put on that, and then just sort of how that compares versus the last few quarters? And also, sort of thinking about and I think, Dan, you had mentioned you’re looking at loss trend of 5% now in the updated thinking. And that’s, I guess, what I should be comparing to the 7.4% renewal rate change that you got in the quarter?
Dan Frey:
Yes, I think that’s – it’s Dan. I think, that’s the right way to think about rate versus trend, and that’s about – that’s the ballpark. I think we’ve said previously, that trend was around 4.5% in BI and we’re taking it up about 0.5 point in the current quarter. But you got to look at that in, in relation to the pricing momentum as well. And I think, Greg could correct me if I’m wrong. But the pricing momentum you see in this quarter is a reflection of the strength of the market and the continued need for rate.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes. The only thing I’d add there to your point, outside of comp, all of our products were positive. And so we feel great about that execution and mostly, the changes line up with where the need is also.
David Motemaden:
Okay, great. And if I could just sneak one more in on the adverse development in general liability. Hoping to get a little bit more color in terms of what you saw in the quarter that, I guess, brought you to make that change, because I thought that, most of the courts were closed during the quarter. I would think the page would be nothing really accelerated during the quarter? Or was it more just a view of – yes, or was it more just an ongoing review that resulted in the change there?
Dan Frey:
Yes. David, it’s more of the latter. And remember, as we’re doing reserve reviews, especially in long-tail lines like those, you’re looking more backwards at your data. So the actual loss environment of May and June, we’re aware of it, but it’s not really – you don’t have enough time to gather all that data and fully factor into the reserve view that you’re making at that time. So a little more that is still backward-looking in terms of way things have developed, say, through the first quarter.
Alan Schnitzer:
But again, as Dan noted in his remarks, those were relatively small movements.
David Motemaden:
Yes. Great. Understood. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.
Paul Newsome:
You’ve hit the big ones for me, but one just quick one. From an investment perspective, do you have expectations that we would see increased defaults as well come through and I guess that we will see them realized? And is that sort of booked into the investment expectations that you gave us this quarter as well? I’m thinking the actual defaults that we might see from the recession?
Dan Frey:
Yes. Paul, it’s Dan. We gave a fair amount of detail and did a fair amount of commentary on the construct of the investment portfolio and our comfort level with the way we thoughtfully invested. And we’ve given you an update of that investment detail again in the appendix of the webcast presentation this quarter. So I wouldn’t say more than we said, I think, last quarter in terms feeling really good about the way we’ve managed risk on the asset side of the balance sheet, clearly, we’re aware of and looking and looking at and have a regular process to assess credit impairment and default rates and all of that stuff is baked into our numbers. But it’s really not a big impact on us, given the thoughtful investment approach in the first place.
Paul Newsome:
Has ratings migration had much of an impact yet, if at all, on the capital calculations for you guys?
Dan Frey:
No, it does not.
Paul Newsome:
Great. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Paul.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. Just two quick ones here. First one, what was the impact of premium adjustments on the BI written premium this quarter like comp and CMP?
Dan Frey:
I’m not sure I understand the question, Brian.
Brian Meredith:
Meaning like for workers like reevaluating like what – like employment stuff is on workers’ comp. You usually do it in the fourth quarter, but were there’s any kind of early ones where you adjusted premium kind of to reflect what it’s going look like the year?
Dan Frey:
So I wouldn’t say we normally do it in the fourth quarter, I think, what you’re referring to maybe is we do it at the – when the policy period has ended and we’d like to go up.
Brian Meredith:
Yes.
Dan Frey:
There has been some – and we’ve been open to it, there have been some more requests by customers to do some of that midterm. But all that’s baked into our production statistics and the written premium numbers we reported for the quarter, Brian, and you got to break out that one piece.
Brian Meredith:
Okay, thanks. And then the second, just a quick question, just to understand the 50 basis points of increase in trend in the BI. Is that inclusive of what you’re seeing with respect to COVID-19 and maybe the benefits or adverse stuff you’re seeing on COVID-19? Or is that more related to what’s going on with just general kind of tort inflation and some of the increase you saw in your GL reserves and your CMP reserves?
Dan Frey:
I think we’re – we consider everything, Brian, and included in there. And there are some puts and takes, the net of the puts and takes was 0.5 point increase to the trend.
Brian Meredith:
Right. And just on that – following on that, Alan, you made some comments about maybe some favorable stuff happening in the court system as far as some early quick settlements. But in general, what’s your kind of take on what’s going on with tort right now? could we potentially see an increase in tort inflation as a result of what’s going on with COVID-19?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. I mean, I think, we certainly could, and that’s one of the reasons why we’re such big proponents of liability reform. I think it’s important in terms of making sure we’re protecting the nation’s recovery from the pandemic. I think, you hear a lot of rhetoric out there on that topic. But every – everything we see and everything we’re anticipating is in that loss trend number.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
And we have time for one more question coming from the line of Jamminder Bhullar with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Good morning. So first, I had a question on just the commercial auto business. If you could talk about what you’re seeing in terms of frequency, is that picking up as traffic’s been increasing recently? And then relatedly, just your views on the rate adequacy in that line, given that you’ve been raising prices for a while? Or do you think rates need to go up further?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
This is – Jamminder, this is Greg. Yes, we certainly have seen some favorable frequency activity, as the shelter at home has taken place, certainly not to the levels of Personal Insurance. And just as a reminder, in commercial auto, it’s a little unique and personal, where we do have lay-up credits or premium credits when there’s limited use. And so, there’s a slight offset as we see that frequency. We have mechanisms to give that back. Now as the economy is starting to reopen, we’re seeing that frequency moderate.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Got it. And on the personal auto side, are you assuming or expecting additional refunds in the third quarter results?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
So we don’t have further refunds planned in personal auto. I think, like many, we’re looking forward at what rate adequacy is over time and looking at more traditional mechanisms like rate filings to make sure that rates are in line with loss trend and loss cost. And in personal auto, the refunds really were a mechanism to respond to acute – an acute issue in the early days of the pandemic is sort of the way we’re thinking about it.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Okay. And then just lastly, you mentioned majority of the COVID losses were related to workers’ comp. You didn’t really mention anything about business interruption, and I’m assuming those losses were pretty modest. But is that more, because you haven’t seen a lot of claim submission? Or is it just your view – you have seen submissions, but your view is that those claims are uninsured, given the policy language?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. We’ve certainly seen some submissions, and there’s some claim activity around it and even some litigation around it. As we’ve noted, we’ve got provisions in our policies that we think make that coverage inapplicable. And so we don’t expect many of those claims actually to pay out.
Dan Frey:
It’s Dan. One related comment to that. Even where we don’t expect ultimately to pay the indemnity on a loss, we have acknowledged in our reserves the fact that we’ll spend some money defending against claims that come in for business interruption.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Okay. And on COVID, is that the line where you see the most uncertainty in terms of claims, given what happens on in terms of litigation activity? Or are there other lines where there’s not a lot of clarity based on what’s happened so far?
Alan Schnitzer:
I don’t think there’s a lot of uncertainty around business interruption. I mean, certainly, there’s some, because there’s some litigation and there’s always uncertainty when you have litigation. But we – we’ve got the requirement for direct physical damage. We’ve got two courts that have upheld that so far. And we’ve got a specific virus exclusion in our standard policy form. So we don’t actually see a lot of uncertainty there, and we don’t expect that to be a material loss contributor for us.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Okay. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
I will now turn the call back over to Abbe for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you all for joining us this morning. Appreciate it. As always, if there’s any follow-up, please get in touch with Investor Relations and we’re happy to answer your questions. Be well, and have a good day. Thanks.
Operator:
This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first quarter results teleconference for Travelers. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 21, 2020. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our first quarter 2020 results. Given the current circumstances, we hope you and your loved ones are safe and healthy. We released our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation earlier this morning. All of those materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our 3 segment Presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. The events of the last few months have been challenging for all of us and our hearts go out to all those affected by the global crisis. Before I get to the impacts of the pandemic on our business and comment on our first quarter results, I'd like to acknowledge some acts of courage. First, I want to express our appreciation for the thoughtful actions taken by our leaders and government at all levels to keep us safe and support the well-being of individuals and businesses. Their actions remind us that a society-wide pandemic requires a society-wide response. We would also like to extend our deep gratitude to the courageous efforts of health care professionals and first responders, to their selfless commitment to protecting and saving lives. And for all the essential workers who are putting others first as they continue to fill prescriptions, stock shelves, deliver goods and provide the other key services we all depend upon. Literally and figuratively, they are keeping the lights on, and we're grateful. In addition, I want to acknowledge and thank all of my 30,000 colleagues, many of whom are listening this morning for their exceptional response to this crisis. Employees across Travelers have stepped up in amazing ways to ensure that we can continue to deliver the risk management products and services that our customers need to live their lives and run their businesses as well as the outstanding uninterrupted service that our customers and agent and broker partners have come to expect. Thanks to the commitment and resourcefulness of Travelers' employees and the tremendous efforts of our technology and operations teams, we transitioned our workforce practically overnight to safely and effectively work from home. A few months ago, it would have been hard to envision that we would have more than 29,000 people simultaneously logging in remotely and that we would be hosting more than 80,000 virtual meetings on a daily basis, but we are doing just that. As we have discussed over the last few years, we've been making investments in talent and technology. And those investments are paying off in terms of our ability to keep our employees safe and take care of our customers and business partners. As a company, we are also grateful to be in a position to support those impacted by COVID-19, including through customer billing relief, our stay-at-home auto premium credit program, our distribution support plan, accelerating the payment of more than $100 million of commissions for agents and brokers and a direct $5 million pledge to assist hard-hit families and communities. This pandemic has created a tremendous amount of uncertainty for all of us. Nonetheless, let me turn to highlighting some of the potential impacts of COVID-19 and the macroeconomic environment on our business. I'll start with the top line. As you've heard us say, as a property and casualty insurer, we're a GDP-based business. We ensure the output of the economy. As a result, we and the industry will be impacted by lower premium levels as the economy contracts. How much and for how long will depend on the extent and duration of the negative economic impacts related to the pandemic. We've always been very attentive to our expense base, and we continue to be thoughtful in that regard. In the context of the current environment, we will make adjustments to our expenses where it makes sense. But we do not plan to make significant adjustments to our fixed expense base in response to short-term fluctuations in business volumes. Accordingly, as a consequence of pressure on the top line, we expect an increase in our expense ratio in the near term. In terms of our investment portfolio, the economic follow-up from the pandemic will impact our net investment income. Dan will have more to say about that shortly. Turning to loss costs, there will be COVID-19-related loss activity. But generally, as exposures decline, there will, to one degree or another, be some corresponding decline in losses. What that will mean in terms of profitability will depend on the relationship between the decline in earned premium and the decline in losses. In other words, loss ratios could improve or deteriorate, and that will vary by line. Short-term impacts could also be different than longer-term impacts. Turning to some of our key lines of business. In Personal Auto, in recent weeks, we have seen a meaningful drop-off in auto frequency. As a result, we announced our stay-at-home auto premium credit program, offering a premium credit to our customers for April and May. At the same time, there may be some offsetting impact in terms of auto severity. For example, severity could be impacted as lower levels of traffic results in collisions occurring at higher speeds. Turning to our commercial businesses. In workers' compensation, while it varies by state, generally, claims for injury or disease are compensable when the employee demonstrates that the injury or illness arose both out of and in the course of their employment. With respect to COVID-19, these claims will most likely be applicable in the case of health care workers and other first responders, which does not represent a significant part of our book of business. Some states have taken steps to effectively expand the scope of workers' comp coverage by creating presumptions of compensability. Other states are considering doing the same. There are a few dynamics to this that argue for policymakers and regulators to take a careful approach. First, from a marketplace perspective, shifting the exposure to the workers' comp system will increase loss costs. That will be reflected in rate making, increasing the cost of workers' comp insurance going forward. Also, those states that have workers' compensation funds would presumably bear their proportionate share of the cost. In any event, we're watching this closely. In management liability, there is potential for elevated frequency. For example, under public company D&O policies, we generally associate stock market volatility with a higher frequency of claims related to securities class actions. However, given the breadth of the market decline, causation may be harder for plaintiffs to prove in those cases. Also by way of example, underemployment practices liability coverage, we expect additional claim activity related to the increase in furloughs and layoffs of employees. Surety loss activity for the industry and for us could be elevated depending on the duration of the economic shutdown and the depth and duration of stress in the economy. While projects have been impacted by shelter-in-place orders, our sense is that the vast majority of projects have been permitted to proceed and contractors are currently still working. We believe that force majeure or other provisions included in many construction contracts would, as a general matter, provide relief to contractors for late completion due to COVID-19. Surety loss experience will also be impacted by other factors. For example, the financial strength of the bonded firms, the types of bonds written and security arrangements. Our high-quality surety book was effectively stress-tested in the 2008 financial crisis and performed well, and our underwriting approach has remained disciplined since that time. I'll take a minute and comment on business interruption coverages under commercial property policies. Let me begin by saying that for every claim, without exception, we start by looking at the facts of the claim and the terms of the policy to determine whether the claim is covered or not. That said, our commercial property insurance policies that include business interruption, including as a result of civil authority, require losses to be caused by direct physical damage to property from a covered cause of loss. In addition, our standard policy form specifically excludes loss or damage caused by/or resulting from a virus. More broadly, the issue of retroactively expanding coverage beyond the original intent of a policy is important for the industry. So let me make a few additional observations. Insurers don't collect premiums to cover losses that policies weren't written to cover, requiring those losses to be covered retroactively on any broad scale would overwhelm the industry's claim staying ability for legitimate claims and fairly leading many individuals and businesses exposed. To that point, the industry's financial strength is especially important in a time of increased natural catastrophes. The spring tornado season is already active, hurricane season is fast approaching, and wildfires represents an ongoing threat. On top of all of that, contract certainty is a core underpinning of the U.S. free market system and any effort to undermine that has the potential to set a dangerous precedent. Finally, with respect to liability coverages, in the near term, as people shelter in place, we are seeing fewer commercial auto accidents and slip-and-fall type claims. In addition, we are seeing some movement by the plaintiffs' bar to settle claims faster. On the other hand, we expect that the plaintiffs' bar will seek to generate COVID-related litigation. Let me take a minute to address a related and important policy issue. The trial bar is already actively soliciting plaintiffs for cases related to the pandemic. A number of lawsuits have already been filed, including related to the manufacturing and distribution of hand sanitizer and efforts to develop COVID-19 vaccine. Those aren't our insureds, so I don't have a view on the merits of those cases. But we should all be concerned that many frivolous lawsuits will be brought and will undermine the nation's recovery, including by delaying and adding expense to R&D related to the development and distribution of COVID-19 tests and therapeutics, deterring employers from responsibly bringing employees back to work and retail businesses from responsibly opening to customers and targeting highly vulnerable businesses like those in the health care and travel industries that can't afford the distraction or the expense. On top of these specific concerns, as I'm sure you're aware, the United States has the highest tort tax in the world. According to a recent study by the Institute for Legal Reform, tort costs amount to more than $3,300 per U.S. household and much more than that in some states. Americans shouldn't have to endure that, and they can't afford to at the moment. In other words, our recovery from this crisis would benefit considerably from Commonsense Tort Reform as well as legal liability protection for our health care heroes, firms involved in recovery efforts and all businesses seeking to reopen. I'll now turn to our first quarter results. This morning, we reported core income of $676 million and core return on equity of 11.5%. As compared to the prior year, the results for the quarter were adversely impacted by a higher level of catastrophe losses and charges related to the pandemic, both of which Dan will address shortly. Our underlying underwriting income in the quarter was higher than the prior year, benefiting from record first quarter net earned premium of $7.2 billion and an underlying combined ratio, which improved to 91.3%, despite $86 million of pretax COVID-19-related charges. Our high-quality investment portfolio performed well, generating net investment income of $519 million after-tax. Turning to production. We executed successfully on our marketplace strategies and grew net written premium by 4% and more than $7.3 billion. Given the timing of the pandemic, the impact of COVID-19 on production generally wasn't significant for the quarter. Net written premiums and business insurance increased 1%. Domestic renewal premium change was strong at 7.8%, including renewal rate change of 6.2%. Renewal rate change was up again, both sequentially and year-over-year, while retention remained very strong. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 13%, with strong growth in both our Management Liability and Surety businesses. Renewal premium change in our domestic management liability business was 7.5%, up more than 3 points over the prior year quarter, while retention remained historically high at 89%. In Personal Insurance, net written premiums increased by 8%, with Agency Homeowners up 18% and Agency Auto up 3%, with both lines benefiting from strong production. Across all 3 of our segments, we are pleased with our production results, and we will continue to execute to meet our target returns. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Tom and Michael about our segment results. I'll close by saying that in this moment of uncertainty, our stakeholders can count on us to continue to operate consistent with our long-term financial strategy as we have for many years and through other challenging periods of uncertainty. We have the talent, technology, risk management processes and procedures, and importantly, the financial strength to manage through these extraordinary times and to continue to deliver meaningful shareholder value over time. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Dan.
Daniel Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the first quarter was $676 million, down from $755 million in the prior year quarter, and core ROE was 11.5%, down from 13%. The change in both measures from last year's first quarter resulted primarily from a higher level of catastrophe losses compared to a relatively quiet cat quarter last year. First quarter results also include the adverse impact of COVID-19, which I'll provide more color on in a moment. Our first quarter results include $333 million of pretax cat losses, $140 million higher than last year's first quarter. This quarter's cats include $182 million from the March tornado activity in Nashville. PYD in the current quarter, for which I'll provide more detail shortly, was net favorable $27 million pretax. The underlying combined ratio of 91.3%, which excludes the impacts of cats and PYD, was strong and improved by 0.3 point from the prior year quarter. Our pretax underlying underwriting gain of $594 million was 11% higher than in the prior year quarter, reflecting the volume benefit from higher levels of earned premium in all three business segments, lower levels of non-catastrophe weather losses and an improved loss ratio in personal insurance auto. These benefits were partially offset by the current quarter impact of increases to loss ratios in the commercial businesses recognized during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2019, all of which we discussed in previous calls. And the impacts related to COVID-19, including first quarter loss estimates and increase in the provision for uncollectible receivables and a reduction in our estimate of ultimate audit premiums receivable. The expense ratio of 30% reflects our ongoing focus on productivity and efficiency. The first quarter expense ratio includes nearly 0.5 point of elevated bad debt expense related to the impact of COVID-19. After-tax net investment income increased by 5% from the prior year quarter to $519 million, driven by higher returns in our nonfixed income portfolio. Recorded results for our private equities, hedge funds and real estate partnerships are generally reported to us on a 1 quarter lag. So the impact of the disruption in global financial markets that occurred in the latter half of the first quarter will impact our second quarter results. While not perfectly correlated, our nonfixed income returns directionally follow the broader equity markets, which were down 15% to 30% during the first quarter. To the extent the broader markets may recover in the second quarter and beyond, our portfolio would then see that benefit in future periods on a lagging basis. In the current environment, providing an outlook on our expectations for fixed income results for the remainder of 2020 comes with more uncertainty than usual. Having said that, as a result of the recent decline in short-term yields, we expect that fixed income NII will decrease by approximately $20 million after-tax per quarter compared to the corresponding periods of 2019. Turning to prior year reserve development. In Personal Insurance, both auto and property losses came in better than expected for multiple accident years. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD was driven by better-than-expected loss experience in workers' comp and commercial property, largely offset by unfavorable results in commercial auto. Each of this quarter's movements are relatively small when compared to the reserve base. Regarding reinsurance, as discussed during our fourth quarter results call, we did renew our property aggregate catastrophe XOL treaty for 2020, providing aggregate coverage of $280 million, part of $500 million of losses above an aggregate retention of $1.55 billion. Through March, we had accumulated $414 million of qualifying losses toward the aggregate retention. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $628 million were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better-than-target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.6 billion, well above our target level. Investment yields increased modestly as credit spreads widened during the first quarter. And accordingly, our net unrealized investment gain decreased from $2.2 billion after-tax as of year-end to $1.8 billion after-tax at March 31. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses, was $92.63 at quarter end, comparable to year-end and up 4% year-over-year. Adjusted book value per share included an adverse impact of $0.97 due to net unrealized losses from -- resulting from foreign currency translation, as the dollar strengthened against most foreign currencies as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. We returned $681 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter comprising share repurchases of $471 million and dividends of $210 million. As noted in the press release, our Board has authorized an increase in the quarterly dividend to $0.85 per share. We have increased dividends every year for the past 16 years. Dividend payments provide a reliable stream of income to the millions of individuals who own our shares as part of 401(k)s, other retirement accounts or as part of overall financial planning. Given the current environment, we thought some additional commentary regarding our overall balance sheet strength and our liquidity position would be appropriate. As we've said for many years, we measure success over time. And as a result, our capital management and investment strategies are designed to withstand the periods of stress that will inevitably arise. To that end, we closed the first quarter with over $100 billion in total assets, including a $77 billion investment portfolio. As illustrated on Page 8 of the webcast presentation, our high-quality portfolio consists of 94% fixed income securities. And of those fixed maturity assets, 98% are investment grade. The fixed income portfolio provides a significant and reliable stream of income for us. Page 9 of the presentation provides a view of our municipal bond investments. As you can see, that $31 billion portfolio consists of extremely high-quality holdings. Page 10 of the webcast shows our nonmunicipal fixed income holdings in categories of particular interest, given the economic impact of COVID-19. The aggregate of our high-yield holdings in these categories accounts for less than 1% of our fixed income portfolio. Importantly, where we do have holdings in any particular category of $400 million or more, those are investment-grade holdings of high-quality names as detailed in the notes to the right of the graph. Page 11 of the webcast shows the makeup of our nonfixed income portfolio, which represents only 6% of our total investment portfolio. These investments are highly diversified with minimal exposure to those risk categories that are most vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19. Our thoughtful dent to capital mix has only $500 million of upcoming debt maturity in November of this year. After that, we have no debt maturing until 2026. Our cash and short-term investments provide us with substantial readily available liquidity and that's not counting our undrawn $1 billion credit facility or our capital, or our capacity to issue additional commercial paper. We stress-tested our cash flows and liquidity under a variety of scenarios considering this uncertain environment, and we're confident that we are well positioned to continue to meet our obligations to our customers, our distribution partners and our employees and to continue to support our communities. In terms of capital management, our strategy remains unchanged. Thinking about share buybacks in the current uncertain environment, it feels to us like holding on to a little more capital is preferable to holding on to a little less, similar to how we felt in 2008. Accordingly, we may buy back some shares in the coming quarters or we may choose to buy none until there's more clarity on the state of the economy. Finally, let me take a minute to address outlook. Looking at premium volume for the remainder of the year, we expect to see more significant impacts in the economic contraction on written premium and earned premium. And because earned premium typically lags written premium, we'll continue to feel the effects on an earned basis beyond the end of the year. As Alan said, how much and for how long will depend on the extent and duration of the negative economic impacts related to the pandemic. As you've seen in our 10-Q, we have not provided forward-looking information about pricing levels or underlying underwriting margins, given the increased level of uncertainty in the current environment. As an aside, over the past year or so, we have discussed with a number of our shareholders whether there are other more constructive ways to provide our qualitative and directional views of the business going forward as compared to the form in which we have given it historically. Once the current uncertainty subsides, we will consider whether and how to share our perspectives going forward. Let me sum up what you've heard across Alan's comments and mine to give you some texture as you think about our second quarter. We expect downward pressure on both written and earned premiums, and there will be downward pressure on net investment income. We expect both of these impacts to be pronounced in the second quarter. There will likely be an increase in the expense ratio due to the premium decline. We did not have clarity on the underlying combined ratio due to uncertainty around variations in frequency and severity for each product line. And keep in mind that the second quarter is historically our highest cat quarter. Now I'll turn the call over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. I'll start by echoing Alan's statement expressing our deep appreciation for the efforts of the essential workers who're trying to protect and support individuals and businesses during these trying times. I would also like to acknowledge and thank all my colleagues for their exceptional work. We couldn't be more pleased with the commitment and collaboration we have witnessed among our field organization and distribution partners to continue to deliver the exceptional support our business owner customers have come to expect. While we have many examples, one that I'm proud to highlight is our risk control organization's ability to continue to support new business opportunities, while not always being able to perform on-site assessments. Through the combination of third-party data and remote-enabled technology, we've increased our virtual risk assessments by more than 4.5x from pre-COVID levels. These virtual capabilities have allowed us to continue to support our agents and brokers, while not compromising our risk selection. On to results for the first quarter. Business Insurance produced segment income of $289 million and a combined ratio of 102.2%, both unfavorable to the prior year quarter primarily due to higher catastrophe losses and from the impact of COVID-19. The combined ratio included a 5-point impact from catastrophes, which was higher than we had seen for the quarter, driven particularly by tornado and hail losses from cat 16, which had a heavy mix of commercial losses for us in Nashville, Tennessee. The underlying combined ratio of 97.3% was 2.3 points higher than the prior year quarter, driven by approximately 2 points related to the coronavirus and related economic impacts. Of this amount, about 1.5 point affects the loss ratio and about 0.5 point affects the expense ratio. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums were up 1% over the prior year quarter. This is a lower growth rate than what we've seen over the past few quarters with a couple of factors contributing. First, it is a lower level of new business, which I'll touch on in a few moments when I discuss production. In addition, international written premiums were down 8%, driven by Lloyd's, primarily as a result of continued profit improvement initiatives. Lastly, audit premium, although still positive, was lower as compared to last year. While we will always remain active in the marketplace, premium levels will be an outcome of disciplined underwriting and risk selection as we pursue appropriate financial returns across the portfolio. Turning to domestic production. We achieved strong renewal premium change of 7.8%, including renewal rate change of 6.2%, while retention remained high at 84%. The renewal rate change of 6.2% was up more than 1 point from the fourth quarter of 2019 and more than 4 points from the first quarter of 2019, notwithstanding the persistent downward pressure in workers' compensation pricing. As part of our efforts to achieve target returns, we continue to achieve higher rate levels broadly across our book as rate increases in all lines outside of workers' comp were meaningfully higher during the quarter as compared to both the fourth quarter and first quarters of last year. In addition, we achieved positive rate at about 3/4 of our middle market accounts this quarter, which was up from about 2/3 in the same quarter of last year. Importantly, we've achieved this progress while retention has remained strong. Our rate strategy is to continue to be thoughtful and execute on a local and granular manner. You may have noticed in our webcast presentation that RPC for prior quarters was adjusted down by as much a point or 2, driven by the exposure component. Reestimating our production statistics is normal course for us as consumer activity and/or changes in economic factors and form our estimates of whole demand exposure change. So while our process was unchanged, the impact was more meaningful than normal this quarter, given the significant economic effects of COVID-19 on our customers' operations. As for the individual businesses, in select, renewal premium change was 5.8%, including renewal rate change of 1.6%, which was up 1 point from the first quarter of last year. Retention was relatively consistent at 81%. New business of $120 million was down 6% from the prior year, driven primarily by lower workers' comp pricing. In middle market, renewal premium change was 7.5%, with renewal rate change of 6.6%, each measure up significantly from both the fourth quarter and first quarter of last year, while retention remained high at 86%. New business of $283 million was down from the prior year quarter, which we attribute largely to our disciplined underwriting and pricing. We're very comfortable with our execution, and we continue to invest in our strategic capabilities and are confident that we're well positioned to profitably grow over time. To sum up, this is certainly an unprecedented market environment we're operating in. We believe our meaningful competitive advantages, including our strong distribution relationships and our talent and expertise, position us well to navigate through these uncertain times and continue to serve our customers and agent and broker partners. With that, I'll turn the call over to Tom.
Thomas Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Echoing the earlier comments, I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to thank all of those including medical professionals, first responders and all essential workers who, more than anyone, are making it possible for us to continue to serve our customers, agents and communities. A special thanks also to our agents and my Travelers colleagues who have been unrelentingly dedicated throughout the pandemic quarantine. Turning to the quarter, Bond & Specialty delivered another quarter of very strong returns and growth. Segment income was $122 million, a decrease of $16 million from the prior year quarter. The combined and underlying combined ratios remained very strong. The underlying combined ratio of 85.7% increased 4.6 points from the prior year quarter. This increase was driven by the impact of higher loss estimates for management liability coverages, primarily the impact of COVID-19 and related economic conditions. Turning to the top line. Net written premiums were up 13% for the quarter, reflecting growth across all our businesses. In our domestic management liability business, we're pleased that pricing again improved for the third consecutive quarter to a strong 7.5%, while retention remained at a historically high 89%. These production results demonstrate the strong execution of our strategy to improve margins while maintaining strong retention of our high quality portfolio. We will continue to pursue price increases where warranted. Domestic management liability new business for the quarter increased 5% to $58 million. Our domestic surety business posted very strong growth in the quarter, driven by a mix of larger bonded projects as well as a modest increase in construction activity. International also posted very strong growth and significantly improved pricing in the quarter, driven by our U.K. management liability business. So Bond & Specialty results remained strong in the quarter. And while there is clearly the potential for elevated loss activity in certain Bond & Specialty lines and the depth and duration of the associated economic disruption are unknown, we continue to feel great about the disciplined risk management and underwriting integrity that shaped our portfolios, our ongoing strong field execution and our strategic investments in market-leading products and services, and we feel we are well positioned to navigate through this challenging environment and continue to deliver strong returns over time. And now I'll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thank you, Tom, and good morning, everyone. Personal Insurance began 2020 with strong profitability and production. Segment income was $336 million, up 21% compared to the first quarter of 2019. Our combined ratio of 88.2% improved by approximately 2 points, driven by better underlying underwriting results, partially offset by lower net favorable prior year reserve development and higher catastrophe losses. On an underlying basis, the combined ratio was 84%, an improvement of 5 points compared to a strong prior year quarter, with excellent results in both home and auto. The net impact from COVID-19 on segment income was not significant in the quarter. Increases in the allowance for credit losses on premium receivables and higher loss estimates in homeowners and other, primarily from special event coverages for vetting, were offset by favorable impacts on auto loss experience that we began to see in the latter portion of March. Turning to the top line. Net written premium grew 8%, driven by strong growth in domestic results, especially in homeowners. International net written premiums were down 5%, primarily as a result of continued auto profit improvement actions in Canada. Agency Automobile delivered another impressive quarter, with a combined ratio of 89.4%, consistent with the prior year quarter. Underlying results improved relative to the prior year quarter, while favorable net prior year reserve development was lower than last year. The underlying combined ratio of 89.2% improved 2.9 points relative to the prior year quarter, continuing to reflect improvements in frequency levels. Roughly half of the improvement reflects the continuation of the lower claim frequency levels we had already been observing, while the other half is associated with a decrease in miles driven as a result of COVID-19 and related economic conditions. To add some texture to the impacts of COVID-19, data from our telematics program, which we call IntelliDrive, indicates a fairly rapid decline in miles driven per day during the latter part of March, resulting in an average decrease of more than 40% in miles driven for the second half of the month. As a result, auto claim frequency dropped well below our expectations. Based in part on that data and an expectation that favorable frequency trends will continue in the near term, we recently announced the Travelers stay-at-home auto premium credit program. The program provides U.S. personal auto insurance customers with a 15% credit on April and May auto premiums. The premium credits to customers are estimated to total $140 million for the 2 months and are expected to be recorded as a reduction in premium in the second quarter. The first quarter results in Agency Homeowners & Other were very strong as our combined ratio improved by 4 points from the prior year quarter to 84.2% despite higher catastrophes and net prior year reserve development that, while favorable, was lower than the prior year quarter. On an underlying basis, the combined ratio was 74.9%, an improvement of almost 8 points versus the prior year quarter, driven by lower non-catastrophe weather. The quarter benefited from unusually mild winter weather, leading especially to lower freeze-related claims. Turning to production. Agency Automobile net written premiums grew 3%, with 10% growth in new business, while retention remained strong at 84% and renewal premium change was 2.4%. Agency Homeowners & Other delivered a very strong quarter, with net written premium growth of 18%. New business was up 30% from the prior year quarter. Retention remained strong at 86% and renewal premium change increased for the fifth consecutive quarter to 7.7%. Higher new business levels again benefited from the successful rollout of our Quantum Home 2.0 product. Now available in 37 markets, Quantum Home 2's granular pricing segmentation, customizable coverages and ease of quoting combined to form a solution that is both sophisticated and simple and our increased quote volume and higher average premiums suggest it continues to hit the mark with both agents and customers. Before I conclude, I'd like to highlight a few examples of how our investments and capabilities are paying dividends for us, our agents and our customers in this challenging environment. First, our digital claim capabilities are supporting our ability to respond to customers in their time of need, while keeping them and our employees safe. From the end of February to the first week in April, the use of virtual inspection and damage measurement for auto claims and the use of live video inspection for property interior claims more than doubled. Second, the take-up rate in our auto telematics program IntelliDrive is on the rise as consumers show increased interest in products that determine premiums based on driving behavior. And finally, the digital tools we've invested in to support our agents and brokers are in high demand. Their usage of our digital marketing campaigns, including a handful of new ones developed specifically in response to COVID-19 has increased more than 50%. To recap, we're thankful in Personal Insurance to have had a great start to the year. We're also grateful for the support that essential workers, first responders and health care workers are providing to us and our communities in this challenging environment. In these unprecedented times, I'm particularly proud of the way our team has responded to our customers and distribution partners, while also taking care of themselves, their loved ones and one another. While there will be further challenges ahead, our team's efforts continue to position us well to meet the needs of those we're privileged to serve and to continue to grow profitably while investing in the business for the future. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael. We're ready to take questions now. Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from the line of Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley.
Michael Phillips:
I think my question is probably for Greg. Look, we see -- if you ex out the COVID, your BI margin was relatively flat in the quarter. Your rates -- renewal rate was still up and accelerated. I guess given -- and we hear you what's happening clearly with exposures in the near term. But I guess, how do you think about how the margin should play out in the near term? I guess specifically, I'm thinking, what are your thoughts on continued ability to push for rate in the near term on your commercial lines business?
Alan Schnitzer:
Michael, so let me actually start. And if Greg has got anything to add, we'll turn it over to him. So I think for all the reasons that simply all of this have expressed in one form or another, the outlook for margin is uncertain. And I agree with you. Margin for first quarter were actually quite good. From a pricing perspective, I can tell you that we will continue to execute to meet our objectives. And on many lines, that means we will continue to get rate. Now there will be some conversation about what customers can tolerate in times like this. But I can tell you that customers may benefit as exposure declines lead to premium declines. But on those accounts where we need to improve returns, we wouldn't expect premiums to decline as much as exposure will decline. So in that environment, that would lead to an improved price per unit, if you will. So we will continue to execute to meet our target returns. And obviously, we'll see what happens. But we're coming off a pretty good trend. And for all the reasons that are probably apparent, there are a lot of lines out there that continue to need margin improvement.
Michael Phillips:
Okay. I guess let me -- my second question will be more specifically on your commercial auto book. And you did talk on -- there at the -- on personal auto, you see frequency down in the back half of March, about 40% or so. How does that look for your commercial auto book? Any differences relatively kind of personal auto on frequency declines and how that looks?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Michael, this is Greg. Yes, we're obviously watching and monitoring the trends, and it's really early in terms of watching the frequency on the commercial auto book. But Michael and my team and the group of actuaries are spending a lot of time at a geographic level, at a business unit level and calibrating where the frequency is. But it's just too early to really comment on what the frequency would look like for commercial auto at this point.
Alan Schnitzer:
But we would say, Mike, that it's been down. And I think I shared that in my prepared remarks that it has been done with the exact relationship will be relative to personal auto. That we'll have to see how it plays out.
Michael Klein:
And Michael, this is Michael Klein. I just wanted to clarify the comment in my prepared remarks was actually about miles driven being down more than 40%, not a frequency number. Certainly, they're correlated, but I just wanted to clarify that the comments were about miles driven.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski with Crédit Suisse.
Michael Zaremski:
In the prepared remarks, you talked about certain states for workers' comp instituting presumptions of compensability. Could you elaborate? Is this something that Travelers and the industry is accepting? Or is this -- could play out similar to business interruption insurance or certain of these changes could kind of play out in the courts? And I just -- is this expected to negatively impact margins per comp in the near term? And then you -- I think, Alan, you alluded to pricing changing eventually to account for these changes? Any clarity would help.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, sure. Thanks for the question. So I would say, broadly speaking, the answer to your question is it's early, and this is still developing. There are some number of states that have adopted some type of presumption. In many cases, that applies to health care workers and first responders where who might have expected in any event that there would be compensability. In other states, either they have or are talking about extending the scope of the -- essentially compensability to other workers. And so in effect, that would shift the burden of proof to who's got to prove the way the disease was contracted. In terms of exactly how it's going to play out, I think we'll have to see. In some states, the business communities that are thinking about what that's going to do to their premiums are engaging in the debate along with other interested parties. But exactly how it's going to play out, I don't know. I mean if it were to move against us, we would expect that there would be an impact on margins in -- over the near term. And then obviously, that will work its way into rate making over time.
Michael Zaremski:
Okay. Great. And lastly, in terms of the surety line, which you guys could provide some helpful color on, could you explain how the force majeure will help out? And is this the main line within the bond and surety segment that you expect to potentially be most impacted? Or are there -- or is it more the management liability side or both?
Thomas Kunkel:
So thanks, it's Tom. I would say that when you look at the surety lines, construction surety is about 2% of the revenue and commercial surety is about 1/3 of the revenue. So we're going to focus on that bigger piece of construction surety, you asked about force majeure. So we have force majeure clauses, government action clauses, suspension of work clauses. And as a generality, as Alan pointed out in his comments, we think they're going to provide time relief in the event that contractors are delayed. That will be handled on a contract-by-contract basis. But I think the important thing when you look at the construction surety line, is that it's been termed in many, many and even most states to be an essential business. And as such, it's our sense, and again, as Alan pointed out, I think, that the vast majority of contractors are still working. And so if that's the case, you would look at that construction surety business, and you would say that's a healthy sign. And so I think when we consider the surety lines, the other thing is you're going to see just a big difference amongst different carriers. So it's going to depend on how they underwrote their book the last 3 to 5 years and the depth and duration of any slowdown. So I hope that answered your question.
Alan Schnitzer:
Tom, I think you said 2% construction surety, I think you meant 2/3.
Thomas Kunkel:
I'm sorry, I did mean 2/3. Yes.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Ron Bobman with Capital Returns.
Ronald Bobman:
And I echo your comments for everyone's well-being. And I never thought I'd look so forward to driving to Windsor to revisit your claims facility at some point in time.
Alan Schnitzer:
We look forward to having you.
Ronald Bobman:
I have two questions. In the premium credit area, sort of the relief that you're providing to auto -- personal auto customers, how are you handling agents commissions on the relief? It was my first question, and I've got an unrelated second question.
Michael Klein:
Sure. The answer to the question on commissions, this is Michael, is there is no impact to base commissions from the premium relief. So the agent gets paid the full commission on the policy.
Ronald Bobman:
And my other question was I made -- I took note of Alan, you're specifying the virus exclusion, and I greatly appreciate that. I just wanted to ask, in the very, very small segment, Simply Business that I think some portion of their volume is written using Travelers paper. Does that virus exclusion have an explicit place there as well?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. We don't actually have a property product on the Simply Business platform. So that wouldn't come into play there.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Auto Research.
Ryan Tunis:
First one just on business interruption for Alan. First, I just wanted to confirm that there's not a substantial subset or any subset of your policies that don't have the virus exclusion?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Ryan. When you've got a portfolio, the size of ours, we're certainly going to find a pocket here or there that doesn't have that specific exclusion. But I can tell you that, subject to some legislative action that we think would be subject to a constitutional challenge. We really do not think we have a material exposure from business interruption.
Ryan Tunis:
And for property in the international book, there's no difference of the wording issue there?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, that's a really good question. There's definitely a difference of the way the wording and the product works outside the United States. I'm not a coverage expert and definitely not the right one to explain the nuances to you. But I can tell you if we get to the same conclusion outside the United States as we do inside the United States, we just do not think we've got a material exposure to business interruption.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay. And then my follow-up was just on the workers' comp and the discussion around, I guess, essential employees. You said you don't have much exposure to the frontline workers or health care. I'm curious if you can maybe quantify that a bit. But then thinking about I guess, other subsets that have been deemed essential that aren't necessarily health care first responders. You start thinking about utility workers, food. Any help, I guess, you could give us there on the size of that book in the context of what you're writing?
Alan Schnitzer:
There's nothing we could really quantify for you. I can tell you, as it relates to health care and first responders from a premium perspective, it's a pretty small percentage of the workers' comp premiums that we have. Then once you start getting outside of that, every state defines essential a little bit different and so it's -- we are -- we will definitely have exposure to essential workers. Then you get into questions of, okay, so what are the infection rates going to be? What are the health care costs, et cetera, et cetera? But there's really nothing -- there's really no number we can give you on an aggregate basis, I think that we have enough confidence to give you or that we think would be helpful.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS.
Brian Meredith:
Yes. Alan, I think you've talked about the business interruption pretty well, but just one other, just quick clarification. Do you all provide a virus endorsement to customers at all? And if so, what percentage of your policies would you provide that endorsement?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. So this is across Travelers basis, there are a few number of policies that do have an affirmative virus grant and losses for that would be included in our results for this quarter. So we would have contemplated that in the charge that we took.
Brian Meredith:
Excellent. Great. That's really, really helpful. And then second question, I'm just curious. Do you all -- and this is for Tom, do you all participate at all in the energy surety market? And if so, what are your expectations there?
Thomas Kunkel:
Well, in our commercial surety business, we do have a modest participation in the surety business. There you see lots of different parts of that market from upstream to mid-stream, the downstream, the service providers, we have some parts of that market that over the years, we have liked better than others. However, I think our approach to the energy market has always been somewhat cautious and while we certainly do have a modest exposure there, we're not out weight in any way, shape or form.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan:
So if I take $86 million that you guys called out for COVID in the quarter, and that's around 1.2 points on your combined ratio. And so I guess my question is, that was for 1 month, right, or about 1 month for March. Is the right way to think about it? And I understand you guys don't want to go down the front of giving full guidance. Is the right way to think about it that we would make that -- take that for the full quarter and some kind of math of times 3 or some assumption of how long you think the COVID impact will last within the industry?
Daniel Frey:
Elyse, it's Dan Frey. I'll try to take that. I think that would be very difficult to do for a couple of reasons. One is part of the charge, as we explained in my commentary, relates to bad debt provision for billing relief and billing relief, we expect to occur for a finite period of time. That's going to be based on what we've already announced voluntarily and in some cases, what states are asking us to do. But right now, that's pretty boxed. And so we think that we would have most of that inside what we've seen so far. So far, I'd say there could be more of that in the second quarter, but I certainly wouldn't take that number times 12. Unless, of course, this becomes a prolonged and deep situation in which that situation has to continue on a go-forward basis. I think, similarly, some of the losses that we've talked about, as Tom just talked about, we tried to make -- as Alan just talked about, sorry, we try to make an assessment of where we think we do have some potential exposure outside the U.S. and try to be fully responsive in that regard. So it would be -- I think too early to, one, to make a conclusion. And two, I would counsel, I think, against that approach.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. That's helpful. And then my second question on, in the 10-Q, you guys had called out some prior year adjustments within Business Insurance, I believe, for the fourth quarter of last year. Is it possible to quantify that? And what lines that stem from? It seems like it was offset by other kind of development pushes and pulls.
Daniel Frey:
I'm not sure what the question is, Elyse. Could you give me some help on specifically what you're talking about?
Elyse Greenspan:
I thought I saw a comment in the 10-Q in relation to Business Insurance, where you guys had called out some adverse development for the -- later in the 2019 accident year. Was there any kind of true-ups or adverse development taken on some of the longer tail lines, whether commercial auto or general liability related to accident year 2019 within just Business Insurance?
Daniel Frey:
Yes. So if it's in the commentary in the MD&A around the change in the underlying combined ratio in Business Insurance, we do have the impact of the changes in the liability lines that we reported in the second, third and fourth quarters of last year and disclosed in last year's quarter. Now when you look at those, they carry forward and have an impact on the first quarter of this year. It was not included in the first quarter of last year. So that's the delta we're trying to explain there.
Alan Schnitzer:
But Elyse, if you're -- you may be asking about prior year development. I think that's what you said. But Elyse, maybe we can take this off-line. I think we're a little confused about the question.
Operator:
And we have time for one more question coming from the line of Jimmy Bhullar with JPMorgan.
Jamminder Bhullar:
So I had a question first just on workers' comp again. Can you talk -- you mentioned your views on business interruption, just your views on the legality of claims in some cases. But can you talk about submission activity for the line? And how many claims you're seeing filed versus what you'd normally see file in a normal quarter, just to get an idea on how much litigation there could be in this line.
Alan Schnitzer:
When you say submission, you mean claim submissions? Is that what you're talking about?
Jamminder Bhullar:
Yes. Yes. Yes. So whether or not the...
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Broadly speaking, workers' compensation claim frequency would be down. Our -- I probably wouldn't want to quantify that because I'm not sure we'd want to say what we've seen in a couple of weeks is necessarily going to translate to what we're going to see for a full quarter. But across many of our lines of business, we've seen frequency -- claim frequency down. I'm not sure that necessarily translates into litigation risk, however, if that's the point that you're trying to make.
Jamminder Bhullar:
Sorry, on business interruption, I might have said workers' comp, but business interruption.
Alan Schnitzer:
Business interruption, I'm sorry. There's definitely been some claim activity, the -- and essentially everyone, where I'd say the vast majority of them, we declined it because we've got the exclusion or other provisions that apply. So I don't -- I actually don't even know what the precise number is. But the vast majority, we declined the claim consistent with the policy terms.
Jamminder Bhullar:
And then how does your reinsurance cost coverage work in the sense that if you are -- if you end up losing some cases in court on business interruption, is your reinsurance plan going to cover you regardless of whether you have losses or not? Or the language is such that your primary losses or losses on the primary side will not be covered by reinsurance because those contracts have specific virus clauses as well?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. It's always a mistake, I think, to give claim advice on either side of the insurance policy without specific facts and circumstances and looking at the policy language. But to be responsive to your question, I will say that follow-the-fortunes doctrine is alive and well and reflected in our reinsurance treaties generally. That being said, if there is legislative action that essentially overturns contract certainty, and we end up in constitutional challenges, et cetera, then we're in a new world, and I'm not sure what happens to reinsurance in that situation.
Operator:
And there are no further questions at this time. I will turn the call back over to Abbe for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much for joining us this morning. And for those left in the queue and anyone else that has questions, of course, as always, please feel free to follow-up with Investor Relations. Be well and thank you.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you'll be given instructions for the Q&A session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on January 23, 2020. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers discussion of our fourth quarter 2019 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported a record quarterly core income per diluted share of $3.32. Core return on equity was 14.8%. As you've heard us say before, the primary measure we use to manage our business is core return on equity over time and any strategy to deliver industry-leading returns requires a strategy to grow, also over time. For the full year 2019, we are very pleased that the continued successful execution of our strategy to grow the top-line at attractive returns resulted in record net written premiums of more than $29 billion. Looking back over the last three years, our cumulative top-line growth and its impact on our results are significant. Earned premiums were more than $3.5 billion higher in 2019 compared to 2016, representing a compound annual growth rate of nearly 5%. That volume has made a meaningful contribution to underwriting income. We have a very high-quality book of business and we're pleased that retentions have remained high across the board in recent years. Premium growth in 2019 and over the past three years has been driven by higher pricing with both pure rate and exposure growth contributing. The new business we’ve added has been in products, industries, and geographies that we know well. So, we're growing with confidence. Improvements in productivity and efficiency complement the benefit of volume. This quarter, our expense ratio improved to 29.1%, bringing our full-year expense ratio to 29.6%. That marches a steady and substantial improvement over the past three years from an expense ratio, which prior to that had averaged around 32%. This was driven by our efforts to leverage technology investments and workflow enhancements. Importantly, at the same time, we also continue to make strategic investments in our business, grow our investment portfolio, and return substantial excess capital to our shareholders. Achieving further productivity and efficiency gains continues to be a strategic priority for us. As you’ve heard us say, improved operating leverage gives us the flexibility to invest further in our strategic priorities, let the benefit fall to the bottom-line, and/or be more competitive on pricing, without compromising our return objectives. Over the course of this past year, our results were also impacted by headwinds from a challenging tort environment. Greg will comment on the impact in the current quarter, but I’ll note that we continue to believe that social inflation is an environmental issue driven primarily by a more aggressive plaintiffs’ bar. For the full year, core income exceeded $2.5 billion, generating core return on equity of 10.9%. Considering the challenging tort environment and persistent low interest rates, that level of profit and return speaks to the strength and resilience of our diversified business and our investment expertise. Our results together with our strong balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 6% during the year to $92.76 after returning $2.4 billion of excess capital to shareholders, consistent with our longstanding capital management strategy. Turning to production, our marketplace execution was excellent, and fourth quarter net written premiums increased by 6% to $7.1 billion, marking the 12th consecutive quarter in which we generated premium growth in all three business segments. Net written premiums in Business Insurance increased 5%. Domestic renewal premium change was 7.8%, including renewal rate change of 5.1%, in both cases the highest level since 2013, while retention remained very strong. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 9%, with strong growth in both our management liability and surety businesses. Renewal premium change in our domestic management liability business was 6.6%, up about 2 points over the prior year quarter, and the highest it has been since 2014. Our retention remains historically high at 89%. In Personal Insurance, net written premiums increased by 6%, reflecting growth in both Agency Auto and Agency Homeowners. In our Agency Homeowners business, renewal premium change increased to 7.4%, its highest level since 2014. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Tom, and Michael about our segment results. To sum it up, our performance transformed, called to action, served us well this past year. In a challenging environment, we generated a nearly 11% core return on equity. We also made important investments broadly across our value chain advancing our ambitious innovation agenda. We digitized sales and service capabilities, improved workflows to increase speed responsiveness, rolled out new products, implemented new analytic capabilities, and put claims related digital tools in the hands of our customers and claim professionals, just to name a few. All of these and other important initiatives are part of our coordinated efforts to deliver on three priorities aimed to positioning Travelers for continued success well into the future, namely extending our lead in risk expertise, providing great experiences to our customers, agents, brokers, and employees, and optimizing productivity and efficiency. With our relentless focus on execution, deep and talented team, sophisticated analytical approach to underwriting, and high degree of respect for our shareholders’ capital, we are well positioned to continue to deliver meaningful shareholder value over time. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the fourth quarter was $867 million, up from $571 million in the prior year quarter; and core ROE was 14.8%, up from 10%. The improvement in both measures from last year's fourth quarter resulted primarily from a lower level of catastrophe losses. Our fourth quarter results include $85 million of pre-tax cat losses, which consists of $186 million of cat events, partially offset by $101 million of cat recoveries under the new treaty. Recall that under that treaty, we were reinsured for 86% of the losses above $1.3 billion retention, and that through the third quarter we had accumulated $1.2 billion towards that retention. PYD in the current quarter, for which I'll provide more details shortly, was net favorable $60 million pre-tax. The underlying combined ratio of 92.1%, which excludes the impacts of cats and PYD, increased by 1 point from the prior year quarter. Our pre-tax underlying underwriting gain of $538 million was down modestly from $578 million in the prior year quarter, reflecting a higher loss level associated with ongoing challenges related to the more aggressive tort environment, partially offset by the volume benefit from higher levels of premium. The fourth quarter expense ratio of 29.1% brings the full year expense ratio to 29.6%. These results reflect the progress we've made in our strategic focus on productivity and efficiency in recent years and this is our lowest full year expense ratio since 2005. After-tax net investment income decreased slightly from the prior year quarter to $525 million as increases in fixed income were more than offset by lower returns in our non-fixed income portfolio. In 2020, we expect that fixed income NII will decrease by approximately $5 million to $10 million after-tax per quarter compared to the corresponding periods of 2019 as we projected the benefit of higher average levels of invested assets will be more than offset by a lower average yield on the portfolio given a lower interest rate environment. All three segments reported modest net favorable prior year reserve development in the fourth quarter. In Personal Insurance, both auto and property performed better than expected for multiple accident years. In Bond & Specialty, we experienced better than expected loss development in the fidelity and surety line. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD included about $140 million of better than expected loss experience in workers’ comp and unfavorable development in the general liability and commercial multi-peril lines. When our combined 2019 Schedule P is filed early in the second quarter, we expect the results to be consistent with our commentary throughout the year, with strengthening in the commercial liability lines and favorability in workers’ comp, fidelity and surety and the personal lines coverages. Page 22 of the earnings presentation provides information about our January 1st capture year renewals. Our longstanding corporate cat XOL treaty renewed on terms in line with the expiring treaty and continues to provide coverage for both single cat events and the aggregation of losses for multiple cat events. As you know, for 2019, we added a new property aggregate to catastrophe XOL treaty. First, let me take a moment to summarize the impact of that treaty on our 2019 results. For the full year, as expected, the treaty increased our underlying combined ratio by about 0.5 point. The treaty had essentially no impact on the full year's total combined ratio as the impact on the underlying combined ratio was virtually offset by the benefit of cat recoveries under the treaty, also very much in line with our assumptions. Because we did not surpass our retention level until the fourth quarter, that's when we began to recognize recoveries under the treaty. So the impact on the fourth quarter specifically was a benefit to the total combined ratio of more than 1 point, and there was virtually no impact on the underlying combined ratio. As renewed for 2020, this treaty will continue to address from dollar one qualifying PCS designated events in North America for which we incur losses of $5 million or more, providing aggregate coverage of $280 million part of $500 million of losses above an aggregate retention of $1.55 billion. The aggregate retention for 2020 increased from last year’s $1.3 billion, largely reflecting recent year’s and anticipated growth in our property book. Hurricane and earthquake events once again have a $250 million per occurrence cap. Since we placed the lower percentage of the treaty than last year, the cost of the treaty will be proportionally lower in 2020. So incorporating our assumptions about cat and non-cat weather for 2020, we would expect a full year impact on our underlying combined ratio to be slightly less than the roughly 0.5 point we experienced in 2019. And we would once again anticipate only a minimal impact on the total combined ratio. Turning to capital management, operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.4 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.4 billion. For the full year, operating cash flow exceeded $5 billion, our highest level since 2007, which was an unusually light cat year loss. Interest rates increased modestly during the fourth quarter, and accordingly our net unrealized investment gain decreased from $2.4 billion after-tax as of September 30th to $2.2 billion after-tax at year-end. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses was $92.76 at year end, 6% higher than at the beginning of the year. We returned $588 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $376 million and dividends of $212 million. For the year, we returned $2.4 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Finally, on a financial modeling note, let me turn your attention to Slide 23 of the earnings presentation. As we enter 2020, we thought it would be helpful to point out the seasonality of our cat losses over the prior decade. As you can see, the second quarter has regularly and noticeably been our largest cat quarter. Cat losses in the second quarter have been about twice as much as any other quarter on average, and the second quarter has been our largest cat quarter in six of the past 10 years. And now I will turn the microphone over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. For the fourth quarter, Business Insurance produced $448 million of segment income, a 15% increase over the fourth quarter of 2018. That brings the full year total for segment income to almost $1.4 billion. Earnings for both the quarter and the year benefited from strong profitability and workers’ compensation, our largest product line, as well as higher overall business volumes and a lower expense ratio as we continue to execute on our strategy of growing the top-line at attractive returns and improving our operating leverage. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter was 96.4%, 1 point higher than the fourth quarter of 2018. We've included information on Slide 9 of the earnings presentation that details the components of the change. As you can see on the slide, there's about one-third of 1 point of net unfavorable impact from items that rolled forward from prior quarters. There's also a about 1 point of net unfavorable impact from items that are new in the fourth quarter, including about 0.5 point associated with additional changes in our general liability and commercial auto loss estimates. And along with that, the current quarter includes about 1.5 point related to the estimation of the first three quarters of the year. For the full year, the underlying combined ratio of 96.2% was 0.5 point higher than the full year 2018. Slide 10 of the earnings presentation provides a detailed view of the various items impacting the year-over-year results. Before turning to the top-line and production, I'll provide a little more context on the tort environment in our international loss activity. Regarding the tort environment, to get our best view of the escalating loss costs, we've leveraged our leading data and analytics, and importantly, the tight feedback loop among our business leaders, underwriters, claim professionals and actuaries. We have a carefully underwritten book of business with largely a mainstream orientation, which we have targeted, grown and optimized for years. More than 90% of our domestic policies have limits of $2 million or less. Excluding workers’ compensation, the limits don't apply. While we will continue to pursue claim strategies and underwriting actions to mitigate the impacts from the worsening tort environment, our primary action will be to seek more rate. During the quarter, we were once again successful in achieving meaningful improvement in renewal rate change while maintaining very high levels of retention, which is evidence that we're not alone in driving rate. All of that is consistent with our view that what we're experiencing is environmental. As for international, we've been experiencing elevated losses in the property lines. We're pursuing and achieving significant renewal rate increases to address these trends, as you can see within the international production statistics on Page 20 of the earnings presentation. In addition to that, we're executing a variety of profit improvement initiatives, including tightening terms and conditions, and pairing back exposures of certain lines and accounts. While more work needs to be done, we're making good progress with all of these efforts. Turning to the top-line, net written premiums were up 5% in the quarter and 4% for the full year driven by strong production results. While renewal premium change continues to be the largest contributor, we also grew our customer base for the year through strong retention and new business. We're pleased with the continued progress we're making on our strategic initiatives and remain encouraged by the feedback from our agent and broker partners. In terms of domestic production, we achieved strong renewal premium change of 7.8%, with renewal rate change of 5.1%, while retention remains high at 84%, a reflection of the quality of our book. The renewal rate change of 5.1% was the highest result since the fourth quarter of 2013 and was up seven-tenths of 1 point from the third quarter and more than 3.5 points from the fourth quarter of last year. This demonstrates our continued momentum notwithstanding the downward pressure in workers’ compensation pricing. We are achieving higher rate levels broadly across our book with above three quarters of our middle market accounts getting positive rate increases this quarter, which is up from about two-thirds in the fourth quarter of last year. A further illustration of the broad nature of our progress is on Slide 14 of the earnings presentation. For our core commercial accounts business, the slide reflects the percentage of renewed accounts in three rate bands for the fourth quarter of 2017, 2018 and 2019. As you can see from the graph, the percentage of accounts renewing flat or with the rate decrease has declined, while the percentage of accounts renewing with the rate increase is up, with the level of rate increase skewed higher. In other words, a higher proportion of our accounts are getting a rate increase, and a higher proportion of our accounts are getting a more significant rate increase, and this progress has been achieved while retention has remained at historically high levels. From a line of business perspective, outside of workers’ compensation we achieved higher rate increases in all lines as compared to both the third quarter of this year and the fourth quarter of last year. For the segment, new business of $488 million was strong and consistent with the prior year quarter. As for the individual businesses, in select, renewal premium change of 7.2% and renewal rate change of 1.9% were both up from the third quarter and from the fourth quarter of last year, while retention remained strong at 83%. New business of $105 million was consistent with a strong prior year quarter. We continued to advance our investments related to product development and ease of doing business and are encouraged with the progress and results to-date. In middle market, renewal premium change was 7.1%, with renewal rate change of 5%, up more than 1 point from the third quarter, and more than 3.5 points from the fourth quarter of last year, while retention remained high at 86%. New business of $284 million was up slightly from the prior year quarter bringing the full year total to just over $1.2 billion, reflecting higher new business pricing as well as benefits from our ongoing strategic initiatives. To sum up, the fourth quarter wrapped up the year in which a lot of things went well and we faced some challenges, most notably the continued pressure from the tort environment. We are confident that we have the insights and capabilities to a changing environment that will position us well in the market in 2020 and beyond. We couldn't be more pleased with our local execution and we will continue to see great and use all other available levers to meet our return objectives. Before I turn the call over to Tom to talk about Bond & Specialty result, I want to comment on our outlook for renewal premium change and underlying underwriting results since we will not be filing our 10-K for a few weeks. For Business Insurance we expect RPC in 2020 will be higher than 2019. We expect the underlying combined ratio for the full year 2020 will be lower than in 2019. This assumes the anticipated impact of earned pricing in excess of loss cost trends and improved results in our international business. Underneath that full year outlook we expect the improvements in the underlying combined ratio to come in the second through fourth quarters of the year as the first quarter of 2020 will include the roll forward impacts of the actions we took in the second, third and fourth quarters of 2019 for the general liability and commercial auto product lines. With that, I'll turn the call over the Tom.
Tom Kunkel :
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty delivered another quarter of strong returns and growth. Segment income was $167 million, a decrease of $53 million from the prior year quarter, primarily due to a lower level of net favorable prior year reserve development. The combined and underwriting combined -- underlying combined ratios remained strong at 78.6% and 81.3%, respectively. The underlying combined ratio increased 3.2 points from the prior year quarter, largely reflecting the impact of the roll forward of higher loss estimates for management liability coverages that we discussed with you last quarter. The underlying underwriting gain was slightly lower than the prior year quarter as the earned impact of higher business volumes largely offset the higher underlying combined ratio. Turning to top-line, net written premiums were up 9% for the quarter, reflecting growth across all our businesses. In our domestic management liability business, we are pleased that the retention remained at a very strong 89% with renewal premium change higher at 6.6%. These production results are consistent with our strategy to maintain strong retention of our high-quality portfolio while executing targeted pricing actions. We will continue to pursue price increases, where warranted. Domestic management liability new business for the quarter increased 17% to $62 million and domestic surety and our international business, both posted solid growth in the quarter. We remain pleased with our strong field execution and our strategic long-term investments and market-leading products and services together with our commitment to thoughtful and disciplined underwriting and risk selection. So, Bond & Specialty results remained strong, and we feel terrific about our ability to continue to deliver top-line growth with strong returns over time. In terms of our 2020 outlook, we expect RPC for our domestic management liability business will be higher and the underlying combined ratio will be slightly higher in each case as compared to 2019. Additionally, for 2020, we expect that the underlying underwriting margin will be broadly consistent with 2019, as the impact of higher business volumes will offset the slightly higher underwriting -- underlying combined ratio. And now, I'll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tom, and good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance, we are very pleased with our fourth quarter and full-year results. For the fourth quarter, segment income was $327 million and the combined ratio was 88.5%. For the full year, segment income of $824 million, an improvement of $527 million from the prior year and the combined ratio was 94.2%. The results for both periods reflect solid improvements from the prior year, driven by significantly lower catastrophes. Underwriting income also benefited from higher levels of earned premium. Net written premium growth for the fourth quarter and full year was 6% and 5% respectively, with continued strong retention, renewal premium change and new business. Agency Automobile delivered solid results in the quarter with a combined ratio of 99.2% and was typically our highest combined ratio quarter for the line. The 3.9 point increase relative to the prior period is largely reflective of the unusually low level of losses in the fourth quarter of 2018. The full-year combined ratio was an outstanding 94%, which was comparable to the prior year. The underlying combined ratio of 94.6% improved 0.7 points, benefiting from earned pricing that exceeded loss trends in the first half of the year, as well as favorable frequency throughout 2019. In Agency Homeowners and Other, fourth quarter combined ratio of 75.8% improved by 34 points in comparison to the prior year quarter, which was significantly impacted by catastrophes, specifically the California wildfires and Hurricane Michael. On an underlying basis, the combined ratio was 73.6%, or 1.1 points higher than the prior year quarter, driven by a higher non-weather loss activity. The full year 2019 combined ratio was an excellent 92.5% as lower catastrophe losses drove a 13.1 point improvement from the prior year. The underlying combined ratio was up 4 points to 85.6% for the year, due primarily to higher non-catastrophe weather-related losses, and the impact of the new catastrophe reinsurance treaty. As we've discussed with you previously, we continue to take pricing and underwriting actions to address higher levels of underlying loss activity. Shifting to quarterly production, Agency Automobile net written premiums grew 2% with modest growth in new business and policies enforced, while retention remains strong at 84% and renewal premium change was 2.9%. We continue to make progress in our efforts to grow this profitable line. Agency Homeowners and Other delivered another strong quarter with net written premium growth of 13%, driven by higher new business levels, retention at 86% and renewal premium change rising to 7.4%, double the level from the prior year quarter. We remain pleased with the rollout of our Quantum Home 2.0 product, which is now available on 34 states and the District of Columbia. Quantum Home 2.0 has granular pricing segmentation, customizable coverages and ease of quoting, combines a form a solution that is both sophisticated and simple and our increased quote volume and higher average premiums suggested hitting the mark with both agents and customers. Turning to our outlook, we expect that for 2020 compared to 2019 Agency Homeowners and Other renewal premium changes will be higher, while Agency Automobile renewal premium changes will remain positive but be lower. The underlying combined ratios for both Agency Homeowners and Other and for the Personal Insurance segment as a whole will be lower. This improvement is expected in the second through fourth quarters of the year, assuming lower levels of non-catastrophe weather-related losses. For Agency Automobile the outlook is for the underlying combined ratio to be broadly consistent. All-in it was a very good year for Personal Insurance with a second consecutive year of strong profitability in auto and strong and significantly improved homeowners profitability. In addition, we achieved record levels of domestic net written premiums, new business and policies enforced. We have strong momentum going into 2020 and are well positioned to deliver profitable growth, while investing in capabilities that will continue to enhance the value of our franchise. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein :
Thanks, Michael. And we're ready to take your questions now.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Your first question is from Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley.
Michael Phillips :
My first question -- I'm thinking about Slide 9, and especially at the bottom of Slide 9. I know you guys talked about kind of longer-term trends of 4% to 4.5% that gives 4.5% last time. I know you focus on long-term trends. But you’ve moved that up a bit in the last couple quarters more on kind of a catch up which you again referred to here on Slide 9. So, I'm wondering if you still think that 4.5% is something you're comfortable with or how you think about that going forward now?
Dan Frey:
Hi, Michael, it’s Dan Frey. So, I'll draw the distinction between sort of the long-term trend assumption and what's going to roll through any particular quarter or any year. So, in that slide, we're reconciling for you the difference between last year's combined ratio and this year's combined ratio. And clearly for the year as a whole, when we look at the change in the loss environment overall, it was more than 4.5%. We did remember to raise our view of the long-term trend. I think we talked about that back in the second quarter, but we haven't changed it since then. So, these are more reactions to data that we're seeing in the current environment, raising the level of losses but not the trajectory from this point forward.
Michael Phillips :
Okay. I mean, I guess obviously what I'm getting to is a tug of war between pricing and loss trends, kind of who wins in the tug of war right now. And obviously, this quarter the tug of war went to loss trends because margins were down. A lot of your commentary talks about the outlook being better for the underlying. Certainly, I think you said starting in the second quarter, so you're still thinking that pricing -- earned pricing will get better than loss trends as we get into the back half of this year, it sounds like. Is that what you're saying?
Dan Frey:
Yes, that's full year. So remember, the outlook is really a 12 month broad view of what we think the environment is going to be as opposed to a quarter-by-quarter reconciliation. The comment Greg made is that when we compare Q1 in particular of '20 to Q1 of '19, the strengthening that we've done for 2019 came in Q2, Q3 and Q4 primarily. So that comparison in and of itself is going to be a little different than the year more broadly.
Alan Schnitzer:
Micheal, it’s Alan. I would also just encourage you to make sure you're looking at Slide 10 too. Because there is a lot of moving pieces in Slide 9 that when you look at it on a full year basis, it’s just -- it’s a little bit of an easier view to take in.
Michael Phillips:
Yes. Okay. No, thank you. My second question is, I guess, I appreciate the color year guys gave on the Business Insurance PYD, $140 million you talked about for comp, that was helpful. I guess on the CMP piece, I assume the adverse there was on the liability side of CMP. I just want to confirm that. And then, if so, I guess what's driving that? Are you seeing kind of -- is that more of kind of tort environment leaking down from GL into the smaller accounts of CMP liability or kind of what's driving that piece?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Michael. It's Dan again. So, I'd say broadly, yes. And I’d remind you that if you go back and look at the results we've disclosed throughout the year, even going back to Q1 of this year, we did talk about CMP as being an unfavorable contributor to prior year reserve development and BI even going back to Q1. And clearly, as you are alluding to CMP has got both a property and a liability component, it is the liability component. But as we've made comments over the second, third, and now fourth quarters of this year, when we talk about the liability environment in Business Insurance, that for us is meant to include the liability component of CMP as opposed to this being something new and different.
Operator:
Your next question is from Larry Greenberg with Janney Montgomery.
Larry Greenberg:
I guess I'm just asking a qualitative question. Where you sit today or feel today versus where things stood coming out of the third quarter, obviously you are pushing -- this is all about Business Insurance, obviously, you're pushing price to some extent, you're shooting at a moving target with loss trend and all the issues surrounding that. Is there -- you've got -- you’ve now got another quarter just looking back to from the third, is there any way to say that you are more comfortable with where you sit today and what you're seeing and how the relationship with pricing and loss trend is moving? Just looking for some qualitative thoughts on that.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Larry. It's Alan. Let me take a stab at that. So, first I would say, we're definitely pleased with the trajectory rate versus loss trend. That continues to be a good story. And importantly, you got to look at retention in that regard, that's hanging in there which suggests we think this is an environmental thing and we would say that the pricing actions have room to go here. In terms of our overall sense of the balance sheet, we are closer to the end of this than we were a year ago, that's for sure. And what we're very confident in is, we're confident in the talent we’ve got looking at this. We're confident in our processes. We're confident in our data and analytics, and we are confident that we understand the environment out there. So, very confident in our best estimate. Can we tell you this is the end of it? Of course not. We couldn't and nobody could. But that I don't need to imply any lack of confidence in, again the data analytics people process here. This is an environmental issue and we think we're on top of it.
Larry Greenberg :
And then just as a follow-up. You talk about the other levers that you might have in addition to pricing. Are you willing to share any of those other levers to go at this environmental issue?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, certainly because it is environmental, just the playbooks as you go to rate, that's just the way you solve those issues. Now, anytime you have a circumstance like this, and frankly, anytime in any book of business, we're always looking to optimize. We're always pulling books of business apart in understanding where there are opportunities to improve. And that's true in our best performing businesses and our worst performing businesses. So you go through that process, and there are always things that we can do better and we will do those things. When we look at this environment in particular, relative to our overall book of business, there are around the edges accounts or segments of the business that we think in the current environment don't make sense. And we'll either get the right rate or we'll get off them. And then probably to the question you’re really asking is, what we're doing from a claim perspective. And clearly, the plaintiffs’ bar is getting more sophisticated, more clever, more aggressive. And I guess in response to that, I would say so are we. I'm not anxious to detail our tactics or strategies. I think that would probably be unwise for us to do that. But we've got a very large and very sophisticated claim operation, lawyers’ litigation strategy. And so we will employ all those levers as well.
Operator:
Your next question is from Jimmy Bhullar with JP Morgan.
Jimmy Bhullar:
I had a couple of questions. First, just on the tort environment overall, you've been more vocal than most other companies. Just trying to understand, is the environment stabilizing or has it gotten worse as you went through 2019? And then the other question I just had is on your expense ratio, which was very good for the year. And for the quarter, to what extent is it sustainable versus sort of being an aberration?
Alan Schnitzer:
I'll start with the tort environment and then I'll ask Dan to talk about the expense ratio. Clearly, I think if you look at our results throughout the year, we would say, I don't know if the environment has gotten worse but clearly the losses have come in worse than our expectations. And one thing you got to remember is we are setting reserves for years in various long-term lines of business, where there is a very high percentage of IBNR. So the paid in cases are a relatively small percentage of this. And so we're squaring triangles. We're looking at the data that comes in every quarter, comparing to our expectations. And that's what has gotten worse. And I will say, quarter in, quarter out, we have not responded gingerly. We have responded assertively to this and yet it's continued to come in a little bit worse than our expectations. But as I said before, we are five quarters closer to the end of this than we were a year ago. And again, we think we understand the market dynamics. We think we understand what's causing this. And we feel very good about our analytics and our process. Dan, you want to talk about the expense ratio?
Dan Frey:
Sure. So, focusing on the full year, because there's going to be a little bit of variability from quarter-to-quarter. So, 29.6% for the full year, that's a range we're comfortable with now. Certainly, noticeably, better than it was several years ago and steady progress over the last three years. I think everything comes back to the way we talk about the business consistently, which is we're trying to optimize returns over time. There's not really a specific targeted expense ratio. Although in the current environment the level that we're at now is a level that plus or minus we're pretty comfortable with in this environment. We've been able to get productivity and efficiency gains. And at the same time, we've been able to make the investments in the business that we think to make for our success going forward. And we will always balance those things. The fact that it’s come out at 29.6 for the year feels good. And this is a level that we're pretty comfortable with in this environment.
Jimmy Bhullar :
And if I can ask one more just on personal auto, I think you mentioned you expect margins to be stable in 2020. But if we look over the past couple of years, the pace of price hikes has actually steadily slowed. And it seems like for the industry that's worse than this loss cost inflation. So what gives you the confidence that margins in personal auto won't get worse in 2020?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Jimmy, this is Michael Klein. I would say a couple of things. One, most of the rhetoric in industry about loss trend deterioration focuses on severity, which is a piece of the puzzle. And we certainly are observing some of the same dynamics in terms of collision and physical damage severity that you're seeing folks talk about as well as bodily injury severity. On the good news front has been frequency. And as I mentioned, we continue to see favorable frequency better than our expectations sort of throughout 2019. And we put those frequency and severity results together with a longer term view of loss trend. And view loss trend as actually an aggregate relatively consistent going into 2020. And then the lower renewal premium change outlook is again on the margin. And again, lower but continued positive. And so that's where we land on broadly consistent. And again, I think much like Greg's commentary in Personal Insurance rate versus last trend is one dynamic that drives you to your outlook for a combined ratio. But the other levers that you use to manage the business, including underwriting, terms, conditions, claim process, claim efficiencies, come into that view of the outlook as well. So it's not just a linear roll forward of rate versus loss trend getting it to that answer.
Operator:
Your next question is from Mike Zaremski with Credit Suisse.
Mike Zaremski:
Sticking with the tort environments first. Is it more pronounced, any geographies or maybe by employer size? And probably the number one question I get is, could this -- could we still be in the early innings of this upwards trend? I don't know if there's a way to frame historically how high year-over-year tort inflation has gotten in the past. Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, thanks for question, Mike. So you could look at any one quarter and there may be a pocket of heat in terms of geography or business or line. But I think the right way to answer that question is to take a step back and look at the last year. And when we take a step back and look at the last year, we would say it's been broadly across our casualty coverages, geographically, line of business, and so on and so forth. I would point out that a vast majority of the business we write has 500 or fewer employees. And as Greg mentioned, more than 90% of our policies have a limit of $2 million or less. So, I would say this is a relatively broad-based phenomenon is the way to think about it. Now, yes about relative to history, we had other liability environmental I'll say over last decade or two. But -- and there's some people out there that try to compare them. I don't know that you really can compare them, just the facts and circumstances are different. You’ve got companies that have different books of business. We've got -- all of us have different data and analytics available to us. But I think most importantly, if you look at prior liability environments I’ll call them, those have largely been driven by medical inflation. This one is driven by social inflation. And I'm not aware in recent history of another environment where distributed social inflation has been the driver.
Mike Zaremski:
And my last question is regarding Slide 23 in the deck on the historical catastrophe losses. Would you say that over the last decade or so, Hurricane losses in the U.S. have been less than expected. I am basically trying to get at, should the 3Q or maybe 4Q cat load look a little differently, if we’re thinking about this on a forward basis?
Dan Frey:
Mike, it’s Dan. I'm not quite sure how to answer that question. What you're seeing here is our numbers. And for sure the point I think we're trying to make here is, our experience -- and this includes as a result of underwriting actions taken over the previous 10 to 15 years to really sort of move the mix of our book so that it's less coastal than it was a decade or more than that ago. So there's been a lot of industry commentary around hurricane. I don't know that anybody feels that there's any less exposure to hurricanes broadly now than there was two years ago, five years ago or 10 years ago. I think as a percentage of where our risks are, we’ve probably on a relative basis mitigated our hurricane risk compared to the other risks. And I think that's really the point we're trying to make in this slide is that second quarter for us has been the issue, which is not aligned with the traditional hurricane, not because I think on a macro basis the hurricane environment is more benign. I don't really have an opinion on that. We're just telling you, in our book based on where we write and the exposures we have, this is what our result looks like over the past 10 years.
Mike Zaremski:
Okay, yes, I guess I'll follow up because it still feels like on a forward basis that since we're not going to where there have been -- there's been less hurricane activity. I think the street definitely has 3Q being a little more pronounced and it sounds like they’re saying maybe we should weight it a little differently. But I'll follow-up. Thank you for the insights.
Alan Schnitzer:
Mike, I'll just add. That's definitely why we provided the slide. We look at models and we scratch our heads a little bit and obviously we don't know what 2020 is going to look like or 2021 or any other year, right. We have no idea where the volatility could come from. But certainly when we think about how -- what our assumptions are and what our plans are, our starting point is the last 10 years and we think it's relevant for thinking about this year and future years.
Operator:
Your next question is from Meyer Shields with KBW.
Meyer Shields:
I think this is a question for Greg. Within the BI segment middle market, the delta between renewal premium and renewal rate change was the smallest it’s been in some time. Is there something going on with exposure units there that is worth noting or is that just quarterly fluctuation?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey, Meyer. This is Greg. Yes, that's just quarterly fluctuation. You can see the exposure is down a little bit over the last two quarters, and we do a lot of unpacking on that trying to understand that, individual accounts or broad economic activity, and we think it's more the latter. If you compare the economic activity in the back half of this year to 2018, it's linear with what we're seeing on the exposure change.
Meyer Shields:
And then for Michael, really quickly, you talked about the combined ratio, I want to say for personal lines improving assuming or reflecting a return to normalized non-cat weather. Is that just a regression to the mean or is that a reflection of claims actions or underwriting changes?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Meyer, I appreciate the question. I would say two things. One, we do say that it reflects lower and more normalized expectation for a non-cat weather that doesn't mean a reversion to the mean, it means lower expectation than we saw in 2018. And as we've been talking about 2018 was what -- I'm sorry 2019, what we've been talking about is non-cat weather has been elevated in 2019. We have an expectation in 2020. That's lower than the 2019 level, but importantly, continues to reflect updated estimates and an updated view of non-cat weather loss activity which has been rising. So I wouldn't want you to assume that the assumption in that outlook is the same assumption we had two or three or four years ago. And in fact, it includes more loss content than it would have two or three or four years ago. And so we see margin in the segment and margins in Agency Homeowners and Other improving despite the fact that we have a higher view of the non-cat weather loss content in that outlook than we would have had a year ago or two years ago.
Operator:
Your next question is from Brian Meredith with UBS.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, a couple questions here for you. First one, curious, any update with respect to kind of reviver statutes given we've seen some other states expand or open the statute limitations?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Brian. It's Dan. Yes. So in the quarter, again, a modest amount of reserve activity in our PYD number related to revivers, not big enough to have been called out but we saw California enact reviver, this quarter I think North Carolina as well. California is one that gets a lot of attention, it's a big -- obviously a big state and a very active legal environment. But remember, or in case you don't remember, California had once before open to reviver. And so that goes into our consideration there. So, there has been activity pretty steadily throughout the year. First quarter was the most notable for us and we talked about it then, but there's been modest activity following that and that did occur again in the fourth quarter.
Brian Meredith:
Great. And then second question just quickly on workers’ comp. I mean you've noted and others have noted the really favorable loss cost environments there that is obviously offsetting some of the rate reductions that we're seeing. Would you expect that to continue going into 2020, is that kind of your expectations given the low unemployment environment? Although we’ve seen a pickup in medical cost inflation?
Alan Schnitzer:
Is your question whether we expect PYD to continue in workers’ comp?
Brian Meredith:
No, no, no, just the loss trend environment with respect to workers’ compensation, not so much PYD but just very favorable trends we're seeing kind of frequency trends and comps as well as severity, which is I guess at kind of average?
Alan Schnitzer:
The trends have been favorable. We generally assume a reversion to a longer term mean there. So we don't assume that all the favorability will continue. I mean there has been a very long-term improvement in overall workers’ comp frequency. So we’ve certainly taken into account, but results have been even better than that. And we don't necessarily assume that's going to continue. Medical inflation the severity side has been pretty benign as well. And similarly, we tend to think that these things revert.
Operator:
The next question is from Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research.
Ryan Tunis :
I guess this one is just for Alan and going back to the commentary on thinking we're close to the end than the beginning. So we've had the same charges in the past few quarters. This one is bigger than one we saw in 3Q. Starting with maybe some sense of when you took this charge or these tweaks that you made, how does that give you more comfort? Is there more IBNR in these than have been in the past? Like where are we at now relative to the third quarter that gives you confidence in saying that?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, it's another quarter to another data point. It's -- every time you get a little bit more data, you get a little bit better view on where the environment is. And so, from that perspective, we feel better. I can't look at it and tell you where the first, second or third quarters of next year is coming in. So from that perspective, there continues to be some uncertainty. But we're in other quarter into it. And frankly, we're five quarters into it. And so the view we've developed over five quarters, our view of the environment every quarter, we dig into our book a little bit more and test our hypotheses. And all that gives us a little bit more confidence. I don't -- I'm not -- I can't comment about what's going to happen in the first quarter. We just don't know yet, Ryan.
Ryan Tunis :
So when you think about your -- I guess outlook for 2020 in terms of hopefully improving Business Insurance margins, do you still think it's -- if you were to achieve that, do you still think that would be a result of the tort environment? Or you think you would have more to do with pricing or execution or something on other fronts?
Alan Schnitzer:
I mean, obviously, any of those things could be a contributor. Certainly social inflation continues to be a risk factor and some uncertainty for us. But any of those things could be a contributor. We feel -- as I said, we've got confidence in our processes. We -- our objective is always to get this number right. We price and reserve based on one view of loss costs. And so, it's important to us to try to get it right. And so we think we've done that.
Operator:
Your next question is from Paul Newsome with Piper Sandler.
Paul Newsome:
I want to ask about commission rates. We've seen with anecdotal data that there's some pretty high commissions being paid for workers’ comp. Allstate is changing its personal line -- it's private passenger auto and personal lines, commissions. Is Travelers doing anything broadly too as others are changing commission rates?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, I would say broadly our commission rates are reasonably stable. So, no.
Paul Newsome :
And then on the -- back to material thing. Do you have the ability or is it feasible to lower limits and with that, in your view, really on an industry wise basis be one of the possible fixes for this outside of rate. Because there's more issues on -- the higher the limits, the more of the legal involvement?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, I mean let me just go back and highlight a comment Greg made in his prepared remarks and I just referenced in 90% or so of our policies in liability lines ex-workers’ comp have policy limited $2 million or less. So I don't think it's -- there's been a lot of industry observers that have commented on this relationship between the loss environment and the limits profile. We just don't think that's true. There's plenty of activity on the smaller accounts. We haven't -- and we haven't seen the industry necessarily move to changing the limits profile. We think our customers are out there and they need a certain level of protection to manage their businesses and we intend to help them manage their risk in their businesses. We just got to charge the right price for it. And so, solving this through broadly changing limits profiles is probably not the answer.
Operator:
Your next question is from Amit Kumar with Buckingham Research.
Amit Kumar:
Two follow-up questions. The first question goes back to Brian's question on CVA. Does your Business Insurance outlook contemplate any potential action from CVA down the road because by the time we get to the back half of 2020 some of those reviver windows will start closing?
Dan Frey:
So Amit, it's Dan. We were aware of the revivers that have been enacted and are open in the periods through which they will close. What we've tried to do in 2019 is look our best estimate of the ultimate loss costs related to that activity regardless of the period of time for which the reviver is open. Obviously, when the windows close, we'll have a more crystallized view of the volume and types of claims that have actually come in. To this point, we haven't seen anything in the activity that's coming that makes us change our view of the reserves related to CVA. Regarding the 2020 outlook in general, our view -- one, our commentary relates to underlying combined ratio, but I'd make the comment that generally speaking, and we’ve said this consistently, we don't anticipate prior year reserve development either favorable or unfavorable on a go forward basis. We think all the information we have regarding the claim environment, as it exists today, is reflected in our reserves today.
Amit Kumar:
Got it. But the only other question I have is -- and I want to go back to the initial question on CMP. But CMP product is towards the small to mid-sized accounts. The GL product is towards the larger customer account. I'm curious, just going back to the broader discussion on tort environment, would it be fair to say that the adjustments have sort of started from the national accounts related to middle market and then moved on to select or how should we think about that?
Alan Schnitzer:
No, definitely not. It started in commercial auto and I'm looking on -- really I think 99% of our commercial auto policies have policy limits of $2 million or less, I think.
Dan Frey:
1 million actually.
Alan Schnitzer:
1 million. So this isn't something that started large and moved down. This is something that's started down the small end and spread on the small end?
Amit Kumar :
I just want to understand the directionality of the tort climate, because we’ve consistently heard that the attorney involvement has continued to move down and down and down into the smallest claims, versus the larger claims. That's where I was heading with that question.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, and again, that's why we gave you our limits profile and talked about the fact that a vast majority of our commercial lines policies have customers, employees of 500 or fewer. I mean, it's a -- we are a mainstream writer. We've got a middle market and small commercial business. And we are feeling the heat in those policies that have limits of $2 million or less. Now, we did observe a year ago that to a large degree this started in commercial auto. And that made perfect sense to us, because there was a lot of homogeneity to those claims. Those are very easy claims for the times hard to bring. But it did spread to GL, and again, largely on -- not on the national accounts, large in limit size. Those larger accounts have big limits. Those have always had aggressive attorneys on them. What we're seeing now is the attorney participation spreading into across these small caps.
Operator:
Your final question comes from David Motemaden with Evercore ISI.
David Motemaden:
Just a question for Alan on the tort environment and the losses in BI. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense for how far above expectations did the loss experience come in this quarter, compared to last quarter? Was it a smaller amount of deviation versus expectations, compared to last quarter? Has that narrowed over the past five quarters? Just trying to get a sense for how --where we are in terms of seeing more charges here going forward?
Alan Schnitzer:
I’d say, I'm taking a step back and trying to think about the year, which I think is sort of the right way to think about it. Probably the right way to think about it is Slide 10 on a full year basis, I don't I don't really know that the quarter-by-quarter view really use any insight. But maybe the answer to your question is somewhat consistent than what you said.
Dan Frey:
I think in broad magnitude we saw bad news in the second quarter. We saw bad news in the third quarter. We saw bad news in the fourth quarter. They weren't noticeably different in terms of the way they felt in terms of magnitude. And if you step back and looked at the full year overall related to the tort environment or social inflation, those things being worse than they had been. We’d say the underlying combined ratio on a full year basis compared to a year ago is probably about full points higher than it was. And when you think about the fact that there has also been an impact in PYD we think about that same thing over the full year basis. It's hard to attribute exactly what drove loss changes. But to the best that we can characterize it and if you not take this to be, there's a very specific science. But based on the data and analytics we have, we’d attribute as probably to the place worth about 2 points of bad news within this year's full year prior reserve development.
David Motemaden:
Got it. Okay. And Alan, you had mentioned, just higher attorney involvement, just on the smaller cases -- smaller case sizes. I guess I'm just wondering, I guess just how much has that increased? Like are you are you seeing it now on like 30% versus 20%? Just trying to get a sense for where that is and are you assuming that, that continues to increase in your loss picks?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, so, I don't -- I'm not sure we're going to share the absolute number but I will share with you that the percentage of claims on which we're seeing lawyers has increased by about 10 points over seven years -- over six years with about half of that increase coming in 2019 and 2018. So that sort of gives you a sense of the quantum of the increase over recent years and how much of that has come really in just '19 and '18, half of the increase. One of the reasons why we think it's been such a recent and significant shift. And just to -- yes Abbe is pointing out to me, that's the commercial autos business.
Operator:
At this time, there are no further questions. Do you have any closing remarks?
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much for joining us. And as always, if you have any follow-up, please feel free to reach out to Investor Relations. Have a good day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the third quarter results teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you'll be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 22, 2019. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers discussion of our third quarter 2019 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three Segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Tom Kunkel of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take your questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of our webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us today. This morning we reported third quarter net income of $396 million or $1.50 per diluted share. Our core income was $378 million or $1.43 per diluted share. Our results this quarter were impacted by net unfavorable prior year reserve development and business insurance. Continued favorable development in the workers comp lines was more than offset by a strengthening of asbestos-related reserves and reserves in GL and commercial auto lines. As I shared at an Industry Conference last month, GL and Commercial Auto were impacted against quarter by a tort environment that is deteriorated beyond our elevated expectations. As I'll explain in a minute, we remain confident that this is an industry wide issue and that we're responding appropriately to recently emerging data. Underwriting income in the quarter benefited from record high net earned premium of $7.2 billion, driven by higher pricing and strong retention over the last four quarters. Also contributing was a continued execution of our strategy to invest in the capabilities, we believe are required for success given the forces of change we've previously identified as impacting our industry. In addition to investments in talent, technology and workflow, this includes progress in terms of our strategic focus on productivity and efficiency. As reflected in our sub thirty expense ratio for both the quarter and year-to-date. As you've heard us say, improved operating leverage gives us a flexibility to invest further in our strategic priorities but the benefit from the bottom line and or be more competitive on pricing, without compromising our return objectives. In terms of the underlying underwriting margin, as you can see on page 4 of our earnings presentation, the underlying combined ratio was solid at 94.1% but up 1.1 points over the prior year quarter. Favorable items impacting the underlying results included improvement in our workers comp loss ratio and as I mentioned continued excellent work, including operating leverage. More than offsetting those items were higher noncatastrophe weather-related losses and headwinds from more challenging tort environment. Dan will provide more detail on the pieces, but I'll spend a minute on the tort environment. The aggregate impact of the adjustments we have made this quarter to reflect our latest view of the tort environment together with those in the second quarter of this year and the fourth quarter of last year, added about two-thirds of a point to the underlying combined ratio on a year-to-date basis. To give you some perspective on the loss environment, on page 21 of the earnings presentation, we have included the chart of ISO data showing a measure of commercial auto bodily injury severity for the industry over the past four years. The full year 2018 data just recently became available. As you can see, during 2018, the observed average paid claim cost shifted significantly, compared to the prior years as well as throughout the year. This view of industry data for other commercial liability coverages is not yet available for 2018, but we believe that the more aggressive tort environment is to one degree or another impacting those as well. While the chart reflects industry data is not Travelers specific, the shaded area of the graph illustrates the challenge we've been addressing as part of our current and prior year reserve in process over the past four quarters, developing a stable view of ultimate losses in this case is made difficult by the magnitude of the shift in the data combined with the fact that, it is so recent, the long-term nature of the exposure and a lengthening of the claim development pattern, which is difficult to assess as it emerges. At the heart of the issue is a higher and more aggressive level of attorney involvement on claims. Taking a step back, we will manage through this, but the bigger issue for all of us is that the broken tort system imposes the tort tax across society. According to a recent study by the Institute for Legal Reform, tort costs amount to approximately 2.3% of U.S. GDP or more than $3200 to your US household, and considerably more than that in some states. There's also evidence that some claimants can be disadvantaged. According to a study by the Insurance Research Council private passenger claimants with attorneys received less on average and settlement from insurers after deducting legal and other related costs as compared to claimants without attorneys. On average, it also takes claimants with attorneys longer to receive payments. Tort reform has been a public policy focus for us and we're stepping up our efforts. Turning to the top line, our production results were again excellent in the quarter. We grew net written premiums by 7% to $7.6 billion, a record increase of more than $500 million with each of our business segments contributing. Our premium growth reflects high levels of retention and improving annual premium change broadly across the portfolio as well as a higher level of new business. We're growing our business with confidence in terms of accounts, geographies, and industries that we know well. In business insurance, net written premiums increased 7%, as we achieved renewal premium change to 7.4%, including renewal rate change of 4.3%. In both cases, the highest levels in more than five years. At the same time, we maintain strong retention and grew new business. As you'll hear from Greg new business in our national property business benefited from a level of disruption in the market, as we picked up some accounts on our terms. New business in middle market benefited from success with our business center strategy which you've heard us discuss, and across the board, new business levels benefited from stronger new business pricing. Environment specialty insurance, net written premiums increased by 13% with strong production across our management liability and surety businesses, including historically high domestic management liability retention with improving renewal premium change in record new business. In personal insurance net written premiums increased by 7%, with agency auto up 3% and agency homeowners up 11% both benefiting from strong productions. Given the headwinds that the industry is facing for continued low interest rates, a challenging level of social inflation, and ongoing uncertainty surrounding weather related losses will continue to seek higher prices and improve terms and conditions. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Tom and Michael about our segment results. To sum it up, we feel terrific that the strategy you laid out in 2017 is contributing to top line success in each of our segments. In terms of the bottom line, you would have hoped that the tort environment would not have deteriorated further. So in a business or from time to time loss costs are going to vary from our expectations. As we've explained what's important is recognizing it quickly and taking action. We have a long track record of successfully managing our diversified businesses through challenging circumstances, with insights from leading data and analytics driving our executions, the best talent in the industry and deep relationships with our agents and brokers, who continue to leverage the power of our franchise to deliver industry leading results over time. And with that, I'll turn it over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the third quarter was $378 million down $309 million from the prior year quarter, and core ROE was 6.5%, down from 12%. Both measures reflect the elevated levels of general liability and commercial auto losses that Alan described, which impacted both prior year reserve development and the current action here, as well as an elevated level of non-cat weather losses. Our third quarter results include $241 million of pre tax cat losses, compared to $264 million in the prior year quarter. Prior year reserve development, which I will discuss further in a few minutes, added 4.1 points to the combined ratio, compared to favorable 0.2 points in last year's third quarter. The consolidated underlying combined ratio of 94.1%, which excludes the impacts of cats in PYD, increased by 1.1 points, driven by elevated general liability, commercial auto and non-cat weather losses, partially offset by favorable experience in workers compensation. The adjustments we made this quarter to reflect our latest view of the tort environment added about half a point to the underlying combined ratio, including a catch-up related to the first and second quarters. In terms of weather, noncatastrophe weather-related losses added about two-thirds of a point to the quarter-over-quarter change in the consolidated underlying combined ratio. For context, total weather losses in the aggregate, cat and non-cat, were somewhat worse in the quarter than what we planned for but year-to-date, total weather losses were well within the range of what we would consider normal. The third quarter expense ratio of 29.5% was in line with recent periods and brings the year-to-date expense ratio to 29.8%, reflecting the terrific progress we've made in recent years. Both the third quarter and year-to-date expense ratios are about 2 points below where they were at this point in 2016. Our third quarter pretax underlying underwriting gain of $386 million declined by 14% as the elevated losses in GL, Commercial Auto and non-cat weather were partially offset by the benefits of higher levels of earned premium and favorable experience in the worker's compensation line. After-tax net investment income decreased by $19 million from the prior year quarter to $528 million. After-tax fixed income NII increased by $17 million as expected and our non-fixed income NII was strong was below last year's results. Fixed income NII benefited from an increase in average invested assets, resulting from continued growth in net written premiums and slightly higher yields, compared to a year ago. We expect after-tax fixed income NII in the fourth quarter to be about flat, when compared to the fourth quarter 2018 as a benefit from higher levels of invested assets will be largely offset by lower reinvestment rates. As we look ahead to 2020, we currently expect quarterly after-tax fixed income NII to be about $10 million to $15 million lower than our results for each of the first three quarters of 2019, as the impact of lower interest rates is expected to more than offset the benefit from higher levels of invested assets. Net un-favorable prior year reserve development was $294 million pretax, compared to $14 million of net favorable PYD in the prior year quarter. Bond and specialty insurance had net favorable PYD of $3 million. In personal insurance, favorable PYD of $19 million resulted from improvements in both domestic property and auto. Business insurance experienced net un-favorable PYD of $316 million pretax, including the $220 million increase to asbestos reserves, $134 million strengthening to general liability reserves and $114 million strengthening to commercial auto reserves, driven by similar factors to those we experienced in the second quarter. You may also notice that, we have a small charge for environmental this quarter. As a number of claims and related reserves have decreased over time, we've now moved to a quarterly evaluation rather than the annual evaluation we have historically completed during the second quarter. These reserve developments were partially offset by favorability in the worker's compensation and property lines. The asbestos reserves strengthening resulted from the completion of our annual asbestos review during the third quarter. As has been the case in recent years while there was some slight improvement in several of our asbestos indicators, including a decrease in deaths from mesothelioma as a percentage of the population over time, our expectation had been for more of an improvement. This phenomenon has continued to drive periodic reserve strengthening for us and for others in the industry. As we've discussed before, we added a new catastrophe reinsurance treaty for 2019 providing coverage for PCS designated events for which we incur $5 million or more in losses above an aggregate retention of $1.3 billion. Through September 30th, we've accumulated $1.2 billion towards the $1.3 billion retention should we reach $1.3 billion, 86% of the next $500 million of qualifying losses will be covered by the treaty. Remember that the purposes of the treaty, hurricane and earthquake events have a cap of $250 million per occurrence. Let me take a minute to address the topic of our subrogation claims against PG&E for the California wildfires of 2017 and 2018. On September 22nd, PG&E and the ad hoc subrogation group of which Travelers as a member agreed to a proposed $11 billion settlement for subrogation claims against PG&E. Because of the uncertainties that remain regarding our ultimate realization of subrogation benefits from PG&E, we have not reflected any benefits in our financials as of September 30th. As PG&E ultimately emerges from bankruptcy pursuant to a plan of reorganization which includes the proposed settlement, we estimate the Travelers would recover between $400 million and $450 million pre tax which is net of expenses and net of amounts that would inure to the benefit of our reinsurance. Turning to capital management, operating cash flows for the quarter of $2 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.5 billion. Recent decreases in interest rates have increased our net realized unrealized investment gains. As of September 30th, we had a net unrealized investment gain of $2.4 billion after tax. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses is now $90.9 3% higher than at the beginning of the year. Consistent with our historical capital management strategy, our first objective for the capital we generate from earnings is to invest it back into the business where we think we can do so at attractive returns. Beyond that will continue to return excess capital for shareholders. Accordingly, this quarter, we returned nearly $600 million to our shareholders comprising share repurchases of $375 million and dividends of $215 million. On a year-to-date basis, we have returned $1.8 billion of capital through dividends and share repurchases. As we grow premium volumes with all else being equal, we will need to retain more capital. So to the extent we continue to grow, we would expect that over time, the amount of capital return to shareholders relative to earnings will be somewhat less than it otherwise would have been. And with that, I'll turn the microphone over to Greg.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks Dan. Insurance produced segment income of $179 million and the combined ratio of 107% both impacted by net unfavorable prior year reserve development of $316 million pre tax as Dan mentioned. The underlying combined ratio of 95.9% was a half a point higher than the prior year quarter. There are several moving pieces underneath that variant, so we've included information on slide 9 of the earnings presentation to break down the components of the change. I'll start with the notable items that increased the underlying combined ratio year-over-year. The first three year items that we discussed with you previously with the first of those being the half point impact from the lower earned premium due to the net new cat treaty. The remaining two items related actions we took last quarter and in the fourth quarter of last year related to the challenging trends in the tort environment. The last of the un-favorable items related to adjustments to our loss estimates resulting from an even further deterioration in the tort environment as Alan and Dan have discussed. The impact of these latest adjustments was about a point, with about a third of that relating to the current quarter and the remaining two-thirds of that being the re-estimation of the first and second quarters of the year. Similar to last quarter, this quarter's adjustment included both commercial auto and general liability. I'll note that unlike Commercial Auto, where returns are clearly inadequate, the returns in the general liability line or primary-end access are much healthier for us. Turning to the favorable year-over-year items, first one is point of favorability relating to adjusting our workers' compensation losses, about half of that impact relates to re-estimating the first two quarters of 2019. Second, our expense ratio benefited by about half a point due to the continued successful execution of our strategy to improve productivity and efficiency. Importantly, we continue to achieve this expense leverage, while investing in strategic initiatives that position us for the future. In addition to these individual favorable items, there was about half a point of favorable impact from other items that cause normal variability from period-to-period. Before turning to the top-line, I'll make a comment on weather-related losses. While non-cat weather losses in the quarter were elevated relative to our expectation, was not highlighted in the quarter-over-quarter underlying combined ratio comparison, as they were similarly elevated in the prior year quarter. Catastrophes for the quarter were below the long-term average in business insurance and so all-in weather losses for the segment were favorable to what we would consider a normal level. As for the top line, net written premiums for the quarter were up 7% over the prior year driven by strong underlying production results with renewal premium change being the biggest driver. In terms of domestic production, we continued to execute on our strategy to improve the margins in the book while retaining our high-quality portfolio. We achieved strong renewal premium change of 7.4% in the quarter, including renewal rate change of 4.3%. The renewal rate change was up seven-tenth of a point from the second quarter and more than two and half points from the third quarter of last year, demonstrating continued momentum in our execution even after the continued downward pressure in workers' comp pricing. The higher rate levels are being achieved broadly across the book with about three quarters of our middle-market accounts getting positive rate increases this quarter, which is up from about two-thirds in the third quarter of last year. Also, while the commercial auto and property lines continued to lead the way, our general liability both primary and excess as well as commercial multiplayer line also saw meaningful increases. Importantly, at the same time as we achieved these price increases, we maintained strong retention. New business of $568 million was up 21% from the prior year quarter, driven by strong result in our national property business which I'll touch on in a moment, as well as higher new business pricing and deliberate execution across the other markets. As for the individual businesses in select renewal premium change and renewal rate change both picked up from the second quarter year-over-year, while retention remains strong at 82%. New business was up 5% over the prior year quarter, reflecting strategic investments in product development and ease of doing business. To that end, we're excited to launch the completely redesigned small business owners' policy product in three states during the quarter that includes industry leading segmentation in a fast easy quoting experience. The full rollout of this product will take some time but we're encouraged with early returns. In middle market renewal premium change was 6.3% with renewal rate change of 3.8% up more than two points from the third quarter of last year, while retention remained high at 86%. New business premiums of $308 million were up 15% from the prior year quarter driven by higher new business pricing, as well as success in writing larger accounts during the quarter, while impacts from large accounts will be lumpy from time to time we're pleased to see the results of this quarter as further evidence that the business center strategy that we've discussed with you is paying off by freeing up our local underwriters to spend more time on larger accounts. Finally, I'll touch on our national property business, which has had two consecutive quarters with substantial year-over-year increases in new business. As I mentioned last quarter, in this space, we are seeing more opportunities given the level of disruption in the marketplace and we're selectively writing attractive accounts at our prices and on our terms and conditions. Case in point for the new accounts of size that we wrote in the second and third quarters, we've previously written and quoted 80% of them and let them go when we couldn't write them at prices and on terms and conditions that met our disciplined standards. To close while we're managing through a changing environment and we couldn't be more pleased with our insight and execution. As Alan said, given the low interest rate environment, continued uncertainty around weather related losses and an upward pressure from the tort environment will continue to see great and use all other available levers to meet our return objectives. With that, I'll turn the call over to Tom.
Tom Kunkel :
Thanks, Greg. Bond and specialty delivered another quarter of strong returns and growth. Segment income was $139 million, a decrease of $57 million from the prior year quarter, primarily due to a lower level of net favorable prior year reserved development and to a lesser extent, modestly higher management liability loss estimates for the current year. The underlying combined ratio increased 5.3 points from the prior year quarter. As you can see on Slide 14, about 3 points of that is a third quarter adjustment for management liability coverages, about two points of which reflects a re-estimation of losses from the first two quarters of 2019. Despite the increase the combined and underlying combined ratios remain strong at 83.3% and 83.6%, respectively. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 13% with strong growth across all businesses. In domestic management liability, we are pleased that retention remained at a historically high 90% with a renewal premium change higher at 4.8%. New business for the quarter was a record $67 million. Domestic surety growth reflected higher bond bonded contract sizes and our international growth was primarily in our UK management liability businesses, including from new product offerings. Our production results reflect the profitability of our high-quality portfolio, strong field execution and our strategic long-term investments in our suite of products and services, together with our commitment to thoughtful and disciplined underwriting and risk selection. As reflected in our improving renewal premium change, we are pursuing price increases for coverages, where we are experiencing elevated levels of loss activity and we will continue to do so. So bond and specialty remained strong, results remained strong and we feel terrific about our ability to continue to deliver excellent results over time. And now I'll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tom and good morning, everyone. In personal insurance this quarter, we're pleased with our continued execution in the marketplace as we grew premium and policies in force in both our agency automobile and homeowners and other product lines, continued to achieve excellent profitability in agency automobile and reported good results in agency homeowners and other, particularly considering a high level of noncatastrophe weather-related losses. The combined ratio for the quarter was 98%, slightly higher than the prior year quarter of 97.2%. For the segment catastrophes and net favorable prior year reserve development were comparable to the prior year quarter, while the underlying combined ratio was higher by 1.1 points, primarily driven by higher noncatastrophe weather-related losses and the impact from the new catastrophe reinsurance treaty partially offset by lower other loss activity. Net written premiums for the quarter grew 7% with strong retention, renewal premium change and new business. Agency automobile delivered another strong quarterly performance with the combined ratio of 93%. This is our seventh consecutive quarterly combined ratio under 96%. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter of 92.7% was comparable to the prior year quarter and consistent with an excellent year-to-date result of 92.8%, two points lower than the prior year. In agency homeowners and other, the third quarter combined ratio of 100.2%, increased 1.7 points from the prior quarter, driven primarily by a higher underlying combined ratio, partially offset by lower catastrophe losses and a favorable change in prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter of 93.5% was five points higher than the prior year quarter, as approximately four points of higher non-catastrophe weather-related losses and 1.5 point impact from the new catastrophe reinsurance treaty were partially offset by lower other loss activity. The higher non-catastrophe weather-related losses this quarter are on top of an elevated level in the prior year quarter and are reflective of an increased number of events compared to historical experience. As a point of reference, data from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reflects approximately 8,500 severe weather events in the U.S. for the third quarter of 2019, that's a 28% increase when compared to the average third quarter for the period 2013 to 2018. As we've mentioned in the past, we've increased our loss expectations to reflect higher levels of loss activity and property and that's reflected in the pricing gains we're achieving and our plans to further improve pricing and property going forward. Before I shift to discussing production, I'll remind you that, looking ahead to the fourth quarter, there tends to be a good amount of seasonality in our combined ratio results. On a relative basis, fourth quarter losses are typically higher than the full year average for automobile and lower for homeowners and other. Shifting to quarterly production agency automobile premiums were 3% with modest growth and new business and policies enforce, while retention remains strong at 84% and renewal premium change was 3.6. We remain focused on actions to grow our auto business at returns that are continued to meet our objectives, and are encouraged by the increase in policies enforced this quarter. Agency homeowners and others delivered another strong production quarter with retention of 86% even as renewal premium change rose to 6.9% up more than three points from the prior quarter. This marks the seventh consecutive quarter where renewal premium change is higher than the corresponding prior year quarter. Consistent with our objectives, new business for agency homeowners and other was up over the prior quarter with increases in both issue policies and average new business premiums, largely driven by our ongoing successful rollout of Quantum Home 2.0. We remain pleased with the quality of the new business we're writing. The profile of the business is consistent with our expectations and most of the increase in issued policies results from higher quote volume at a consistent quote rate. As we intended sales and marketing activities associated with the rollout of Quantum Home 2.0 along with this granular pricing segmentation, customizable coverages and ease of quoting are leading contributors to higher new business volumes. Wrapping up while profitability for the quarter was down slightly from the third quarter of 2018 we're pleased with our year-to-date results. Segment income of $497 million and the combined ratio of 96.2% are both significantly improved relative to the prior year. Given our pricing actions and property and early signs of policy growth in auto, we remain confident in our ability to generate profitable growth going forward. The competitive advantage of a balanced and diversified portfolio and our focus on being a complete property and casualty solution for our agents and customers continues to position us well in the marketplace. Now I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much and now we're ready to take your questions.
Operator:
[Operator instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Your line is open.
Jay Gelb :
I want to touch base on the liability claims inflation issue across GL, commercial auto and DNO, I realize that this topic was discussed and especially warned about it at the Barclays conference last month and what I'm trying to get a perspective on is whether the company can say we have the all clear on reserve issues going forward are the sole risk of more and more reserve strengthened going forward given there has been an issue in three of the past four quarters?
Alan Schnitzer:
I don't think that we or any company could ever give that kind of assurance, we take our best people our best processes, we look at the data that we have, and we come up with our best estimate every quarter. When we look back over the last four quarters of decisions that we've made, and the estimates that that we published, we look at it and say gee based on the information we had at the time, we think we made the right call, we weren't too aggressive in any of our assumptions, we in fact picked close to the top end of the range and in many of those cases and again this quarter we looked at the data and we think we've done the right thing. So and that's one of the reasons why we wanted to provide Slide 21. You can see this is an industrywide phenomenon and you can see the extent of the shift at least from an industry perspective. This isn't in our data, but it's illustrative and relevant in thinking about our data, it's quite a significant shift. And in one of the associated factors is just lengthening of the claim development pattern and that's a difficult thing to assess as it emerges. And so, with every quarter, we get a new data point, with every new data point, we get a different trend line and we put our best estimate behind it and we continue to think running the business by the numbers, being very disciplined about that is the right way to do it. So, the answer is, we have got a long track record of managing that way over time. We think we're running it the right way and we think we have got the right estimate now, but I don't think we or anybody could give you a guarantee.
Jay Gelb :
Right. Although. That's what you're saying, you are as confident as you can be that this issue is addressed, right.
Alan Schnitzer :
I'm just confident as I can be that is our best estimate.
Jay Gelb :
Right. Okay. And then, separate topic with regard to capital return I believe there was commentary in the prepared remarks around potentially less capital being returned as a percentage of earnings as the company's growth rate continues to accelerate. Would you be able to give us some parameters around that? I mean, historically, it's been right around 100% of earnings and return annually in the form dividends and share buybacks. Would that number be something closer to 75% or should we think about another number?
Dan Frey:
Jay, I don't think, it's Dan. I don't think, we would target a number and I don't think you should think about it as a target per say. That's going to be an outcome of the things that we always talk about, which is, how much capital do we have? How much capital do we think we need to adequately support the business that we're writing and that we expect to add on a go forward basis? What are all the investments we make in the business that we think can generate an adequate return and then we look at what's left and return it. The comment was intended to raise awareness, as you say, from this point forward, as we continue to grow premium to support a business that's got a bigger premium base you're going to need a bigger capital base. And if you perpetually return to 100% of earnings your capital base wouldn't change. So, it's simply to give an indication that, as we continue to grow, if all of those remained equal, you should expect something lower than it otherwise wouldn't have been. But, we're actually not going to target a particular percentage of earnings that we're looking to return.
Alan Schnitzer :
And Jay, I'll just add two things to that. One is, no change at all in our thought process or growth toward capital management. This is in ordinary course just a function of what we have been able achieve in terms of growing premium base. And two, one of the reasons why we can't give you a number is it's going to depend on what lines we're growing in and what the geography is and it's just not linear math behind it. So, we couldn't actually give you that target.
Jay Gelb :
I appreciate that. Thanks very much.
Alan Schnitzer :
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi. Good morning. My first question you know goes to your outlook for business insurance. Broadly, really unchanged and you guys are looking for margin improvement which given the commentary in the queue seems to be a function of price exceeding trend and some improvement in your international business. So, what I'm trying to get a sense of is, you know, what is the forward view on you guys have for price and then also for trend, can you give us a sense and I know it's a compilation of all your different businesses where trends sits today and then the outlook for that as we think about improvement coming into your margin from here in the Business Insurance segment?
Greg Toczydlowski :
Elyse, in terms of the outlook for price, you see the price that we've written and that's going to earn in. And we give you an outlook for RPC. And so, it's those two components that are going to earn in over time. In terms of loss trend, we always talk about that in BI from a segment perspective and we shared last quarter that we had increased our view of loss trend to 4.5%, and that's obviously on top of the current PIKs which have been adjusted throughout the course of the year. So, it really is the math from those pieces.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. So, trend was 4.5% last quarter. So, it's somewhere within the vicinity of 5% right now?
Greg Toczydlowski:
No, no. The 4.5% was up a half a point from what we had historically talked about at 4%. Also, Elyse, I'll caution you that the 4.5% is our long-term outlook on loss trend. And so, in any given period, there's going to be some volatility in actual losses. But that's sort of the math and the way we think about it over time.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. And then, my second question, within Business Insurance, you guys released reserves within workers' comp. You also lowered your loss PIKs there this quarter. I guess I'm just trying to get a little bit more color. Given the weaker pricing in comp combined with the higher loss trend you're now seeing in other businesses within that segment, what gave you guys, like, the conviction to change your PIKs there? And then, if you could also let us know the prior-year development on comp in the quarter. Thank you.
Dan Frey:
Elyse, it's Dan. So, I'll start. Thematically, what gives us the conviction to move on workers' comp is, as we see results come in, again, there's a long-term assumption around what's going to happen to the cost to settle workers' comp claims. A lot of that's driven by medical cost inflation. And we see in our data and there has been discussion in the industry that medical cost inflation has continued to be pretty benign relative to our expectation. So, that drives the prior-year release as another period of data comes by where, again, the cost of loss settlement comes in favorable to what our expectation was. In this quarter, in round numbers, order of magnitude is around $100 million pre-tax, a little less than that. That flows through into what we're seeing in the current period as well. Obviously, in the current period, you're reacting to both what are you seeing in terms of the number of claims coming in and those settlement trends. So, workers' comp has been a pretty steady level of good news relative to our expectations and that's why we adjusted both numbers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Elyse, I'd just add. It's just ordinary course. We treated workers' comp this period like we treated it every other period. And we didn't actually make a change to either our frequency trend or severity trend. It's the impact of adjustments to prior-year reserve that's rolling through the current year.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thank you very much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski with Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Mike Zaremski :
Hey, good morning. First question is on the catastrophe reinsurance treaty because I have a feeling it's going to trip us up in our models. So, I believe you said it's up to $1.2 billion. So, it's very close to the $1.3 billion retention. And you've reported $800 million of catastrophes, which is a separate definition. So, if we trip the $1.3 billion, which it seems likely from a profitability standpoint, does that start benefiting the underlying loss ratio in both the commercial and homeowner segments? Or just if you can help us think about that.
Dan Frey:
Mike, it's Dan again. I think as we discussed the treaty from when we first talked about it going back to the first quarter, it will depend on what weather actually comes in over the remainder of the year. If we have a treaty benefit, how the treaty benefit will be allocated back between what we would call major cats versus minor cats. So, if all the losses that come in from this point forward are major cat and that's what causes us to trip the treaty, and then those are the recoveries, most of the benefit would be attributable to major cats. If on the other hand, most of the weather that comes in is $10 million to $15 million PCS events that don't meet our major cat threshold, that's where the money will go. So, it really is too early to tell and it will depend on what actual weather we experience in the fourth quarter.
Mike Zaremski:
So, it could benefit the underlying loss ratio as well.
Dan Frey:
That's correct.
Mike Zaremski:
And lastly, so if I think about the past two to three years and what sticks out, top line growth, clearly, has improved for the company, but it's also coincided during a period of time of increasing non-cat weather losses. You guys have said catastrophe levels are -- you had changed your view on that being a little higher and you now are seeing kind of higher liability loss trends in the last year or so. So, is this all telling us that top line growth and maybe retention rates need to maybe fall a little in the coming year and take a step off the gas a little bit?
Alan Schnitzer:
No. Mike, I don't think that's the way we think about it at all. We don't ring a bell and say grow or ring a bell and say don't grow. We execute one account, one class of business at a time, and we do that with a return focus. And so, we're out there executing on our accounts, trying to retain the ones we want, on the prices and terms and conditions that we want. And we're out there hustling our new business that we find attractive and that meets our return objectives. And when the sum of those things adds up to growth, we'll grow. And when it doesn't, we won't. So, there's nothing about the growth that's contributed to the loss environment and we are pretty good about reflecting the loss environment into our pricing models. And so, the answer is, I don't think so. The other thing I would say is the growth that we've seen is -- and I don't want to diminish the strategic efforts that's led to new business. I think that's important and it's been successful. But a very big component of the growth that we've reported has come from a very strong foundation of retention and price on top of that. So, that's important to keep in mind as well.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg with Janney Montgomery. Your line is open.
Larry Greenberg:
Good morning and thank you. So, on commercial auto, I'm just trying to compare what you're experiencing with the issues that you had a while back in personal auto. And I think then, you talked about taking a higher loss PIK or adjusting your loss PIK for severity. But then, the actual trend really hadn't changed in your view. So, if I'm hearing correctly, in this situation, we're talking about higher kind of loss PIK foundations and then an accelerating trend on top of that, is that fair?
Alan Schnitzer:
We've definitely increased the base year. And we also, last quarter, as we told you, increased the loss trend from there. So, we have increased both in commercial auto. Is that responsive, Larry? I'm trying to make sure...
Larry Greenberg:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, that's great. And then -- and I think Greg talked about pricing and terms and conditions. Can you talk about how terms and conditions might be changing in response to what's going on?
GregToczydlowski :
Sure, Larry. Good morning. This is Greg. Yes, most of the terms and conditions activity are happening in the national property space, and that certainly is leaking down into property across middle market. And I think our underwriters start with the first thing, is they look at the total insured value, making sure that we've got the right values on the properties. From there, we'll get into discussions with both distribution and the customer around co-insurance, and that includes both deductibles and sublimits. You can think of sublimits on both flood and earthquake, but those are some of the items that are in the marketplace right now and our underwriters are very involved in pulling those levers.
Larry Greenberg:
Yeah. I was thinking more in terms of commercial auto.
Alan Schnitzer:
Larry, in response to that, given the environmental nature of that, most of the PIK for that is going to come from price. To some lesser degree, it will come from some risk selection, and that's a factor as well. And then, we'll calibrate our litigation strategy and those would be primarily the three levers we use to address it.
Larry Greenberg:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome with Sandler O'Neill. Your line is open.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning. Thanks for the call. I was hoping we could revisit sort of the view in commercial insurance between -- the relationship between pricing and retention. I guess I'm a little surprised at the strength of the retention given you are raising prices. And I'm just wondering if that means that you're not stepping on the pricing as hard as you could or if there's some other dynamic going on there.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. Paul, again, we're executing one account at a time. And so, we're making the right decisions on price and retention, we think. I think one takeaway that we take from the retention is that there is certainly more room to go. The market is not pushing back on us, which I think is evidence that these really are environmental issues. So, we think the execution is terrific and we think there's more room to go. I think, also, in terms of our customers and our distribution relationships, doing this thoughtfully, slowly , steadily, I think there's a lot of benefit to that. And so, that's part of our execution strategy.
GregToczydlowski:
Paul, one thing I would add -- this is Greg -- is those are both headline numbers, both the rate and the retention. Our underwriters are equipped with very granular segmentation, and so we spend more time watching the mix distribution of some of the distressed accounts and the healthy accounts than we do in the aggregate numbers. We're pleased with that execution when we look at that segmentation.
Paul Newsome :
And, separately, I was wondering, as we look at the expense ratio, if there is any impact this quarter from change in contingent commissions that would affect, either this quarter or maybe even next year, the level of the expense ratio.
Dan Frey:
Paul, it's Dan. I'd say, across the place, generally not. It's been pretty consistent. And contingent commission is a relatively small component of the overall commission mix to begin with.
Paul Newsome:
Great, thank you very much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of David Motemaden with Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
David Motemaden:
Thanks for taking the question. Just a follow-up on the changes that were made in general liability. Are you still -- are the changes really still commercial auto related excess or has it spread to other parts of GL? And if you could talk a bit about the changes you made to each portion of that.
Alan Schnitzer:
David, it continues to be both. Again, I think the right way to look at this is, broadly, over the last year, as we've been addressing this issue, and if you look at it in that context, commercial auto and the excess GL where the underlying event is auto related continues to be the majority of it. But GL has been a not insignificant factor. And, in fact, in this quarter was a bigger factor than commercial auto.
David Motemaden:
Got it, okay. And just in terms of just putting numbers around it, a peer had come out and said they were seeing severity on the GL side up in the high-single digits. Just wondering, is that sort of what you guys are seeing and is that what you guys are assuming now going forward in your loss PIKs?
Alan Schnitzer:
We've just never given the severity at that granular level, and I don't think we're inclined to do that. We stop at the segment level where we've given you the 4.5%. And I also think there can be some confusion when we're talking quickly about loss trend because, ultimately, we're trying to get to a loss PIK and there's two things that contribute to that. One is base year changes and two is a change in loss trend. And as I said earlier, over the course of this year, as it relates to liability lines, we've raised both the initial loss PIK, which we refer to as base year and the loss trend. So, those are both up.
David Motemaden:
Got it, okay. And just a follow-up. The slide in the back, that would imply that what you guys are seeing is more severity related, but are you also seeing just a spike in frequency from higher attorney involvement as well?
Alan Schnitzer:
No, it's definitely more of a severity issue than a frequency issue.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.
Josh Shanker:
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking my call. So, I wonder if there's any way of getting to a little more granularity on the tort issues. As you've acknowledged you're experiencing and you do look at your competitors numbers and they're not. Is there something going on in the account size that's different between large, middle market and small account on the tort severity side that might make Travelers book look different than some others?
Alan Schnitzer:
Josh, I don't -- my instinct is no, and that's one of the reasons we shared the industry data, is we don't that -- we believe this is environmental. We don't think there's anything about our book of business that makes us more susceptible to these types of claims. And you turn on the TV, you see attorney advertising. The rate of attorney involvement and the aggressive behavior is up and I think that's going to impact anybody writing liability coverages. So, we don't think there's any reason to think that our book of business is more susceptible than anybody else.
Josh Shanker:
And then, do you have anything you can add to the granularity where you're seeing the biggest tort severity issues from your own experience?
Alan Schnitzer:
Josh, it's broadly across geographies, business and accounts. I guess, if you're -- again, it's always hard to generalize broadly in a sentence or two because this is a complex issue. We've spent hundreds of hours on this internally. So, it's always difficult to try to summarize in a sentence or two. Broadly speaking, it's probably groups have homogeneous type claims where a potential plaintiff can be reached by television commercial. And so, whether that's commercial auto accidents or slips and falls or things like that, once you get into the bigger stuff, you tend to have cases that are and always have been associated with claimants being represented and aggressive litigation, but, again, that's -- it's a very high level summary of a complex issue.
Josh Shanker:
And then, Elyse kind of asked it, but I just wanted to -- the workers' comp reserve release for the intra-year reserve, is third quarter typically a quarter where you do a comprehensive workers' comp reserve analysis? Should we expect typically that, in the third quarter, we could see resets of PIKs typically?
Dan Frey:
Josh, it's Dan. Not really. The comp is something that we have enough data and enough information that's in the regular flow that we're assessing work comp reserve levels every quarter, and I've commented on work comp in PYD in earlier quarters this year.
Josh Shanker:
Okay. Thank you for the answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. Just a couple of quick ones here. First one, if I kind of strip out some of the noise in the quarter on Business Insurance, it looks like the underlying loss ratio kind of improved, call it, by 40 to 50 basis points. Is that a kind of fair representation of what an earned rate right now is coming through in excess of trend?
Alan Schnitzer:
That's a business insurance question?
Brian Meredith:
Yeah, Business Insurance. Sorry, yeah. Just making all of the adjustments that you put in the slide, it looks like it's about 40 to 50 basis points of improvement on a year-over-year basis.
Alan Schnitzer:
Brian, we're looking at the math. Yeah, I don't think it's quite so easy to look at it that way. You're getting to a very narrow view of rate versus loss trend. And I understand why that's so appealing to look at. But the fact is, there's a lot of things that go into margin. And whether it's mix or reinsurance or claims handling or risks, there's all sorts of things that go into that. And so, really hard to look at rate versus loss trend and think you've captured it.
Brian Meredith:
Got you. And then, just one other quick one here. As I look at your outlook for RPC for the Business Insurance here over the next 12 months, what is your assumption with respect to exposure in that figure? Do you expect it to kind of moderate here, be the same?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. We just don't break that out. There's a lot of estimation that goes into that number. And we have a view on the pieces, but to imply that we've got that level of granularity out a year, that would be a false impression.
Brian Meredith:
Great, thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Phillips with Morgan Stanley, your line is open.
Michael Phillips:
Thank you. And thanks for the time here. I guess I'll take the pressure off on Business Insurance, guys. Switch over to personal, and specifically personal auto. Your outlook says for margins that are relatively in line with last year. So, I guess, could you talk about what you're seeing there in pricing and loss trends? We're certainly hearing loss trend is on the rise in some segments from competitors. So, kind of want to see what you're thinking there and why we'd expect it to be flat next year?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Michael. This is Michael Klein. I would say, we see the same industry data you referring to and certainly are keeping an eye on severity trends both in physical damage and in bodily injury. As we've talked about this year, we've tended to see frequency going the other way and offsetting some of those severity increases. Our view of loss trend heading into the outlook is fairly consistent with the trends we've been seeing. The outlook includes an assumption that pricing will continue to moderate in auto, and that's consistent with our strategy to continue to work to return to growing policies in force. So, the broadly consistent outlook has a little bit less earned price in it than we've been running and, again, a consistent view of loss trend. And then, lastly, I would just remind you that for sort of rolling four quarters we do expect a higher combined ratio in the fourth quarter than we saw in the fourth quarter of 2018, partly driven by normal seasonality and driven by the fact that we had an unusually good quarter in the fourth quarter of 2018 as well as some prior-quarter good guide catch-up in that quarter. So, it's a tough comparison, fourth quarter to fourth quarter.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, great. No, thank you for that detail. And then, I guess, second question on Bond & Specialty. What are you seeing in the management liability and kind of maybe some more granular details of kind of what's driving that increase there.
Tom Kunkel:
Sure. Thanks for the question, Michael. So, if you look back at where we started reserving at the beginning of 2019, there were definitely some elements of normal loss trend versus rate that impacted how we were reserving there. But when you look at that third quarter re-estimation we did, that was largely driven by an increase in frequency, having to do with things like #MeToo, sexual harassment and, to a lesser degree, securities class action suits. So, that's really what we've seen driving any movement that we've had in management liability there. By the way, I should point out that where we're having elevated loss trending, we're definitely pursuing price in the marketplace. I think you can see that with publicly traded companies and you can see it in various other parts of the marketplace that are impacted by the scenarios I discussed.
Michael Phillips:
Okay, great. Thank you very much for the color there.
Tom Kunkel:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. Just had a couple of quick technical ones and then a broader one for Alan. But, first of all, just trying to size this, within multi-peril, what percentage of the claims dollars are usually for liability type of stuff versus property?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, I don't know that we have that at our fingertips or that we've vetted that number, Ryan.
Ryan Tunis:
Got you. And then -- that's fine. The other one I had was just -- it seems like part of this is auto claims and excess umbrella, those type of things. Is there a -- can we get a sense for maybe like what percentage of overall casualty claims outside of workers' comp or something like that can be tied back to something auto related? Is there some way that you think about that? Just trying to think about the auto exposure outside of what you explicitly call commercial auto.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. We definitely don't have that breakout at our fingertips here, Ryan. We can look for that and try to figure out whether we can share that outside of this call, but we definitely don't have that in a vetted way that I think we'd be comfortable sharing.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay. No, that's fair enough. And then, again, Alan, I guess this is sort of a broad one. But, yeah, this is, I guess, the third quarter of the last four where we've had, I guess, an increase in the loss PIKs. What would you point us to this quarter that would give us more confidence that that's unlikely to happen going forward? Like, what are you looking at that gives you more confidence, that should give us more confidence?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. Ryan, I think it was the first question of the call. I wish I could stand up and guarantee that we've got it and this will never happen again. Obviously, I can't do that. I don't think anyone can do it. And I'd point to the magnitude of the shift, which is very recent information, and the long tail line. The lengthening of the claim development pattern really does complicate our ability to assess it. So, it's a complicated process. And it's taken us a couple of quarters to get to where we are. We're going to get another quarter's worth of data in a couple of months here and we'll see where that comes in. There is an incremental level of confidence that comes from the fact that we've now got a couple of quarters strung together and a view on what a new trend line might be. So, that gives us a little bit more comfort. But I can't tell you now where the next dot was going to come in on the chart or what that's going to do to the trend line. It's data we haven't seen yet. I can tell you that we now have four quarters of data and a new trend line. We've certainly reacted to that and we're confident that we're taking the right swing at it. But I don't know what I could tell you beyond that.
Ryan Tunis:
But you'd say that the '19 PIKs are now relatively reflective of some of the more seasoned accident years at this point?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. For sure it would be more reflective of the more seasoned accident years. You've got the '17 and '18 accident years, which I -- I think the '17 accident year is, on commercial auto, less than 50% paid. And so, the GL would be even less than that and the '18 accident year would be less than that on both. So, we've got a couple of recent and accident years that are still developing. But the older accident years, yes, as they season, we certainly feel much better about those. And as I said, we now have four quarters where we've -- it's not just another data point. It's another line. And we've reflected that in a way that we feel is very responsible in terms of coming up with our best estimate. But I can't and nobody could tell you what the next data point is going to look like.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay, thanks. I'll leave it there.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our last question comes from the line of Sean Reitenbach with KBW. Your line is open.
Sean Reitenbach:
Hello. For PG&E, would any benefit from there come through operating income?
Dan Frey:
Yeah. Ryan, it's Dan. It would. It would come through the same way we would record any prior-year reserve development. So, it will be in core income. It won't affect the underlying combined ratio because it relates to prior accident years.
Sean Reitenbach:
Okay. And although it's still very strong, the retention rate slipped by a point in 3Q. Would you expect any further kind of -- that to tick down any further as a result of either any kind of non-renewing any business that you've had trouble with or pushing for more rate and losing lose anything there?
Dan Frey:
I would say the retention rates remains very, very strong by historical standards, particularly an environment where we're getting rate at the level that we're getting it. So, we feel terrific about the retention. We don't project where that's going. So, I don't have a comment on that. But I will say that we like our book of business and our objective would be to keep a lot of it.
Sean Reitenbach:
Thank you very much.
Dan Frey:
Thank you.
Operator:
There are no further questions at this time. I now turn the call back to Ms. Abbe Goldstein.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you very much for joining us this morning. And as always, if there is any follow-up, please feel free to reach out to Investor Relations. Thanks. And have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call, thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter 2019 Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you'll be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 23, 2019. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you so much and good morning. Welcome to Travelers discussion of our second quarter 2019 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three Segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Tom Kunkel of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take your questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of our webcast presentation. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us today. The overall results for the quarter were solid, benefiting from the continued successful execution of our strategic agenda. We said for years that the primary measure we use for managing the business is return on equity and we've also said that any strategy to deliver leading return on equity over time requires a strategy to grow over time. To that end, a few years ago, we laid out a strategy to achieve profitable growth in the context of the forces of change we've previously identified impacting our industry. We established key innovation priorities and invested in capabilities consistent with those priorities. The successful execution of that strategy has contributed to growth over the past several years and contributed to the growth in earnings this quarter. Earned premiums were up 4% to almost $7 billion, adding meaningfully to underwriting income in the quarter. We've also shared that improving productivity and efficiency is a priority and efforts we've been undertaking for some time to leverage technology investments and workflow enhancements are paying off. Again, this quarter and year-to-date, we've grown the top line and managed general and administrative expenses to about flat, while continuing to make important investments in the business. All of that, together with strong performance from our investment portfolio, contributed to core income of $537 million, a 9% increase over the prior year quarter and core income per diluted share of $2.02, a 12% increase over the prior year. Core return on equity was 9.2%. In terms of underwriting margins, this quarter we delivered a solid all-in combined ratio of 98.4%. As a reminder, our expected weather losses are seasonally highest in the second quarter. But as you can see on page 4 of the webcast, the underlying combined ratio was up 1.3 points over the prior year quarter. There were a number of favorable items impacting the underlying results, including a lower level of large losses and improved expense leverage. But I'd like to highlight and put in context two items contributing to the increase; non-catastrophe weather losses and some continued deterioration of trends in the tort environment. I'll start with the weather which, of the two, had the larger impact. For the quarter, total weather losses in the aggregate, cat and non-cat, were well within the range of what we would consider normal. But breaking that down, catastrophe losses were favorable, while non-cat weather losses were worse than what we would consider a normal level for the second quarter. That resulted in a nearly 2-point increase in the underlying combined ratio compared to the prior year quarter. Again, all-in weather losses weren't far off what we planned for, so we consider this bucketing. In terms of the tort environment, the trends we discussed in the fourth quarter of last year impacting bodily injury severity in Commercial Auto have developed a little worse than we expected in the Commercial Auto line. And while we anticipated those trends extending into the other liability coverages, they extended into the primary and excess coverages of the general liability line somewhat more than we anticipated. That drove the adjustment this quarter. On the whole and looking back over the last three quarters, the issues continued to be most heavily associated with Commercial Auto related losses, manifesting in two places, in the Commercial Auto line, as you would expect, and also in excess coverages of the general liability line, where the underlying losses are auto related. The run rate earnings impact of this updated view of the tort environment is a little less than $20 million per quarter after tax. The current quarter underlying result also included a catch up of about the same amount from development of the first quarter. The aggregate impact of the first and second quarter adjustments added around two-thirds-of-a-point of the consolidated underlying combined ratio, which amounts to about $0.14 per share. Also, I'll note that unlike Commercial Auto, where the returns are still clearly inadequate, the returns in the general liability line, both primary and excess are much healthier for us. Turning to the topline. Production was once again excellent in the quarter. We grew net written premiums by 4% to a record $7.5 billion. Our premium growth reflects high levels of retention and positive renewal premium change broadly across the portfolio. As I pointed out before, that speaks to the high quality of the business we're putting on the books. We're growing our new and renewal business with confidence in terms of accounts, geographies and industries that we know well. In Business Insurance, we achieved renewal premium change of 6.7%, including renewal rate change of 3.6%. In both cases, the highest level since five years, while maintaining historically high levels of retention. We increased renewal rate change and renewal premium change both year-over-year and sequentially in each of our product lines other than workers' compensation. In our leading Bond & Specialty business, we once again achieved strong production in both our Management Liability and Surety businesses, with a record levels of retention and new business in domestic Management Liability. In Personal Insurance, higher net written premiums benefited from renewal premium increases in both our Agency Automobile and Agency Home businesses and an all-time high for domestic new business. We have momentum in all of our businesses. And in an environment of persistently low interest rates, ongoing uncertainty surrounding weather-related losses and continuing challenges in the tort environment, we will continue to leverage the power of franchise to meet our return objectives, including by continuing to selectively and thoughtfully seek pricing and improved terms and conditions. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Tom and Michael about our segment results. To sum it up, our performance this quarter and year-to-date reflect both the successful execution of our long-term strategy and our relentless execution in the marketplace every day. With leading data and analytics in the hands of our frontline underwriters, the best talent in the industry and deep relationships with our agents and brokers, we remain well positioned to continue to deliver shareholder value over time. And with, that I'll turn it over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the second quarter was $537 million, up 9% from $494 million in the prior year quarter and core ROE was 9.2%, up from 8.7%. Earnings per share and core earnings per share were up 9% and 12% respectively. Our second quarter results include $367 million of pretax catastrophe losses, down from $488 million in last year's quarter, but the lower level of cat losses was more than offset by higher levels of non-cat weather. As we have previously disclosed, our definition of catastrophes is limited to industry events where our losses exceed a specified dollar amount generally around $20 million. In the second quarter, a larger portion of the weather losses we experienced fell below our cat threshold and thus adversely impacted our underlying combined ratio. But again, as you heard from Alan, overall weather results, cat and non-cat combined were well within the range of what we would expect. In terms of weather expectations, during our fourth quarter earnings call, we explained that our expectations for cat losses for 2019 would trend up for two reasons. One is that we've seen growth in our premium volume and the overall exposure level in the business. Two, is that we're replacing a little more weight on recent periods and that results in a bit of an uptick in terms of our view of normal cat load per dollar premium. Adding the seasonality of our cat losses in our second quarter total weather results were no surprise. Pretax underlying underwriting gain, which excludes the impacts of cats in prior year reserve development decreased by 19%. Higher non-cat weather-related losses adversely impacted the underlying combined ratio of 94.9% by nearly two points compared to the prior year quarter. Also, and to a lesser degree, the change in the underlying combined ratio was impacted by several favorable items, including lower large losses and improved expense leverage, partially offset by a modest impact from the continuing challenges in the tort environment as Alan mentioned. Net favorable prior year reserve development in the second quarter was $123 million pretax, down from $186 million in the prior quarter. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD was $71 million. In terms of highlights, the net favorability resulted primarily from better-than-expected performance in workers' comp, which improved by about $275 million. Partially offsetting the favorability in workers' comp is unfavorable development of approximately $125 million in general liability for both primary and excess coverages and Commercial Auto. This represents the estimated impact of the continuing challenges in the tort environment that drove the nearly $20 million of after-tax run rate increase in the current quarter's underlying losses. Second quarter PYD in Business Insurance also included a $60 million increase to environmental reserves for accident years prior to 2010. As a follow-up to last quarter, second quarter PYD also included a modest impact, resulting from a handful of additional states, extending the statute of limitations for molestation claims. The impact on our book from these legislative changes in the second quarter was much smaller than the first quarter impact from the adoption of similar legislation in New York. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net favorable PYD of $39 million was driven by domestic Management Liability. In Personal Insurance, net favorable PYD of $13 million was driven by favorability in our domestic businesses. Last week, the U.K. updated the Ogden rate, which is the discount rate applied to lump sum bodily injury payouts. The rate change was modest, and as a result we expect to book only a small benefit in the third quarter. Net investment income increased by 8% from the prior year quarter to $548 million after tax as higher fixed income returns were complemented by higher returns in our non-fixed income portfolio. Fixed income NII increased by $25 million after tax, due to the higher-average yield on invested assets and an increase in the amount of average invested assets. Higher returns in the private equity portfolio reflected the broader market recovery. Looking forward with interest rate expectations now lower than they were three months ago, we have updated our outlook and now expect after-tax fixed income NII for the remainder of 2019, to increase by approximately $10 million to $15 million per quarter compared to the same period a year ago. As we discussed on our earnings calls for the last two quarters, we added a new catastrophe reinsurance treaty for 2019 providing coverage for PCS-designated events for which we incur $5 million or more in losses, above an aggregate retention of $1.3 billion. While the impact on written premiums was reflected entirely in the first quarter, the new treaty impacts all four quarters on an earned basis. For the second quarter, the impact of the treaty increased our consolidated underlying combined ratio by about 0.5 point as expected. Through June 30, we've accumulated a little less than $800 million towards the $1.3 billion retention. As you think about the elevated non-cat weather this quarter, it's important to keep in mind that much of that weather activity was from non-PCS events that did not count towards the treaty. On the topic of reinsurance, I'll direct your attention to page 20 of the webcast and provide an update on our catastrophe reinsurance program. The structure of our cat reinsurance treaty is generally consistent with the prior year. We renewed our Northeast Cat Treaty effective July 1st with substantially similar terms and flat pricing. Our cat bond Long Point Re III is in the second year of its four-year term. And in the annual reset for the 2019 hurricane season, the attachment point was adjusted from $1.9 billion to $1.79 billion, while the total cost of the program was flat year-over-year. A more complete description of our cat reinsurance coverage, which also includes a description of our gen cat, aggregate EXOL treaties that covers in the accumulation of certain property losses arising from multiple occurrences is included in our 10-Q, which we filed earlier today and in our 2018 10-K. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.2 billion were again very strong all our capital ratios were at or better-than-target levels and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.5 billion. Net unrealized investment gains increased from $1 billion after tax as of March 31 to $1.9 billion after tax as of June 30 due to the decrease in interest rates during the quarter. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses, was $90.05 at June 30, 3% higher than at year-end and 6% higher than the end of the second quarter last year. We returned nearly $600 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $376 million and dividends of $217 million. On a year-to-date basis we have returned over $1.2 billion to shareholders. And with that, I'll turn the mic over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance produced segment income of $351 million for the quarter and a combined ratio of 101.1%. The combined ratio includes catastrophe losses, which were essentially in line with our expectations for the quarter. The underlying combined ratio of 97.4% was 0.9 points higher than the prior year quarter. There are several moving pieces underneath the 0.9 point year-over-year change, so we've added page 9 to the webcast to illustrate the components. I'll start with the notable items that increased the underlying combined ratio year-over-year. The most significant item was non-cat weather, which was higher than the prior year quarter by about a point. Next, are two items that we've discussed with you previously, the first is the 0.5 point impact from lower earned premium due to the new cat treaty, and the second is the approximately 0.5 point run rate impact related to the Q4 2018 re-estimation of Commercial Auto losses. The last of the unfavorable adjustments relates to further deterioration of the trends related to the continuing challenges in the tort environment that drove the re-estimation of Commercial Auto losses in the fourth quarter as you heard from Alan. The most recent data showed loss experience that was somewhat higher than our revised expectations from the fourth quarter. This included further modest deterioration in auto and extended into general liability for both primary and excess coverage's to a higher degree than we had previously anticipated. For these adjustments, there is about 0.5 point of ongoing run rate impact and about 0.5 point of catch-up from the first quarter of 2019. As for the favorable year-over-year items, first, we had about 1.5 point from domestic large losses returning to a more normal level as we expected. And second, we had about 0.5 point driven by continued benefit from higher earned premium volumes and disciplined expense management. Importantly, we continue to achieve this expense leverage, while investing in strategic initiatives that position us for the future. Now to the top line. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 2% over the prior year driven by strong underlying production results. Partially offsetting the production results were some items that were generally timing in nature. For example, we changed the timing of one of our reinsurance treaties from the first quarter to the second quarter. Adjusting for those items, the top line trends were in line with recent quarters. In terms of domestic production, we achieved strong renewal premium change of 6.7% in the quarter, including renewal rate change of 3.6% both their highest level in five years. The renewal rate change was up 1.3 points from the first quarter and more than 1.5 points from the second quarter of last year. This is a strong result particularly given continued rate decreases in workers' comp. While the Commercial Auto and Property lines continue to lead the way, our general liability both primary and access as well as C&P lines also saw meaningful increases. Importantly, at the same time as we achieved these pricing increases remained historically high retention of 85%. Last quarter, we said that in addition to price, we've also been focused on improving terms and conditions particularly in our property coverages. In this quarter, terms and conditions, things like deductibles, sub-limits and insurance-to-value tightened further contributing to rate adequacy. Even after our updated view of loss trend resulting from our re-estimation of losses in the auto and general liability lines, which increased our overall view of domestic loss trend by about 0.5 point, we estimate that pricing that is rate plus the portion of exposure that acts like rate was an excess of loss trend on a written basis for the quarter. New business of $531 million in total was essentially flat to a strong prior year quarter. We're very pleased with our production results and our continued granular and deliberate execution. As you heard from Alan, given the low interest rate environment, continued uncertainty around weather-related losses and some upward pressure from the tort environment, we'll continue to seek rate and use all the other available levers to meet our return objectives. As for the individual businesses, in select renewal premium change, the renewal rate change both ticked up from the first quarter, while retention remained strong at 82%. New business was strong in comparable to the prior year quarter. We're pleased with the returns in this business and these production results reflect our strategic execution. In middle market, renewal premium change was 6.1% with renewal rate of 3.4%, up more than a point from the first quarter and 1.6 points from the second quarter of last year, while retention remained historically high at 87%. New business premiums of $275 million were down from a strong prior year quarter. For the most part, we attribute the new business dynamic to our underwriters prioritizing improving price, terms and conditions at renewal and being disciplined in managing risk selection related to our exposure to the auto line. We're very comfortable with our execution. We continue to invest in our strategic capabilities and are confident that we're well positioned to profitably grow over time. Page 18 of the webcast shows production statistics for our international markets across all three of Travelers' segments. Although, these statistics include more than Business Insurance, the overall trends are consistent with what we're seeing for the BI portion of international and reflect the rate risk selection, risk control and other measures we continue to execute to improve profitability. Lastly, I'd like to touch on our National Property business, which had a notable increase in new business this quarter. In this space, we've been seeing more opportunities in the marketplace and we've been selectively writing some of that. Importantly, many are accounts that we quoted or written before, so we're familiar with them and we're writing them at prices and on terms and conditions that meet our discipline standards. With that, I'll turn the call over to Tom.
Tom Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty delivered another quarter of strong results. Segment income was $174 million, a decrease of $30 million due to a lower level of net favorable prior year development. The combined and underlying combined ratios were an excellent 74.9% and 81% respectively. Net written premiums for the quarter were up a very strong 9% with solid growth across all businesses. Considering the high quality of our Management Liability portfolio, we are pleased that the domestic retention remained at a historically high 90% with renewal premium change higher at 4.2%. New business for the quarter was a record $65 million, up 20% from the prior year quarter. These results reflect a successful execution of our various marketing, product and underwriting strategies to profitably grow these lines. Domestic Surety net written premiums were up 4% over a very strong prior year quarter. Our existing portfolio remains well positioned to continue to provide leading returns over time and our competitive advantages allow us to thoughtfully and selectively add quality new accounts. So Bond & Specialty results were strong and we feel terrific about our marketplace execution, competitive advantages and our ability to continue to deliver excellent results. And now I'll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks Tom and good morning everyone. Personal Insurance grew income, revenue and policies in force in the second quarter with improved performance in both auto and home. Segment income for the second quarter of 2019 increased $105 million relative to the second quarter of 2018. Our combined ratio for the quarter was 100.2% an improvement of 4.7 points over the prior quarter, driven primarily by catastrophe levels that were nearly 7 points below last year. The underlying combined ratio of 94.6% was up 2 points from the prior year quarter driven by an increase in non-catastrophe weather losses and the impact on earned premiums related to the new Catastrophe Reinsurance Treaty partially offset by earned pricing net exceeded loss trend in agency automobile and a lower underwriting expense ratio. Weather losses in the aggregate were better than the prior year quarter and we're pleased with the overall results. Recall that the second quarter is our seasonally highest quarter in terms of expected weather losses. Turning to the top line, net written premiums for the quarter grew 6% with Agency Homeowners & Other leading the way with growth of 11%. Personal Insurance had strong retention in renewal premium change and record new -- domestic new business for the quarter. Agency Automobile once again delivered strong results with a combined ratio of 94% for the quarter, a 1.4 point improvement from the prior year period. The quarter benefited from a lower underlying combined ratio and lower catastrophe losses partially offset by lower net favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio continued to benefit from earned pricing that exceeded loss trend including continued favorable frequency trends. In Agency Homeowners & Other the second quarter combined ratio was 104.5%, 9.1 points lower than the prior quarter due to lower catastrophe losses and higher net -- favorable prior year reserve development, partially offset by a higher underlying combined ratio. Higher non-catastrophe weather losses were the main driver of the 7.7 point increase in the underlying combined ratio to 92.9% as compared to the prior year quarter. While weather in total was favorable relative to the prior year quarter, a significant component of the weather activity came from non-PCS events this quarter in addition to PCS events that did not meet our catastrophe threshold. Turning to quarterly production. Agency Automobile retention remained solid at 84% with renewal premium change of 4.6% and a modest increase in new business from the prior year quarter. We remain focused on actions to grow this book at returns that continue to meet our objectives. Agency Homeowners & Other delivered another strong quarter. We achieved renewal premium change of 6.7% up 1.4 points from the first quarter and up 3 points from the second quarter of last year with retention remaining strong at 86%. The pricing we achieved reflects actions we're taking to address the higher loss activity that we and the industry have experienced in recent periods. New business was up 26% driven by our successful rollout of Quantum Home 2.0. QH2 continues to be well received and is performing as expected driven by sophisticated pricing segmentation and the ability for agents and customers to easily tailor the product to meet their needs. During the quarter we continue to make investments in the business. For example, we rolled out QH2.0 in three more states and the District of Colombia and QH2 is now available in 28 states. We remain on-track to complete the rollout in most of the remaining states later this year. In addition we announced several new initiatives. First, we've partnered with American Forests, the oldest National Conservation Organization in the U.S. to plant up to one million trees in connection with our initiative to encourage more customers to enroll in paperless billing, resulting in more efficiency for us, a better experience for them all while benefiting the environment. Second we're working with Wildfire Defense Systems to help provide loss prevention services in California that supplement local firefighters and other first responders in the event of a wildfire. This new service gives California policyholders an added layer of wildfire protection at no additional premium. It is also an additional tool to help us manage our exposure. These are the latest examples of initiatives that continue to position us well to deliver value in the eyes of the customer and to grow profitably while investing in the business. Now I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks Michael. And thank you. We're ready to begin Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Jay Gelb from Barclays. Your line is open.
Jay Gelb:
Thanks and good morning. I'm sure people are going to have a fair amount of questions on the underlying combined ratio shift in 2Q year-over-year. I really think you explained it well in terms of the impact of non-cat weather and the tort environment deteriorating. I am wondering given the pace of price improvement, do you think at some point over the course of the rest of 2019 or 2020, we could see underlying margin improvement given how those trends are unfolding?
Alan Schnitzer:
You know, Jay, we give you an outlook for the underlying underwriting margin in the Outlook section of the 10-Q and we do it by segment. So you can see there -- what it is that we're thinking going forward. In particular where -- in BI where we're calling for continued improvement really it's three things it's non-cat weather, it's -- we would expect improved results in international. And in the fourth quarter of last year you've got the timing impact of the fourth quarter auto adjustments, but there is a lot of levers we have to pull to manage overall margins and profitability and including price terms and conditions and we're working on all those things relentlessly in the market every day and that will impact premium that we put on books and that also will earn in over time.
Jay Gelb:
All right. That's helpful. Thanks. All right so expectations of continued improvement. And then I was wondering if you might have the rate impact or the rate benefit in domestic Business Insurance excluding the -- what I would imagine is a drag from workers' comp?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Jay workers’ comp continued to be negative in the quarter. And we have given that as a separate statistic from time-to-time. We do it when we think it's relevant and we need to do it to clarify one thing or another. But there is some competitive sensitivity there and we don't intend to continue to update that number and probably would prefer not to give it to you now. But clearly the numbers that you see for rate in RPC and BI would be higher, but for workers' comp which is negative.
Jay Gelb:
That’s helpful. Thanks very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Jay.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Mike Phillips with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Mike Phillips:
Thanks. Good morning. Two questions. First on the personal line side Agency Auto. I'm sure you saw a pretty decent expansion there of your core margin. And if I am reading correctly it sounds like your outlook calls for consistent levels of profitability into 2020. So I guess, could you talk about what you're seeing on the competitive environment sounds like it might be more competitive now than it was last year and sounds like if you're looking for consistent -- what is the profitability you're not concerned then with any rising in physical damage severity impacts in your margins there?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Mike. This is Michael Klein. I would say on the competitive environment we talked about it the last couple of quarters we certainly see as you can also find a moderation in rate increases being filed by our competitors. I think broadly speaking it's in pattern with the methods that we've been sending that we're moderating rate in response to the improved profitability. And I think we're working to be in step with the marketplace there. In terms of loss trend, we do continue to see upward pressure on severity in personal auto more than offset over the last couple of quarters with improvements in frequency. I think what we're working to do is to balance our pricing with the long-term view or trend over time and the outlook reflects the fact that we think we can do that and shift a little bit more growth in auto at attractive margins. So that's the view on our outlook. The one exception inside the outlook you'll note that we talk about the fourth quarter in particular and so I'll just remind you that as you look at the fourth quarter of 2019 and the comparison to 2018 there is a challenging year-over-year comparison there because we had both very strong quarter in terms of profitability in the quarter and in the fourth quarter of 2018 we recognized some of the favorable loss trend that we had been seeing throughout 2018. So there was a good guide catch-up in the fourth quarter of 2018. So broadly consistent with the exception of the fourth quarter which is really just a year-over-year comparison challenge.
Mike Phillips:
Okay. Great. Thank you, Michael for the details there. Switching over then to workers comp you mentioned this time reserve development was from multiple accident years. I guess, one was there anything from accident year 2018 and anything from the first quarter of 2019 in that? And then, I guess, secondly on comp -- some competitors were talking about changing in loss trends maybe slightly getting worse and California recently came up with some uptick in severity in California. So I guess at what point do you become concerned on pretty substantial margin pressure in that line?
Dan Frey:
So Mike, its Dan Frey. I'll take at least the first part of it on PYD, sort of, to clarify right so there wouldn't be anything in PYD from the first quarter of 2019. We'd count that as current year and we'd have called it out if there was a significant catch-up there. You k now, with the long-tail nature of workers' comp the majority of our prior year reserves development is going to have to come from years prior to 2018 just because you have a better chance to see how those were seasoning, but there is a small piece from 2018 as we see the favorability in some of the older years continue to bid into 2018.
Alan Schnitzer:
Mike, its Alan. On the loss trend of workers' comp -- I'd say broadly speaking it continues to behave well.
Mike Phillips:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Mike Zaremski with Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Mike Zaremski:
Hey, good morning. Couple of questions. First, probably for Greg. In your prepared commentary, I believe you said in addition to price you're getting tightened terms and conditions. If that's correct just want to clarify whether your disclosure of pricing changes is taking into account terms and conditions tightening as well?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yeah. Terms and conditions is all net inside our book of business yield. When we talk about terms and conditions, we're predominantly seeing that on the larger portion of the property segment. So think insured value, thing deductibles, all peril deductibles, sub-limits, so that's where we're seeing some of those terms and conditions improvement. So as we make those changes on the renewal block that certainly has an impact from a favorable point of view from a loss cost net on the book of business.
Alan Schnitzer:
Mike are you asking whether that's somehow adjusted in the rate number, is that your question?
Mike Zaremski:
Yeah. If it's mathematically taken into account within the disclosure rate.
Alan Schnitzer:
It's not mathematic, I mean the rate numbers are pretty pure just price calculation, although to some extent it could show up on the exposure side, right? So if deductibles went up for example that would be negative for exposure, but it would not factor into the pure rate calculation.
Mike Zaremski:
Okay. That's helpful. I may follow-up. And lastly on tort inflation, would you say it's gaining momentum in terms of the inflation rates? And do you think there are any underlying causes, I believe litigation finance there is a bunch of – there’s couple of public firms and there's been a lot of capital raises there over the last couple of years and its gaining momentum as an asset class maybe that's one of the underlying drivers. If you have any thoughts there that would be helpful? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. So it's -- so what we're describing is the result of squaring triangles and coming up with numbers and then looking for causal factors in the environment. So there's a fair amount of estimation here and it's not -- there is no math formula that gets us to the answer to that question necessarily. But I would say broadly what we're reflecting in our numbers, we would describe it as a more active and more aggressive plaintiffs' bar. Now litigation finance is its own topic and we certainly read about, we can see numbers on that. We know more money is being raised for that as an asset class. We don't dismiss that as a factor. I will tell you that that is one aspect that at least now, this could change but at least now we're not seeing that as a particularly significant driver in what we're referring to as change in the tort environment. That could come. I mean we see the funds being raised for that. And so -- and by the way to the extent we see that and anticipate it that would get reflected in our loss PIKs as well, but we're not seeing that as a standout issue.
Mike Zaremski:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, good morning. My first question going back to the Commercial Auto and GL PIKs that went up in the quarter. I guess what I'm trying to tie together is, A; the increase that you guys saw there and then also the commensurate increase in rate. So do you -- can you try to bucket I guess, how much of the rate was driven in your view off of just this higher loss trend environment because when we think about going forward it does sound like you guys are a bit more positive on pricing inflecting relative to loss trend in terms of just thinking about your outlook but if trend keeps going up that's going to, obviously, offset that rate versus trend phenomena?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. So, Elyse we did give you some perspective on outlook for RPC in the Outlook section of the 10-Q. And certainly everything we know about loss trend goes into our pricing models and our view of rate adequacy and our view what rate we need to achieve our return objectives. I will say that that does come in on a lag basis. We've got to see it, we've got to put it through in our models to the extent there are regulatory filings there's a process there then you got to put it on the book it's got a earn in. So there is a lag between the recognition of these trends and the time price goes into the market and gets -- is put on the books. So it's a long way of saying that Commercial Auto was at an inadequate return before we saw some of these trends it just got worse. And I think to a large degree, the pricing that we're seeing now is reflective of longer term trends in Commercial Auto, although some of what we're seeing in the quarter will be reflective of recent trends.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. And then my second question, so you guys said the increase PIKs are about $20 million going forward that's about 50 basis points within Business Insurance. I know there is two buckets one being Commercial Auto and then one being the GL portion, but you guys did increase your Commercial Auto PIKs two quarters ago in the fourth quarter. So I’m just trying to get a sense, the conservatism that you guys have now that this has been addressed and why -- maybe instead of half a point it's not one point that you chose to increase to your loss PIKs in the current quarter?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. Elyse our objective isn't missed at high or low. Our objective is always to get it right. We're trying to come up with an estimate of losses. We price the product based on an estimate of losses and an interest rate curve. And so our objective is always to get the right price. And so we weighed through a lot of data. We've got terrific actuaries and experts that help us think through this we've got management input on top of that. And our objective is to just get it right. So can we tell you, boy we swung a big stick at it and we're done this is it. No, we can't. But we can tell you that based on everything we see in the data. And based on our experience we think we got the PIKs in the right place.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Bijan Moazami with Compass Point Research. Your line is open.
Bijan Moazami:
Good morning everyone. Thank you for taking my question. I guess I want to understand a little bit more what's going on in the Commercial Auto business. In particular, you guys picked up a fair amount of premium volume this year and last year was it all great or was it something else? And this big pick up in BI severity is that broad-based? Or is it related to a subsection of the Commercial Auto or is it geographically located?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hi. This is Greg. Yes, Commercial Auto as you can see in the quarter, we had an 8% change in net written premium. The predominant dynamic underneath that is broad RPC across the portfolio. We're clearly seeing the Commercial Auto challenges that we believe the industry is also. So it really isn't a segment of the book. It's a broad dynamic and hence the reason why we've been achieving RPC, so broadly across it.
Bijan Moazami:
Thank you. And then, regarding your $60 million reserve chart for environmental liability, I assume this is all pre-1986 and what's going on there?
Daniel Frey:
Hey It's Dan. I am not sure that it goes all back as far as pre-1986. It certainly in the year -- action years older than 2009, it's really a continuation of what we have seen in environmental over the last several years. We do see an improving environment in terms of the number of claims that come in. Because it is old, we do expect it's a runoff. The reaction here in this quarter is simply that things have not improved quite to the degree that we would have anticipated in our prior PIK. So you're right to think about this as mostly very old stuff. You're right to think about it as generally improving over time in terms of the volume of these things slowing down it just hasn't slowed quite to the degree that we had previously expected.
Bijan Moazami:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey thanks. Good morning. My first question I guess is just on the renewal rate number sequentially. And I'm trying to get a feel for maybe how much of that increase just had to do with the mix of the premium that you wrote in the second quarter versus the first. Because I noticed that there was less workers' comp or you're obviously not getting rate but there is a lot more property, where I'm guessing the rate is better in the 3.6%. So is there anyway to kind of tease out the impact of just control for mix in that 3.6% versus the -- or the 130 basis point increase sequentially?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yeah. Ryan, this is Greg again. Comp wasn't off materially. And obviously every month we pride ourselves in our pricing to the local execution very granular partnership with our distributions. So it depends on the accounts that are coming up, the loss experience that's associated with them. And we do our best in partnering with them, but can't really say that there was a comp dynamic drive and that it was really the exposures that came up for renewal.
Ryan Tunis:
And the exposure increase in workers' comp is it fair to kind of use the exposure increase for all of BI as a good barometer of what you're seeing in comp too?
Alan Schnitzer:
No. Not necessarily. And we don't disclose comp at that level, but not necessarily. But Ryan, I'm looking here for the data. My instinct is that there's not a big mix factor driving the overall rate change.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay. That's helpful. And then Alan was my follow-up was particularly on interest rates. First, I'm curious what the new money yield is today for the company? And then second of all, just thinking about buybacks versus where the stocks trading, like I haven't seen it trade at this price-to-book valuation in quite some time. And I know, Alan you've always talked about structural returns in this business being linked to a certain extent to wherever interest rates are. And I guess we're back to very low levels of interest rates. So I'm curious looking into the back half of the year has your appetite for buybacks changed at all?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. Ryan, let me start with the buyback. And then I'll see if Bill wants to comment on the new money yields. But in terms of buybacks, our first objective for every dollar of capital that we generate is to invest it back in the business when we think we can do that and generate a return for it. And when we can, we're going to give it back to investors. And our alternative is to put that fixed income bond portfolio. And we don't think that's what our investors expect us to do. As between dividends and buybacks, we think, by and large buybacks is the preferred solution it's less diluted to book value per share. And so we're not trading in the stock. We're rightsizing capital. And we'll continue to do that. Of course we wouldn't be buying back stock. We thought the stock was trading at above intrinsic value and we don't. So, this really is -- it's not tactical. We're rightsizing capital. And it's a strategy to deliver shareholder value. And over the last 10 or 12 years we get this question from time-to-time when depending on where the stock is trading. And so this has come as a concern before or at least as a question before maybe not a concern. And I would just point out, since '06 we bought back something like $35 million worth of stock and at an average price per share of I think $66 or $67 a share. So we feel pretty good that we've bought the stock back thoughtfully in a way that's create -- created shareholder value and no change in our philosophy. Bill, do you want to comment on new money?
Bill Heyman:
Yeah. Ryan in terms of new money yields, in the second quarter the new money yield was between 3% and 3.25%. It ended the quarter what was the bottom of that range and it's probably about there now. We think more in terms of the relationship between new money yields and mature yields. And obviously, in the fourth quarter of last year we were reinvesting at book yields comfortably above money running off. We were above in this first quarter, but less so, but obviously in the second quarter we slipped below and rates were at the lowest point in that cycle. To measure the gap and on a daily basis, it's random, so we do it over periods. We look at the curve and spreads. We look at what is running off. We look at the mix of assets we're buying, which also changes. And we also look at sales we're making in the market, and we do make some sales, especially in areas where the tax reform act changed the profitability to us of certain products. I can tell you that the gap as we measure it is in excess of 50 basis points and can run higher than that.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Ryan the net effect of everything built this year was in the outlook for NII that Dan shared in his prepared remarks and that's in the outlook section of the 10-Q. So that would all be reflected in that number.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Meyer Shields with KBW. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Pardon me, good morning. So quick question I guess on the workers' compensation reserve release. It's on a perfect comparison, but Schedule P showed $625 million-or-so of releases in full year 2018 for workers' compensation. So it seems like the pace is picking up and I was wondering is that because of more conservative PIKs or incrementally better observed loss trends?
Dan Frey:
Hi. It's Dan. I wouldn't say more conservative loss PIKs. I would say, we're simply doing what we always do which is every quarter we're going to go through all the data as it comes in relative to the expectations that we had in the previous set of PIKs. Clearly, we've moved over time favorably in prior year reserve development in workers' comp. We do take those things and reflect them in our most recent views. What you see this quarter is simply another quarter's worth of data where things have come in more favorably than what we would have embedded in the prior PIK. I don't think this is in anyway the unwinding of some increase in conservatism in prior PIKs.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. That's helpful. Thanks. And then I guess this is for Michael. When we -- if we take out the Personal Auto and Agency Homeowners from total personal lines, it seems like the remainder, the direct-to-consumer and international actually saw about 200 basis point in the quarter loss ratio on a year-over-year basis, excluding catastrophes and reserve development. Is that mix? Is that international?
Michael Klein:
So we obviously disclosed the segment, we disclosed the components and you're talking about the delta. I would say, -- and we sort of talked about this in past quarters, the Canada -- the international book, which is predominantly Ontario auto, but broadly Canada has been underperforming. We're being impacted there by similar trends and experience that you've heard others in the industry talk about. We've got a game plan to work to improve that, but it's a challenging environment. I will say on a positive note, we've got the seven point rate increase approved by Ontario earlier this year. We have another rate increase on file with the regulators as we speak. And through that and some distribution management and underwriting actions, we're working to improve the performance there. But yeah, the delta there is really a drag primarily from international.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Excellent. Thanks so much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Yaron Kinar with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Yaron Kinar:
Thank you. Good morning. Going to the rate improvement in Business Insurance, so I think you said that it's currently in excess of loss trends on a written basis. Considering the fact that loss trends have moved up over the last couple of quarters at least, I guess, what quarter was the inflection point in terms of achieving rate in excess of trends?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. Yaron, that's a hard one to pick here on the fly. We're talking about going back and looking at it. We've said for a few quarters that they were close one way or the other, a couple of quarters ago when we said, written was a little bit ahead of trend. It was -- now based on our new view, it's probably a little bit behind trend. Exactly what quarter-to-date the inflection point is hard to pick. There is a lot of estimation in all of it. We can tell you that as you heard Greg say in his prepared remarks, where we are today and it's not just rate, it's rate and exposure. Where we are today even taking into account our updated view of loss trend we feel like on a return basis, we're expanding margins.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. That's helpful. And then, if we turn to homeowners, so the deterioration in the loss ratio comes in the face of strong net premiums written growth and the quantum to product and in-home. Is the quantum product and is the growth strategy performing as expected? And is it just a matter of severe non-cat weather that's kind of thrown a wrinkle this quarter or -- I want to stop there.
Michael Klein:
Sure, and this is Michael. I would say the short answer to your question is yes, the Quantum Home 2.0 product is performing as expected as we monitor the loss experience there and in particular the data that's most credible still at this early stages is frequency, but the loss experience is performing as we expected in the product. And in this quarter really the miss on underlying is actually more than explained by the non-cat weather variance. I will take a step back and just talk to you sort of more broadly about homeowners profitability and just remind everybody that we have been talking about a bit of pressure on underlying loss experience in property some of that weather-related, some of that non-weather water-related. And while non-weather water wasn't a significant impact this quarter, it doesn't mean it's gone away. And so that's behind my comments about continuing to drive for price change in homeowners in order to address some of those underlying profitability challenges. But again, we think it's really weather-related and a little bit of non-weather water-related less about the product itself.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it. Thank you very much.
Michael Klein:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Amit Kumar with Buckingham Research. Your line is open.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks and good morning. Maybe two quick follow-ups on the total climate. The first question I have is what should give us confidence that I guess adverse trend line will not spread across other segments. Is it more so the inherent I guess nature of Commercial Auto which leaves it open to the plaintiffs' bar chasing it? Or what else is going on, on a bit more deeper basis?
Alan Schnitzer:
Amit, I think we have said in prior quarters that we do see this thematically across liability lines. So whether it's bodily injury severity in personal auto or whether it's the CMP product or -- we have said we see it broadly. But we've also said that this is driven by a Commercial Auto underlying dynamic and the reason -- and I think we went into this a little bit in the fourth quarter, but the reason is there's a high degree of homogeneity to those losses. And so in terms of the plaintiffs' bars business model, there is just a lot of attractiveness to that as compared to other claims. Slip and fall for example, where it's going to be highly dependent or -- anyway more dependent on facts and circumstances and it's a little bit more complicated to litigate. But again, as we've said in the past, we do see this thematically and we are taking that into account in all of our loss PIKs. Just so far, it's been for the most part a Commercial Auto dynamic.
Amit Kumar:
Got it. The second question and my only question is, if you look at the pass trend lines and I think all of us have lived through adverse total climate, is your margin guidance -- is the thought process that it stabilizes here or are we at an inflection point? Or what should give us confidence that this does not deteriorate or continue to deteriorate further and then sort of swing back? I mean, how do we think about the inflection point here on this slide? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Amit, Greg did say in his prepared remarks that we did increase our loss PIKs for BI as a consequence of what we're hearing. So we are -- we think that the starting point was higher and the inflation rate from here is higher. As I said in my answer to a prior question, do we think we've taken care of all of this? We think so otherwise we would have done something different. Having said that, we're not trying to be aggressive or conservative. We're trying to get it right. Our loss estimates or yield losses go into our pricing. And so it's important that we sharpen the pencil and put our very best estimate on it and that's what we've done. And I think you can look back over some number of years in our business and our track record and whether it's in Commercial Auto or whether it's in Personal Auto or other issues, this is insurance loss estimates and underlying loss, I'm sure are going to change. And all you can hope is that you've got the right data, the right analytics, the right experience and the right expertise to see it and react to it. And we think if you look back over time in our business, we've done a pretty good job of reacting to that. And this -- it's unfortunate when it happens, but that's the business we're in and we think that we've done all the right things.
Amit Kumar:
I got the answer I was looking for. Thank you so much and good luck for the future.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Amit.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Brian Meredith with UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes. Thanks, Alan. I'm just curious here. Looking at the middle market, new business down year-over-year, little bit of deterioration to retentions, are you guys starting to dig in your heels a little bit more right now just on pricing in terms and conditions? Maybe kind of like we start to see happen back in 2011. Greg, it doesn't seems like an extreme situation. But is that -- should we expect kind of new business to continue to kind of be more challenging here going forward maybe retention start to deteriorate a little bit?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey Brian, this is Greg. First, when you do that math, you're looking down from a really strong period in the prior year and we've shared with you in the past all those strategic initiatives we've been executing in the business really to free up our underwriters and give them more capacity to be active in the marketplace. The word active, we'll use based on different environments in the business. Right now, active is really addressing what you said making sure that we do have the right terms and conditions and most importantly, the right adequate price on the product. And so, our underwriters have been using a lot of that capacity right now to improve the margins on the business and we think in terms of the book of business and your question on retention, we think it's a really high-quality book of business. And we do everything possible to work with our distributors to try to keep those retention levels up there while improving the margins on the business also.
Alan Schnitzer:
I would like to point out 2011 was a very different environment in terms of where we were in terms of rate adequacy and returns. So, it's difficult to draw a comparison. Every point in the cycle is different and I'm not sure there's a lot of comparison.
Brian Meredith:
Got you, got you. And then, second question just quickly here. I know you guys are in Q2, but you do have an excess surplus line through a non-admitted carrier. Can you give us any differentiation between those two markets as far as what you're seeing happening in non-admitted versus admitted? What you're seeing...
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes Brian, this is Greg again. Sure. We see some of the industry statistics also where there has been an uptick in some of the larger states from a non-admitted point of view. Just as a reminder, we have two areas where we write non-admitted business. One in our north field business which is a less complex solution, a smaller business exposure you can think of it that way. And then we also use the non-admitted business across our property book of business. But as you said, certainly not a real big part of our product strategy. And that's because, we think, we've got really modular and customized product offerings and what we need to do to address terms and conditions in this market, our product portfolio has been able to do that. So, we've been comfortable with that portfolio mix.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
We have completed the allotted time for questions. I would now like to turn the call back over to Abbe Goldstein for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks everyone for joining us this morning. As always, if you have any follow-up, please feel free to get in touch with Investor Relations and have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the First Quarter 2019 Results Teleconference For Travelers. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 18, 2019. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers discussion of our first quarter 2019 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com under the Investor section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three Segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Tom Kunkel of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I'd like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investor section on our website. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. Our 30,000 employees are engaged in executing on our focus strategic priorities and we're seeing the impacts. As we've explained in the past, our strategic efforts are geared towards creating attractive top line opportunities and improving productivity and efficiency. The strong results we delivered across all our business segments this quarter reflect progress on both fronts. Net income for the quarter of $796 million was up 19% over the prior year quarter, generating return on equity of 13.5%, the highest level in two years. Core income was $755 million, up 11% and core return on equity was 13%, also the highest level in two years. The underwriting gain of $395 million pretax is up more than 50% over the prior year quarter, reflecting higher business volumes and a lower combined ratio. Earned premiums were up 5% to a first quarter record of $6.9 billion with each of our business segments contributing. The combined ratio of 93.7% improved by nearly 2 points. The underlying combined ratio improved almost a point to 91.6% with strong results in each of our business segments. Notably, we achieved improvements in productivity and efficiency in each of the segments. Our high-quality investment portfolio performed well, generating net investment income of $496 million after-tax. While slightly below the results in prior year quarter due to lower private equity returns, net investment income benefited from higher fixed income return. Our strong results this quarter contributed to growth in book value per share of 7% and growth in adjusted book value per share of 2% after returning $625 million of excess capital to shareholders consistent with our long-standing capital management strategy. Turning to production, we remain very pleased with the execution of our marketplace strategies. During the quarter, we grew gross written premiums to a record $7.8 billion, an increase of 6%. Net written premiums, which reflect the impact of the new catastrophe reinsurance treaty, we discussed with you last quarter, were $7.1 billion, up 3%. Our premium growth once again reflects high levels of retention and positive renewal premium change. That speaks of the high quality of the business we're putting on the books. In Business Insurance, gross written premiums increased by 6%, as we achieved renewal premium change of 6%, including renewal rate change of more than 2%. For both rate and RPC, those were the highest levels in almost five years. As you might expect the price increases were led by the Commercial Auto and property lines, but with the exception of Workers' Comp, rate was up both year-over-year and sequentially in each of our product lines. That's the result of granular and deliberate execution to meet our return objectives. We'll continue to see great gains selectively and thoughtfully and in close coordination with our distribution partners. Importantly, we are encouraged that while we were improving margins, we maintained retention at historical highs and generated a higher level of new business. In our consistently high-performing Bond & Specialty business, gross written premiums were up 4%, driven by historically high levels of both retention and new business in our domestic Management Liability business. Surety premium volume was at high levels in both the current and prior year quarters. In Personal Insurance, which as you know is a great story, gross written premiums were up 6%, reflecting strong results in both our agency auto and Agency Homeowners businesses. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Tom and Michael about our segment results. Lastly, I'm pleased to report that as a reflection of confidence in our business, our Board of Directors has declared a 6.5% increase in our quarterly dividend to $0.82 per share, marking 15 consecutive years of dividend increases with a compound annual growth rate of more than 9% over that period. To sum it up, our first quarter performance has a terrific start to the year. We generated strong results in terms of both profits and returns. On top of that, we had another quarter of excellent production. Our performance, competitive advantages and commitment to innovation position us to continue delivering industry-leading results over time. And with that, I'll turn it over to Dan.
Daniel Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the first quarter was $755 million, up 11% from $678 million in the prior year quarter. And core ROE was up 13%, up from 11.9%. Earnings per share and core earnings per share were up 24% and 15%, respectively. These improvements resulted from lower catastrophe losses and higher underlying underwriting margins, partially offset by lower net favorable prior year reserve development and lower private equity returns. Pretax underlying underwriting gain, which excludes the impacts of cats and PYD, increased by 16%, driven by improvements in all three segments. Underlying results benefited from higher business volumes and the consolidated underlying combined ratio of 91.6% improved by 0.8 point from the prior year quarter, driven by a lower expense ratio. Successful execution of our productivity and efficiency initiatives resulted in improved operating leverage as insurance G&A expenses were nearly flat, while net earned premiums grew by 5%. Our first quarter results include $193 million of pretax catastrophe losses, down significantly from $354 million in last year's first quarter. Net favorable prior year reserve development in the first quarter was $51 million pretax, down from $150 million in the prior year quarter. In Personal Insurance, net favorable PYD of $69 million pretax resulted primarily from better-than-expected performance in auto. In Business Insurance, net unfavorable PYD of $21 million pretax compares to net favorable PYD of $66 million pretax in the prior year quarter. The change primarily resulted from the enactment of the Child Victims Act in New York during the first quarter. This legislation extends the statutory limitations for cases of child sexual abuse, creating potential exposure to claims in the general liability line that were previously time-barred. Excluding the impact of the New York law change, Business Insurance would have reported net favorable prior year reserve development, workers' comp had net favorable reserve development, Commercial Auto was largely unchanged and commercial multi-parallel had modest net unfavorable reserve development. Pretax net investment income decreased by 3% from the prior year quarter to $582 million, as higher fixed income returns were more than offset by lower returns in our nonfixed income portfolio. Fixed income NII increased by $39 million pretax due to the higher average yield on invested assets and an increase in the amount of average invested assets. Lower returns in the private equity portfolio reflected the market downturn in the fourth quarter of 2018, as these private equity results are generally reported to us and consequently by us on a quarter lag. As we discussed on our earnings call last quarter, we added a new catastrophe reinsurance treaty for 2019, providing coverage for PCS-designated events for which we incur $5 million or more in losses, above an aggregate retention of $1.3 billion. The cost of this new treaty is reflected in ceded premiums, and that is the primary reason that the growth rate in net written premiums is less than the growth rate in gross written premiums this quarter. Because the ceded written premium is all recorded up front, this impact will not recur in the remaining quarters of the year. On an earned premium basis, the new reinsurance treaty will affect the results of all four quarters in 2019. Most loss recoveries from this treaty would likely benefit our net cat losses, which are excluded from underlying results. Based on our assumed weather losses for the year, the treaty would have about 0.5 point adverse impact on the full year underlying combined ratio but a minimal impact on the full year total combined ratio. And we assume that any recoveries would likely only benefit the second half of the year. Of course, the effect on our underlying and total combined ratios for 2019 will be impacted by the level of PCS events we actually experience. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $639 million were, again, very strong, all our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.9 billion. Holding company liquidity is temporarily elevated as we issued $500 million of 30-year debt at 4.1%, ahead of our upcoming $500 million debt maturity in June. We took advantage of attractive market rates and issued the new debt in early March. So we're carrying an artificially high level of holding company liquidity exiting the first quarter that will naturally adjust itself before the end of the second quarter. In terms of the unrealized gain, interest rates decreased during the first quarter. And as a result, we went from a net unrealized investment loss of $113 million after-tax at year-end to $1 billion after-tax unrealized gain as of March 31. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses was $89.09 at March 31, 2% higher than at year-end. We returned $625 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $421 million and dividends of $204 million. And as Alan noted, the Board raised our quarterly dividend from $0.77 per share to $0.82 per share. So across all key measures, we remain pleased with our strong financial position. And with that, I'll turn the microphone over to Greg for a discussion of Business Insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance had a strong first quarter as reflected in our underwriting and production results. As you heard Alan say, both renewal rate change and renewal premium change were at the highest levels in almost five years. Significantly, we achieved that while maintaining a very strong retention levels. And importantly, we also continue to invest in strategic initiatives to position us for the future. Segment income for the quarter was $414 million, while the combined ratio was 98.1%. The underlying combined ratio of 95% improved by 0.5 point from the prior year quarter, even after the impact on earned premium from the new cat reinsurance treaty. The treaty increased the underlying combined ratio by 0.5 point, split about evenly between the loss ratio and expense ratio. Let me break the underlying combined ratio down a bit further. The underlying loss ratio was 0.8 point higher than the prior year quarter, driven by about a point of elevated losses in our international business. I'll provide some additional comments on international in just a minute. In addition, the change in the underlying loss ratio also included a little more than 0.5 point from lower non-cat weather losses, which was mostly offset by the impact of the new cat treaty as well as a little less than 0.5 point from higher Commercial Auto loss estimates consistent with the reestimates we reported in the fourth quarter of 2018. Auto losses for the quarter were generally in line with our expectations. The underlying expense ratio was favorable to the prior year quarter by 1.3 points, about 0.5 of which was driven by continued growth in premium volumes while maintaining generally flat insurance G&A expense dollars. The other half of the improvement resulted from the benefit this quarter related to a state assessment. Before I turn to the top line in production, I'll spend a minute more on what we're seeing in our international business. For a couple quarters in a row now, we've shared with you that we've experienced some elevated loss activity. These losses are predominantly property-driven and have come primarily from a small number of large losses into a lesser degree higher attritional losses. We're pursuing meaningful rate increases to address what we believe to be industry-wide challenges. In addition, we're applying risk selection and risk control measures in response to the losses we're seeing and taking targeted actions to exit certain lines and accounts. These measures are well underway, and our production results in these market reflect the progress we're making in our efforts to improve profitability. Now to the top line. Gross written premiums for the quarter were up 6% over the prior year, reflecting strong production results. We continue to be pleased with the impact that our strategic initiatives are having and creating opportunities for us to grow the top line profitably. In terms of domestic production, we achieved strong renewal premium change of 6% in the quarter, including renewal rate change of 2.2%. The renewal rate change of 2.2% was up 0.6 point from both the prior year and the fourth quarter, with the Commercial Auto and property lines leading the way. Importantly, at the same time as we achieved these pricing increases, we maintained historically high retentions of 86%. In addition to what you see in RPC, we've also been improving terms and conditions, particularly in our large property business, which improves the risk profile of the book. New business was a very healthy $564 million. We're pleased with our production results, which reflect our thoughtful balance towards retaining our best business, improving pricing where we need to in order to meet our return objectives and pursuing attractive new business opportunities. As for the individual businesses, in Select, renewal premium change and renewal rate change, both remain consistent with the past several quarters, while retention remained strong at 83%. New business was strong and comparable to the prior year quarter. We're pleased with the returns in this business and the production results reflect our strategic execution. In Middle Market, renewal premium change was 6% with renewal rate of 2.2%, up 0.7 point from the prior year and 0.6 point from the fourth quarter, while retention remained historically high at 87%. New business premiums of $336 million were up 4% from the prior year quarter. Building on the success from the business centers in Commercial Accounts, we begun to roll out the utilization of the same centers across several of our other Middle Market businesses. As with Commercial Accounts, the goal is to be more active in the marketplace by creating additional capacity for our field underwriters to partner with our agents and brokers to create more solutions for our customers. To sum up, a strong start of the year for Business Insurance, and we continue to feel great about our execution in the marketplace. With that, I'll turn the call over to Tom.
Thomas Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty delivered another quarter of strong results. Segment income was $138 million and both the combined and underlying combined ratios were an excellent 81.1%. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 2%, driven by continued growth in our domestic Management Liability business. Considering the high quality of our Management Liability portfolio, we are pleased that the domestic retention remained high at 89% with renewal premium change up 3.6%. New business continued at historically high levels and up 6% from the prior year quarter. Surety premiums were strong in both the current and prior year quarters, and we remain well positioned to capitalize on potential increases in public infrastructure investments. So Bond & Specialty results were strong. We feel great about our marketplace execution, competitive advantages and our ability to continue delivering leading returns and profitable growth. And now, I'll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thank you, Tom, and good morning, everyone. Personal Insurance is off to a great start in 2019, with strong profitability and solid production. Segment income was $278 million, the highest quarterly total in a decade and an improvement of $149 million over the first quarter of 2018. Our combined ratio of 90.1% improved 7.4 points, driven by lower catastrophes, improved underlying underwriting results and higher net favorable prior year reserve development. On an underlying basis, the combined ratio was 89.1%, an improvement of 1.4 points even after an 80 basis point impact from the new catastrophe reinsurance treaty. Turning the top line. Gross written premiums grew 6%, demonstrating continued momentum in the segment. Net written premiums were up 2% in the quarter, reflecting the impact of the new cat treaty. The impact is more pronounced in Agency Homeowners and other, where net written premiums grew 1% compared to gross written premium growth of 9%. Agency Automobile delivered an impressive quarter with a combined ratio of 89.4%, 5.4 points better than the prior year quarter and the best result in more than 10 years. The quarter benefited from higher net favorable prior year reserve development and very strong underlying results. The underlying combined ratio of 92.1% improved 4.2 points relative to the prior year quarter due primarily to earned pricing exceeding loss trend, including the benefit from continued improvements and observed frequency levels. Just as a brief reminder, the first quarter underlying auto combined ratio is typically the lowest of the year. We're also very pleased with our first quarter results in Agency Homeowners and other, where our combined ratio improved by more than 10 points from the prior year quarter to 88.2%, driven by lower catastrophes. On an underlying basis, the combined ratio was a solid 82.6%. The increase of 2.4 points versus the prior year quarter primarily reflects the impact of the new cat treaty. Turning to quarterly production. Agency Automobile retention remained solid at 84% with renewal premium change of 5.1% and a 7% increase in new business from the prior year quarter. We're encouraged by these production results as we work to grow the line at returns that continue to meet our objectives. Agency Homeowners and other delivered strong production results as well, with retention at 85%, renewal premium change up over 0.5 from the fourth quarter and increased momentum in new business, driven primarily by the successful rollout of Quantum Home 2.0. Our Quantum Home 2.0 product is now available in 25 states versus 3 states at this time last year. We're on track to launch the product in most of the remaining states by year-end, including enhancements like our expanded smart home discount and home sharing endorsement, both of which we've introduced since the initial launch. To date, the product is performing well both in terms of marketplace reception by agency and customers and in terms of production and profitability. To recap, we're pleased to be off to a great start to the year in Personal Insurance and are well positioned to grow profitably, while continuing to invest in the business. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael, and thank you. Operator, we're ready to begin Q&A.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from Jay Gelb with Barclays.
Jay Gelb:
In domestic Business Insurance renewal - the renewal rate change. So it was good to see that, that rate change accelerated in the first quarter and you mentioned that was largely due to Commercial Auto and property with an offset from workers' compensation. We've seen in the past how that's gone up comparatively one quarter versus the prior quarter and then has shifted down over time. Do you think this has momentum to stay at this level or potentially increase? Or do you think this might be more of a onetime boost?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Jay, it's Alan. If you go back and think about when we started talking about rate most recently beginning of 2017, and we said then we were starting to push for rate. And if you plot out the line for either rate or rate and RPC, you'll see an upward sloping line and that's been very deliberate on our part. I shared in my prepared remarks that we intend to continue to push for renewal rate change and just in terms of managing the returns. Now we are getting some help from exposure and that counts to both in terms of the component of exposure, behaves like rate and the expense leverage we get from it. And if you see in the outlook section of the 10-Q that we filed, you'll see that we've - we're calling for higher RPC there as well. I mean, that's a single number. There's a lot of texture underneath. We're forecasting essentially nine months out, so who knows, but we're going to continue to push in this direction.
Jay Gelb:
All right. Great. High RPCs. And then separate question on Small Commercial. We've seen a number of potential competitors looking to move into Small Commercial on a direct basis like Berkshire Hathaway and Progressive. What's your perspective on how much that business could shift to the direct channel given that Travelers primary presence on that is clearly an independent agent?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Jay, this is Greg. Small Commercial marketplace has always been a competitive section of the marketplace, and we obviously are monitoring, assessing all the competitors that enter that space. And we make the assumption that some of them are going to be successful, and we accordingly manage to that way. And in terms of channel preference, we're not seeing any material shift of channel preference right now. We believe we've got a model that's very effective, and we're investing to make it as frictionless as possible. So wherever the consumer ultimately goes in the future, we think we're going to be positioned very well.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. Including direct?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Correct.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Mike Phillips with Morgan Stanley.
Michael Phillips:
I'll take a shot at this one. First, on the PYD. Any chance you can give the dollar impact on the New York law change?
Daniel Frey:
Mike, it's Dan. I think we're going to not be real specific on that given that it's an issue that we expect to be involved in legislation over a particular coverage matter. We did try to give you at least direction of magnitude. Early in the press release, I think we talk about the year-over-year change in PYD, which on a pretax basis was pretty close to $100 million being primarily attributable to the Child Victims Act. And in our minds, that means more than half. But I think to get much tighter than that, would be more detail than we want to give.
Michael Phillips:
Okay. No, I appreciate that. On the Workers' Comp PYD, was any of that from accident year '18?
Daniel Frey:
That's a good question. Of the top of my head, I will tell you in one second. Comp, '18 is a very young year on a longtail line. So not a lot of movement in '18. Favorability and workers' comp is some recent accident years, but that's a little too recent for us to be making much of a change.
Michael Phillips:
Okay. And then, I guess, on the Business Insurance, sticking with that for a second. Well, if you move in parts on the expense ratio from - you mentioned in the Q, the Simply Business expansion, the state assessment and such. I guess, is there a way for us to maybe help us think about how kind of a good run rate going forward would be? I don't know how much the state assessment was or how much the Simply Business expansion is worth and that kind of thing because it's a good expense ratio with a lot of moving parts there.
Daniel Frey:
Yes, so it's Dan again. I guess I'll think about expense ratio more than enterprise level. And from a high level, we gave you some outlook at the end of last year, which was - expect in this year to be broadly consistent with what we saw last year. Last year, as an enterprise, we're at about a 30.1. This year, in the first quarter, it's a 29.7. There's a little bit of a benefit, as Greg mentioned, from this state assessment change would have put - you could think about that as 20 or 30 basis points back into the expense ratio. This is an example of things can be a little bit lumpy from one quarter to the next. We're happy with the expense ratio in the first quarter, but not taking that as a permanent improvement versus what we had expected previously.
Alan Schnitzer:
Okay. Mike, just - just as a point of clarification, Mike that the Simply Business investment wouldn't be any expense ratio, just for clarification.
Michael Phillips:
Okay. No, I guess, I was reading something out of the Q that said part of your G&A expense was due to expansion in Simply Business. That's what I was referring to.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, that's - it's G&A, but there's - all of G&A doesn't go into the expense ratio, Insurance G&A does. We can take it off-line.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan:
My first question. I wanted to follow-up on some of the commentary on the renewal premium change within Business Insurance. So your outlook is now more positive for the year. If we go back, you guys did see a slowdown in the third and the fourth quarter on the renewal rate, which picked up this quarter. I know Commercial Auto and Property have been lines that are getting price for some time. So I'm just trying to get a better sense of what really drove the sequential increase and gave you conviction to raise your outlook for the rest of 2019?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Elyse, this is Greg. First of all, the outlook, as a reminder, is an estimate. And so we try to give you as much transparency in our best dealer around where that's going to go on a going forward basis. And if you look at the webcast slide for domestic BI, overall, you can see that the 6% for the first quarter, we think, is a terrific number and is the highest number on the page. And as Alan just said, we're going to continue pursuing our margin improvement campaign going forward also.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Elyse, I would add that the rate increases are pretty broad other than workers' comp. So all products other than workers' comp higher sequentially and year-over-year, rate increases on a higher percentage of overall accounts, for example. So it's reasonably broad-based, although rational by product line relative with the returns we're getting in those lines.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. That's great. And then my second question on international. You guys pointed to about one point of underlying margin drag within Business Insurance from your international business. I mean, you did give some color on steps that you're taking to look to improve the margins there. Can you just talk to time frame? I'm assuming there's a certain level of drag that's embedded within your outlook for the next three quarters of the year? And just how long you think those initiatives will take to work their way through your book of business?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Elyse, this is - it's probably more precise than either we could get or would want to share on that. We're - we've got all the efforts focused on it. We're working on it. And we're - there is an assumption that some of what we saw in the first quarter was an aberration and a return to more normal levels reasonably quickly. And there's other work that we're going to be doing, that's going to take some more time. But to give you any more precision than that would probably be - would probably give you a set of precisions that just doesn't exist.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. And then in terms of the size of the first quarter losses, would you put it kind of in line with the fourth quarter of last year?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think at least we're going to stick with the one point that Greg shared in his prepared remarks.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research.
Ryan Tunis:
My question is just on this whole discussion around rate. And I guess, for Alan, are we at a point where the better-than-expected rate, the acceleration as you've been factoring into the way you're thinking about your outlook this year for margins? Or is it more just you're taking the rate where you need it, where you're seeing some elevated losses you're responding to it. So broadly, this is just a type of rate you essentially need to be able to keep things broadly consistent or certainly better on the year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Ryan, if I understand your question, I think the answer is yes to both. The rate we're getting when - and we give you some perspective by segment in the outlook, and we give you some perspective on the outlook for margin in the outlook. And that does - the outlook we give you on margin does take into account, as best as we can tell what we're going to achieve in terms of rate and exposure.
Ryan Tunis:
But it doesn't seem that the outlook for margins has changed materially despite the better - I guess the better rate we're seeing this quarter. So just trying to reconcile - I mean, how exactly are you thinking about the 22? Was - it's just, I guess, what was needed? Or do you feel better about what margins are going to be here in 2019 than you did when we talked at the fourth quarter call?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, again, to both. Yes, we feel good about the 22, and we feel great about the 6 points of overall pricing. If you go back and look at over - if you go back and look over a decade and you look at what rate and RPC have done, you'd say 6 point surprises. It's pretty good by historical standards and particularly when you think about the fact that in '16 - end of '16 into '17, total price actually never went negative. So before it went negative, it started moving back up. So we feel good about what we're achieving, and we feel good about returns. Ryan, if you take the results in the quarter, and if you normalize for prior year development and weather, you get a pretty good result. And so we'd be probably a little bit less than what we printed because there were some other good things that happened, but you get a pretty good results. So we don't look at the returns that we're generating on a consolidated basis today and say they're disappointing. But as we look out the windshield into the future, we think there's more work to do in terms of achieving our objective of mid-teens over time. And so we're not disappointed with the 22, we're not disappointed with the six. And we're going to keep pushing. There's more work to do.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Brian Meredith with UBS.
Brian Meredith:
A couple of questions here for you. First one, Personal Auto. I noticed your outlook underlying margins looks for some deterioration for the rest of the year on auto. I'm just curious why is that? Is it because you're seeing the elevated severities, is that what you're kind of factoring?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Brian, it's Michael Klein. No, it's actually not due to that. It's actually pretty consistent with the outlook we gave for the full year and has a lot to do with seasonality in the auto business. So when we gave the outlook for the full year, we said that auto experience would likely be better than the prior year in the first half and worse than the prior year in the second half. And this is really just a reflection of the first quarter rolling off. And now, we're just looking at the 9 months versus the 9 months.
Brian Meredith:
So you're not seeing any issues with severity or anything?
Michael Klein:
When you look at severity, I would say we continue to see some of the same things you're seeing in the industry, physical damage, repair costs continue to be rising, but they have been - when you look underneath that, you see a little bit of a shift in vehicles towards heavier vehicles and SUVs. You see higher repair costs due to improvements in technology and more technology in the vehicle. So we think that those severity trends sort of are persisting. The good news and we referred to this in our comments, is that frequency has continued to be better than expected and is - in the quarter was an offset to that and part of the result that we produced in Q1. But, again, the outlook is really just a quarter dropping off and consistent with the outlook that we had for the full year.
Brian Meredith:
Got you. And then basically going back to the reserve development and business charts on the Childs Victim Act. Is that kind of - when you think about the charts, are you thinking about kind of on a national basis because of the law change there in New York? Or is it possible that this law in New York legislative action spreads to other states? And could it get worse?
Daniel Frey:
Brian, so it's Dan. So to be clear, this reaction in the first quarter is to the New York change only, right? So we are setting reserves actuarially and from an accounting standards perspective based on what the law is. We're aware that there are a number of other states that have discussed possible similar legislation on a go-forward basis and are keeping a close eye on those. If more states enact, we would react accordingly as other states react. The one that looks to be sort of in the nearest term potentially ready to go would be New Jersey. We've made an assessment of New Jersey and would expect that to not be anywhere near the magnitude of what we just recognized for New York. But it's an ongoing issue in a number of states that we're keeping an eye on.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Mike Zaremski with Crédit Suisse.
Michael Zaremski:
Follow-up to Brian's question on personal lines. So auto results continued to outperform and that feels to be like an industry-wide trend. Maybe you can comment on if you expect the competitive environment there just to naturally get tougher? And then switching to the other side of personal lines, homeowner's results on underlying basis are deteriorating and it seems also be industry-wide trend and pricing does seem to be moving little north there. So I know those - you guys are mostly a bundled product shop. Maybe you can talk to whether those two conflicting trends there? And whether you feel that personal lines can start growing more for you guys going forward?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Mike. Again, it's Michael Klein. And I think certainly sort of two components there. I will start with the segment, right? We're really pleased with the positioning of the segment. We are growing policies in the segment, growing premium in the segment and really had a terrific start to the year in terms of the total segment. If you look at the pieces, the auto competitive environment, certainly, we compete in that market every day. I think if you use competitive rate filings as the proxy for a level of competitiveness and you look at that data, you see that rate filings in the industry - the file rate for the industry is down period to period and continues to be lower increases in aggregate than the industry had filed for in the past. The aggregate, I think, 12-month rolling rate increase for the industry now is below 2%. So that could be a proxy for the competitive environment in auto. And maybe just an additional comment on the outlook. While our outlook is for a higher combined ratio in the next 9 months than the prior 9 months, it's still a target return. So to your point, we're seeking to grow in the auto line. We're executing on marketing, distribution and marketplace execution strategies to do that. And as I said, the production results demonstrate improvements in new business, strong retention, moderating pricing that, I think, is all consistent with that view. On the home side, again, most of the deterioration in underlying from the first quarter of last year is explained by the treaty. And so that's most of it. If you actually remove the treaty impact from the underlying combined ratio and compare that to history, it's very consistent with our long-run average underlying combined ratio in home. That said, there's some period-to-period volatility there. There is still some pressure in nonweather water loss activity, which we have talked about which is part of why you see RPC rising and why we're focusing on improving RPC as we go forward. But, again, I think we're very pleased with the performance of the property portfolio and the path we're on. And then conversely to the auto outlook that I described, the property outlook, again, mostly just because of the quarterization of the outlook is for better results on an underlying basis in property for the balance of the year sort of going the other away from auto. And when you put those two together, you get a better combined ratio outlook year-on-year.
Michael Zaremski:
Got it. It's helpful. I did see the improved commentary in the outlook. One follow-up on commercial pricing. Thanks for the insights on Commercial Auto and Property driving the pricing increases. But I was wondering on workers' comp pricing, is that getting quarter-over-quarter more or less negative?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Mike, this is Greg. Yes, we really aren't going to share workers' comp on an individual line and the price and just because it is such an offensive dynamic of how we compete in the marketplace. We have in the past I've shared, and it's pretty evident that there's been very good loss results in workers' comp and there has been reductions in the market. So if you look at our RPC at 6%, clearly ex workers' comp, we'd be higher than that, and we really aren't going to disclose the individual product lines going forward.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Larry Greenberg with Janney Montgomery.
Lawrence Greenberg:
For Michael, again, on auto. And if you answered it, I apologize. But is written premium - written auto pricing keeping up with loss trend?
Michael Klein:
I don't know if I spoke specifically to written keeping up with loss trend, but certainly, on an earned business, we continue to expand margins. And on a written basis at 5 points of RPC, I would say we're continuing to expand margins on both basis. I didn't speak specifically to that, but we feel good about the margin expansion. And again, the outlook is for auto to produce target returns.
Lawrence Greenberg:
Great. And then in Bond & Specialty, I know the PYD jumps around quite a bit there. But it was modest this quarter. Is there anything changing on that front?
Thomas Kunkel:
This is Tom, Larry. So the nature of the PYD in Bond & Specialty is it that it can be a little lumpy. If you look at our Surety business over the years, you can see we've had some really good returns. And as our losses were continuing to come down, we, of course, tried to accurately account for that in our initial year loss PIKs. So that the majority of the results would hopefully be shown in that first calendar year. So I think what you've seen over time is an improved initial loss year PIK. And maybe less headroom in some of those areas for that stuff to move up. All that said, in our Management Liability businesses there's been a little bit of that too as we look to recognize things in that initial year as best we can. So I think, other than that no other great underlying dynamics that would explain that.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Meyer Shields with KBW.
Meyer Shields:
Going back to the pricing dynamics within Business Insurance. Is there a difference between what you're seeing and what we call standard lines versus specialty?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, we're sort of looking at. Greg, you want to take that?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes. Meyers, are you referencing specialties like E&S?
Meyer Shields:
Yes.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yes. I mean that depends so much on your product mix. I mean we're predominantly in the E&S business much more from a property perspective. So the answer would be yes, for us given some of the catastrophic pressures we've seen on property over the last two years.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. And then more broadly I think this is mostly a question for Greg. We've seen in - at least the U.S. treasury, the pretty significant decline in interest rates from mid-November. How long does it take before that is reflected in pricing?
Daniel Frey:
Meyer, it's Dan. So we'll consider that in pricing as we do a number of factors. It's one of the hundred things that go into the process of determining what's the right price. We've seen the 10-year treasury move up and down, but it's been sort of plus or minus 0.3, not more than 0.2 or 0.3 per quarter over the last 4 or 5 quarters. So not a dramatic impact. It does eventually get baked into what we think we need for price to generate the returns that we're trying to generate because clearly, that's a component of return, but it hasn't had a dramatic impact at this point.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, also I'd add that - we bifurcated a little bit. We think about the return on the flow and that we adjust periodically to reflect market rates and then separately we think about the capital on the balance sheet that supports the risk and that, that really reflects the overall portfolio return.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Josh Shanker with Deutsche Bank.
Joshua Shanker:
I was reading outlook as everyone else was and I think it's not too different from what it said before. Despite the improvement you're getting on rates it's really the cessation of large losses and non-cat weather that will drive margin improvement for the remainder of the year. Am I reading that correctly?
Alan Schnitzer:
If you're looking at Business Insurance, yes, that's right. It's large losses returning to a more normal level.
Joshua Shanker:
And so can we say with the closed approximation that pricing and loss cost trend are in harmony right now, I guess, is your view?
Alan Schnitzer:
I would say that's about right on an earned basis. On a written basis, we're probably doing little bit better than that.
Joshua Shanker:
Okay. And just the same sort of reflections on the homeowner's business as well?
Michael Klein:
Yes, Josh, this is Michael. I would say on the homeowner's business, we're working to move RPC north. So we're not quite there on a written basis yet, but we're close.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Amit Kumar with Buckingham Research.
Amit Kumar:
I guess two quick follow-up questions. The first question goes back to the discussion on expense ratio. In your 10-Q letter, you talked about 40% of the business flowing through these business centers and BI. And I was curious if maybe you can talk about where does that sort of net out to? Is that an eventual improvement in expense ratio, or do the savings get reallocated somewhere else?
Alan Schnitzer:
Amit, thanks for that question. Productivity and efficiency is a strategic priority across the entire place in each of the businesses. In a claim ordination virtually everything we do. And so some of what Greg's achieving to the business centers contributes to that. It also contributes to other strategic objectives specifically making sure that we're providing good experiences for the brokers that we're doing business with and the customers that we're serving so it all goes to that point. The savings - whatever productivity and efficiency we generate there and frankly, anywhere else, really for us is, we look at operating leverage or enhanced operating leverage as an opportunity. And as we said before, we'll take those dollars and we'll reallocate them over time as we see fit. We can let it fall to the bottom line and you'll see the expense ratio. We can reinvest it in strategic initiatives that we think are going to drive shareholder value. Or if we want to or need to we can decide that we want to put into pricing without compromising our return objectives. So I know you've heard us say that a lot but what's important to us about enhanced operating leverage is having that flexibility.
Amit Kumar:
Now that you answered that question, the only other question I had is maybe for Michael, switching gears to personal auto. I know you answered several questions on what we saw on the loss cost trend. But can you sort of opine where do you see the trajectory from here on frequency and severity?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Amit. It is Michael. The short answer is when we look at our sort of long-term trend, in fact, it remains relatively consistent. And I would say talking about frequency and severity a little bit separately, generally what we see on the severity side is quarter-to-quarter fluctuations that sort of bounce around our long-term expectation. So again, we see the severity pressure that you see in industry statistics around parts and liability cost and those things. But feel like our long-term assessment on severity reflects those. On the frequency side, again, we talked about the first quarter underlying being driven by pricing earning in excess of trend inclusive of both sort of our assumption and a better-than-expected result in the quarter. And we do see for a number of quarters in a row now frequency coming in better than I think we or the industry had expected it, and it's something we're keeping an eye on and thinking about how to factor in.
Amit Kumar:
And is that - with the historical - frequency at a historical low, does that trend line continue or do you get a sense that probably this is as good as it gets?
Michael Klein:
I think it's a great question. I think if you take a longer-term look at frequency in auto, you see a bit of a secular decline and that's the piece that we're trying to figure out as we're returning to sort of that long-term downward trend in frequency or not. There's been a lot of commentary and discussion around - in the marketplace and in other places about what could be driving it and one of the things people point to is safety features on vehicles. I think it is important to point out that a number of the features that folks like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety point to as the ones that could have the most impact still have relatively low penetration in the fleet, right. Things like automatic emergency braking less than 5% of the cars on the road have it. So again, I think the journey is still out on whether there is a shift in long-term frequency trend but those are some of the things we're watching in addition to miles-driven employment and the other factors that we've talked about.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Yaron Kinar with Goldman Sachs.
Yaron Kinar:
My first question, I think Elyse took a stab at it, is in Business Insurance. Can you talk about the impact from the nonweather large losses this quarter? How it compared to the prior year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Beyond - the international, is that what you're referring to Yaron?
Yaron Kinar:
Well, I think last year, you just talked about large losses, nonweather losses, not necessarily referring to international.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, the large loss activity in domestic BI has been relatively flat, I would say.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
I gave you in my comments here the non-cat weather was a little more than 0.5 point will be good guide relative to the first quarter of 2018.
Yaron Kinar:
Right, right. I mean I think in 2018, you talk about roughly, 60 basis points of non-cat weather and another 60 basis points or so of other large, so it sounds like it couldn't really...
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, we're also slicing the bone probably a little bit - we're heading towards slicing the bone probably a little bit thinner than we'd like too. And I think most of the impact you're talking about was quarters two through four. And so my answer relatively flat was Q1 to Q1. But if you go back and look at your commentary from last quarter I think you'll hear us say that the improvement was primarily going to be in quarters two through four.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. That's helpful. And then Greg I think you'd said that in addition to pricing and also taking some terms and conditions, actions in large property. Can you give maybe a few examples of where the terms and conditions are improving or how they're improving?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Sure. Yes, coming off those two catastrophic years, there's obviously been some dislocation in the marketplace in just an opportunity for more risk sharing and that typically comes with terms and conditions. So you can think about sublimits on flood and earthquake, deductible shifting from a fixed component to more of the percentage certainly in the geographic exposed areas but that's something we're constantly looking at. With all that said, we look at our National Property business on account-by-account basis. So that's a generalization and we are, again, looking at each account and looking at the risk/reward of those accounts. And if there's an opportune time to have some risk-sharing like there is in the property segment right now then we go about and achieve that.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Jeff Schmitt with William Blair.
Jeffrey Schmitt:
Question about your Umbrella book. Heard in the market that there's an uptick in large losses there, mainly due to the litigation environment higher jury awards, higher settlement amounts. Is that something you're seeing at all?
Alan Schnitzer:
Let me - let's stay away from Umbrella. Let me just respond to social inflation more broadly. So I - this is probably an oversimplification. But I think, about social inflation probably in three buckets. I think about legal decisions, I think about plaintiff activity and I think about jury awards. From a legal decision's perspective, certainly, at the federal level, over the last couple of years, I'd say that's probably been on balance and improvement. If you look at jury awards, I would say a little bit more volatile, a little bit more unpredictable. And broadly speaking when it comes to plaintiff activity, the plaintiff's bar I would say we have seen a more aggressive plaintiff activity. Now that was certainly a big driver of the Commercial Auto charge that we took last quarter for example. We think about the liability side of C&P for example, but when you get into the larger end when you get into Umbrella when you think about the large end of GL, when you think about Management Liability, those are broadly speaking coverages where there's already a lot of litigation. Generally, everybody is represented in those cases and so those have always been reasonably active in terms of litigation. It's really at least so far on the smaller end where we've seen more activity.
Jeffrey Schmitt:
Yes, and I guess, I was curious I mean it's been more acute obviously in Commercial Auto than other lines hearing they're starting to tick up in Umbrella. I guess, is that spreading or I mean it sounds like you're saying it's a little bit more broad-based already?
Alan Schnitzer:
No. I mean we're certainly seeing it. The phenomenon you're identifying could vary from company to company based on mix of business too, right. The net lines you put out, the types of risk. I mean you got to remember, we are - we're a Middle Market Main Street business for the most part. I mean obviously we do have a National Accounts business, a National Property business. And we do write public company liability on Management Liability side but, by and large, when you think about Travelers, it's a Main Street middle market business. So it could be a mixed difference for us relative to others.
Jeffrey Schmitt:
And just one quick one on the homeowner's book looking at the underlying loss ratio up 100 basis points, half of that looks to be about related to the new cat treaty. But this remainder of 100 basis points after being up a lot last year, is this - is that pretty much all nonweather water losses that you're seeing? Can you speak to that more? Is that state-specific? Is this older homes? I mean, why is this popping up now for the industry?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Jeff. Just starting with the premise of the question I would say the treaty impacts a little more than you're estimating there and therefore, the other impacts are a little bit less in the underlying. But then underneath that we, again, as I mentioned we do continue to see some nonweather water loss pressure. And I would stay consistent with what we've talked about in the past we've sort of sliced and diced that by geography, by type of home, by age of home. We've looked at - we've seen commentary around the first floor, second floor, so we've looked at it by type of construction. And what we tend to see is these nonweather water losses are up sort of consistently across most of those dimensions. So there's not a thing we point to, which is why our strategy to address it has been to seek to increase price. So that be our view on the trend. But the underlying in the quarter does reflect some continued pressure there. Again, we expected some continued pressure there and have built a pricing strategy to address it. So that's our take on it.
Operator:
There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back over to the presenters.
Abbe Goldstein:
Great. Thanks, everyone, for joining this morning and as always, if you have any follow-up questions please get in touch directly with Investor Relations and thanks. Have a good day.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of the formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on January 22, 2019. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our fourth quarter 2018 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplements and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our Web site at travelers.com, under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, CFO; and our three segment Presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. As we look back on 2018, we are pleased that we improved returns, grew our business, and delivered strong underlying underwriting profitability and investment results, while returning significant excess capital to shareholders and taking great care of our customers. Our results benefited from ongoing strategic initiatives geared toward creating top line opportunities and improving productivity and efficiency. Of course our results were also impacted by a high level of catastrophe losses. Fourth quarter net income of $621 million or $2.32 per diluted share generated a return on equity of 10.9%. Core income was $571 million or $2.13 per diluted share and core return on equity was 10%. Net and core income were both impacted by almost $500 million of after-tax CAT losses. Our full-year core income increased by 19% to $2.4 billion, generating core return on equity of 10.7%. The fact that we were able to generate this level of profit and profitability with $1.4 billion in after-tax CAT losses speaks to the earnings power of our franchise. Our consolidated underlying combined ratio for the fourth quarter improved to 91.1%, the lowest level since the first quarter of 2016, even after the impact on the quarter of a full-year worth of higher loss estimates in the commercial auto line, driven by bodily injury severity. Commercial auto has been a challenge for the industry and for us for some time and our most recent data reflects further deterioration. Greg will address more detail of what we've seen and how we’re responding. For the full-year, a record earned premium of more than $27 billion and productivity and efficiency initiatives contributed to an after-tax underlying underwriting gain of $1.5 billion, the highest in more than a decade. Our successful and consistent investment strategy also contributed to our results. After-tax net investment income was up 15% for the quarter and 12% for the year. The underwriting gain in investment income also reflects the benefit of tax reform. These results together with our strong balance sheet enable us to grow adjusted book value per share by 5% during the year after returning more than $2.1 billion of excess capital to shareholders, consistent with our long-standing capital management strategy. Turning to production, we remain very pleased with our performance in the market with each of our business segments contributing to a 4% increase in net written premium for the quarter. For the year we grew net written premiums by 6% to a record $27.7 billion. Net written premiums and business insurance in the quarter increased by nearly $100 million or 3% driven by historically high retention and positive renewal premium change. In our middle market business, retention reached a record fourth quarter high of 88%. We completed the rollout of our business centers in our commercial accounts business during the year. All eligible renewals in new business are now flowing to these centers, freeing up our local underwriters to spend more time with our agent and broker partners. For the year, commercial accounts delivered its highest level of new business in more than a decade. Renewal premium change in business insurance, including pure rate and exposure, was nearly 5% in the quarter, up over half a point compared to the same period last year and steady throughout 2018. We achieved positive renewal premium change in all lines. In our Bond & Specialty business, net written premiums increased by 8% for the quarter with continued strong production in both our management liability and surety businesses. In Domestic Management Liability, we achieved record retention and new business for the full-year. In Personal Insurance, net written premium growth in the quarter was strong at 5% with both our agency auto and homeowners businesses contributing. Two years ago, in 2016, we had a $4 billion book of agency auto business was in profitability challenges. Today, it's a $5 billion business that meets our return expectations. Thanks to impressive execution by the team and an improved environment, we got there ahead of schedule. We will hear more shortly from Greg, Tom, and Michael about our segment results. To wrap it up, despite another year of elevated catastrophe losses, we achieved an 11% return on equity. That speaks to excellent underwriting execution and management of risk and reward across a diverse portfolio of businesses, our successful investment strategy, and our active approach to capital management. It also speaks to the dedication and commitment of our 30,000 employees. With the talented team, competitive advantages that set us apart and an ambitious innovation agenda, along with a very high respect for our shareholders capital, we remain very well positioned to continue to deliver leading results and meaningful shareholder value over time. And with that, I'm pleased to turn the call over to Dan.
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the fourth quarter was $571 million, down from $633 million in the prior year quarter and core ROE was 10%, down from 11.1%. The decrease in both measures from last year's fourth quarter resulted primarily from a higher level of catastrophe losses and a lower level of favorable prior year reserve development. Underlying results were strong as the consolidated underlying combined ratio of 91.1%, which excludes the impacts of CATs and PYD, improved by 1.3 points from the prior year quarter. Recall that last year's fourth quarter underlying combined ratio was elevated by about half a point as a result of tax planning actions taken at that time. Our fourth quarter results include $610 million of pre-tax CAT losses, driven by $453 million from the California wildfires in November and $158 million from hurricane Michael in October. Last year's fourth quarter CAT losses of $499 million included favorable development of $157 million, primarily related to the hurricanes from the third quarter of 2017. PYD in the current quarter for which I will provide more detail shortly was net favorable $167 million pre-tax, down from $293 million in the prior year quarter. Our pre-tax underlying underwriting gain of $578 million improved by 22% from $472 million in the prior year quarter as increases in both Bond & Specialty and personal insurance were partially offset by a decrease in business insurance which Greg will address in his comments. Pre-tax net investment income increased by 5% from the prior year quarter to $630 million as increases in fixed income were partially offset by lower pre-tax returns in our non-fixed income portfolio compared to very strong performance in the prior year quarter. Fixed income results benefited from the more favorable interest rate environment and an increase in average invested assets resulting from continued growth in net written premiums. After-tax NII increased by 15% to $535 million benefiting from the lower U.S corporate income tax rate. After-tax fixed income NII in the fourth quarter increased by $65 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2017 and we expect that 2019 fixed income NII will increase by approximately $20 million to $25 million per quarter compared to the corresponding periods of 2018, as we projected both the average level of invested assets and the average yield on the portfolio will be higher. All three segments experienced net favorable prior year reserve development in the fourth quarter. In Personal Insurance, recent accident years performed better-than-expected in the auto book. In Bond & Specialty, we experienced better-than-expected loss development in the management liability book. In Business Insurance, net favorable PYD of $48 million pre-tax was driven by better-than-expected loss experience in domestic workers comp, which was largely offset by unfavorable development in commercial auto and to a lesser extent general liability. Commercial auto unfavorable PYD in the quarter was $155 million pre-tax resulting from elevated severity in recent accident years. In General Liability were the return remain attractive, unfavorable PYD in the quarter reflected changes across several accident years in business units. There is no broad theme with the largest impact related to a small number of claims from older years in our runoff book. For the full-year, despite the adverse changes in commercial auto and the third quarter asbestos charge, net favorable prior year reserve development was $517 million pre-tax. When our combined 2018 Schedule P is filed early in the second quarter, we expected to show that excluding asbestos and environmental, all accident years across all product lines in the aggregate and all product lines across all accident years in the aggregate developed favorably or had minor unfavorable development except for commercial auto and as a result of the change in commercial auto accident year 2017. Page 19 of the webcast provides information about our January 1 CAT Treaty renewal. Our corporate CAT aggregate XOL treaty renewed on terms in line with the expiring treaty and continues to provide coverage for both single CAT events and the aggregation of losses from multiple CAT events. As you all know, the industry has experienced an elevated level of catastrophe losses in recent years. In response, we have updated our actuarial models to reflect the actual results of recent years and to give more weight to recent years when determining our view of normal expectations. As a result, we’ve recognized somewhat higher level of expected losses in our pricing and underwriting models. In further recognition of recent weather activity and ongoing uncertainty for 2019, we have also added a new catastrophe aggregate XOL treaty as described on Slide 19. This treaty addresses qualifying PCS designated events in North America for which we incur losses of $5 million or more providing aggregate coverage of $430 million part of $500 million of losses above an aggregate retention of $1.3 billion. Hurricane and earthquake events have a $250 million per occurrence cap. We believe this new treaty provides a reasonable level of protection at an appropriate price. In terms of the accounting, there will be an impact on the underlying combined ratio in 2019 due to the effect of seated premiums on total net earned premiums. Since the majority of any loss recoveries from this treaty will likely benefit our net catastrophe losses, which are excluded from underlying results, we expect about a half a point impact on the full-year underlying combined ratio, but a minimal impact on the full-year total combined ratio because the attachment point is $1.3 billion, we also expect that any recoveries would likely be recorded in the second half of the year and accordingly the impact on the combined ratio will likely be more pronounced in the early part of 2019. Of course the actual effect on our total combined ratio for 2019 will be impacted by the level of PCS events we experience. Turning to capital management. Operating cash flows for the quarter of $948 million were again very strong, all our capital ratios were at or better than target levels and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.4 billion. Interest rates decreased modestly during the fourth quarter and accordingly our net unrealized investment loss narrowed from $447 million after-tax as of September 30 to $113 million after-tax at year-end. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses with $87.27 at year-end, 5% higher than at the beginning of the year. We returned $375 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter, comprising share repurchases of $170 million and dividends of $205 million. For the year, we returned more than $2.1 billion of capital to our shareholders through dividend and share repurchases. Consistent with our capital management strategy that level of return capital takes into consideration a variety of factors. For example, the increased level of capital in support of the nearly $2.8 billion of premium growth we have generated over the last two years, the amount of earnings and contributions to the pension plan and you'll recall that we made a $200 million contribution in September for tax planning purposes. And with that, I will turn the microphone over to Greg for a discussion of business insurance.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. For the fourth quarter, Business Insurance produced $391 million of segment income, down from $637 million in the prior year quarter, bringing the full-year total to $1.64 billion, a 2% increase over 2017. Earnings for both the quarter and the year included the relatively high levels of catastrophe losses that Alan and Dan mentioned, as was the case in 2017. Earnings for both the quarter and the year were positively impacted by strong profitability in workers' comp, our biggest product line as well as higher overall business volumes that resulted from recent earned premium growth and increased operating leverage that has reduced our expense ratio. Earnings were negatively impacted by a fourth quarter after-tax charge of about $195 million or about $245 million on a pre-tax basis related to higher commercial auto bodily injury loss activity. Of that amount, about $155 million pre-tax reduced net favorable prior year reserve development. The remaining $90 million pre-tax represents the impact of the 2018 accident year and incorporates reestimations for the first three quarters of the year. The corresponding combined ratio impacts were approximately 6.5 points on the segment combined ratio for the quarter and a little more than 1.5 points on the segment combined ratio for the year. The impacts on the underlying combined ratio from the adverse auto adjustments were approximately 2.5 points for the quarter and a little more than a half a point for the full-year. As we’ve discussed with you, in recent years we've reacted to higher commercial auto losses, a different portion of our Commercial Auto Book through various pricing, underwriting and reserving actions. But during the recent quarter, data emerge that changed our view of the overall loss environment broadly across our commercial auto book. We saw more of an increase in the rate of attorney involvement than we had anticipated and a lengthening in the claim development pattern. As a consequence, we're experiencing a higher level of bodily injury severity than we anticipated. Because we believe the factors we're experiencing are environmental, our primary plan of action going forward will be to push for more rate. As we mentioned in the past, the auto line is where we've been getting the most rate over the last couple of years, but we need more of it. It is important to remember that auto is typically part of an account solution for a business insurance customers. We generally provide them with some combination of workers comp, property, general liability and/or other coverages. Accordingly, we will use our extensive data and analytics capabilities on an account by account basis to improve auto profitability as the line and as part of the overall profitability of our product portfolio. Turning back to the segment results, the underlying combined ratio of 95.4% for the quarter was 1.5 points higher than in the prior year. The loss ratio was about 3 points higher than last year, driven by the 2.5 points from auto. The remaining half a point is due to higher non-weather loss activity in our international businesses with the largest contributor to that coming from Lloyd's, partially offset by favorable variability in domestic loss activity. The expense ratio for the quarter improved by 1.5 points with about half of that improvement coming from lower expense dollars and the other half coming from higher premium volumes. As always, there are fluctuations in expenses from quarter-to-quarter, so we pointed the full-year expense ratio as a better indication of our run rate. All in for the year, a 95.7 underlying combined ratio, which included large losses which ran about a point over what we would have view as a more normal level. Turning to top line in production, net written premium growth for the quarter was 3%, bringing the full-year total to $15 billion, almost $700 million or 5% higher than in 2017. We are pleased with our continued progress with our strategic initiatives and we remain encouraged with the feedback from our agent and broker partners that were focused on the right priorities. In terms of domestic production, we achieved strong renewal premium change of 4.8% in the quarter with renewal rate change of 1.6%, while retention remained high at 85%, a reflection of the quality of our book. New business of $488 million was up 3% from a year-ago. We are pleased with these production results and continue to operate at a granular level of executing in our marketplace strategy to meet our return objective with a thoughtful balance towards retaining our best business, improving pricing where it's needed and pursuing attractive new business opportunities. Turning to the individual businesses, in Select, renewal premium change and renewal rate ticked up a bit, while retention remained strong at 82%. New business was up 11% over the prior year quarter as we continue to leverage our investments in technology and workflow initiatives. In middle market, renewal premium change was 4.5% with renewal rate change consistent with last quarter at 1.5%, while retention remained historically high at 88%. As Alan said, a record for the fourth quarter. New business premiums of $281 million were down a bit from a strong level in the prior year quarter. And our core commercial accounts business where our business center initiatives are now fully rolled out, new business was up 17% for the quarter, while full-year new business premiums of $561 million were at the highest level in over a decade. In this business, we are pleased that the business centers and our strategic investments are having the intended impact. Submission and quote activity are both up from the prior year creating attractive top line opportunities. To sum up, we feel terrific about our execution in the marketplace and confident about how our position going forward. Before I turn the call over to Tom to talk about Bond & Specialty results, I want to comment on our outlook for RPC and the underlying combined ratio since we will not be filing our 10-K for a few weeks. We expect RPC will remain positive in 2019 and at the levels broadly consistent with 2018. We expect the underlying combined ratio for the full-year 2019 will be lower than in 2018, which assumes that large losses primarily in the property line return to lower and more normal levels. Underneath that full-year outlook, we expect the underlying combined ratio improvements to come in the second through fourth quarters of the year. With that, I will turn the call over to Tom.
Thomas Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty delivered another quarter of strong returns and growth. Segment income of $220 million nearly doubled from the prior year quarter due primarily to higher underlying underwriting income and a higher level of net favorable prior year development. The improvement in underlying income reflects the impact of a single surety loss in the prior year quarter and higher business volumes. The underlying combined ratio was an excellent 78.1%. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 8%, driven by strong growth in our Management Liability business and solid surety production that was up slightly from the very strong prior year quarter. In our Domestic Management Liability business, our focus continues to be on retaining our high quality business and targeting rate were needed, while pursuing attractive new business opportunities. So we are pleased that retention remained very strong at 89% for the quarter with the renewal premium change of 3.9 points. New business of $53 million was up 8% from the prior year quarter. These results reflect our extensive competitive advantages and solid marketplace execution. We are a leading franchise in our specialty markets with long-term customer agent and broker relationships across a national footprint. We've got exceptional talent and specialized industry expertise, extensive data and advanced analytics. And while we have leading platforms and robust products, we continue to invest in strategic product, marketing and technology capabilities that will further extend our competitive advantages. So Bond & Specialty results were excellent. We continue to feel great about our growth, returns and the opportunities that our strong market positions and competitive advantages present for the future. In terms of our 2019 outlook as compared to 2018, we expect RPC for our Domestic Management Liability business to remain positive and broadly consistent and for the segment, the underlying combined ratio to be broadly consistent. For Surety, we expect 2019 net written premium to be slightly higher than it was in 2018. Due to the inherent lumpiness in surety production, going forward, we will no longer be including surety net written premium in our outlook disclosure. And now, I'll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tom, and good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance for the quarter, segment income was $32 million, an improvement of $82 million over the prior year quarter and our combined ratio of 102.6% improved 6.1 points. The Lower combined ratio was driven by improved auto results, lower catastrophes and higher net favorable prior year reserve development. For the full-year, segment income of $297 million and a combined ratio of 100.6% are also better than the prior year, driven by the same factors I referenced for the quarter. Net written premium growth for the fourth quarter and full-year was 5% and 7%, respectively. Our premium growth helped us achieve a 30 basis point improvement in our expense ratio for the full-year. Agency Automobile delivered another impressive quarter with a combined ratio of 95.3%, down 7.7 points from the prior year quarter, driven primarily by a lower underlying combined ratio. Underlying margins continue to improve due to earned pricing exceeding loss trend and frequency remaining better-than-expected. These factors also resulted in favorable full-year loss adjustments in the quarter that further contributed to a better loss ratio than we would have expected. The quarter also benefited from higher net favorable prior year reserve development, partially offset by higher catastrophes. Recall that the prior year quarter included a benefit from the re-estimation of catastrophes including hurricane Harvey. Our full-year combined ratio for Agency Automobile of 94.2% was 10 points better than the prior year and returns were well within target on both an overall and an underlying basis. In light of these improvements, we continue to moderate renewal premium changes in this line as we seek to balance growth and profitability. In Agency Homeowners and Other, the fourth quarter combined ratio of 109.8% improved by more than 5 points, despite three significant catastrophes; The Camp and Woolsey wildfires in California and hurricane Michael. On an underlying basis, the combined ratio was 72.5% or 2.3 points higher than the prior year quarter driven by continued elevation in non-weather-related losses, which we noted in the prior quarter. The full-year combined ratio of 105.6% reflects the second consecutive year of very high catastrophe losses, which again accounted for approximately 24 points of the combined ratio. The full-year 2018 underlying combined ratio was 81.6%, 4.5 points higher than 2017 driven by higher levels of non-catastrophe weather and non-weather loss activity. Consistent with comments we made earlier this year, given this recent catastrophe and the non-catastrophe loss experience, and our assumption that some of this elevated loss pressure will persist, we continue to implement granular pricing and underwriting actions to manage our exposure and improve results. Turning to quarterly production, our agency automobile retention remained at a solid 84%, while renewal premium change of 6.3% continue to moderate consistent with our objectives and new business was up 2% from the prior year quarter. In Agency Homeowners and Other, we remain pleased with our momentum. Renewal premium change was 3.9%, nearly a point higher than a year-ago. In addition, we delivered 6% growth in policies in force, and strong retention of 86% and a 17% increase in new business. Turning to our outlook for full-year 2019, we expect renewal premium changes for agency automobile to be positive, but lower compared to 2018, while renewal premium changes for Agency Homeowners and Other should be positive and higher compared to 2018. We expect the underlying combined ratio to be broadly consistent in Agency Automobile, Agency Homeowners and Other, and for the Personal Insurance segment compared to 2018. This underlying combined ratio outlook includes the impact of the catastrophe aggregate reinsurance treaty that Dan mentioned earlier. In the outlook section of our 10-K, we will provide some quarterly texture underneath our full-year underlying combined ratio expectations as quarter-to-quarter comparisons will likely vary throughout the year. All in for the segment, in light of the improved results in auto and the actions we're undertaking in Homeowners, we are pleased with our position and with the opportunity to profitably grow the business, while continuing to invest in new capabilities and explore innovative opportunities in an ever-changing marketplace. With that, I will turn the call back over Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you, Michael. And with that, we’re ready to open-up for Q&A.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Jay Gelb from Barclays. Your line is open.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you. First I wanted to touch based on the California wildfires. Can you give us some more perspective on how you compare your 2018 exposure to 2017 and whether you feel theirs is still type of public policy solution that needs to be addressed here given the annual major exposure for the industry?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Michael, you want to start?
Michael Klein:
Yes, I mean, I will start with just sort of the view of the exposure and Jay may be give you a little bit of a view into a little more detail underneath what we’d mean when we talk about granular underwriting and pricing actions in response. So as we look at California wildfire, it's clearly two significant years in a row of losses I think, the discussion and the debate about the environment is pretty broad and pretty public. In terms of our response, we look at a handful of things. First, we look at our underwriting appetite and our view on terms and conditions in the marketplace and we have taken action. We had already taken action in 2017 to begin to restrict our new business underwriting appetite. We've implemented further action that will take effect later on this quarter in 2018 to further restrict that new business underwriting appetite and also to instill new business underwriting procedures for example further inspections around defensible space as an example that will again sort of tighten our new business underwriting appetite. We've also discussed with the Department of Insurance in California and begun to implement some nonrenewal action in the State of California to address some of the more significant wildfire exposures in the portfolio. And we’re also in discussions with the department about a filing to increase prices for homeowners in California. So that gives you a little bit of texture underneath our response to wildfires in particular in the homeowners book.
Jay Gelb:
That’s helpful. Thank you. My second question was on the pace of share buybacks in the quarter. So if I look back over the past six quarters, the average quarterly buyback is around $385 million, which was much higher than the $170 million in the fourth quarter. So, I'm just trying to figure out if fourth quarter lower pace of buybacks was due to the elevated CAT losses, or if there's some other factors going on that we should take into account when we project buybacks in the years ahead?
Dan Frey:
Yes, Jay, it's Dan. I will take that. So really no change in our underlying philosophy. It's a consistent approach to capital management and to look at any one quarters worth of buybacks is probably a difficult way to look at it we think about it more over time as you would -- as you suggested and it would be true in the fourth quarter given the magnitude and the uncertainty related to the California wildfires, we did pull back a little bit on this level of share repurchase. But if you look at 2018 as a whole, we generated $2.4 billion of core income, we returned a little bit more than $2.1 billion through dividend and share buybacks and remember we made an additional $200 million contribution of the pension plan at the end of the third quarter. So really no change there. We are going to look at what level of capital we think we need to support the business, our projected levels of earnings going forward and the cash needs that we have for things like the pension plan and react accordingly. So what we buyback in shares is going to be an outcome of those things not really an objective of in and itself.
Jay Gelb:
Makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Elyse from Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi. Good morning. My first question just going to the business insurance, the underlying margin outlook for 2019. So if I go through some of your prepared remarks, you guys pointed to about 1 point above normal level of large losses in '18 with an offset partially there from that coming back of the additional aggregate reinsurance cover that you guys are purchasing. Now I know that’s 50 basis points overall, I’m not sure if you can go into the specific details within business insurance as we think about the margin improvement this coming year. And then as you set the margin outlook, are you guys assuming commercial auto gets better or worse when compared to how you guys ended up booking that business in accident year 2018?
Alan Schnitzer:
Elyse, good morning. It's Alan. So let me start and Greg you can jump in. So, we try not to get too quantitative on these outlooks. We try to keep it qualitative. There's a lot of estimates, a lot of judgments and a lot of things from period-to-period that are going to cause volatility. So we try to give you a order of magnitude and direction. Having said that, Greg did point out the -- essentially one point of property large losses that we would expect to return to more normal level. We do expect to address Commercial Auto over time, but a significant improvement in that is not otherwise reflected in the outlook for margins. And the overall impact of the new CAT Treaty on the BI underlying is relatively small. So I think in broad strokes that gives you sort of the way to think about the underlying outlook.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, great. And then my second question in terms of thinking about the pricing on outlook, you guys pointed to fairly stable renewal premium change this -- in 2019. So when you think about price versus exposure, can you give us a little bit of color of how you’re seeing potentially picking up seeing the different components? And then in the fourth quarter, that’s when we kind of annualize really the uptick in rates that we saw in 2017 following on the record CAT losses, did you see anything different in the market as we started to annualize some of that price that would be needed to think maybe the push for price will go one way or the other in 2019?
Alan Schnitzer:
You know between the CAT activity, Elyse, and one reinsurance renewals, we will all see together over time how that pricing plays out. We are not going to get anymore granular on the outlook than what we have in the outlook section that will be in the 10-K and that Greg shared. Overall, I would say that about 5 points of rate changes -- of price changes is pretty good change, if you look back at just the history of price change in BI a plus 5 would be in that historical context pretty good. And we've seen relatively stable allocation of that between exposure and rate. And so we feel pretty good about that overall.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the color.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Mike Zaremski from Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Michael Zaremski:
Hey, thanks. First question regards to the expense ratio improvement story. Would you say this is -- this will be -- is this in its early innings and could this be kind of a multiyear trend? It seems to have picked up in the second half of the year in terms of the improvement?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, what’s definitely ongoing for us is the thoughtful and disciplined management of both productivity and efficiency as a strategic effort, and that goes across the entire company everything we do. So you will see more activity from us in that regard. In terms of how it's going to come through in the numbers, you may or may not see that in the expense ratio. We’ve been saying for a while that our objective here is to create incremental operating leverage and we think that's very helpful to us, but really in the sense that it gives us a lot of flexibility. We can let that fall to the bottom line in the form of a lower expense ratio. We can take those savings and reinvest it into important strategic initiatives or we can decide to put it into price without compromising our return objective. So it's definitely an ongoing objective for us across the company. I think Greg gave you a sense of what a run rate is for BI and I don’t know, you want to -- Dan?
Dan Frey:
Yes, and for the enterprise I'd say similarly if you look at the full-year expense ratio, that's a pretty good indication of where we’re probably heading going forward. It has improved quite a bit over the last couple of years. I think we’ve reached a level that we're more happy with. As Alan said, we will continue to focus on productivity and efficiency, but I wouldn't expect to see a continued level of dramatic decrease in the expense ratio from the levels we’re at now.
Michael Zaremski:
Okay, great. And my last follow-up question is in regards to worker's comp were margins remain healthy. If we think about work comp pricing, does that expected to become more or less of a headwind as 2019 progresses? And then maybe you could also update us on loss costs trends in comp? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, workers' comp it's been under some pricing pressure, but completely rational of given where the profitability of the line has been. We are not going to breakout pricing outlook by line. We give it you for the segment, but the profitability continues to be good. And generally speaking, we would expect continued pressure in the comp line. We’ve got no change in commentary on workers' comp loss trend from what we shared with you last quarter, which is to say that we -- frequency and severity are -- those are selections, those are picks for us that go into loss ratios. And then data comes in over time and you look at reported activity over time and we compare that to what your selections are and decide if there's anything you're seeing that requires you to move off that. And as we shared last quarter and we would reiterate again, we're not seeing anything in the data that causes us to move off our loss picks.
Michael Zaremski:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Kai Pan from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Kai Pan:
Thank you and good morning. My first question on these sort of new aggregate reinsurance program. So how much your CAT loss would be in 2017 to '18, if these program is applied retroactively?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Kai. So we looked at modeling what things would look like going back a number of years and in particular over the last two years, probably not surprisingly given the elevated level of CATs, we'd have seen a full recovery under the treaty in each of the last two years.
Kai Pan:
Is that -- so is it safe to assume like your core loss ratio will be 50 basis points higher given -- aggregate cover, but your normalized CAT loss would be 50 basis point lower going forward?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, I wouldn’t say that it's an exact offset. I think if you go back to my comments, it's definitely about a half a point on the underlying combined ratio with the mitigating factor on the overall normal CAT expectation to get us back to pretty de minimis impact on the combined ratio all in, if we had a normal year of CATs which as you know in the last seven years we haven't.
Kai Pan:
Okay. In other word, if the CATs we see are coming lighter than your normal, you actually -- the lost combined ratio will be worse than in the normal year?
Alan Schnitzer:
The combined ratio would be worse because we would have exceeded a way premiums and had no recovery, correct.
Kai Pan:
Okay, great. My second question on personal line side. And your prior guidance for 2019 was improvements in the underlying margin in both homeowners as well as auto book. Michael just gave like guidance for 2000 -- new guide in 2019, pretty much consistent with 2018. Is that because 2018 actually improved better than you were previously expected, or you are reinvesting in the business for growth?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Kai. It's Michael. I think it's -- so it's actually a little bit of both, right. If you think about auto, auto came in better than we expected and so the broadly consistent outlook just reflects the update of the actual results compared to the outlook. On the property side, it's a little bit of a change in the outlook. Again, we've been talking about catastrophes and non-catastrophe weather and non-weather loss experience and talking about the fact that we continue to put more weight on more recent periods as Dan mentioned. And so the broadly consistent outlook for property is partly a reflection of that as well as the impact of the accounting of the new CAT ag treaty, which as Dan just talked about is a drag on underlying and, in particular, impacts the property line. So those are kind of the pieces.
Kai Pan:
Okay, great. Well, thank you so much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar from Buckingham Research. Your line is open.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks and good morning. Maybe just a couple of quick questions for Michael Klein. Number one, if you go back, I guess, to Allen's opening remarks, it seems like a lot of the work which was needed in Personal Auto has been done and I think here the comment was that we got their ahead of expectations. Maybe just update us on the loss cost trend environment out there and maybe the trajectory of rate filings?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Amit. So I think loss cost trend fairly consistent with what we've talked about, right? We see continued severity trend particularly in collision and physical damage, increased cost to repair vehicles, and again, many of those dynamics we see has been relatively consistent with what we would've talked about a quarter ago. There has been some commentary about a little bit less pressure on bodily injury lost cost trend in the environment. Again, I think when you put it all together and combine it with our view on frequency, I'd say it's consistent with Alan's comments earlier of we have a pick, we observe results and we sort of see most of that as variation around the loss cost trend we've estimated and so don't see a significant change in our loss trend outlook there. In terms of outlook for price change going forward, again, our RPC outlook for auto is that RPC will remain positive, but be lower in 2019 than it was in 2018.
Amit Kumar:
Okay. That’s helpful. The only other question I had was on the press release on lift. And I think lift has $1.4 million or so drivers. And I was curious if you could just maybe broadly talk about this opportunity, how we should -- we as outsiders should sort of handicap this going forward? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Amit, on lift we think it's an exciting opportunity for us to participate in the changing economy. It's a service offering for them. We wouldn't expect from an economic perspective for it to meaningfully move the numbers in the near-term, but it's a great partner and we're excited to work with them and excited to bring our leading claim capabilities to benefit for them.
Amit Kumar:
And any thoughts on expanding into another TNCs down the road?
Alan Schnitzer:
I don't -- we don’t have anything to announce at the moment. We are always thinking about whether there are opportunities for us to participate in an evolving economy and we will continue to do that as we think about innovation and what insurance means in the changing world.
Amit Kumar:
Got it. I will stop here. Thanks for the answers and good luck for the future.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS. Your line is open.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. A couple of quick questions here for you. First, just going back to the CAT loads or the CAT treaty that Tom was talking about. Is it a simple way to think about this kind of going forward, so we kind of assume a $1.3 billion CAT load for you guys? Is that kind of a good way to think about it?
Dan Frey:
Brian, it's Dan. So I will say we don’t give earnings guidance and so we won't give guidance on the specific pieces of the components that go into earnings. You could see historically we will disclose from time to time in the proxy what our expected level of catastrophes had been on sort of a backwards looking basis. We should take that number and probably think about it trending up over time for two reasons. One is we’ve seen growth in the premium volume in the overall exposure level in the business, and two, as we mentioned in my comments, a little bit more weight on recent periods that gives us a bit of an uptick in terms of our view of each dollar of those premiums that would need to go into CAT. But I'm going to avoid given a specific number.
Brian Meredith:
Got you. Great. And then my second question, I’m just curious, you guys had really good strong growth, new business growth in your Select business, small commercial. I’m just curious, does that have any pressure on your underlying loss ratios when you're seeing that type of new business growth?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Hey, Brian. This is Greg. Yes, in the Select business you can see the 11% new business growth year-over-year. We feel terrific about that growth. We've been spending quite a bit of investment in the technology in the workflow and the product management across all of the Select business. You can see that the quality of the book looks really good, really strong retentions in the 82, 83 range. So we haven't seen any meaningful deterioration in the underlying based on that new business.
Brian Meredith:
Great. So it's really like in auto you'll see that 10 year impact, you don’t get that in the small commercial?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Not as much just because you have the comp, you have the property, the GL and auto and [technical difficulty].
Brian Meredith:
Makes sense. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis from Autonomous. Your line is open.
Ryan Tunis:
Great. Thanks. Good morning. First question just for Alan. Looking at the 95.7 underlying combined ratio in business insurance, we factor in some elevated large loss activity, but then you throw in kind of a normal CAT load and 3 to 3.5 point range. It feels like we are running at a normalized level here at like 98%, which is only a 2% underwriting margin. That doesn’t feel like a double-digit ROE. I’m curious is this a level on the combined ratio where you'd be looking at kind of hold the line, if there's a place you should be thinking about -- little bit more of a sense of urgency around rate increases. Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Ryan, I’m not going to get into calculating those returns with you, but I -- but -- and clearly there's been some headwinds in pockets of BI, right. We talked about the commercial auto, we talked about large losses, we've -- Greg mentioned today some of the pressure outside the United States and the largest piece that come from Lloyd. So there are some aspects of that in which we would expect improvement over time, and we continue to get the 5 points of rate. So there are margin opportunities outside of the pure rate trend dynamic. Again, the BI large losses outside the U.S., commercial auto, that fixed income NII helps as those rates are where they are in the bond portfolio turns over. Again, you’ve heard us talk about expense leverage, that's been pretty good. And just in terms of earnings dollars the volume helps us well. So we're not feeling badly at all about where the returns are on underlying basis and where they’re trending. And if you take a step back and look at the whole company, Ryan, and -- you could do this math as well as we do, but if you take out prior year development and you put in wherever you think is normal for CATs, get a return that somewhere in the low double digits and given where the 10-year treasury is today. Again, that doesn't feel altogether bad to us, particularly with some opportunities we would see going forward and one of the benefits of having a company of this size is you got a diversified portfolio of businesses. So we always feel a sense of urgency around here. There's no question about that. We are at the heart of who we’re optimizers and everything is not perfect, we’re going to work with a sense of urgency to optimize it. But there's no sense at all here that that there are problems.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Ryan, one thing I would add. This is Greg, is when you do that math, keep in mind that we do have different combined ratio target, depending on what the net investment income is generated based on those product line. So think workers comp where we have the largest rate or we could run a higher combined ratio relative to a shorter tail line like property. So I would just ask you to keep that in mind also when you do that math.
Ryan Tunis:
Understood. And then my follow-up is, I get the commercial auto to increase with the business is more lawyer involvement, but what’s not completely clear to me as why that wouldn’t translate this an elevated trend and the Other Liability line. So just curious what gives you guys comfort to do things you’re seeing in auto or auto is specific and we shouldn’t be seen more broadly general liability.
Dan Frey:
Yes. So, Ryan, we certainly watch that carefully. And just walk you through the lines and our thinking on it. So you’ve got GL large for a second, excess umbrella and I would put Management Liability in this group too. We already have very, very high levels of representation in those claims. So that's again already a high percentage RD pre-active there. On the smaller side, the GL small we are, we are seeing a little bit more of the attorney rep, but it doesn't seem to be quite as active as it is in the auto when -- we just speculate that's probably not as attractive of business opportunity for the plaintiffs bar, you've got a much more very portfolio of claims there, harder to make the case and many cases. So just -- it's just not as well hanging fruit at least for now. When you get into the really small when -- the liability component of CMP, again we have seen the pressure. This theme in other words does cross liability lines, but to a lesser degree than we see in auto.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Your line is open.
Meyer Shields:
Hi. Pardon me, I guess, is probably beating on a dead horse here, but when you discuss the impact on the core loss ratio from the commercial treaty that’s completely separate from the one point of elevated large property losses. Do I have that right?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, two totally separate topics.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. And second, the 50 basis point increase that you mentioned, that’s not compared to 2018. That’s compared to what 2019 would be otherwise, is that fair?
Alan Schnitzer:
It is compared to what 2019 would otherwise have been, correct.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, great. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg from Janney Montgomery Scott. Your line is open.
Larry Greenberg:
Hi. Good morning. Thank you. Just on investment income, wondering if there's anything to say about non-fixed income in the first quarter, given the volatility in equity markets and fixed income markets in the fourth quarter. And then, just given some of the spread widening that took place in the fourth quarter, have you done any asset reallocations given some of that volatility or what some might view as opportunity?
William Heyman:
Hi, Larry. It's Bill Heyman. Let me take in reverse order. With respect to the second question, we haven't really changed our strategy, we regard increased spreads as you say is opportunity, assuming our credit judgment is good, which historically it has been. The -- as you know the yield on a 10-year treasury dropped from 3.06 at the end of the quarter to about 2.69 at the end of the year, its back up to about 2.75. So that's been partly compensated for by spread widening. So we are still pretty comfortable with what we're seeing out there. In returns of private equity, we occasionally make internal projections of what we think the portfolio will throw up and we've been notoriously inaccurate. We generally far too pessimistic. I agree that the developments in public equity markets in the fourth quarter taken alone wouldn’t order well for 2019, but we've seen similar situations where developments like that have been followed by perfectly good years. So your guess is probably as good as ours.
Larry Greenberg:
Thank you.
Operator:
We have time for one more question. Your next question will come from the line of Yaron Kinar from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Yaron Kinar:
Thanks for allowing to sneak one in. As we go back to business insurance and the underlying combined ratio there, so I think you said that you had about a 1% point of non-CAT, large losses in '18. I think that was roughly the same number that you had in '17, so if I look at the underlying combined ratio, it seems like there was a little bit of deterioration year-over-year. Maybe if I adjust for the commercial auto, it's flat to slightly worse. Can you maybe talk about what is driving that this year and then what gives you lead confidence that 2019 numbers will look better.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Hey, Yaron, this is Greg. Number one, you’re correct that we do our best job possible of trying to normalize our large losses, and that’s how we price and managed the business and we were over expectations in 2017 and as I disclosed in my prepared comments we are also over our normal expectations for 2018. That was roughly the one point.
Yaron Kinar:
The difference and maybe a point to the full-year underlying combined ratio where you can see an 80 basis points difference between those, the full-year '17 and the full year '18. Then again in my prepared comments I mentioned auto driving a little bit more than half a point there. The international businesses is also driving above a little more than half a point and that's predominantly driven based on the Lloyd's business. And then we had some as I disclosed some favorable expense activity that offset some of that. So those are all the pieces that get to there.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
So if you expect the expense ratio may be not improved to the same magnitude in '19. Can you still expect some improvement in '19 for the overall underlying combined ratio. Can you maybe talk about where that improvement would be coming from, given the current loss terms?
Alan Schnitzer:
It's basically that one point of large losses.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. Okay. And then maybe a quick one on the prior year development. It sounds from the scripted comments that the slowdown in that prior year development, favorable development was really driven by an increase in adverse development and not so much by maybe a decrease in gross favorable development. Is that fair?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Let me just start and I will queue it. The question almost implied that there is a trend in prior year development. There is no trend in prior development. Our obligation at the end of every quarters to come up with management's best estimate and we do that, and then every quarter we go through the process of reevaluating our returns and making adjustments where we feel like we need to. So in any for any given period, the level of prior year development is just a net of those adjustments to best estimates.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, I would echo that which is why I think we’re pretty careful to always characterized and as net favorable prior year reserve development are net unfavorable prior reserve development, because there are business lines in accident years that go both ways. And if you step back and look at the full-year, a little more than $0.5 billion of pre-tax net favorable prior year reserve development. Not that big in the scheme of the balance sheet, if you look at the right side of the balance sheet you’re seeing loss and loss of adjustment expense reserves of around $50 billion. So we are pretty good at estimating losses, but every quarter we are going to update and refine them.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it. Thank you so much.
Operator:
I will now turn the call back over to Ms. Goldstein for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you all for joining us today. And always if you have any follow-up questions, please reach out to us in investor relationships and have a good day. Thanks.
Operator:
This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Abbe Goldstein - Senior Vice President, Investor Relations Alan Schnit - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Frey - Chief Financial Officer Gregory Toczydlowski - President, Business Insurance Thomas Kunkel - President, Bond & Specialty Insurance Michael Klein - President, Personal Insurance, and Head Of Enterprise Business Intelligence & Analytics William Heyman - Vice Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
Analysts:
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Ryan Tunis - Autonomous Research LLP Brian Meredith - UBS Investment Bank Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Amit Kumar - Buckingham Research Group Yaron Kinar - Goldman Sachs. Josh Shanker - Deutsche Bank Larry Greenberg - Janney Montgomery Scott LLC Meyer Shields - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Michael Zaremski - Credit Suisse
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Third Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of the formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 18, 2018. At this time, I would like to turn your conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our third quarter 2018 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplements and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at travelers.com, under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Dan Frey, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. By now, you've seen our numbers and we're pleased with the results. This morning we reported third quarter net income of $709 million or $2.62 per diluted share, generating return on equity of 12.6%. Core income was $687 million or $2.54 per diluted share. Our core return on equity of 12% was strong, particularly considering that while catastrophe and non-cat weather losses were significantly lower than last year's quarter. In the aggregate, they were nonetheless elevated relative to our expectation. Our performance this quarter is the result of excellent underwriting execution across a diverse portfolio of businesses, a successful and consistent investment strategy, and the continuation of our strategy of returning excess capital to our shareholders. Notably, our results this quarter benefited from record high net earned premium and the sub-30% consolidated expense ratio, reflecting progress that we're making on our strategic agenda. About a year ago, we explained that our strategic plans were largely geared toward creating top-line opportunities and that improving productivity and efficiency was an important component of our strategy. Each of our business segments has contributed on both counts. They've done so by successfully implementing technology workflow and product enhancements, and by making sure that we're delivering compelling value to our customers and distribution partners. Before I get further into the results, I want to acknowledge the devastation caused by hurricanes Florence and Michael. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those who have been impacted. Following events like these, our claim organization works hard to make sure that our customers see the value of the promise they bought from us, and our agent and brokers see the value of the Travelers' promise they sold. Case in point, as of today, we've closed more than 90% of our homeowners' claims arising out of Hurricane Florence. And we're bringing the same level of urgency for our customers impacted by Hurricane Michael. We're thankful for the extraordinary effort by our claim professionals. Turning to production, we were pleased with the success of our marketplace execution. Growth in each segment contributed to consolidated net written premium growth of 6%. In domestic business insurance, retentions remain historical highs, which is a reflection of the fact we have a high quality book of business and the significant percentage of it is meeting our return expectations. Renewal premium change, including pure rate and exposure, is strong at around 5%, which is about 2 points higher than in the prior year quarter and stable sequentially. Inside that, pure rate is up about 1 point quarter-over-quarter and down a little sequentially. And economic activity is contributing to a healthy level of exposure growth. At this level, pricing is more or less offsetting loss trend, but as you know, we don't manage the headline number. There is a continuum of price change with workers' comp at the low-end and commercial auto at the high-end. In between, there are accounts, products and geographies, where we need more price and others where we don't. And we'll execute accordingly. In terms of pricing and profitability, there are a number of factors that impact our returns beyond rate and loss trend. First, we actively manage all the available levers, such as risk selection, mix of business, claim and expense initiatives, volume, reinsurance, and so on. Beyond that, there are a few environmental factors at play. A decade after the financial crisis, interest rates and as a result net investment income are moving higher. As I mentioned, economic activity is generating exposure growth. And thanks to tax reform, we're benefitting from a level playing field and a lower tax rate. We take all that into account in our pricing strategy to achieve our target returns. We follow the same approach across all of our businesses. Turning to Bond & Specialty Insurance, net written premiums increased by 5% with strong production in both our Management Liability and Surety businesses. In Personal Insurance, net written premiums increased by 6%, benefiting from continued successful execution in Agency Auto and [PIT] [ph] growth in Agency Homeowners. You'll hear more shortly from Greg, Tom and Michael, about the segment results. Before I pass the microphone, I'd like to share a few thoughts about some of the investments we've made and are making. We've grown our top-line year to date by over $2 billion or 11% as compared to the same period in 2016. Over that same two-year period, we've managed G&A expenses to about flat. You've seen the impact in our expense ratio. In addition to a lot of hard work by the best field organization in the business, our ability to have done that has been enabled by significant investments in things like core technology and work flow. We've been making these investments over some time, while delivering leading returns and we continue to invest thoughtfully and strategically. As we shared with you before, in terms of innovation, we have three clear priorities
Dan Frey:
Thank you, Alan. Core income for the third quarter was $687 million, up $434 million from the prior year quarter, and core ROE was 12%, up from 4.5%. The significant improvement in both measures from last year's third quarter resulted primarily from the lower level of weather-related losses and very strong net investment income. Our third quarter results include $264 million of pre-tax cat losses, a significant amount although well below the $700 million in the prior year quarter, accounting for 6.9 points of improvement in the combined ratio. Prior year reserve development was slightly favorable in comparable quarter-over-quarter. The consolidated underlying combined ratio was 93%, which excludes the impacts of cats and PYD remains steady. As a higher level of non-cat weather losses was mostly offset by the improvement in our expense ratio. Our pre-tax underlying - underwriting gain of $448 million remains steady, as increases in Business Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance were largely offset by results in Personal Insurance. Pre-tax net investment income increased by $58 million from the prior year quarter to $646 million, while after-tax NII increased by $90 million to $547 million. Both measures benefited from the more favorable interest rate environment and increase in average invested assets resulting from continued growth in net written premiums and favorable results in our non-fixed income portfolio. On an after-tax basis, NII also benefited from the lower U.S. corporate income tax rate. As we had expected after-tax fixed income NII increased by $60 million, and we expect after-tax fixed income NII in the fourth quarter will increase by $60 million to $65 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2017 as net written premiums continue to grow and reinvestment rates are expected to exceed existing rates on upcoming maturities. Net favorable prior year reserve development of $14 million pre-tax or $10 million after-tax was comparable with the prior year quarter. On a year-to-basis, net favorable prior year reserve development was $350 million. Both Bond & Specialty Insurance and Personal Insurance experienced net favorable PYD this quarter. Business Insurance experienced net unfavorable PYD driven by a $225 million increase to asbestos reserves along with $57 million increase to commercial auto reserves that resulted from elevated severity in recent accident years partially offset by favorability in the workers' compensation line. Excluding the asbestos charge, Business Insurance had $169 million of net favorable prior year reserve development. The asbestos reserve increase resulted from the completion of our annual asbestos review during the third quarter. The increase was driven by higher estimates of projected settlement and defense costs from mesothelioma claims compared to what we had previously expected. As has been the case in previous years while there was some slight improvement in several of our asbestos indicators, our expectation had been from more of an improvement. This phenomenon has continued to result in periodic reserve strengthening for us and for others in the industry. The numbers of deaths from mesothelioma, which we believe as a leading indicator of further asbestos payments has trended downwards somewhat during this decade. At the same time, the mix of mesothelioma deaths by age has shifted to older cohorts. That may be the result of medical advances over time successful treating a variety of other deadly diseases, allowing more people who work with asbestos when it was prevalent in the workplace prior to the late 1970s to live long enough to the develop mesothelioma in their 70s and 80s. Ultimately, this high-risk cohort will become smaller over time, so we continue to expect that the current claim environment will improve as time goes on. Bond & Specialties net favorable prior year reserve development of $53 million pre-tax was driven by domestic Management Liability, while in Personal Insurance, the net favorable PYD of $17 million pre-tax was driven by domestic personal auto. Turning to capital management, operating cash flows for the quarter of $1.7 billion were again very strong. All our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of approximately $1.4 billion. While, it was already overfunded, we made a discretionary contribution of $200 million to our qualified pension plan before we filed our 2017 tax return in September, which provided a 35% rather than a 21% tax benefit resulting in $28 million economic tax benefit in the third quarter. Recent increases in interest rates, which have benefited our fixed income NII have resulted in a modest net unrealized investment loss impacting shareholders' equity. As of September 30, we had an unrealized investment loss of $447 million after-tax. Remember the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses do not impact how we manage our investment portfolio nor our business. We generally hold fixed investments to maturity, but quality of our fixed income portfolio remains very high and changes in unrealized gains and losses have had little or no impact on our statutory surplus or regulatory capital requirements. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses, is now $86.51, 4% higher than at the beginning of the year. We continue to generate excess capital, and accordingly returned $607 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter. Comprising share repurchases of $400 million and dividends of $207 million. On a year-to-date basis, we have returned $1.76 billion of capital to shareholders through dividend and share repurchases. While it obviously do not impact our third quarter results, I'd like to provide some commentary regarding Hurricane Michael. While much of the media focused on this storm has been on the devastation of homes in Florida, and our thoughts are with all those impacted, it's worth noting that this was a multiday event impacting both personal lines and commercial lines in a number of states. In addition to Florida, the PCS footprint also includes Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. Given that, it's just a week or so since the storm hit, we are still assessing our view of losses from the event. At this point, we expect the losses from this storm to be significant. In terms of meeting the threshold for inclusion in the schedule of catastrophes in our quarterly SEC filings, but manageable relative to the fourth quarter overall and not something that would preclude us from resuming stock buybacks next week. And with that, I'll turn the microphone over to Greg.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Dan. Business Insurance produced segment income of $410 million and a combined ratio of 100.6% for the quarter both significantly better than the prior year quarter due primarily to a significantly lower level of catastrophes this year. The unfavorable prior year reserve development that Dan mentioned had 1.5 point impact on the combined ratio. The underlying combined ratio of 95.4% was 1 point better than the prior year quarter as non-cat property fire losses, which were elevated in the prior year, returned to more normal levels. Although, the underlying loss ratio improved from the prior year, it was impacted by about above 1 point from higher than expected non-cat weather. For perspective, the third quarter of 2018 included 18 PCS in equivalent events outside the U.S. that did not meet our cat threshold, while 2017 had only 6. While losses from non-cat weather were unfavorable to our expectation, cat losses were favorable. In the aggregate of the cat and non-cat weather was generally in line with our expectations for the quarter. Our expense ratio improved by around 0.5 point as we remain focused on managing expenses thoughtfully while making ongoing strategic investments and prudently growing the business. Turning to the top line, net written premiums were strong for the quarter at $3.6 billion, up 6% over the prior year quarter driven by strong production results. Regarding domestic production, we achieved strong renewal premium change of 5.1% with renewal rate change of 1.8%, while retention was exceptional at 86%. New business of $467 million was up 7% from a year-ago. Pure rate is up more than 1 point from the third quarter of 2017 and down a bit sequentially, but as you know, we executed a very granular level. We continue to achieve renewal rate gains broadly across our Middle Market accounts with auto, CMP, GL, property and umbrella all having positive rate increases. Auto continues to be the line with the highest level of rate consistent with our view of performance of the line. We're pleased with these production results in consistent with Alan's comment, we continue to execute our marketplace strategy to meet our return objective with thoughtful balance towards retaining our best business, improving pricing where it's needed and pursuing attractive new business opportunities. Turning to the individual businesses. In select, renewal premium change and renewal rate were stable, while retention remained strong at 83%. New business was 5% over the prior year quarter as we continue to leverage our investments in technology and workflow initiatives. In Middle Market, renewal premium change was 4.7% with renewal rate change of 1.6%, while retention remained historically high at 87%. New business premiums of $269 million were flat to the prior year quarter in aggregate. In our core commercial accounts business, where our business initiatives are most advanced, new business was up 5% as we continue to be more active in the market with increased quote activity. In closing, Alan laid out our innovation agenda across the company. As we shared with you at last year's Investor Day, for Business Insurance that means furthering our capabilities around customer solutions, convenient processes and competitive cost structure. Our strong marketplace execution including the impact from the progress we've made on the strategic initiative have contributed to our ability to deliver nearly $600 million of additional net written premium year-to-date in 2018, while keeping insurance G&A expenses generally flat. With that, I'll turn it over to Tom to talk about Bond & Specialty Insurance.
Thomas Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty delivered strong returns in growth across the business. Segment income of $196 million was up $60 million from the prior year quarter due primarily to a higher level of favorable prior year development. The underlying combined ratio was an exceptional 78.3%. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 5% driven by broad growth across our businesses. These results reflect the impacts of strategic products, marketing and distribution initiatives to grow these profitable lines, including workflow enhancements to drive improved efficiency and productivity internally as well as for our agents and brokers. Advanced analytics leveraging our valuable proprietary in third party data to refine our marketing and underwriting strategies, and improvements in value added capabilities to further distinguish our product and service offerings in the marketplace. Turning to production. In our domestic Management Liability business, given the level of returns we are achieving we continue to execute our strategy to retain a substantial percentage of our high quality portfolio, while pursuing attractive new business. So we are pleased that the retention came in at a very strong 89% for the quarter with the renewal premium change of 3 points. New business was at a record level up 12% from the prior year quarter. So Bond & Specialty results were excellent and we continue to feel great about our execution in the marketplace, our growth in returns and the opportunities that are strong market position and competitive advantages present for the future. And now, I'll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tom. And good morning, everyone. In Personal Insurance this quarter, we continue to deliver on our objectives of balancing growth and profitability in auto and sustaining momentum in homeowners. Segment income of $153 million, increased $76 million over the prior year, while their combined ratio of 97.2% improved 2.5 points. These improvements were primarily driven by lower catastrophe losses and a modest amount of favorable prior year reserve development, partially offset by higher underlying loss experience, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. Agency Auto delivered a strong quarter, with a combined ratio of 91.3%, down 14.7 points from the prior year quarter. While the quarter benefited from 1.8 points in favorable reserve development, as well as 6.7 points from lower catastrophe losses, the main story is the continued improvement in underlying auto profitability. The underlying combined ratio improved over 6 points to 92.6%. Primarily as a result of the continued successful execution of our underwriting and pricing strategies, as well as frequency that was better than we expected. Taking our year-to-date underlying combined ratio for Agency Auto of 94.8% and factoring in our normal expectation for a seasonally higher fourth quarter combined ratio, we're on track to be within our targeted combined ratio range for the full year, which is sooner than we originally expected. In Agency Homeowners & Other, the third quarter combined ratio of 100.3% was impacted by a significant number of catastrophe and the non-catastrophe events. Catastrophes, including the Carr Wildfire and Hurricane Florence added 11 points to the combined ratio this quarter, a slight improvement relative to the third quarter of 2017. The high number of other PCS events that Greg mentioned, along with a variety of additional non-catastrophe weather events, accounted for roughly 6 points of the 10 point increase in the underlying combined ratio for the quarter. The remainder of the increase was largely attributable to non-weather loss activity, including elevated water and fire losses. As we indicated last quarter, we are actively factoring this more recent loss experience into our granular pricing and underwriting decisions. Renewal premium changes have increased year-over-year and we expect an acceleration in Homeowners' pricing in future quarters. Turning to the top-line, Agency Auto premiums grew 6%, driven primarily by price increases, which continue to moderate consistent with our plans and in line with improving profitability. In addition, we're pleased with the modest improvements in retention and a 2% increase in new business, the first year-over-year increase since the first quarter of 2017. In Agency Homeowners & Other, we remain pleased with our momentum, delivering 6% growth in both net written premiums, as well as policies in-force, while achieving renewal premium change of 3.8%. All in for the segment, results continue to improve and we're pleased with our progress in our plans to generate profitable growth going forward. As Alan mentioned, we're excited about our new relationship with Amazon, along with the other strategic initiatives we have underway, including the ongoing roll out of Quantum Home 2.0, further expansion of our IntelliDrive auto telematics program and continuing investments in digital capabilities that improve ease of doing business for our customers and agents, while making us more efficient and effective. Now, I'll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. We're ready to begin question-and-answers, please.
Operator:
And ladies and gentlemen, at this time we will now conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Your first question today comes from the line of Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Kai Pan:
Thank you and good morning. First, best wishes for Jay for his retirement. And congrats to Dan on the new position. My first question is on non-cat losses. You have elevated non-cat losses for several quarters now. And so yet in your outlook, you expect them to normalize in 2019. So what give you confidence that recent experience will not be the new normal?
Alan Schnitzer:
I guess, Kai, when we're - the outlook section, Business Insurance, that underlying margin, I think as we reflect in those words, is a reflection of large losses returning to more normal levels by historical standards.
Kai Pan:
So at what time - at what point, I'm wondering those recent experience will factor in into your outlook or normalized non-cat losses.
Alan Schnitzer:
Is that a PI comment, you're…?
Dan Frey:
Is that PI question, Kai?
Kai Pan:
I think of probably for both, if you can comment on both PI as well as the BI.
Alan Schnitzer:
Kai, if we're talking about weather, this is the insurance business and there is going to be volatility in weather. And we acknowledge that we've had a run of quarters where we've had some variability in both cat and non-cat weathers. But if you go back and take the longer view, looking at cats and non-cat weather together, for the whole place, 2009 was better than we expected. We had a run from, I think it was 2010 to 2012 that was worse than we expected. At the end of 2012, we were thinking, gee, is this a new normal. And then, we went into a period of 2013 to 2015 that was favorable. 2016 was sort of spot on. And then, you got 2017, so far 2018 that has - that's been elevated. And so, we're - our objective is to get it right. Missing it too high is no better than missing it too low. Our objective is to get it right and make that we're pricing our product over time for what we expect on an overtime basis. And we think that we're effectively doing that. In terms of - if this is a question about modeling and you're trying to figure out how to think about your model for next year, we give you all the help we can in the outlook section of the 10-K and 10-Q. But thinking about this business on a longer term, we're taking all the data we have into account. We're thinking about everything we know about the future and making sure we're pricing our product for the long term.
Kai Pan:
And so, you don't think sort of like is there a secular change in term of weather pattern that could change your expectations?
Alan Schnitzer:
Kai, I mean, I don't know whether you measure weather cycles by the year, by the decade or by the millennia. I mean, we know it's in our data and we can see that. And part of this isn't just weather. It's population migration into more wildfire and weather prone areas. And so, we take all of that, and all the history into account when we think about both our underwriting, our risk selection, geographically where we want to be, what kind of risks we want to write, terms and conditions, what our risk control people look for when they're going out, looking at the property to underwrite it. And we take it into account in pricing. But I'm - we're very interested in the question you ask, which is why off the top of my head I knew what weather had done going back almost a decade. And we follow it very carefully, and take all that into account when we're thinking about the future.
Kai Pan:
Thank you very much for that. My second question on workers' compensation, some of your peers indicated there is a rising frequency trend in workers' comp claims. I just wonder if you could discuss your experience, as well as, as the pricing is going down, will you will be able to maintain the underlying margin in this line of business?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, Kai, so we've obviously followed all the chatter in worker's comp with great interest in - that's a business that we've historically been very good in. And we got a big set of data and we like that business a lot. But getting back to your question, let's - loss trend, frequency and severity, those are selections, right? Those are management estimates based on actuarial analysis of history and a view of expected trends. And that is a view that goes into both pricing and reserving. So you set up those expectations. And then you look at the data quarter by quarter as it comes in. And there are always ups and downs in the data every single quarter in virtually every product line. And so, you look at those ups and downs and you take a step back and you say, okay, what do we think caused those things to go up and down? Sometimes we know and sometimes we don't. And is that normal variability, normal volatility in that measure or is there something more fundamental going on that we expect to persist into the future? So particularly in a long tail line, you'd be pretty careful about making a dramatic change based on one quarter of data. So I'll tell you, we're watching it very closely. We do see ups and downs in these measures from time to time. We haven't seen anything year to date that's caused us to move off our loss picks. And, Kai, back to your other question, you asked - given pricing, will we be able to maintain returns in the product. If pricing is going down and everything else is equal - I mean, pricing is for sure an input into returns. If pricing is going down and everything else is equal, then the margins in the product will go down, that's just arithmetic. Pricing isn't the only factor. There is loss trend, as we just discussed. There is risk selection, there is claims handling. There are all the other levers that go into the return of a product. But your question, will rate - the decline in rate causes the return to go down, if that's the only thing that changes, yes. But that's not the only lever that there is. We're not going to get into a forecast of margins on a product-by-product basis.
Kai Pan:
Great. I really appreciate all the answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Kai.
Operator:
And your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. I just had a - I guess in Business Insurance, the $160 million or so of total favorable development, I think, that's excluding the commercial auto, and excluding the asbestos. What's contributing to that? Is that basically entirely workers' comp or are there other liability lines that are also showing some redundancy?
Dan Frey:
Hey, Ryan. It's Dan. So one clarification, so the $169 million was excluding asbestos only. So it is reduced by the commercial auto strengthening. Most of the driver of the remainder of the favorability in Business Insurance is coming from the worker's comp line, although there is some favorability in the other general liability once you exclude asbestos. But worker's comp, that's the big driver.
Ryan Tunis:
Great. And I think probably from Michael. Just on the home results, I think you said elevated water and fire, it was 4 or 5 points of loss ratio deterioration. Just trying to understand like exactly what's going on there why that's a trend? Why that's something you think you need to price for? What's driving that? What could be driving that? Just trying to understand, what the loss trend is in the non-cat?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Ryan. Thanks for the question. And I'll just clarify it. So the 10-point deterioration in the quarter again roughly 6 points, roughly two-thirds of it, is coming from non-cat weather which includes PCS events that don't meet our threshold for a major cat as well as the other weather that I talked about. Your point about the other water losses and the fire again in the 10 points - the remainder of the 10 points was largely due to those. That's not 4 or 5 points. It's a smaller number than that, call it roughly a third. And it's about 50-50 non-weather water and fire inside that. I would say the fire experience is very much sort of normal period-to-period volatility. I think the non-weather water is something we've been watching, I think, you've heard others probably talk about non-weather water losses. We're digging into it, we haven't found smoking gun underneath it. But we have seen a deterioration in that experience and that is one of the underlying drivers that's causing us to rise price and expect an acceleration in homeowners RPC on a go-forward basis. Tying back to Alan's comments earlier on non-cat weather and underlying results, again you sort of look at - we look at all of that and our baking a portion of that into our outlook and into our underwriting and pricing strategies on a go-forward basis. So we are factoring in elevated loss levels that we've been seeing recently into our pricing and underwriting decisions and our pricing and underwriting strategy, which is again why you see our outlook for pricing to be higher.
Ryan Tunis:
Got you.
Operator:
And your next question will come from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Yeah, thanks. Couple of quick questions here. First, I'm just curious, how are your interest rates, is that having impact on, kind of, how your pricing models are coming out at this point, any impact on it?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, I guess a couple of things on that. One, it's certainly an input into our pricing models, no question about that. It's hard to isolate, how any one factor is going to impact pricing, right? Yes. You start with - the return on the product when the policy renewals and then you put rate loss trend, interest rate assumptions, et cetera into it, and you come up with the price. But is that your question, Brian?
Brian Meredith:
Yeah, yeah, exactly. I'm just wondering, if some of the impact we're seeing maybe on your renewal rates has anything to do with just the higher interest rates going into your, kind of, calculation.
Alan Schnitzer:
I don't think so. First of all, because the duration of the assets, it's going to take a while for that to really ramp up and work its way in. And then, as the risk free rate goes up, our cost of equity goes up, and that's also an input into our pricing model. So I wouldn't say that the increase in interest rates is a dampener on price.
Brian Meredith:
Great. And just quickly on the Amazon, and I guess connected homes. I wonder if you could dive a little more into that? What do you think the kind of benefit you'll see from a loss trend perspective? Or is there some kind of metrics you could give us that when you got a connected home loss experience is supposed to be 20%, 15%, 30% better?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Brian. It's Michael. Thanks for the question. And again, it's - I would say, it's a long game we're playing here, and it's certainly something that we think will create opportunities for both us and our agents. We do believe that connected home devices should have a favorable impact on loss experience. It's very early days, we've not only been doing the work with Amazon, we've been connecting other experiments with other smart home device providers to try to quantify the benefits. What I can tell you is that we are filing to expand the discount for connected home devices in conjunction with this and the other work we've been doing, and moving that discount to about 5% as we roll the new Quantum Home product out across the country. So that's probably the best number I can give you to put a point on it. But again, it's early days and it's - we are very much looking forward to the teaming up with Amazon and to some of the other experiments to gain insights into the impact of these devices on loss experience.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Very helpful. I appreciate it.
Operator:
Your next question will come from the line of Paul Newsome with Sandler O'Neill. Please go ahead.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning. I was hoping you give us a little bit more thoughts on the ultimate trend for the expense levels - expense ratios in both Business Insurance and Personal lines business? And just how far you think you can push that number around?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think, we're going to avoid that temptation to try to forecast the expense ratio. We give you all the outlook on margins in outlook sections that I think, we want to give. And I - but there's a really important strategic point here. Productivity and efficiency are very important initiatives around here, everybody is focused on it, but it's not necessarily for the purpose of just lowering the expense ratio. It's for the purpose of giving us flexibility from the financial perspective. We're trying to create flexibility to take that benefit and either let it fall to the bottom line, we can reinvest it in important strategic initiatives, where we can make a decision to put into price without compromising our return threshold. So while it's on everybody's mind here, and it's a big focus for us, it's not just about managing an expense ratio.
Paul Newsome:
Do you have a target or a goal in terms of the number of investments that you want to put in some of these, sort of, new insuretech-type businesses that you focus on this quarter?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. There is not a bogey that we would share from just competitive sensitivity perspective, we certainly think about the opportunity and what it's worth when we invest in these things. But we've made a deliberate decision so far not to set up a fund or allocate a certain amount of dollars to an initiative like that. We may change our mind. But at least our perspective now is, you do something like that and then you end up spending the money whether you find value in it or not. The fact of the matter is we generate a lot of excess capital. Our objective is to reinvest that money any time we can, when we think we can create shareholder value with it. So having said that, we are very, very disciplined about every dollar we spent and we put it up against a lot of metrics and measures to make sure we're getting that value out of it. But I wouldn't put a number or scope the opportunity.
Paul Newsome:
Thanks for the call.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
And your next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar with Buckingham Research. Please go ahead.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks and good morning. Two quick - I guess, follow-up questions. The first question goes back to Kai's question on workers' compensation. Would it be possible maybe just talk a bit more about how should we be thinking about the pricing, because if you look at some of the pricing surveys, comp pricing is still in the negative territory, but coming back. And what would be really helpful is, just broadly, if you exclude workers' comp, how will the pricing look like?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, on workers' comp, I don't know if you're looking for forecast on pricing, where that's going obviously we're not going to get down to forecasting the pricing in a line. I mean, that's not much more competitively sensitive than that. But what I will say about pricing in the workers' comp, it's a reflection of a line of business that's been very profitable for us. So there's nothing about the pricing dynamics so far that's a surprise to us.
Amit Kumar:
Okay. The other question is a follow-up on the Amazon relationship. I was a bit surprised that it wasn't somewhat of an exclusive relationship and in the fine print it shows that's in four or five states and it's initially targeting, I guess, 15,000 customers who will get the free echo. Can you just talk about the trajectory? And did you try to be in exclusive relationship or not? Just give some background on that.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Sure, Amit. The 15,000 you referenced is a specific target of devices for the state of California only. And that's just the unique feature of the way we set the arrangement of in that state. To your point, just to give background for the rest of the group. The first four states - and this is really driven by regulatory filings and regulatory requirements. There was actually an endorsement of the policy that's required for us to be able to make the offer. And so we're essentially linking the Echo Dot offer and the discounts on the connected devices with that filing as we make it and get it approved across the country. So the first four states are just the initial four states, we plan to extended two additional states as we go-forward. And again, the 15,000 is just a number of devices specifically for California subject to the terms of the agreement with Amazon. As respect to your question about an exclusive, we're not going to comment sort of specifically about the details and the terms of the agreement beyond that. But again, I bring you back to - we're excited about this opportunity, we think it's a great opportunity for us. We are excited about the relationship with Amazon, and we're excited about the opportunity it presents for our agents and brokers to promote the program and how to sell these home safety solutions to our customers.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks for that color. I will stop here. Thanks.
Operator:
And your next question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Yaron Kinar:
Good morning, everybody. First question, going back to the expense ratio. Just seems like a real step function improvement this quarter, I know, you've highlighted the expense management initiatives for a while and we've seen the earned premium growth as well. But I was just curious, if there was anything else specific this quarter that was driving this improvement, whether it was timing or other one-offs that helped the ratio here?
Alan Schnitzer:
No. There is nothing unusual underneath it. There is no timing or sort of onetime things that are artificially improving in it, a lot of hard work over a long period of time enabled by years of investments in technology and workflow that's enabled it.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. And it just all came together this quarter, I guess?
Alan Schnitzer:
I mean, you've seen an expense number that's been flat over a pretty long period of time. And you've seen an expense ratio that's been on a decline. So I mean, it's sub-30. It's just as good a number as we've printed in a long time. But as we see it, the continuation of a trend.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. Fair enough. And then going back a second to non-cat weather specifically and BI. I noticed that you exited the - I think, the open market property in Lloyd's this quarter. Would that or should that have some positive impact on non-cat weather going forward, you think?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yeah, Yaron. This is Greg Toczydlowski. That's a real small portion of our overall Lloyd's book and hence it's a real small portion of our overall BI portfolio. So it really wouldn't have a material impact on the loads of the business going forward.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. And would you be wanting to tell us what's the year-over-year change in non-cat weather was and BI?
Alan Schnitzer:
I don't think that's detail that we've given. We did tell you that non-cat weather and BI, I think, what Greg said was about a point relative to what we would have expected. Hopefully, that's useful color for you.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay. I appreciate it.
Operator:
Your next question will come from the line of Josh Shanker with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Josh Shanker:
Yeah, thank you for taking my question, and good morning. Following up on Yaron's question, I might have it wrong in my notes. But I think in 3Q 2017 you said you had 200 to 250 basis points of manmade fire losses that were elevated in 3Q 2017, and now we have a 100 basis points of elevated non-cat weather. Maybe my numbers are wrong there. But if I strip those two items out, am I wrong to come to the conclusion that the underlying true-true underlying loss ratio in BI has deteriorated over the last 12 months?
Alan Schnitzer:
I mean, it's certainly worse by - I don't know exactly what your math was. But I don't know. There is another 50 basis points or something like that that we would just consider the normal variability in the insurance business. But I wouldn't consider it a structural - I mean, the word deterioration suggest the systemic structural deterioration. We wouldn't say that. We'd say there is another 50 basis points of just variability and this is the insurance business.
Josh Shanker:
Well, I mean, if I go back to like the 3Q 2017 10-Q, the projection was that margins would improve as I guess these items - I guess, am I - and my numbers - I guess, are my numbers right, there were 200 to 250 basis points of fire losses a year ago embedded in the numbers, is that still correct?
Alan Schnitzer:
That is correct.
Josh Shanker:
Okay. And then, I think we've been through it in the past, but I just want to go through it again. You got a very, very good quarter on alternative investments results. And in terms of when you record them, the limited purchase and whatnot, are they on a lag, are they in real-time? Can we just talk about how those are recorded and how we should think about that going forward?
William Heyman:
Sure. It's Bill Heyman. Actually it's a mix. If a private equity fund sells a portfolio of company and distributes the proceeds within a quarter that comes into NII for this quarter. If at the end of the quarter, those proceeds are still in the fund, that doesn't come into NII, until we receive the financial statements from the fund. So if you carve-out distributions, and this year they've been responsible for the minority of private equity fund NII, there is a lag in terms of written up values. I know people ask us, maybe you to try to project. But with 75 sponsors, 200 funds and 3000 portfolio of companies, we probably couldn't come up with something that was even meaningful to us, much less something we ventured a share. So we probably can't offer much guidance on what the next quarter ought to look like.
Alan Schnitzer:
Hey, Josh, let me just go back to your question on BI underlying. And there is a - it seems implied to your question that you're looking at our outlook or explanation of prior periods and thinking about that as a forecast for a particular quarter. We are not giving the outlook information to try to give you guidance on any particular quarter. We're just trying to give as much help as we can on the general trends, as best as management can see it and interpret it and what those trends are and how they're influencing margins over the forward year. We identified the large losses last year, because that was an outlier. And in this quarter, it just so happens that those return to a more normal level - more normal level. But there are other factors that are going to impact this business from time to time. There is going to non-cat weather. We had that this quarter. We told you that was about 1 point. There are base year changes. There are premium adjustments. There are all sorts of things that in any particular quarter could impact the result. So I would just caution you, in terms of the way you use that outlook in terms of an expectation that it's guidance.
Josh Shanker:
So then, I mean, just that I want to get off to my next question. But do you feel that you're about - margins are about stable on where they were in your mind a year ago, generally trying to adjust for all these items?
Alan Schnitzer:
I mean, I don't think backwards. I think forwards. So we are where we are. We think there is an elevation of a 100 basis points of non-cat weather. And we've given you in the outlook as best we can where we think it's going to go.
Josh Shanker:
Well, good luck with the future. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Josh.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg with Janney Montgomery Scott. Please go ahead.
Larry Greenberg:
Hi, thank you. And actually my questions have been answered. But just one other thought. And why not just use the PCS definition or allocation of catastrophe losses in your own cat definition, which, I don't know, might not do anything for you guys internally, but probably just would help with communication with the investment community and probably doesn't eliminate the non-cat discussion completely, but probably reduces a bit, any thoughts on that?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, it's certainly a topic that - yeah, sure, it's a topic that we certainly debate among ourselves all the time. We created the convention that we had, I don't know, probably in 2002 or something like that or maybe even before that. And the theory behind it was there is going to be some level of weather losses that ought to be stable and relatively predictable. And then you have things that are more severe that aren't. And obviously, particularly, more recently, we've seen a lot more volatility in that, call it, working layer of weather. So I don't know if we'll do it or if we won't do it. But we appreciate the comment and we have thought about it and continue to think about it from time to time.
Larry Greenberg:
Great. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with KBW. Please go ahead.
Meyer Shields:
Great. Thanks. Two quick questions. First, I guess, last quarter you talked about pricing within domestic BI excluding workers' compensation at 3.6 points. And I was wondering whether you could give us an update for the third quarter.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, we gave that last quarter. It was relevant. We hadn't intended to give it going forward. There is some competitive sensitivity to giving that on an ongoing basis. But having said that, and having given to you last quarter, I don't think we would intend to give it going forward. But I'll tell you, that also take down a few tenths of a point. But again, I'll point you back to the RPC of 5, which if you think about that 5 in a historical context that's a very strong number. And, well, I'm not going to quantify it. But the RPC ex-workers' comp is even higher than that, so hopefully a couple of helpful data-points.
Meyer Shields:
No, that is helpful. Second question, I was hoping you could dig a little bit into what observation drove the commercial auto reserve charge?
Alan Schnitzer:
As we indicated, it was severity in recent accident years. And we can speculate on some of what the causal factors might be and whether that's inexperienced drivers or higher density on the roads given the - I mean, we can give you some factors that we could all read about. I mean, the fact of the matter is it's hard to isolate it to one or two things that we can pull out of our data and say that it's this. It's a line that's been challenged from a profitability perspective for a while. We've known about that. We've been pricing for it. We've gotten, I don't know, over couple of years cumulatively 20 points or rate or something like that. So we're trying to get ahead of it. But it's hard to get to the causal factor. And if we can analogize to PI auto, we've seen some fluctuations in frequency and severity there. And sometimes those are explainable and sometimes they're not. We can speculate about some things. But I wouldn't know exactly what to point to, to tell you what it is.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, great. Thank so much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question will come from the line of Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.
Jay Cohen:
Yes, thank you. Most of my questions are answered as well. I guess, just on the Amazon relationship, I mean, this is such a massive platform. And I know what you're talking about now is relatively modest for travelers. But was there any discussion around a broader product offering on their platform? Was auto thought about at all as far as being on that platform as well?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Yeah, Jay, I think - again, I would stick with we're very excited about what we've done with Amazon, and not get into speculating on what other opportunities might exist there. We're really focused on making the most of the relationship we've established here, again, for us, for our customers. And importantly, because I - and I keep emphasizing this, because I think it's gotten lost a little bit in the rhetoric, but importantly, creating opportunities for our agents and brokers to take advantage of it with their customers as well.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, Jay, we love the question and we are very enthusiastic about it. I think we're a little bit hesitant to give any further insight into the way we're thinking about it strategically beyond what we've said.
Jay Cohen:
Certainly shows you guys are being first movers in this, so it is pretty exciting.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
And your final question today comes from the line of Michael Zaremski with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Michael Zaremski:
Hey, thanks for taking my question. I want to focus on personal auto for a minute. It feels like the year-to-date accident year combined ratio is kind of back where you want it to be. I don't know if you'd agree with that. I know you mentioned frequency was better than you expected. Maybe you could provide some color on whether it's kind of maybe back to its long-term negative trend and you are maybe being conservative. And then, along the same lines, I don't get the sense you guys are - are we going to start growing that line or - but maybe I'm wrong, because you've been growing homeowners at a nice clip, but auto is kind of been in a maintenance mode.
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Sure, Mike. Thanks for the question. I think as we've been talking about the auto. The auto strategy at the top-level has shifted from reduced growth and manage profitability to balance growth and profitability. So we have shifted a bit in our mindset there. We are very pleased with the results year to date. And as I indicated, expect will be within our target combined ratio range for the year, which is ahead of schedule. Most of that is driven by the pricing and underwriting actions that we've taken. Some of it is driven by better-than-expected frequency that we've seen. I think for all the reasons that Alan just outlined in the commercial auto discussion, so that we're cautious about our outlook on frequency. But one of the drivers of the improvement has been frequency has been a bit better than we expected for a little while now. And so, we're cautiously factoring that experience into our outlook. And I would say cautiously optimistic. And again, you can see our outlook for pricing and for margins in the line in the outlook section as we spike it out there for you. But really pleased with where we are with auto and looking forward to taking it forward from here.
Michael Zaremski:
Okay, great. And one last follow-up on the fixed investment income guidance for 2019 and the outlook, it seems like it's about a 5% increase in the run rate. I know there is a lot of moving parts here. But premiums are growing mid-single-digits. Interest rates have moved higher. So just maybe there are some moving parts I'm not appreciating. It seems like it is conservative.
Dan Frey:
I think - it's Dan. If you think - I think if you look at the run rate that we're on and the fact that the interest rate environment should continue to improve modestly. And we're modestly growing the level of premiums. I think that trajectory makes a pretty good amount of sense that fixed income portfolio is a fairly predictable number. We've been giving you that type of guidance for the last several quarters. And I think we've been coming in pretty close to that guidance.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, in the outlook section, I think we give you the driving factors. And we can take the - we can take it offline.
Michael Zaremski:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Right, [hope you'll get them out] [ph]. Thank you.
Operator:
And we have no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the call back to the presenters for closing remarks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Yeah, thank you very much for joining us this morning. And Investor Relations is available if you have any follow-up.
Operator:
Thank you, everyone, for attending today. Ladies and gentlemen, this will conclude today's call. And you may now disconnect.
Executives:
Alan Schnitzer - Chairman and CEO Jay Benet - CFO Greg Toczydlowski - President of Business Insurance Tom Kunkel - President of Bond & Specialty Insurance Michael Klein - President of Personal Insurance David Rowland - EVP and Deputy CIO Abbe Goldstein - SVP of IR
Analysts:
Jay Gelb - Barclays Randy Binner - B. Riley FBR Elyse Greenspan - Wells Fargo Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Amit Kumar - Buckingham Research Greg Peters - Raymond James Yaron Kinar - Goldman Sachs Sarah DeWitt - JPMorgan Josh Shanker - Deutsche Bank Brian Meredith - UBS Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of the formal remarks at which time you’ll be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded today, July 19, 2018. At this time, I would now like to turn the conference over to Ms. Abbe Goldstein, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Goldstein, you may begin.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our second quarter 2018 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplements and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our Web site at travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Tom Kunkel of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I’d like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described under forward-looking statements in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our Web site. And now I’d like to turn the call over to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Abbe. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported second quarter net income of $524 million and return on equity of 9.2%. Core income was $494 million generating a core ROE of 8.7%. These results were significantly impacted by an active tornado/hail season. Catastrophe losses of $488 million this quarter arose out of nine storms. To give you some context, that’s around $50 million more than we would have expected. To put a finer point on it, losses from PCS defined catastrophes that don’t hit our threshold to qualify as cat losses as we report them were about $25 million favorable to our expectation. So all-in, losses from PCS events were only about $25 million pre-tax more than we would have expected. That’s well within the normal variability that we anticipate and price for. Having said that, this makes the recent series of quarters of catastrophe losses that have exceeded our historical experience and our expectation; tornado/hail, nor'easter, hurricanes, wildfires and mudslides. We haven’t seen a string like that in the last decade. It also includes some unusual circumstances. For example, the California wildfires were historic and last year was the first time more than one category for hurricane has made landfall on the U.S. mainland in one season. In terms of creating shareholder value over time, we don’t want to overreact anymore than we want to under-react. And when it comes to something as inherently unpredictable as weather, we take a balanced approach to developing conclusions from what takes place over a relatively short period of time. As always, the impact of weather on our business has our full attention and we’ll continue to use our leading actuarial expertise in the latest in weather modeling to inform our underwriting and pricing decisions. In addition to the weather, the underlying results in Business Insurance include a small number of large commercial losses, primarily fire related, that exceeded our expectations by nearly a point on a consolidated combined ratio. We believe this is normal variability and large loss activity and Greg will share more detail on that with you shortly. Whether its weather or other large losses, there’s no doubt that actual results are going to vary from our expectations sometime significantly. What’s important in this business is that we have the data analytics and expertise to see and evaluate the trend so we can manage for success over time. We’re confident that we do. On an underlying basis, the underwriting results benefitted from record earned premium. The underlying combined ratio of 93.6% was strong and consistent with the prior year. Underneath that, our businesses continue to perform well. In Business Insurance, the underlying combined ratio of 96.5% was solid particularly in light of the large loss activity I just mentioned. Bond & Specialty Insurance produced another impressive quarter with an underlying combined ratio of 80.5%, a 1.5 improvement from a strong result in the prior year. In Personal Insurance, the underlying combined ratio improved about 2 points as a result of the successful execution of the pricing and underwriting actions we’ve taken in our auto business. Our consolidated expense ratio improved by 40 basis points in the quarter and 30 basis points on a year-to-date basis, as we continue to benefit from expense discipline and strategic investments in technology and workflow to improve productivity. In terms of our investment results for the quarter, we were pleased that income from our fixed income portfolio was up, driven by higher short-term rates and a higher level of invested assets. Turning to production, we were very pleased with our continued successful execution in the marketplace. Net written premiums increased by 7% to a record $7.1 billion with each of our business segments contributing. As we saw this quarter and in recent quarters, we would expect underwriting results going forward to benefit from higher levels of earned premium. Once again, premium growth reflects to a large degree high levels of retention and positive renewal premium change. As I pointed out in the past that speaks to the quality of the business we’re writing. In addition to that, we explained at our Investor Day last fall that the strategic investments we’re making are designed in large part to create top line opportunities for us. The early success of some of those initiatives contributed to a healthy level of new business in the quarter. In Business Insurance, renewal premium change reached 5.3 points, its highest level since 2014 while retention remained at historically high levels. Excluding workers’ comp, renewal rate change for domestic business insurance was 3.6 points compared to little less than a point in the same quarter last year. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, record retention, higher renewal premium change and higher new business led to a 6% increase management liability net written premium. Surety premium was up double digits. In Personal Insurance, as you know, we grew our PI Auto business considerably from late 2015 to the first part of 2017, including during a period of time in which the rate we were charging was not sufficient to cover an unexpected increase in bodily injury severity. We made the point at the time that the volume of business we wrote during that period would nonetheless be a positive contributor to economic value if we were able to keep that business and achieve rate adequacy. We have in fact been able to do that. Greg, Tom and Michael will provide more detail on production at the segment level. To sum it up, weather in large losses unfortunately color the quarter. As I said, it has our full attention. But looking at the quarter and looking forward, that doesn’t define the strength of our business. We see that clearly in our underlying underwriting results and in our success in the marketplace. That is in part a reflection of the competitive advantages that we’ve developed over decades and continue to serve us well and new capabilities we’re developing to enable us to continue to lead in a rapidly changing world. We have and will continue to invest in our franchise by extending our lead and risk expertise, improving the experience for our customers, agents and brokers and enhancing productivity and efficiency. Combining that with our strong balance sheet, superior talent and capital management strategy, we remain well positioned to continue to deliver industry leading results over time. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. Core income was $494 million, down from $543 million in the prior year quarter and core ROE was 8.7%, down from 9.5%. As Alan indicated, these changes were not driven by fundamentals and our operating performance; rather they resulted from a pre-tax increase of $85 million in catastrophe losses, $488 million compared to $403 million in the prior year quarter and an incremental pre-tax charge of $45 million related to a few large commercial losses that were primarily fire related. PYD was also modestly lower, $186 million pre-tax compared to $203 million. Higher cats and lower PYD accounted for 1.3 of the 1.4 point increase in our consolidated combined ratio, 98.1% versus 96.7% in the prior year quarter. Our consolidated underlying combined ratio of 93.6% which excludes the impacts of cats and PYD remains steady changing by only one-tenth of a point as 1.7 point increase in BI’s underlying combined ratio that primarily resulted from the fire related losses was almost entirely offset by improvements in both PI and Bonds & Specialty, 1.9 and 1.5 points, respectively, demonstrating the value of our diversified set of businesses. Our pre-tax underlying underwriting gain of $392 million increased by $19 million driven by increases in both PI and Bonds & Specialty. Greg, Tom and Michael will provide more details of our segment results shortly. Pre-tax net investment income remains strong, $595 million in the current quarter versus $598 million in the prior year quarter while after-tax NII increased from $468 million to $507 million due to the lower U.S. corporate income tax rate for all the tax exempt investment income. As with the first quarter, pre-tax fixed income NII of $510 million increased by $26 million compared to the prior year quarter driven by the more favorable interest rate environment particularly for short-term rates as well as an increase in average invested assets that resulted from recent growth in net written premiums. After-tax fixed income NII increased by $48 million and looking forward we expect after-tax fixed income NII for the remainder of 2018 will increase by approximately $55 million to $60 million in each of the third and fourth quarters compared to their corresponding quarters in 2017. Non-fixed income continues to perform well although not as well as in the prior year delivering $94 million of pre-tax NII. And overall, core income benefitted this quarter by $54 million due to the lower U.S. corporate income tax rate. Turning to reserve development and on a pre-tax basis, BI’s current quarter net favorable development of 84 million was primarily driven by better than expected loss experience in domestic workers’ comp partially offset by higher than expected experience in general liability for accident years 2008 and prior, including a $55 million increase in environmental reserves. Importantly, the current GL loss trend remained consistent with recent periods. Bonds & Specialty’s net favorable development increased to $89 million driven by domestic management liability and PI had $13 million of net favorable reserve development driven by personal auto. Year-to-date, on a combined statutory Schedule P basis for all of our U.S. subs, all accident years across all of our product lines in the aggregate and all of our product lines across all accident years in the aggregate developed favorably or had relatively small unfavorable development. Operating cash flows of over $1.1 billion were very, very strong. We ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of $1.4 billion and all of our capital ratios were at or better than target levels. The recent run up in interest rate that’s benefitted fixed income NII has for the first time in many years resulted in a small net unrealized investment loss that impacted shareholders’ equity. After-tax net unrealized investment gains which were $1.1 billion at the beginning of the year and $133 million at the end of the first quarter moved to a net unrealized loss position of $112 million after-tax at the end of the quarter. This was the driver behind a 3% decrease in book value per share from $87.46 at the beginning of the year to $84.51 at the end of the current quarter. I’d remind you the changes in unrealized investment gains and losses do not impact the manner in which we manage our investment portfolio or our business. We generally help fixed income investments to maturity, the quality remains very high and changes in unrealized gains and losses have little or no impact on regulatory capital. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes unrealized investment gains and losses is now $84.93 or 2% higher than the beginning of the year and 3% higher than the end of the second quarter of last year. We continue to generate excess capital and consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy we returned almost $560 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter comprising dividends of $209 million and share repurchases of $350 million. Year-to-date, we returned over $1.15 billion of excess capital to our shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Before turning the microphone over to Greg, I’d point you to Page 19 of the webcast and provide a brief update on our catastrophe reinsurance program, the significant component of our overall reinsurance protection program. While the structure of our cat reinsurance is generally consistent with the prior year, we did take advantage of the current pricing environment to increase our cat bond limit by 200 million while reducing our Northeast Property Cat Excess-of-Loss Treaty limit by the same amount. A new $500 million reinsurance agreement with Long Point Re III has replaced the $300 million agreement that expired in May. The new agreement provides nor’easter, hurricane, earthquake, severe thunderstorm and/or winter storm coverage for certain property losses on specified lines of business through May 24 of 2022. The attachment point and maximum limit will be reset annually. So through May 24 of 2019, the full $500 million limit is available after covered losses from a single occurrence reach $1.9 billion and until such covered losses reach a maximum of $2.4 billion. And effective July 1, we renewed our Northeast Property Cat Excess-of-Loss Treaty which now provides coverage of $600 million part of $850 million in excess of $2.25 billion. A more complete description of our cat reinsurance coverage which also includes a description of our Gen Cat Aggregate Excess-of-Loss Treaty that covers an accumulation of certain property losses arising from multiple occurrences is included in our second quarter 10-Q which we filed earlier today and in our 10-K. So with that, let me now turn the microphone over to Greg.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks, Jay. Business Insurance produced segment income of $385 million and a combined ratio of 98.8% for the quarter. The underlying combined ratio of 96.5% was 1.7 points higher than the prior year quarter driven in particular by non-cat property losses, mostly a small number of large fire acclaims that Alan and Jay mentioned. We reviewed every one of these claims looking for underlying trends and not seeing any correlation we view this activity as normal period-to-period variability. The underlying loss ratio was also impacted by the net impact of small amounts and movements with a number of usual things including non-cat weather, base year adjustments, earned pricing compared to loss trends as well as business mix. A couple of other points I’ll make on the underlying results. First, we’ve been discussing the impacts of earned pricing versus loss trends for some time now. We’re now at a point where the higher levels of earned pricing about covered loss trends of the quarter. Secondly, we remain focused on managing expenses thoughtfully while making ongoing strategic investments and prudently growing the business. Our expense ratio improved by about 0.5 point for the quarter when adjusted for the industry-wide assessment from a Texas Windstorm Pool related to Hurricane Harvey. Turning to the top line, net written premiums were strong for the quarter at $3.8 billion, up 7% over the prior year quarter with domestic net written premiums up 6% driven by strong production results across virtually all of our businesses. Notably, Middle Market was up 9% due to the production results that I’ll touch on in a moment. International net written premiums were up 6% excluding the impact of changes in foreign currency rates. Turning to domestic production, we achieved renewal rate change of 2.1 points and renewal premium change was 5.3 points, while retention remains strong at 85%. New business of $532 million was up 8% from a year ago. We’re pleased with these production results particularly considering the pricing pressure in workers’ comp associated with strong industry profitability. Outside of comp, we continue to achieve renewal rate gains broadly across the remaining portfolio. Auto continues to be the line with the highest level of rate while property increases continued to accelerate in the quarter. We continue to execute our pricing strategy on the account-by-account and class-by-class basis with thoughtful balance towards retaining our best business, improving pricing where it’s needed and pursuing attractive new business opportunities. Our results for the quarter reflect our continued deliberate and successful execution in the marketplace. Turning to the individual businesses. In Select, renewal premium change was 4.8% while retention remained strong at 82%. New business was up 15% over the prior year quarter as we continue to leverage our investments in technology and workflow initiatives. We’re pleased with the returns in this business and our strategic direction. In Middle Market, renewal premium change was 5.2 points with renewal rate change of 1.9, up from 1.6 in the first quarter and up by more than 1 point from a year ago while retention remains historically high at 88%. New business premium of $315 million were strong, up 6% from the prior year quarter. As Alan mentioned, we couldn’t be more pleased with the impact our strategic initiatives are having on the business. So all-in for the segment, we continue to build momentum in the marketplace from our strategic initiatives and feel great about how we’re positioned for the future. With that, I’ll turn it over to Tom to talk about Bonds & Specialty Insurance.
Tom Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty’s operating results were very strong with segment income of $204 million, up 41 million from the prior year quarter due to a higher level of favorable prior year development and higher earned premiums. The underlying combined ratio was also very strong at 80.5%, 1.5 points lower than the prior year quarter primarily reflecting improvements in the expense ratio also due to the higher level of earned premiums. As to the top line, net written premiums for the quarter were up 9%, driven by broad growth across our businesses. These results reflect the impacts of strategic product, marketing and distribution initiatives to grow these profitable lines and in the case of surety also reflect higher average bonded contract sizes and modestly increasing spending, in particular public sectors. Our growth in international was primarily driven by our UK management liability business. Turning to production in our domestic management liability business, given the level of returns we are achieving we continue to execute our strategy to retain a substantial percentage of our high quality portfolio while pursuing attractive new business. So we are pleased that retention again came in at a record of 89% for the quarter and that new business was strong, up 10% from the second quarter of last year. Renewal premium change of 3.4 points increased from the prior year quarter. So Bonds & Specialty results were excellent and we continue to feel great about our execution in the marketplace, our growth in returns and the opportunities that are strong market position and competitive advantages present for the future. And now I’ll turn it over to Michael to discuss Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tom, and good morning, everyone. The second quarter results in Personal Insurance reflect an elevated level of catastrophe losses already mentioned by Alan and Jay. While we’re disappointed with the resulting net loss for the quarter, we’re very pleased with the underlying performance of both our agency auto and agency homeowners business. The second quarter results continue to confirm that we are delivering what we intended, a stable volume of auto business with improved profitability and a steadily growing volume of homeowners business with attractive long-term returns. Personal Insurance reported a quarterly loss for the segment of $17 million compared to income of $12 million in the prior year quarter. The overall combined ratio was up slightly to 104.9 from last year’s 104.1 but the underlying combined ratio improved nearly 2 points as catastrophe losses accounted for more of the total combined ratio. The quarter also included a modest amount of favorable prior year reserve development which Jay described earlier. In agency auto, the combined ratio for the quarter was 95.4%, down 11 points from the prior year quarter due in part to nearly 3 points of favorable prior year development and 1 point less of cat losses. The underlying combined ratio was also much improved, down nearly 7 points to 95.5% as a result of earned rate exceeding loss trend and more of a 9 [ph] loss environment. Stepping back to look at agency auto overall, we’re very pleased to see premium growth for the year-to-date of 9% with the combined ratio on both the total and an underlying basis below 96. Normal seasonality will most likely result in combined ratios higher than this for the full year but we’re pleased with the trajectory of this business and remain on track to deliver target returns over time. In agency homeowners, the second quarter combined ratio of 113.6% includes 26.2 points of catastrophe losses related to the wind and hail activity Alan mentioned. And the underlying combined ratio of 85.2 included about 1 point of impact from the Texas Windstorm assessment that Greg described. Catastrophe losses for the quarter were above both last year’s elevated levels and above our expectations with the late May event in the Northeast and the late June Colorado storm being the most significant for us. Given the magnitude of these losses and what is now a series of quarters in which catastrophe losses have exceeded expectations, a few comments are warranted here regarding our analysis of these results. In the quarter, the primary driver of the elevated cat losses is the nature of the events, their frequency, severity and location including the localized impact that is characteristic of tornados and hailstorms. As Alan mentioned, as we look at this quarter and our experience over recent quarters, we’re factoring it into our pricing and underwriting decisions. As you will note in our outlook, we expect renewal premium changes for homeowners to be slightly higher over the next four quarters than the comparable periods in 2017 and '18. Turning to the top line, agency auto premiums once again grew by 9% driven primarily by price increases as the volume of policies in force stayed broadly flat. We’re pleased to see retention holding steady as we continue to achieve renewal premium change in excess of loss trends. Although by design the pace of price increases is trending down from the peaks we reached in the third and fourth quarters of 2017. In agency homeowners and other, premium growth for the quarter accelerated slightly to 6% with continued increases in both the numbers of policies in force and renewal premium change. Retention held steady at a very strong 86%. The rollout of Quantum Home 2.0 continued with another four states during the second quarter. Another six states will launch next month. As we’ve stated in the past, the introduction of this new product will contribute to sustainable momentum and we continue to be encouraged that its flexibility, sophistication and ease of use are being well received by our agents and customers. And with that, I’ll turn the call back over to Abbe.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks, Michael. And we’re ready to take your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from the line of Jay Gelb from Barclays. Please go ahead.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you. My first question is on the investment portfolio. Given the effect of the lower tax rate for corporations, I was hoping you can just update us on your views in terms of whether Travelers might consider reducing its major allocation to municipal fixed income investments in the fixed income portfolio?
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning, Jay. It’s Alan. I’m going to ask Dave Rowland to answer that question.
David Rowland:
Sure. Thanks, Alan. We have not really seen a reason to change our strategy overall. We continue to find relative value at points on the curve where municipals are more attractive to us on a risk adjusted after-tax return basis. And so we continue to buy municipals and plan to do so in the future.
Jay Gelb:
Okay, thank you. And then my next question is on the recent news with Johnson & Johnson and their emerging asbestos exposure around talc. Just last week they had a $4.7 billion legal judgment against them tied to asbestos. So I was wondering if you can give your broad thoughts on that issue as it relates to talc and J&J and whether Travelers might have exposure there. Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure, Jay. Thanks for the question. As you can imagine we’re always following all of the emerging issues and talc has been on our list of issues to follow for a long time. We don’t comment on any individual insurers. That wouldn’t be appropriate. But we will say as it relates to that issue and virtually any other issue – maybe not even virtually just every other issue, all the news is in the public domain and all the news that we’re aware of in the public domain or not is reflected in our thought process that goes into reserve. So I think I’ll leave that there.
Jay Gelb:
I appreciate it. Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Randy Binner from B. Riley FBR. Please go ahead.
Randy Binner:
Hi. I had a question just on top line, which was good in the quarter. I think there were some comments on it in your opening remarks and script. But I just like to understand better if this better net premium written growth is a reflection of a better economic activity or if you feel that you’re capturing share from competitors? And if it’s the latter, just kind of elaborate on what the market dynamic is there?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Randy, it’s a broad question because I think you got to sort of almost look at it business-by-business across the place. You can definitely see in the exposure numbers that it’s at a healthier clip than recent periods this quarter and we do look at that and there’s nothing really unusual going on underneath. So we do attribute that to economic activity. But there are others strategic things going on in the business that we think are driving premium growth. So we’ve spent some time at Investor Day talking to you about the things that Greg and his team are doing in Business Insurance. All designs create top line opportunities for us with no change in appetite, no change in approach to risk but just the value proposition that we offer to our agents, brokers and customers. And it’s still reasonably early days but the traction has been good and that’s reflected in the new business numbers you see Middle Market there. And I’d say the same thing for Tom’s business, a lot of strategic things underway. I think he also talked about most of them at the Investor Day last fall and we think that’s making a difference. Are these seismic changes in market share, I doubt it, but I think it is contributing to really healthy production and really healthy earned premium results.
Randy Binner:
And I guess the follow up there is – and we’ll see how this develops over the earnings season. But these are – you’re a very large market and these are large gains. And I’m thinking more in Business Insurance in Slide 9 in particular in the slide deck. Is it – it seems like it’s a combination of things. I appreciate that answer. But is there a market out there? Is there another competitor who is backing away from key lines where you’re focused on, or is it really just an even mix of all the things you talked about?
Alan Schnitzer:
Randy, I think it’s an even mix. And let me just reiterate something that I said in my prepared remarks which is when we look at the change in written premium quarter-to-quarter, for example, there’s a large part of that that’s coming from retained dollars. So that’s an equivalent retention rate on a higher base of expiring premium and rate. And so we view that as a very positive thing and a reflection of a lot of hustle by a terrific field organization and great data and analytics at the point of sale. But we think that really speaks to the quality of the business that we’re putting on. And again the fact that we’ve got no change in appetite, no change in our approach to risk just really solid execution again account-by-account basis whether that’s on a retained basis or a new basis. There is some exposure in that 5.3 points of price and again we do think that’s a function of economic activity and there’s some rate in there. So I think in terms of what we’re doing in the marketplace production top line, Randy, we free great about it and firing all on cylinders.
Randy Binner:
All right, great. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi. Good morning. My first question, in the 10-Q in your outlook you guys pointed at the potential for the imposition of tariffs and other barriers to international trade could potentially lead to higher than expected levels of inflation. Alan, if you could expand upon that comment? What lines you potentially see being impacted over what timeframe and how that translates into your margin outlook for your businesses?
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning, Elyse. Thanks for the question. Obviously, tariffs in conversation about trade generally is in the news and it’s completely appropriate to point it out. Tariffs presumably would impact the inputs that go into loss cost as are a lot of things, by the way, that impact the way we think about loss cost. I think generally we would look at that as affecting short-term lines and things that we could react to. So we don’t look at it. There’s no sort of outsized expectations here but we’re watching it. There’s a lot of rhetoric out there, so we’re just anticipating what could happen. I think the important takeaways are largely affect short term lines and we can react to it. And you and anybody can have a view on what those tariffs are likely to do to economic activity which we think has as much leverage for us positively or negatively as on the inflation side of things. So that’s the way I think about tariffs at least.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. Thank you. And then my second question, the renewal rate change if we back out comp was about 3.6% in the quarter, up about 30 basis points sequentially, so obviously a little bit of a slowdown quarter-over-quarter than we saw last quarter. Can you just comment on how you expect the rating environment to continue from here maybe by line, getting a lot of rate and commercial, auto and property but how do you see all that coming together and do you expect next quarter will the number be higher than 3.6%? And then also as we think about getting into 2019 just how do you see those numbers progressing from here?
Alan Schnitzer:
Elyse, as always, we give you some texture on outlook in the 10-Q for renewal price change and so we’re probably not going to get more granular than that. There’s not much more competitively sensitive than our pricing strategies. I’ll make some observations though. We do see a steady trend over the course of the year actually probably going back to beginning of 2017, we feel pretty good about that. The breadth of where we’re getting the rate gains continues to widen. We think that’s a good thing. Retention hasn’t shown any stress at all at where we are in the mid to high-80s, we got a long way to go before we’d feel like we were sacrificing retention. But we haven’t. Retention has held up. And so we feel pretty good about it. We are not – as I always remind you, we’re not executing for a headline number. We’re executing one account at a time to achieve a targeted return on that account and on our portfolio. So all-in-all, we feel pretty good about that. So maybe I’ll leave it there and happy to respond to a follow up if you have.
Elyse Greenspan:
No, that’s helpful but just one point of clarification. In Business Insurance, did I hear the comment correctly that you guys are insinuating that earned prices is covering trend or it’s just at those lines getting the highest level of rate?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think what Greg’s comment was is that and this is for all of BI that earned pricing is about covering loss trend. And so we’ve had a bunch of quarters in a row where we’ve told you that loss trend outpacing pricing has been a contributor to the underlying combined ratio. This is the first quarter probably in a while we haven’t mentioned that because the impact really is quite small. And that’s on an earned basis not a written basis. Obviously written basis would be more favorable.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, that’s great. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Kai Pan from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Kai Pan:
Thank you and good morning. My first question is on the BI underlying combined ratio deterioration under 70 basis points year-over-year. If you take out sort of like a $45 million of large commercial fire losses as well as the $9 million of assessment from the Texas Wind pool, that’s about 1.5 points. So effectively you’re flat year-over-year. I remember last year second quarter you had a higher basically elevated level of non-cat weather losses. I just wondered can you quantify this quarter’s non-cat weather losses relatively to both last year second quarter as well as your historical average.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hi, Kai. This is Greg. Yes, we tried to give you all the pieces there so you could do the math on that. On the combined ratios we said the large losses were running just over the 100 basis points [indiscernible] that got to the 30 basis points. And so the gap that’s in the remainder is the normal margin of variability that we would expect from quarter-to-quarter. So we tried to give you all the pieces on that so you could project that going forward.
Alan Schnitzer:
So, Kai, Greg mentioned a bunch of the sort of smaller items that – those things move around every quarter. They’re not predictable. And we try to do our best to give you a sense in the outlook section as good as we can but there’s obviously a lot of estimation in that. And obviously whether it’s base year or small weather or whatever, those things are going to move a little bit in positives and negatives and you tally them up and there’s a net impact. But it’s that kind of thing.
Kai Pan:
So your outlook suggest that second quarter non-cat weather loss is larger or higher than the normalized levels?
Alan Schnitzer:
Say that again, Kai?
Kai Pan:
So your outlook said the second half assuming a more normalized non-cat weather losses which means the second quarter this year actually have higher non-cat losses?
Alan Schnitzer:
If I understand the question right, Kai, in Business Insurance if that’s what you’re asking, non-cat weather was – are you talking quarter-over-quarter relative to our expectations?
Kai Pan:
Relative to your expectations.
Alan Schnitzer:
It was slightly favorable in Business Insurance this quarter.
Jay Benet:
Kai, this is Jay. What we’re referring to is not just the non-cat losses. We’re just talking about non-variability – I’m sorry, return to whatever view is of normal for these things that will vary from quarter-to-quarter, non-cat losses being one of them, but we said all other loss activity. So we weren’t trying to just spike out the non-cats.
Kai Pan:
Okay. I just want to sort of figure out is randomness or is the loss cost trend above your earned pricing.
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s a variety of things for which there’s always going to be normal variability. There’s no fundamental change in our view of loss trend in the quarter.
Kai Pan:
Okay, thank you. My follow-up question is on the inflation. Aside from tariff impacts we’ve also seen higher litigations as well as settlement events cost. And how do you think about loss cost trend going forward? And have you discount that in your reserve as well as pricing going forward?
Alan Schnitzer:
I’ll invite Tom to comment on that as it relates to the management liability, but Kai because I imagine that might be your focus. But I will tell you that we certainly see in our own book and read about all the trends that you see and read about that’s reflected in of course our pricing and our reserves and there’s nothing the quarter that surprises us. But Tom why don’t you comment on --?
Tom Kunkel:
In our management liability book and again we read what you read but actually we have nothing that is out of the ordinary compared to recent periods when it comes to our own legal expenses. So normal inflation in there, we’re definitely seeing that but we have not experienced anything that is outside of what we’ve experienced in recent periods.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Kai that’s not to say that our view of trend is zero, right. We’re aware of everything going on out there – at least we think we’re aware of everything going on out there that has the potential to impact those sorts of things and it’s reflected in our view of profitability and in our pricing.
Kai Pan:
Great. Thank you so much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar from Buckingham Research. Please go ahead.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks and good morning. One or two questions. First of all, maybe I’m just a bit confused here going back to the answer to Kai’s question. So if we ex out the noise in BI including fire adjustment and the [indiscernible] adjustment, are you suggesting that the underlying margin improvement – that there was underlying margin improvement and it was in line with what you said in Q1 10-Q or not?
Alan Schnitzer:
No, that’s not what we’re saying. If you take the underlying combined ratio and you eliminate, for example, the fire losses, the observation was there are a number of factors and Greg mentioned the significant ones in his prepared remarks that impacted unfavorably the period-over-period underlying combined ratios. So the net of all those things; some were good guys, some were bad guys but the net of those things was a quarter-over-quarter negative.
Amit Kumar:
Okay. I guess maybe I’ll tie that into the second question to that. If you look at sort of the underlined pricing discussion and you talked about some of the broader segments, can you also talk a bit more about comp trends and what’s going on, on that front and how does that impact the underlying loss ratio going forward?
Alan Schnitzer:
Let me just follow-up quickly on your – my answer to your prior question. I just want to make sure I’m clear about this. There are always going to be things in a quarter that are variations from our expectations because our view of base year is going to change or the underlying weather is going to change or all the things that Greg mentioned, there are always puts and takes in that process. But what we’re telling you is there’s no fundamental change in the underlying trend. Those are just things that are always going to move one way or the other. So that’s the color I was trying to give you.
Amit Kumar:
Can I just follow up to that and we’ll drop that second question? So what you were saying is this was in the volatility [indiscernible] so in the guidance and the discussion and all the questions, we should expect an acceleration in the gap between pricing and loss cost which will be at a faster pace in Q3 and Q4 and hence result in 2018 margin improvement versus 2017. Is that fair or did I muddle up the thought process?
Alan Schnitzer:
So if you look in our outlook in the 10-Q, we give you a view on what the underlying underwriting margin and underlying combined ratio is going to do compared to the same period in 2017. So you can take a look at that. A significant part of that is we are assuming that putting this quarter aside, what we saw in the corresponding periods in 2017 where we had adverse small weather and we had adverse large loss activity, our view going forward for the second half of '18 is that those things will return to more normalized levels.
Amit Kumar:
Fair enough.
Alan Schnitzer:
Happy to talk to you about that offline and make sure that --
Amit Kumar:
Yes, that’s fine. I think I follow for you’re saying. I think maybe there is an extreme focus on parsing [ph] for the language of the Q and then comparing it to the reported results. But what I understand from your answer is there’s always this additional volatility which one should factor in when looking into underlying trends. Is that fair?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. We’re giving you our best view of outlook in the 10-Q but there are things that are going to change in small ways and there’s a number of those things this quarter and they net – you can do the math, take out the large losses but they net to what they net to.
Amit Kumar:
Okay. I’ve taken up my question time so I will stop here. Thanks for the answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Amit.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Greg Peters from Raymond James. Please go ahead.
Greg Peters:
Good morning. I appreciate some of the answers you have provided before, Jay, and I don’t want to get too hung up on one quarter’s results but the trend in PYD has been down for a couple of years and now that earned pricing is essentially covering trend and BI, is it fair to extrapolate that going forward maybe PYD stabilizes at these levels or perhaps you can use this opportunity to update us on your views of PYD?
Jay Benet:
I think my response is going to be something you’re going to feel all that great about in the sense that we don’t have a view and have never had a view of future PYD. Every quarter we do a very, very thorough and diligent review of all of our reserves to make sure that whatever trends we’re seeing, whatever changes in those trends we’re seeing, whatever data we’re seeing is not only factored into the reserve estimates but factored into our pricing on a very current basis. So we make no predictions whatsoever as to the future of PYD. Now looking back at history you can see that we have had considerable amounts of PYD in some periods and less PYD in other periods. So it has fluctuated. There’s no change in the way we think about the business. There’s no change in the way we think about reserving. So I think you can draw your own conclusions as to what might happen in the future but we make no predictions. Our view is we need to get the reserves right. They represent management’s best estimate. And what new information comes up in the future, we adjust it.
Greg Peters:
Okay. I wanted to give it a shot. My second question, in the past you’ve talked about organic innovation and also I realize there is this tremendous loyalty to the independent agent channel, but – and I’ve asked you guys about this before but insurance tech seems – there’s a lot of insured tech noise in the marketplace. A lot of it seems focused around disintermediation of the agents. And I was just wondering if you can update us on your perspectives around direct operations not only in personal lines but business?
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure, Greg. You’re exactly right. We have a very active innovation agenda going on. We view that as a very important part of the strategic work that we’re doing and we think it’s important for us and for this industry. So we’re hard at work. Yes, we have for a long time been an independent agent broker company and I think we will for the foreseeable future. I don’t think that distribution channel is going anywhere. And I would say that as we think about insured tech, it goes way beyond distribution. There are opportunities to invest and think about opportunities whether it’s in collection and leveraging new data sources or whether it’s in leveraging artificial intelligence, whether it’s in using drone technology to reduce claim cost. We think very aggressively about innovation across the entire value chain, and so from marketing to claim settlement and everything in between. We do think that distribution is obviously an important part of that and we’re highly focused on it. And we bought Simply Business last year because we knew that advancing our capabilities as it related to engaging with commercial accounts was going to be important and we needed to advance our capabilities. At the moment where you see distribution on a direct basis in commercial insurance, it’s micro. And that’s not just us; that’s the industry. It’s really, really small stuff, think hundreds of dollars of premium but we do see something of a trend there and we’re not going to miss that. We’ll see where it goes and we’ll see how fast it goes but we’re on top of it.
Greg Peters:
Thank you for your answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Yaron Kinar:
Good morning, everybody. First, maybe a clarification to your answer to Elyse’s question on the inflation commentary in the Q and I apologize if I missed it in your answer. But as I look at the commentary around inflation maybe being a negative for next year and then I look at the commentary around business unit margins being stable or consistent with this year, possibly even better in Business Insurance. Does the commentary around the business unit margins incorporate the risk of inflation going up?
Alan Schnitzer:
The answer is yes. Clearly our view of margins does incorporate a view of loss trends that has a view of severity which in turn has a view of inflation in it. I’ll just remind you that our results are most heavily leveraged to medical wage and toward inflation. So we’re not as highly leveraged to the typical sort of CPI kind of inflation that impacts short-term lines and that we think we can react to. But whether it’s CPI type stuff and the potential impact of tariffs or whether it’s wages or whether it’s medical or social inflation, whatever it is, our view of it is reflected in our outlook in margins. We could be surprised. It could be worse than we think, of course, but we do have a view of it and we look at it on a very, very granular basis aligning to the individual components of our lost cost. So we have a pretty sophisticated process of looking at it and it’s incorporated in our view.
Yaron Kinar:
Got it. That’s helpful. And if I can turn to net investment income again going back to the Q for a second, I think you’re guiding to $20 million to $25 million increases in 2019 per quarter. Maybe you can help me understand what was the duration of over four years and with premium growth accelerating, why wouldn’t that number be higher a year out relative to where it was in – I’m sorry, go ahead.
Jay Benet:
It’s a good question but you have to realize that it’s really being driven by the actual securities that are maturing in a particular period of time and assumptions associated with the reinvestment rate that’s going to be available at that time. And it will be determined by the actual investment opportunities then and what the yield curve looks like and where interest rates are in general. But at this stage that’s our best view as to what’s maturing and what the interest rates might be.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay, I appreciate the color. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Sarah DeWitt from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Sarah DeWitt:
Hi. Good morning. On the weather-related losses and that includes the cats and non-cat weather, you’ve seen elevated weather losses for the last several quarters as you’ve pointed out. So at what point do you call this the new normal and start pricing for it?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, so the question is over what cycle do you look at, at changes in weather patterns? And so just to take you back on a slightly longer-term view, if you go back to 2009 weather was better than we expected; 2010 to 2012, a few year period, that was worst than we expected. Then 2013 to 2015 I think it was better than we expected. 2016 was about on plan. So my point is you look back over time and you have some good periods and you have some bad periods. And so we look at now what’s been a four to six quarter period and we’re not going to overreact to it, but we will react to it. So the first thing we’ll do is we will update our actuarial and weather models for the actuarial activity. So just that alone rolling through our models will change our view of the world if we did nothing else. As we are always looking at recent weather activity and trying to decide how to weigh more recent periods as compared to longer periods, that’s an ongoing process here and part of our thought process around weather. Again, we wouldn’t look at four to six quarters and overreact to that. And then we always look at lessons learned from weather activities and there are always lessons learned any time you have catastrophes like this. So we look at it. We take it in stride. We take it into account. We put it into our models. But we would not look at a year or so and say that we’ve seen a fundamental change because we’ve seen this before.
Sarah DeWitt:
Okay, great. Thank you. And then just following up on the Business Insurance pricing, now that earned prices are in line with loss trend, will you still push for higher rates versus the 2% you achieved in the quarter or is that now sufficient to achieve your targeted returns, all else being equal?
Alan Schnitzer:
We will push for rate in those lines and on those accounts where we need it and that’s the way we always execute. We got lots of accounts in our book of business that are rate adequate and we’re going to try really hard to keep those accounts. As always, there’s some portion of our book where we look at an account and say that needs rate and we will continue to try to get rate there. And the aggregate of those individual account decisions will aggregate up to a number. I would say there is sort of a lot of things out there that are working together. So pricing is better. Interest rates are picking up, that’s on a lag basis. It will work its way into net investment income. You’ve got the benefit of tax reform. You’ve got all the other levers that impact profitability; things like selection, mix, claims handling and expense initiatives. So all of that goes into the hopper and we’re always managing all of those levers to make sure that we’re executing towards our return objectives.
Sarah DeWitt:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Josh Shanker:
Hi, there. I’ll give you both my questions upfront so you don’t think there’s a long one coming in the back. So I just want to understand and I get more granular I don’t think than you guidance in the 10-Q, but when you say improving margins I’m wondering now that we have the pricing versus loss cost trend out of the way, how much of that is the decision of the non-cat weather and the fire losses and whatnot and how much of the innovations you were talking about in expense save – you’ve been talking about for a year. I’m wondering if we break between those two things. And the second question, I just want to say one thing about that loss cost trend versus rate. If net renewal premium trend in BI is 2.1%, net premium earned trend is probably somewhere less than that I would guess. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Is that conservative to say that’s covering loss cost trend? I’m just trying to understand that better.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, let me take the second one first. So we don’t think – we think it’s appropriate that it’s covering loss cost trend. It’s just the map we have and maybe what you’re leaving out, Josh, is the economic impact of the earned exposure, a significant portion of which behaves like rate. And then again – we all and by that I mean you all get very, very focused on this very narrow rate versus loss trend. And again that ignores the economic component of exposure that behaves like rate and it ignores all the other things that go into improving margin. And again I just mentioned the list but things like selection and mix and claims handling and expense initiatives, that’s all in there. So you can’t look at that 2.1 in isolation without thinking about all the other factors that impact margin. In terms of the outlook, a significant part of the improvement is what was adverse small weather and large losses last year returning to more normal levels. But everything is in the number, right. It reflects everything we know in terms of the outlook. But as we identify in the 10-Q, that is very significantly a return to normal level of small weather and large losses.
Josh Shanker:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Josh.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Thanks. Two quick ones here. Michael, I’m just curious, could you give us some thoughts on a competitive environment right now in personal auto insurance? I think we’ve seen some major companies reduce rate. Are you seeing that in the agency system?
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Brian. Yes, I would say certainly the environment in all of our markets is consistently competitive. We have certainly seen the announcements that you’re probably referring to of one carrier in particular taking rate reductions. At least at this point that’s one carrier taking rate reductions. Industry rate remains positive. When we pull filings and do our analysis that we’ve talked to you about in the past around what we’re seeing, we do see most carriers continuing to file for increases. Those increases so far this year are not quite as high as they were in 2017. I think that’s all very consistent with the industry data around loss trend and more of a 9 loss environment that I described earlier. I think that all lines up from our perspective.
Brian Meredith:
Great. And then just one quick follow up. Alan, you did mentioned a little bit about interest rates moving up and that definitely could have some impact I think on pricing. Is that flowing through your models at this point when you think about the higher interest rate environment right now and your kind of thoughts on pricing and profitability by account or is it still too early for that to kind of have an effect?
Alan Schnitzer:
We update our models on a pretty regular basis and they reflect everything that we know or are aware of or think about on an outlook basis. It’s hard to look at any one element in our pricing model and isolate it, but we do have a view of inflation and we put it in there. If you’re talking about interest rates --
Brian Meredith:
Interest rates.
Alan Schnitzer:
You think about net investment income in particular. I would say you need to think about the fact that that will flow through our fixed income portfolio on a lag basis because as Jay Benet just explained the portfolio has to turn over. So the impact of – the favorable impact of interest rates will be muted by that fact.
Brian Meredith:
Right, but I’m talking more in pricing decisions than commercial lines and is the factor that you typically look particularly at some of your longer --
Alan Schnitzer:
Say that again?
Brian Meredith:
I’m thinking more in pricing kind of decisions with respect to commercial lines and what your rate activity looks like as far as the model and putting in interest rate assumptions. Are we at a point where that may be having an impact on pricing?
Jay Benet:
Hi, Brian. This is Jay. Within our pricing models as we’ve said in the past, we take into account not an embedded rate in the portfolio when it comes to looking at the product cash flows. We look at the product cash flows associated with a current interest rate environment and a view towards the future with regard to how things are being invested along the yield curve. So the pricing models themselves would be updated based on current views of interest rates. However, having said that, it’s not done in isolation, as Alan is talking about. And one of the things that you have to look at is what are your return expectations? The return expectations for products change when the 10-year treasury is at 2% versus when the 10-year treasury is at 3%. So it’s not just that it goes in and immediately has a point-for-point, dollar-for-dollar impact on the pricing. It’s a very thoughtful approach to it.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thanks for your answers.
Abbe Goldstein:
Thanks. And we have time for just one more question.
Operator:
The last question comes from the line of Jay Cohen from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.
Jay Cohen:
Thank you. Just one final question. The non-fixed income yield, do you view that as better than you normally expect, a little worse or in line for the quarter?
Jay Benet:
When we think about how that portfolio is doing, we like its performance and on a long-term basis or a plan basis we think it’s performing well. It’s just not performing as well as it did in the prior year quarter. But if you look at it on a quarter-to-quarter basis, I think you’ll see the second quarter is very much in line with some recent quarters. And as you know, it’s got a combination mostly of private equity and real estate partnerships and real estate owned. So there’s going to be some fluctuation in it. But we liked the performance of the portfolio.
Jay Cohen:
But not far off from what you normally expect?
Jay Benet:
Actually, it’s probably a little better than what we would normally expect.
Jay Cohen:
Okay. That’s helpful. Thanks.
Abbe Goldstein:
Great. Thank you all for joining us.
Operator:
This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi – Senior Vice President of Investor Relations Alan Schnitzer – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jay Benet – Chief Financial Officer Greg Toczydlowski – President of Business Insurance Tom Kunkel – President of Bond & Specialty Insurance Michael Klein – President of Personal Insurance Bill Heyman – Chief Investment Officer
Analysts:
Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Amit Kumar – Buckingham Research Group Elyse Greenspan – Wells Fargo Jay Gelb – Barclays Ryan Tunis – Autonomous Research Josh Shanker – Deutsche Bank Larry Greenberg – Janney Meyer Shields – KBW Sarah DeWitt – JPMorgan Yaron Kinar – Goldman Sachs Brian Meredith – UBS
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the First Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions for the completion of formal remarks at which time you’ll be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 24, 2018. At this time, I would now like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our first quarter 2018 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplements and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Chief Financial Officer; and our three segment Presidents, Greg Toczydlowski of Business Insurance; Tom Kunkel of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Michael Klein of Personal Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn it over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investor section on our website. And now Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported first quarter core income of $678 million generating core return on equity of 11.9%. Core income was up 10% over the prior year quarter driven by higher pretax underwriting income and a lower U.S. corporate income tax rate. Catastrophe losses of $280 million after tax were slightly higher than the also unusually high level of catastrophe losses in the prior year quarter. Results this quarter were impacted by among other events four March nor’easters one of those storms cat 15 generated high claim counts for us in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. with some areas experiencing hurricane force winds of up to 90 miles an hour. Both historically and going forward on a model basis, we like the risk adjusted returns in the Mid-Atlantic and accordingly by design we have meaningful market shares in those states. Results in the quarter were also impacted by mudslides in California and a severe winter storm in the UK, so all in an unusual weather quarter. Despite the high level of catastrophe losses, underwriting income increased and record Q1 net earned premiums were contributing factor. We achieve the topline growth while continuing to deliver a strong underlying combined ratio of 92.4%. We also continue to invest in the strategic initiatives we’ve discussed with you what carefully managing our expense ratio. Our expense ratio has improved by about 1 point in the 2016 level and also down slightly from the prior year quarter. We accomplished that to discipline growth in our topline, disciplined expense management and the successful execution of our productivity and efficiency initiatives. Also noteworthy in the quarter, pretax income from our fixed income investment portfolio increased the first time since 2008. Jay will have more to say about that shortly. Turning to the topline of production, we are very pleased with the continued successful execution of our marketplace strategies. Net written premiums grew by 5% to a first quarter record of $6.8 billion another strong quarter with growth in all segments. To a large degree this growth once again reflects high levels of retention and positive renewal premium change. That speaks the high-quality of the premium growth. Greg, tom and Michael will provide more detail on production at the segment level, but I’ll take a minute to comment on the commercial pricing environment. Renewal rate change in domestic business insurance reached 1.6 points with renewal premium change of 4.5 points. In both cases, the highest levels in three years. I’ll also note that once again we achieved renewal rate gains in the quarter more broadly across our middle market accounts compared to recent period. We’re pleased with these results particularly in light of the pricing pressure in the workers comp line. There’s nothing about the workers comp pricing environment so far that surprises us given the industry’s favorable last experience. Excluding workers comp, pure renewal rate change for domestic business insurance was up 3.3 points for the quarter compared to nine-tenths of a point a year ago and 2.4 points in the fourth quarter. Importantly, we achieved pricing improvement and record retention. As you’ve heard us say in terms of BI looking ahead, there’s a gap between where return to trending and what we’d like them to be trending. So we’ll continue to see great gains thoughtfully and deliberately. I’ll take just a minute to provide an update on strategic initiatives. As we explained at our Investor Day last fall, we’re investing and making sure that our competitive advantages continue to set us apart in the changing world. We’re focused on extending our lead in risk expertise improving the experience for a customers, agents and brokers and enhancing productivity and efficiency. One of the specific initiatives we discussed was a pilot program to compliment our local underwriting expertise with centralized underwriting of less complex accounts in lower touch business centers. Today, we have all four plan business centers online and step to support our commercial accounts business with all eligible renewal flowing through them. We expect it all eligible, new business will also be handled through the business centers over the next couple of quarters. Although its still early days we’re pleased with the productivity gains we’re seeing which free up our local underwriters to spend more time with our agent and broker partners pursuing larger more complex account opportunities. Quote activity is up with the increases coming across all accounts sizes. Again its early, but this is the type of outcome the business centers were designed to create. We’re also making progress on key initiatives in both our BOND & SPECIALTY business and in Personal Lines. In Personal Lines for example, we’re pleased with the progress so far in the rollout of our new Quantum Home 2.0 product. You’ll hear more about that from Michael. Lastly, before I turn it over to Jay, I’m pleased to report that is reflection of confidence in our business, our Board of Directors has declared a 7% increase in our quarterly dividend to $0.77 per share. This marks the 14th consecutive year of dividend increases dating back to the St. Paul Travelers merger bringing the compound annual growth rate in the dividend to about 10% over that period. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. As Alan said, we’re pleased with core income was up 10% this quarter, $678 million versus $614 million in the prior year quarter, which resulted in core ROE of 11.9%. Catastrophe losses were $354 million pretax, which was unusually high for the first quarter although comparable to last year’s unusually high first quarter. Two significant storms in March accounted for almost 70% of the cat losses, cat number 15 an unusual winter windstorm in the Northeast U.S. and cat number 17 a tornado hail storm that did considerable damage in the Southeast United States. On a more positive note net favorable prior year reserve development, which I’ll discuss in more detail shortly, was $150 million pretax or $69 million higher than in the prior year quarter with each of our segments contributing. Our underlying combined ratio remained strong at 92.4%, up only slightly from 91.7% in the prior your quarter due to normal quarterly variability and both loss activity mostly from non-cat weather and expenses. Pretax net investment income of $603 million was slightly below the prior year quarter, but there is an important story underneath. In the past, you’ve heard me say over and over again that fixed income NII declined due to historically low interest rates. This quarter pretax fixed income NII of $500 million increased by $12 million compared to the prior year quarter first time we’ve seen an increase in many years. This was driven by the more favorable interest rate environment particularly for short-term rates as well as an increase in our average invested assets due to growing net written premiums in recent periods. If you add in the benefit of the lower U.S. corporate income tax rate, fixed income NII on after tax basis increased quarter-over-quarter by $36 million. Looking forward to the rest of 2018, we’d expect after tax fixed income NII to increase by approximately $40 million to $45 million each quarter as compared to the corresponding quarters of 2017. Te non-fixed income portfolio continued to perform well delivering $113 million of pretax NII. Within core income, income tax expense was lower than the prior year quarter by $30 million driven by $74 million benefit in the current quarter that resulted from the lower U.S. corporate income tax rate for all the tax exempt income. Partially offset by the inclusion in the prior year quarter of the $39 million benefit that resulted from successfully closing out our federal income tax expense for 2013 and 2014. As I mentioned consolidated net favorable prior year reserve development was $150 million pretax this quarter compared to $81 million in the prior year quarter. Business Insurance’s net favorable reserve development was $66 million pretax compared to $61 million in the prior year quarter, primarily driven by better than expected loss experience in domestic workers comp and commercial property, partially offset by higher than expected loss experience in domestic commercial auto. Bond & Specialty’s PYD was $35 million pretax compared to $14 million in the prior year quarter, primarily driven by domestic management liability, while PI had net favorable reserve development of $49 million pretax compared to $6 million in the prior year quarter, primarily driven by domestic homeowners and auto. On a combined statutory Schedule P basis for all of our U.S. subsidiaries, all accident years across all product lines, in the aggregate, and our product lines across all accident years in the aggregate developed favorably or had de minimis unfavorable development this quarter except commercial auto, which developed unfavorably by approximately $50 million pretax. Operating cash flows of $554 million remained strong, although lower than first quarter 2017, primarily due to the relatively high level of cat claim payments. We ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of almost $1.8 billion and all of our capital ratios were at or better than target levels. The recent run up in interest rates is benefiting fixed income NII cause net unrealized investment gains to decrease considerably from $1.1 billion after tax of year end 2017 to $133 million after tax at the end of the first quarter. And this decrease in net unrealized investment gains was the driver behind 3% decrease in book value per share from year-end 2017 from $87.46 to $85.03. I remind you the changes in net unrealized investment gains or losses do not impact the matter in which we manage our investment portfolio or our business. We generally help fixed income investments to maturity, the quality remains very high and changes in unrealized gains and losses have little or no regular – little or no impact on regulatory capital. Adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains or losses was $84.54 or 1% higher than the beginning of the year and 4% higher than at the end of last year’s first quarter. We continue to generate much more capital than we need to support our businesses. Despite the high level of cat losses, allowing us to return almost $600 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter, consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy. We paid dividends of $197 million and repurchase $401 million of our common shares this quarter, including $350 million under our publicly announced share repurchase program and $51 million to partially offset shares issued under employee incentive plans mostly to cover employee withholding taxes due upon the vesting and payout of performance and restricted stock awards. And as Alan said, the board raised our quarterly dividend from $0.72 to $0.77 per share. With that let me now turn the microphone over to Greg.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Thanks Jay. Business insurance had a strong quarter with segment income of $452 million, up $10 million from the prior year quarter benefiting from a lower tax rate, as well as higher earned premium volume. The combined ratio of 97.5% included just under 4 points of cats an unusually high level for the first quarter as it was last year. The underlying combined ratio of 95.5% was 1.1 points higher than the prior year quarter driven by loss cost trends that modestly exceeded earned pricing, as well as normal quarterly fluctuations in both loss activity and expenses. The impact from loss cost trends exceeding earned pricing that I just referenced has moderated from recent quarters and was in line with our expectations. Net written premiums for the quarter were $4 billion, up 4% over the prior year quarter with domestic net written premiums up 3% driven by strong production results. International net written premiums were up 3%, excluding the impact of changes in foreign currency rates. Turning to domestic production, retention improved to a record 86% from an already high level a new business was strong at $525 million. As Alan mentioned, renewal rate change was 1.6 points and renewal premium change was 4.5 points. We’re pleased with these results particularly considering the pricing pressure in workers’ comp associated with strong industry profitability. Outside of comp, we were encouraged that we achieved renewal rate gains broadly across the product portfolio as rate in auto, property, umbrella, CMP, ENGL increased for the third consecutive quarter on both the sequential and year-over-year basis. Auto continues to be the line with the highest level of rate, while property has improved meaningfully from a year ago, particularly in loss impacted areas. Our results for the quarter reflect our continued deliberate and successful execution in the marketplace. Turning to the businesses, in Select, as with all our businesses we’re making strategic investments in technology and workflow initiatives to drive growth and we’re encouraged with the progress we’re making. Retention remains strong at 83% and new business was up 8% from the prior year quarter. Renewal rate change remains positive. Given the returns in this business, we’re pleased with these production results. Turning to Middle Market, retention remained historically high at 88%. Renewal premium change was 3.9 points with renewal rate change of 1.5% up from 1.3% in the fourth quarter and up 1 point from a year ago. New business premiums of $318 million were strong and consistent with the prior year quarter. So all in for the segment, it was a good start to 2018 and we’re pleased with our market execution and given the early adoption from our distribution partners, we’re encouraged about the impact that our technology and workflow initiatives we’ll have in our results. With that, I’ll turn it over to Tom to talk about Bond & Specialty Insurance.
Tom Kunkel:
Thanks, Greg. Bond & Specialty’s operating results were very strong, with segment income of $173 million up $28 million from the prior year quarter, due to a higher level of favorable PYD and higher earned premium volume. The underlying combined ratio was also very strong at 80.7% more than 1 point lower than the prior year quarter, reflecting improvement in both the underlying loss and expense ratio. As to the top line net written premiums for the quarter were up 6%, driven by solid growth in both our domestic surety and domestic management liability businesses. The increase in the surety net written premium was driven by a mix of relatively larger bonds in the quarter. Turning to production in our domestic management liability businesses, we continue to execute our strategy to retain a substantial percentage of our high quality portfolio, while pursuing attractive new business. We are pleased that the retention came in at a record high of 89% for the quarter and that new business was strong up 11% from the first quarter last year. Renewal premium change of 3.6 points was up from the fourth quarter due to an increase in exposure. So Bond & Specialty results were excellent and we continue to feel great about our growth and returns, as well as the opportunities that our strong market positions and competitive advantages present for the future. And now, I’ll turn it over to Michael, who will talk to you about Personal Insurance.
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Tom, and good morning everyone. Personal Insurance began the year by continuing to deliver on our objectives of improving auto profitability, while maintaining momentum in our homeowners business. Net written premiums of $2.3 billion grew 8%, once again driven by higher pricing primarily in auto and healthy growth in homeowners’ policies enforce. Personal Insurance segment income of $129 million was up from $89 million in the prior year quarter, with an improvement in the combined ratio to 97.5% primarily driven –primarily due to higher favorable reserve development. Catastrophe losses contributed 9 points to the combined, an unusually high level for our first quarter, but similar to last year. On an underlying basis, improved profitability in auto was essentially offset by a higher level of non-cat weather losses in property. Importantly, we remain pleased with the expense ratio of 26.8%. It’s worth noting that the expense ratio for the segment has improved by about three-fold points from 2013, the year we announced the start of our cost reduction initiatives. In Agency Auto, the combined ratio for the quarter was 94.8%, down considerably from the prior year quarter, due to a 2.3 point improvement in the underlying combined ratio driven by the rate actions taken in the past several quarters, along with the 2.3 point benefit from favorable prior year development. As a reminder, the first quarter combined ratio is typically a couple of points lower than average due to seasonality. In Agency Homeowners, the first quarter combined ratio of 98.5%, included almost 21 points of cat losses and a benefit of 2.4 points from favorable prior year development. The underlying combined ratio of 80.2% was 2.6 points higher than the prior year quarter driven primarily by higher non-cat weather losses. Turning to the top line, Agency Auto premiums grew by 9% and we’re achieved 10 points of renewal premium change down slightly from the peak of 11 points last quarter, in line with our plans. Retention declined modestly as expected given the pricing actions and fifth levels in auto have been holding steady. In Agency Homeowners & Other, premiums increased by 5%, demonstrating continued momentum with another quarter of a healthy fifth growth. Our efforts to maintain the steady increase in property policies enforce have been successful, even as we have intentionally slowed the fifth growth in auto. As Alan mentioned, during the fourth quarter of 2017, we introduced our newest property product, Quantum Home 2.0 in three states, and so far the response from agents and customers is in line with our expectations. Early returns are demonstrating the benefits of Quantum Home 2.0’s flexibility sophistication and ease of use. We’ll roll out several more states during the second quarter and then continue with waves of five or so states at a time throughout 2018 and 2019. The gradual rollout and implementation should enable us to sustain the momentum we’ve already generated and support profitable steady growth going forward. With that, I’ll turn the call back over to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Michael. Before I turn it back to Gabby to open it up for Q&A, I’ll share with you that we’ve just returned from our annual conference with our most significant distribution partners, who collectively represent about half of our premium. We all left with the continued confidence and the strength of our relationships with these business leaders in their firms and feeling tremendous support for the strategic initiatives that we have underway. It’s a great reminder that our position with distribution is an important competitive advantage and one that’s hard to replicate. On a customer side, we also just returned from RIMS, the annual conference for the large account risk management community. We were honored to receive National Underwriters Risk Manager Choice Awards in five lines of business, the most of any company. Taken together, the feedback we’re receiving from our customers, agents and brokers suggest that we’re on the right track in our work to continue to lead the market in understanding risk in the products and services, our customers need and to provide them a great experiences. Lastly, as some of you know, after a decade of leading Investor Relations for us, Gabby Nawi has been recruited away by our own Travelers Personal Insurance team to take a role in their finance group, which is great for her and great for us. Gabby’s insight has been incredibly valuable to me and the entire leadership team. I’m grateful and we all wish her continued success. We will be announcing her successor shortly. And with that, I’ll turn it back to Gabby.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. And thank you for those kind words. Chris, we’re ready to start the Q&A portion.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Kai Pan:
Thank you. Good morning. First, congrats, Gabby, and I guess we’ll miss you next quarter.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Kai.
Kai Pan:
Yes. My first question is on pricing. If I do the math, first quarter increase in BI, 1.6%. But if you look by segments, Select Accounts is up point 2 and Middle Market, up 1.5, which implied maybe the National Property and others increased much more. So can you compare and contrast for us like the deceleration in term price increase in the small accounts. Why big increase in the national accounts?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey Kai, this is this is Greg Toczydlowski. Good morning. Just answer the first part of that question. Yes, you’re correct. The reason why the two of the businesses that are illustrated in the documents are below the total is because of the national property business. We’ve been very successful in achieving rate, particularly in the cat exposed areas in National Property and that’s what you’re seeing when that rolls up into the total number. In terms of Select, the second part of your question, we’ve shared with you for some time now around how we’ve been thinking about that business and how we’ve been very focused to have an adequate set of returns in that business and we’re very comfortable with the returns in that business right now. So that’s a output of a lot of deliberate execution of really thoughtfully growing that business because we are returning the returns that are hit in our threshold today in that business. So that’s what underneath that.
Kai Pan:
Great. My follow-up question is for Alan. You mentioned performance transform in your annual letter. I just want to follow-up on the transform part. And could you tell us a bit more about initiatives, both internally as well as potential acquisitions on that front?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Sure, Kai. Thanks for the question. Thanks for reading the annual letter. I guess I’ll refer you back to our Investor Day, and we discussed they are the – the forces have changed, we see impacting our business and they need to make sure that our competitive advantages continue to set us apart in the world that’s obviously changing. We’ve been incredibly successful over the last decade or two, and the competitive advantages we’ve had has serviced us very well. But we’re very mindful that what’s going to make us successful over the next decade to some degree will be different than what’s made us successful. And so at a broad level, we’ve set two objectives. We want to be the undeniable choice for the customer and we want to be an indispensable partner for our agents and brokers. And underneath that, we’ve got three priorities that letter up to that. So one of the things that’s made a successful for long time that’s an expertise in risk and the products and services our customer’s need that – that’s we put them on a pedestal for a long time and we’ll continue to put that on the pedestal and invest in that. So think data analytics, third-party data, that type of thing. In addition, we are highly focused on the experience for our customers and our agents and brokers. And some of the technology and workflow investments you’ve heard us talk about are designed to do that. And then third, productivity and efficiency. We’re highly focused on just making sure that we’ve got the ability to do more with less and that creates flexibility for us. It gives us the opportunity to take the output of the productivity and efficiency and either let that fall to the bottom line and invested in new or other strategic initiatives. We’ll put in the price if we need to. So there is a lot of things going on across the company in all three of our business segments, in our technology group, in claim. But all of the things that we’re working on latter up really inside of that framework. And we’ve talked about a lot of those specifically at Investor Day and I’ll refer you back to that maybe for more specifics.
Kai Pan:
Do you need acquisitions to transform the business?
Alan Schnitzer:
So do we need acquisitions? I do not think we need acquisitions Kai, but nobody should take away from that that were not highly focused on it, right? I’ve said for a long time and I’ll continue to say that our shareholders should demand that we are active in terms of M&A. And that in the lines of business that we’re interested in and the geographies we’re interested in, we are very active and we are – we will continue to be. We often say some of the best deals we do or the best deals we don’t do, so we’re highly disciplined about it. And we’ve shared with you many times what the lens is for thinking about transactions, so we’re anxious to do them. If they improve our return profile, if they lower volatility of if they provide another important strategic benefits for us. And so highly focused on looking at things that match up to that criteria. But no, we don’t feel like we need to do it. And I would say, Kai, that again if you shouldn’t take away from this any change in propensity to think about or do a deal. But one of the things that we think more and more about today that maybe we didn’t 5 years or 10 years ago is the opportunity cost and the potential distraction from focus on all the organic innovation that we’re doing. We think it’s really important in a changing world. We think that there’s a real benefit to doing that. We’ve got the resources, we’ve got the talent, we’ve got the intellect, we’ve got a lack of distraction. And so we – again, you shouldn’t take away any change of propensity to do a deal, but that’s a wrinkle we think about when we assess M&A.
Kai Pan:
Great. Thank you so much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.
Jay Cohen:
Thank you. On the business Insurance side, will you talk about your retention being now, I guess, an all-time higher. Certainly, a multiple year high, is that the plan? I mean you’ve got the balance obviously pricing, new business and retention. Do you feel as if that retention is getting up even too high? Or maybe what would be too high?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Good morning, Jay. This is Greg. Yes, we’ve spent a lot of time looking at the combination of retention, new business and rate all the time. But most of the time, it’s not at the macro level of what we’re looking at. It really is a very granular and local execution. We think we have a high-quality book of business, and so we like the retention of where it’s at. We’re very comfortable with that, and we’re trying to retain that book as much as possible. Obviously, a competitive marketplace out there right now. But when you look at the combination of retention, new business and rate, we’re comfortable with where all three of those are.
Jay Cohen:
That’s helpful, Greg. Thank you. Just one follow-up on Homeowners. The deterioration from the last year on the underlying number, you mentioned some of that or a lot of it was due to non-cat weather. Is it possible to quantify that relative to what you normally would expect?
Michael Klein:
Sure, jay. This is Michael. I mean I think what I would say is when you look at cat and non-cat weather, first of all, you have to remember that the way that we parse that between one category and the other, the dollars can move from one bucket to another based on the magnitude and the type of the events we’re experiencing. So it’s a little bit artificial to give you a number for the non-cat weather variance. But round numbers, you can think of it as a sort of 1 point or 2 points in the quarter. But again, some of that is dependent upon the mix between cat events and non-cat events, but I would say 1 point or 2 points of adverse relative to expectations in the quarter.
Jay Cohen:
Got it.
Jay Benet:
If you’re thinking about it across companies, you got to remember that we define cat – we draw the line in different places in terms of cat and non-cat.
Jay Cohen:
Absolutely. But the good news is as you guys do it consistently, at least for yourself, so we can compare year-to-year.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes.
Jay Cohen:
Thanks a lot.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks for the question.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar with Buckingham Research Group. Please go ahead.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks and good morning. Two quick questions. The first question goes back, I guess, to the discussion on pricing. In your letter, you talk about the more significant factor being the low interest rates and loss cost inflation outpacing pricing gains. Would it be possible to get your view on interest rates and loss cost inflation with some specificity?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Amit, I’m not sure – Good morning. I’m not sure what specificity you’re looking for. And what we’ve consistently said, certainly in BI, is we think about loss trend as a four across the whole book. Obviously, different lines, different businesses have different loss trends in them, but over time, we think about it as a four.
Amit Kumar:
Okay. That’s helpful. I guess what I was trying to ask if there is obviously a lot of debate amongst the investors with the rising interest rate and the near-term rise in the 10-year and how should they be thinking about loss cost. And has that changed your view versus, let’s say, going into end of Q4? I guess that’s what I was asking. Has there been any urgency in terms of how you’re thinking about pricing versus loss cost. Or based on I guess your answer, there is no real change based on the long-term view? Is that a fair assertion?
Alan Schnitzer:
I got it. I got your question. So I would say that despite where loss trends have been, we always assume that there is a return to more normal levels in inflation. So certainly, there’s no sense of panic or urgency when generally what we’ve been seeing is generally inside of our expectations. We see that CPI moving, but as you know from us, we’re most heavily leveraged to medical wage and poor inflation. And sometimes that’s good for us, right? When you’ve got wage inflation, for example, that contributes to exposure in workers comp payrolls would be one example of that. There’s probably benefits on the investment income from a rising rate environment. To the extent that there is inflation that is contributing to loss cost. That wouldn’t necessarily surprise us because we do expect some of that. What’s important is what is inflation relative to our expectations and do we have that data analytics and know-how wherewithal to see it when it comes, and we think we do. So no sense of urgency. And I would say generally speaking across all of our businesses, more or less in line with expectations.
Amit Kumar:
And okay, that’s helpful. And my final question is going back to, I guess, Kai’s question. In your letter, you talk about we will look for opportunities, et cetera, lower our volatility. Does that rule out, I guess, the reinsurance companies or hybrid companies making the cut? The reason why I ask is clearly, there’s a lot of debate and discussion amongst the other companies. And then have you seen the validation excel question of that acquisitions? So I’m just wondering would that be a non-starter based on your comments regarding the volatility? Or am I reading too much into the letter?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think well, let me answer in two ways. Yes, I think you’re reading too much into it and that we don’t mean to include or exclude anything categorically. So I wouldn’t read that to exclude anything. Having said that, I’ll tell you that we’ve been pretty explicit over recently long period of time that just given our core capabilities and skill sets reinsurances and the business has been particularly attractive to us.
Amit Kumar:
Got it. That’s very helpful. Thanks for the answer. And good luck for the future and thanks, Gabby for all your help over the years.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thanks, Amit.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Amit.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, good morning. My first question, I’m looking at the outlook in your 10-Q. You guys within Business Insurance point 2 renewal premium change and you compare it to last year same that it’s going to be higher than the 2017 level. How do you see the back three quarters the year-endreference to the first quarter? And then also, if you can tie in your response to that question, did you see great momentum pick up as we went through the months? The quarter meaning was March rates higher than what you had seen in January?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Elyse, so the way we gave the outlook this period was to tell you that for the back three quarters of the year, it will be higher than the back three quarters of the prior year. And I think we leave it there and probably not comment on where it’s going to come in relative to the first quarter. And yes, there was some pricing momentum quarter-to-quarter throughout the first quarter.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, great. And then my second question…
Alan Schnitzer:
I’m sorry. Elyse, I’m sorry. It increase month-to-month throughout the quarter is what I meant to say.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thank you. And then my second question, in terms of Business Insurance margin, you guys said that rate – earned rate was below trend in the quarter, in line with expectations. When you think about your outlook for the year and based off of the rate you’re taking, when do you think in your mind earned rate should start to exceed trend?
Alan Schnitzer:
There’s a lot of estimation involved with that, Elyse, because there are some components of exposure that we consider to be economically like rate. So it’s hard to give you the precise date or time at which that’s going to happen, but I can tell you that we’re getting, at least on a written basis, pretty close if not there already.
Elyse Greenspan:
And in terms of exposure growth that you guys see more or less rate? Would that pick up in the quarter two within the renewal premium change?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think exposure was pretty consistent positive, but pretty consistent throughout the quarter.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you. In Business Insurance, the underlying combined ratio deteriorated year-over-year. And I know you gave some insight on that. I was just hoping you can discuss it a little further, given the – I think the expectation for the full year was for it to be slightly better year-over-year.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. So we give you beyond the underlying and its insurance. There’s always going to be things that impact normal volatility and that’s really what we saw. So let’s call it about a point. About half of that was rate versus loss trend. And by the way, as Greg said, that’s moderated. It’s better than where it was in prior quarters and we think that’s heading in the right direction, as I just said in answering lease’s question. And the rest of it is just normal volatility on losses and expenses, and we see that from time to time. So think weather, think large losses, think mix. All the sorts of things that impact period to period volatility.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. So you still think for the full year 2018 could be a better underlying in Business Insurance than 2017?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, we gave you the outlook and we set underlying margins higher compared to the prior year and underlying combined ratio slightly lower compared to same period to prior year.
Jay Gelb:
I see, okay. On the pricing side, that was helpful to give the rate change ex-worker’s comp, but workers’ comp is a major portion of the premium volumes. So I’m wondering should we expect, given the downward pressure on comp, any overall further improvement in the pace of rate in BI?
Alan Schnitzer:
We do give you – well, I mean, we certainly give you the outlook in the 10-Q relative to the prior year. And as you heard me just say, we think it’s going to continue to be higher year-over-year and I think we’ll probably stop there.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. And then just switching gears last question, on personal auto, PIF slow to 1% growth although profitability certainly improved. I’m wondering if given the sharp slowdown in PIF growth. Could that go negative in personal auto?
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Jay. It’s Michael Klein. It certainly could. I think we would look at it and say, plus or minus a point or around flat is where we’re anticipating it’s going to bottom. And obviously, it will depend upon our rate actions relative to the market and how they are absorbed. But at least at this point, if it does go negative, we think it will be slightly and our objective would be to put the business – the auto book sort of back on the trajectory for growth towards late 2018.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. Potentially, return to growth in late 2018. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. I guess just keeping it on personal auto. If you could just maybe tell us about how the competitive environment has changed, I guess, in the first three months of the year, if there’s been any change following the tax reform bill?
Michael Klein:
I would say the competitive environments remain broadly consistent. We track predominantly our indicator for that would be tracking rate filings amongst our competitors, and we see a little bit of bouncing around there. And there was a little bit of a slowdown in competitor rate in the first quarter if you review competitive filings, but a lot of that has probably more to do with just the typical timing of when filings are made than it does anything to do with the impact of tax is on rate filings. And I would just – maybe broaden that slightly and just say when you think about the tax impact on filed rate, particularly in auto, our perspective is that it closes the gap, but it doesn’t eliminate it. The estimated industry combined ratio for auto stage is remained in 105 to 107 range, depending upon which estimates you look at. So think round numbers, at least a 10 point rate need for the industry there. And all else being equal, maybe tax reform drop at a couple of points, but it’s not going to mitigate the rate need and won’t be a key driver of reduced rate activity in the marketplace we don’t think.
Ryan Tunis:
That’s helpful. And then I guess just – I guess on the BI side, going down into the normal volatility component of the combined ratio deterioration. Was that – would you said that was just related to property type losses? Or was there a casualty component as well? I mean, I’m curious to see maybe an increased frequency in casualty related claims.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey, Ryan, this is Greg. Just to echo Alan’s earlier comments and to give you texture to your comment. It was a mix of different product lines, but predominantly was property. You can think about some of the extreme weather that we had in the first quarter and there would be a cat window of a certain period of time and you can think frozen pipes that extend beyond that window of time that is a large loss activity like that would be driving some of the volatility there.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. And then just one more on just the commercial auto. $50 million of adverse development. That’s how if you’ve been align, we’ve identified as somewhat problematic. Just curious what you saw this quarter that maybe was different and led to the reserve addition.
Alan Schnitzer:
Ryan, we obviously not a new story. We’ve been watching it. We react to the data that we have. It’s the line we are getting the most rate in, and we’re underwriting for it. In the quarter, a little bit more severity on the smaller claims actually is what we saw.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great, thank you. Next question and before we continue, so I can just remind you also limit yourself to one question and one follow-up please. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Josh Shanker:
Thank you very much. I want to congratulate you, but also some questions on the dividends. You pointed out that over the past 14 years, it’s gone up by 10%. But the last two years, the increase has been 7. How does the dividend policy relate to your view of EPS growth? And how do you consider cash flow from repurchases versus dividends? And I guess I’m getting it finally, why the slowdown in the rate of the dividend growth?
Jay Benet:
Hi, Josh. This is Jay. In looking at our dividends, we look at in relation to a number of things. One is what the dividend yield is and other is. What the payout ratio is. How that compares to others in the industry. And the science behind it as well as a lot of judgment. If you look back at where things were several years ago, balancing all that out. And also given the size of the decreases in the average number of shares outstanding because of all the buybacks, all of that translated into the actions that you saw before. With our stock price at the level that it’s at now, even buying back the same dollar amount, we’re buying back fewer shares. So keeping the payout in terms of dollars somewhere in the $750 million to $800 million range, again, getting back to yield in payout ratios has caused us to look at something more in line with 7% as opposed to 10%. But we looked at what we think our future earnings are going to be or how we’re relatively short period of time and make that determination.
Alan Schnitzer:
Josh, I would just add to that. We understand that there’s a component of our shareholder base that’s looking for the dividend and we want to make sure that we’re paying a competitive dividend rate for that component of our shareholder group. But this also insurance and there’s a lot of uncertainty, and we want to make sure that we’ve set it at a level where under hopefully just about any foreseeable circumstance, we continue to pay the dividend and don’t have to rethink it. So that, in addition to what Jay shared, those two factors play into the decision as well.
Greg Toczydlowski:
And then I would add one other thing to what Alan just said that, as you know, we have an ongoing policy of returning capital that we don’t need to support our business to the shareholders. So whether it’s an increase in dividends or whether it’s a share repurchases, all of the balances out to returning the excess capital and that’s not changed.
Josh Shanker:
Well, I appreciate the answers and I’ll just add my sendoff regards to Gabby, but I hope she won’t get stranger.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thanks, Josh. Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg with Janney. Please go ahead.
Larry Greenberg:
Good morning and thank you. Just going back to auto, a good underlying loss ratio in the quarter recognizing there’s some seasonality to the first quarter, but still looks strong. And when you look at that and then maybe in addition, the favorable development on the 2017 year. Is auto coming in a little bit better than you would have thought at this point?
Michael Klein:
Larry, it’s Michael. Thanks for the question. I would say autos coming in about where we expected. As I think Jay mentioned, we did have favorable prior year development in auto. But importantly, that was really driven mostly by catastrophes and loss adjustment expenses. So sort of more of a one-off driver of that PYD then sort of a change in our view of underlying dynamics. So I wouldn’t read too much into the auto PYD in that commentary. But I would say broadly it’s coming in about as expected, and we’re pleased with it.
Larry Greenberg:
Great, thanks. And then is there any color you could give, I guess this is for jay, on the non-fixed income piece of NII for the second quarter, given the lag in reporting that?
Jay Benet:
I’ll let Bill Heyman address that.
Bill Heyman:
Hi, this is Bill. Are you talking about the quarter, the quarter that we are currently in? Or about the quarter just ended, which is the first quarter.
Larry Greenberg:
Yes, I’m talking about the quarter we’re in.
Bill Heyman:
Well, only about 20 days into it. And historically, we have not really commented on what we’re seeing. So I think I’m going to keep to that.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. Next question please.
Alan Schnitzer:
Larry, are we missing the question?
Larry Greenberg:
Excuse me.
Alan Schnitzer:
Are we missing the question? If you’re asking about the second quarter, obviously, we couldn’t comment on that. But are we missing the question about the first quarter?
Larry Greenberg:
No, no, no, I’m sorry. Just I given that I think your non-fixed income is reported on a quarter lag or depending a few months – a couple of months lag. We saw a bit of volatility in the first quarter…
Alan Schnitzer:
I think, we probably have too many discrete GP relationships to combine them and give you anything meaningful.
Larry Greenberg:
Fair enough, thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks, Larry.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with KBW. Please go ahead.
Meyer Shields:
Thanks, good morning. The general administrative expenses in both BI and PI was up faster than it had been in previous quarters. And also can you explain what’s going on?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Good morning, Meyer. So let me start with a total and I’m happy to go further into the segments, but simply business and FX would be about half of it for the total. And the other half, now we’re getting into a relatively small dollars on the total G&A base. Other half would be timing. So extrapolating out to the segments per Business Insurance, most of it gets explained through Simply Business and through FX. In Personal Insurance, it’s variability and contingent commissions and then some timing.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, great. And then question, I think predominately personalized, but maybe not. When so nationwide obviously that they are going to an independent agency distribution model, how does Travelers plan to respond to that in terms of the growth opportunities?
Michael Klein:
Thanks, Meyer. It’s Michael. I’ll take it and I think you’re right. It could be broader than BI, but I’ll sort of address that broadly. First, they did recently announce that they’re making those changes, but it’s important to know that it’s not a brand new initiative for them. So certainly, and I’m sure you’re all well aware that through Harvey [indiscernible] they trade with independent agents already as a corporation. But even underneath the nationwide brand, they’ve had a number of nationwide captive agents that have had access to the independent agent market already. And in fact, they have an operation called nationwide broker services that those captive agents can access other markets through, and Travelers is one of many companies that actually trade with that brokerage services organization. So a, it’s not brand-new. It’s something that we’ve seen and been monitoring. And in fact, it’s a trading relationship that we have. I would say on balance, we have a couple of observations. First of all, Alan mentioned our strength with independent agent distribution. As a franchise, we think that’s a continued competitive advantage for us and it is our primary focus in terms of distribution. But I would say that we primarily view this change as an opportunity to explore additional distribution points. We will certainly monitor and evaluate nationwide’s performance with independent agents as we monitor and evaluate any competitors, results in the independent agent channel. But again, on balance, we’d say something that’s been developing for a while and on the margin probably more an opportunity than a threat.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Thanks very much. And good luck, all and Gabby.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Sarah DeWitt with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Sarah DeWitt:
Hi, good morning. I just wanted to follow-up on your latest thoughts on U.S. tax reform and the impact of competition. And given you’ve seen in other industries like mortgage insurance, you saw one company pass along the entire benefit to customers. Does that change your view now at all about the impact on competition and pricing?
Jay Benet:
Hi, good morning, Sarah. No, it really doesn’t. We’ve said pretty consistently that we’ve got some ground to cover in tax reform helps, but it doesn’t close the GAAP. And you really have to look at our pricing objectives holistically. So you’ve got to take into account capital requirements and the adequacy of expiring prices and loss trend and the tax rate. We put all those things into the blender and what comes out is as we look ahead rate need. So we continue to think current course and speed. And from a market perspective, again, I’ll just remind you that not the whole market benefits from tax reform. You’ve got both U.S. and domestic insurers who are positioned differently from a tax perspective. And even among U.S. competitors, those that don’t have significant underwriting profit or underlying lost don’t benefit to the same degree as those within underwriting profit. So it’s not like the entire P&C business. The trades in the U.S. is all of a sudden flush and returns are – I think, at target levels.
Sarah DeWitt:
Okay. Great, thanks. And then just following-up on the Business Insurance pricing, I think you’ve talked about previously pushing for price increases to keep pace with loss inflation, which is about 4%. But do you think you can get there if you are keeping Select Accounts flat? It seems like you would need a lot of price increase in the other subsegments of Business Insurance and I’m just wondering to what extent that’s achievable?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Sarah. So it’s sort of a broad aspirational comment that we would like pricing to keep up with loss trend. We think that makes sense, but we don’t execute for that headline numbers, right. We look at every account. We look at the circumstances of that account and sign a rate need to it and then try to achieve that. And what you heard, Greg say, is what we did, on the small end, was the function of deliberate execution, given where the returns are. So you got that factor, you’ve got workers’ comp, you’ve got all sorts of things that will drive the headline number. As a reminder though, we’re really executing on account by account basis.
Sarah DeWitt:
Okay, thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Yaron Kinar:
Hi, good morning everybody. First question on Business Insurance and renewal rate change there. So just given the momentum you’ve seen months over months during the quarter and the fact that less of your workers’ comp or I guess less of the renewals will be workers’ comp waited. And the remaining three quarters of the year, would it be fair to expect maybe for the acceleration of the rate change?
Alan Schnitzer:
I’m not sure we agree with the workers’ comp waiting observation by the way. I don’t – I’m not sure that’s true. I wouldn’t say that’s going to be a significant driver. And this in terms of outlook, Yaron, we give you a perspective in the Outlook sections of the 10-Q and we’re probably not going to go beyond that. So I hope that’s helpful.
Yaron Kinar:
With regards to waiting, I was just referring to the 37% of workers’ comp renews in the first quarter as opposed to 20 some the rest of the year. And I guess, the other question I had was just with regards to the large non-cat weather losses. So if those remain at the level we’ve seen this quarter. Are you still comfortable with the guidance outlook for the year in terms of margin improvement in Business Insurance?
Alan Schnitzer:
The guidance that we give you, one is an underlying basis, so it excludes cats. And two, we do say exclusively in the 10-Q, that it assumes a return to lower more normal levels of whether and other loss activity. So we are assuming a return to more normal levels.
Yaron Kinar:
Okay, thank you very much.
Gabriella Nawi:
And this will be our last question please.
Operator:
Our final question will come from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. So drilling down on the Business Insurance pricing just little bit more here. Can you talk about how you’ve kind of saw – it improved I guess, month-to-month you said. But if you were thinking about kind of what the pricing environment look like. We had your fourth quarter conference call to today. Is it in line, better, worse than you kind of we’re expecting it to competitive pressures maybe a little bit more or less?
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s probably finer than we want to parse it. We start getting into competitively sensitive information there. So that’s probably finer than we want to parse it. I did say in my remarks that we did achieve rate gains more broadly across accounts. That’s true and that’s a trend that – I think it was quarter-to-quarter throughout the year and probably going back five quarters or so. So I will share that color, but parsing it beyond that probably more detail than we want to provide.
Brian Meredith:
Great. And then last question here. If I look at the exposure change and you’ve talked about how that exposure change, there’s part of it that actually has an impact on margins. Is there kind of a general kind of percentage of that, that we should think as part of margins? Is it half of it? Is it two-thirds of it?
Alan Schnitzer:
We’ve always resisted and giving that, because there’s so much estimation involved. So all we said is that it’s not insignificant, but we’ve stopped sort of really quantifying that.
Brian Meredith:
Thanks. Keep it to try, thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Okay, thank you all for joining us today. And it’s been a pleasure working with you all over the last 10 years. And I’m sure I’ll hear from you again soon. Have a great day, and thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation, and ask that you please disconnect your lines.
Executives:
Alan Schnitzer - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer Brian MacLean - President, Chief Operating Officer Jay Benet - Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer Michael Klein - President, Personal Insurance Greg Toczydlowski - President, Business Insurance Bill Heyman - Chief Investment Officer Tom Kunkel - President, Bond and Specialty Insurance Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President, Investor Relations
Analysts:
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Amit Kumar - Buckingham Research Group Elyse Greenspan - Wells Fargo Yaron Kinar - Goldman Sachs Paul Newsome - Sandler O’Neill Jay Gelb - Barclays Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Brian Meredith - UBS Meyer Shields - KBW Sarah Dewitt - JP Morgan Larry Greenberg - Janney Montgomery Scott
Operator:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the fourth quarter results teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question and answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on January 23, 2018. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our fourth quarter and full year 2017 results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast materials released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com under the Investor section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Chief Financial Officer, and Brian MacLean, Chief Operating Officer. They will discuss the financial results of our business in the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks, and then we will take questions. In addition, other members of senior management are in the room, including Bill Heyman, Chief Investment Officer, Michael Klein, President of Personal Insurance, Tom Kunkel, President of Bond and Specialty Insurance, and Greg Toczydlowski, President of Business Insurance. Before I turn it over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks and responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement, and other materials available in the Investors section of our website, travelers.com. Now, Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported fourth quarter core income of $633 million, generating a core return on equity of a little over 11%. That brings our full-year core income to $2.43 billion and full-year core return on equity to 9%. The fact that we were able to generate that level of profit and profitability given the extraordinary catastrophe losses for the industry this quarter and year on top of a decade of historically low interest rates and several years of a relatively soft pricing environment speaks to the earnings power of the franchise. It’s the value of our competitive advantages, starting with underwriting excellence and investment expertise. For the year, catastrophe losses were manageable and we generated an after-tax underlying underwriting gain in excess of $1.2 billion and after-tax net investment income of nearly $1.9 billion. Our results and strong balance sheet enabled us to grow adjusted book value per share by 4% during the year after returning $2.2 billion of excess capital to our shareholders. As I’ll share in a minute, we’re encouraged about the outlook for 2018. Overall, we were pleased with our underlying combined ratio of 92.6% for the year, which was impacted by high levels of non-cat weather and non-cat fire-related losses relative to our expectations. Underneath that, our commercial businesses continue to perform well. For the year, business insurance delivered a strong underlying combined ratio of 94.9%. Bond and specialty insurance delivered an impressive underlying combined ratio of 83.2% even after a charge in the fourth quarter for a single surety loss outside the United States. In personal insurance, we were pleased with an underlying combined ratio in the quarter of 90.4%, bringing the full year to 91.5%. Those results reflect continued success in our leading property business, loss trends in personal auto within expectations, and the continued successful execution of the pricing and underwriting actions we’ve been taking in the auto business all year. Notably, our consolidated expense ratio was down 80 basis points for the year as we grew earned premium by almost 5%, continued to invest in the strategic initiatives we discussed with you at our recent investor day, and delivered on our objective of improving productivity and efficiency, which resulted in about flat G&A expense dollars. Turning to the top line, we were very pleased with the success of our marketplace execution which resulted in full-year net written premium growth of 5% to a record $26.2 billion. Importantly, in domestic business insurance in the quarter, renewal rate change reached 1.4 points, doubling from the third quarter, and renewal premium change reached 4 points. For both measures, that’s the highest levels in about three years. Brian will give you more texture on the execution underneath the headlines, including a view by line, but I’ll note that we achieved renewal rate gains in the quarter more broadly across our product portfolio and our accounts compared to recent periods. It’s an acceleration of a trend in improved pricing we’ve achieved over the past six quarters as the market started reacting to two things
Jay Benet:
Thanks Alan. Core income was $633 million, down from $919 million in the prior year quarter, while core ROE was 11.1%, down from 16.4%. As has been the case all year, these reductions in core income and core ROE were not driven by changes in our underlying performance. Our underlying performance remains strong and actually improved over the prior year quarter. Rather, these reductions were reflective of a continued high level of cat activity and the inclusion of an $82 million after-tax benefit in the prior year quarter from the settlement of a reinsurance dispute. The strength of our underlying underwriting results is evidenced by our consolidated underlying combined ratio of 92.4%, similar to the 92% we produced in the prior year quarter. Cat losses were $324 million after tax compared to only $89 million in the prior year quarter. This $235 million increase was driven by losses from the California wildfires of $426 million after tax, comprising $382 million after tax for the October wildfires in northern California and $44 million after tax for the December wildfires in southern California, partially offset by current year net favorable development of $102 million after tax for catastrophes that occurred earlier this year, almost all of which related to the third quarter hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. For both Harvey and Irma, the benefits of our underwriting actions over many years, including management of overall exposure, limits and deductibles, resulted in more favorable claim outcomes than we had expected. For Maria, given that the storm occurred late in the third quarter and access to the impacted areas was extremely limited, our estimate was based on an exposure analysis. That initial estimate has come down due to our receiving fewer claims than we had expected. Net favorable prior year reserve development, for which I’ll provide more details shortly, was $192 million after tax, up from $172 million in the prior year quarter. Net investment income of $467 million after-tax, while continuing to be strong, was down $26 million from the prior year quarter. Non-fixed income NII decreased by $19 million after tax due to lower private equity returns which, although strong, were not as strong as in the prior year quarter. Fixed income NII, as anticipated, was lower by $8 million after tax due to the continued low interest rate environment. Taking into account long-term bonds that are scheduled to mature in 2018, growth in the size of our fixed income portfolio, higher short-term interest rates and the new U.S. tax law, we expect that after-tax fixed income NII for 2018 will be $25 million to $30 million higher quarter over quarter as compared to corresponding quarters in 2017, a significant improvement from recent years. Relative to what several other companies have disclosed, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 had a relatively modest impact on our fourth quarter results, a $129 million charge recorded as part of net income. This charge resulted mostly from revaluing our net deferred tax asset as of the enactment date using the new 21% tax rate and, to a lesser extent, providing on the taxes on the deemed repatriation of our foreign earnings. I should also mention that we executed some tax-related actions in the fourth quarter that provided real economic benefits while having an insignificant impact on fourth quarter 2017 core and net income, but slightly increasing our fourth quarter consolidating combined ratio primarily through the expense ratio by about half a point. Under the new tax law, muni bond investment income will continue to be taxed at 5.25% while all other U.S.-based income will be taxed at 21% rather than 35%, so looking forward, you should update your models. Consolidated net favorable prior year reserve development was $293 million pre-tax compared to $264 million in the prior year quarter. Business insurance’s net favorable reserve development was $244 million pre-tax compared to $221 million in the prior year quarter primarily driven by better than expected loss experience in domestic workers comp and commercial multi-peril, partially offset by higher than expected loss experience in domestic commercial auto. Bond and specialty net favorable development was $42 million pre-tax compared to $79 million in the prior quarter, primarily driven by better than expected loss experience in domestic management liability, while personal insurance had net favorable development of $7 million pre-tax compared to $36 million of net unfavorable development in the prior year quarter. For full year 2017, we had consolidated net favorable development of $592 million pre-tax. As in prior years, I’m providing you with some insight into what our combined 2017 Schedule P is expected to show when filed on May 1. Excluding A&E, on a combined stat Schedule P basis for all of our U.S. subs, all accident years across all product lines in the aggregate developed favorably, and except for commercial auto liability, which developed unfavorably by $87 million pre-tax due to higher than expected bodily injury claims in recent accident years, all product lines across all accident years in the aggregate developed favorably or had de minimis unfavorable development. Page 19 of the webcast sets forth information about our January 1 cat treaty renewal. Our corporate cat aggregate XOL treaty continues to provide coverage for both single cat events and an accumulation of losses from multiple cat events with similar terms as in the prior year, but at a slightly higher cost. The treaty continues to provide $1.5 billion of coverage, part of $2 billion excess of $3 billion after a $100 million deductible per occurrence. It keeps the same broad peril and geographic coverage and the same positioning of the coverage layer, providing a significant buffer between earnings and capital. The treaty has a single limit with no reinstatement provisions, and note that the total cost of this treaty and therefore the slight cost increase are quite small in relation to our core income. Fourth quarter operating cash flows, which were impacted by the relatively high level of cat claim payments, were $538 million, bringing total operating cash flow to over $3.7 billion for the year. We ended the year with holding company liquidity of almost $1.3 billion and all of our capital ratios were at or better than their target levels. Net unrealized investment gains were over $1.4 billion pre-tax or $1.1 billion after tax, up from $1.1 billion and $0.7 billion respectively at the beginning of the year, while book value per share of $87.46 and adjusted book value per share of $83.36 increased 5% and 4% respectively from the beginning of the year. Consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy and despite the high level of cat losses, we were able to return $549 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter while maintaining our balance sheet strength through dividends of $198 million and share repurchases of $351 million, bringing total capital return to shareholders to over $2.2 billion in 2017. With me, let me turn the microphone over to Brian.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks Jay. Starting with this quarter’s results in business insurance, segment income was strong at $637 million and the combined ratio for the quarter of 88.6% was flat to the prior year. Income was down from the prior year due primarily to the settlement of a reinsurance dispute in the fourth quarter of 2016. The underlying combined ratio for both the quarter and the full year was about a point higher than 2016. In both cases, the increase was driven by the loss ratio with loss cost trends that modestly exceeded earned pricing, while the full-year variance also reflects an unusually high number of large non-cat fire losses in 2017. The full-year expense ratio of 31.9% was half a point lower than the prior year. As Jay mentioned, the fourth quarter included the impact of some tax-related actions, so the full year is a better indication of our expense run rate. Net written premiums of $3.4 billion for the quarter were up about 5% year-over-year with domestic net written premiums up about 4%, driven by continued strong production results in middle market. International net written premiums were up 15% or 11% excluding the impact of the change in foreign currency rates. The growth in international was driven by strong production results in Europe and Canada, along with some normal fluctuations in the Lloyd’s volume. Turning to domestic production, we were very pleased with our results in the quarter. Renewal rate change was 1.4% and renewal premium change was 4%, and as Alan said, for both the highest the level in about three years. Retention remained at a historically high level of 85% and new business was strong for the quarter at $478 million, up 16% from the fourth quarter of 2016. Looking at the individual businesses, in select, production remains strong with renewal premium change for the quarter of over 5%, retention of 83%, and new business premiums of $100 million up 11% year-over-year. In middle market, renewal rate change increased to 1.5%, up about a point year-over-year, and renewal premium change increased to 3.6%. Retention remained at a historically high level of 87% while new business premiums of $298 million were up 17% versus the prior year quarter. In terms of new business, the technology, tools and process changes we’ve been rolling out over the last several years that we discussed at our recent day have allowed us to be more active in our targeted industry segments. In select, we’re generating more submissions and quotes and having success in closing those incremental opportunities. In middle markets, we’ve been successful in quoting more while also closing more large accounts than a year ago. While the normal volatility in writing large accounts was a factor in this quarter’s growth, we believe our initiatives are beginning to have an impact. For the aggregate, production results were very strong, but as we have said many times, the aggregate numbers alone don’t tell the entire story. The detail of where we are getting rate and what accounts we are retaining is key to evaluating the success of our execution, and looking at the results below the headline numbers we couldn’t be more pleased. For example, as you would expect, there was significant line of business texture below the headline production numbers. In terms of pricing, workers compensation, a line that has had strong returns in recent periods, had renewal premium change that was positive but lower than a year ago. Conversely, commercial auto, which is a challenge from a return perspective line, had the highest positive price change in the quarter, well above loss trends. What’s also encouraging to us is that across all the other major product lines - property, GL, C&P, and umbrella, renewal premium change was positive and up both year-over-year and sequentially. Importantly, we were able to achieve these pricing increases while maintaining strong retention and growing new business. There was also significant texture based on individual account performance. We continue to be pleased that we are retaining our best performing business, as evidenced by retention rates in excess of 90% for our best performing middle market accounts. In addition, pricing in the quarter improved across the continuum of middle market book, most significantly in our poor performing accounts where we achieved rate increases well in excess of loss trends. Finally, in addition to what we’re seeing in the numbers, we’re also encouraged that there has been some tightening of terms and conditions for catastrophe-exposed risks. So all in, a great quarter and end to the year. We were very pleased with our execution in the marketplace and how we are positioned for continued success in 2018. Before turning to bond and specialty, and I want to comment on our outlook for operating margins, which we include in our quarterly filings. Since our 10-K won’t be filed for a few weeks, I would note that we expect underlying underwriting margins in 2018 will be higher than in 2017, and the underlying combined ratio will be slightly lower than in 2017 assuming lower and more normalized levels of non-catastrophe weather-related losses and other loss activity. This is subject to the usual caveats and forward-looking statement disclaimers. In bond and specialty insurance, segment income for the quarter was $112 million, down from the prior year quarter due to the international surety charge that Alan mentioned as well as a lower level of net favorable prior year reserve development. In surety, losses are episodic and we remain pleased with the quality of our book. The underlying combined ratio increased from the prior year quarter to 91.1%, reflecting the impact of the surety charge. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 5%, reflecting growth in both our domestic surety and management liability businesses. Surety growth was driven by a higher level of large bond activity in the quarter. Turning to production in our domestic management liability businesses, we continue to execute our strategy of growing our profitable portfolio by retaining our best performing accounts and writing new business in return adequate product segments, so we couldn’t be more pleased that retention came in at a strong 88% for the quarter while new business was up 17% from the fourth quarter of last year. Renewal premium change of 3.4% was up slightly from the third quarter. Bond and specialty results were solid, and we continue to feel great about our market position. In terms of outlook for 2018, we expect that underlying underwriting margins and the underlying combined ratio for the first nine months of 2018 will be broadly consistent with the same period of 2017. In the last quarter of 2018, we expect that underlying underwriting margins will be higher and the underlying combined ratio will be lower than in the same period of 2017. Turning to personal insurance, net written premiums for the segment grew 8% in the quarter driven by higher pricing primarily in auto and modest PIF growth primarily in homeowners. Catastrophe losses in the quarter were approximately $200 million after tax, above both prior year and our normal expectations, resulting in a $50 million loss for the quarter and a combined ratio of 108.7%. For the full year despite pre-tax cat losses of more than $1 billion, personal insurance generated $128 million of income. The underlying combined ratio in the fourth quarter of 90.4% improved by 3.2 points compared to last year’s fourth quarter, and the full-year underlying combined ratio of 91.5% was about half a point higher than full-year 2016. The domestic agency auto combined ratio for the quarter was 103%, including a 1.1 point benefit from catastrophe losses as we reduced our auto estimate related to Hurricane Harvey. The underlying combined ratio of 104.1% improved by 8.1 points from the prior year. As you can see on Page 15 of the webcast, 4.7 points of the decrease is due to last year’s fourth quarter having been elevated as a result of the year-to-date impact of the bodily injury loss re-estimation. The remainder of the improvement is primarily as a result of earned rate from filing actions we have taken over the past year now exceeding loss trends by several points, in line with the planned actions we outlined a year ago. I would remind you that seasonality inflates the absolute value of the fourth quarter combined ratio. As we have continued to take actions to improve profitability in the auto book, renewal premium change increased to 10.6% in the fourth quarter. Retention declined modestly, as expected, given the pricing actions, and PIF growth has leveled out, again in line with our plans. We were pleased with the level of written rate in 2017 and looking ahead, we expect that full-year RPC for 2018 will be broadly consistent with the full-year 2017 result as we look to continue to improve the profitability of the book. Turning to agency, homeowners and other, the fourth quarter combined ratio of 115.3% included over 45 points from cat losses, driven by the wildfires in California. The underlying combined ratio of 70.2% for the quarter was consistent with the prior year quarter as higher non-cat weather losses were basically offset by an improvement in the expense ratio. For the full year, the abnormally high cat result of 23.6 points drove the combined ratio up to 100.7%, while the underlying combined ratio of 77.1% was about a point and a half above the prior year due primarily to higher non-cat weather losses. Homeowners volume continued to exhibit momentum with healthy PIF growth throughout the year to finish up 5.5% compared to the prior year-end. We’re pleased that our focus on generating growth in this product line has enabled us to steadily increase property PIF count even as we have intentionally slowed the PIF growth in auto. We’re also pleased to have introduced our newest property product, Quantum Home 2.0, in three pilot states during the fourth quarter with initial response from agents and customers in line with our expectations. Overall in personal insurance, while the headlines were all about the significant catastrophe losses, we feel great about having achieved the goals we had established entering 2017. In addition, we continued our ongoing expense discipline, which resulted in slightly lower G&A expenses while delivering 9% growth in net written premiums for the segment, reducing the full year expense ratio by 1.5 points. So for personal insurance in 2017, we were very pleased with the execution on the key elements needed to position this segment for success in 2018. Finally as it relates to our outlook for the personal insurance segment as a whole, we expect underlying underwriting margins in 2018 will be higher than in 2017, and the underlying combined ratio will be slightly lower than in 2017. Stepping back to the enterprise, we generated over $2 billion in profits in a year that was dominated by the impact of weather and large losses, so we feel good about the result but, more importantly, feel great about the execution across all our businesses and our market position entering 2018. With that, let me turn it back over to Gabby.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Before we go to the Q&A portion, Alan has a few additional words.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks Gabby. As bittersweet as it is, we have one last piece of business before we open it up for questions. I just want to acknowledge and thank Brian MacLean, who will be retiring at the end of March after a spectacular 30-year career and, after today, something like 53 consecutive earnings calls. He’d never take credit for it, but we owe so much of what we’ve accomplished over so many years to him. He’s been a great colleague to so many and he’s been an important partner and friend to me. Thank you, Brian. With that, let’s open it up for questions.
Operator:
[Operator instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed.
Kai Pan:
Thank you, good morning. First, congratulations to Brian for three decades at Travelers and best wishes for your retirement. That doesn’t count as a question, so my first question is on pricing. So there is a saturation of BI pricing, and you mentioned that your outlook for 2018 the BIs lower underlying combined ratio, but the 1.4% increase is still lower than the general loss cost trend of 3 to 4%. Just wondering what’s behind the scenes that you expect the pricing to accelerate.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes Kai, good morning, it’s Alan. Thanks for the question. It’s all the things that we talked to you about quarter over quarter in terms of our ability to pull levers and manage profitability, and I’ll remind you that exposure is a piece of that, and that significant portion of exposure contributes to it, but so does selection and mix and the way we segment and the way we price the product claims handling, risk control, expense management. All of those things contribute to our outlook on profitability in the underlying combined ratio.
Kai Pan:
Okay, then my follow-up is on the tax rate. What’s your overall effective tax rate for the corporation in 2018, and Alan, from your comments it looks like most of the tax benefit will flow through to the bottom line.
Jay Benet:
This is Jay Benet. The reason I gave you the pieces is that the effective tax rate is always going to be a function of the relationship of the tax-exempt interest to the total interest, so in whatever modeling you’re doing, you need to come up with what you believe the tax exempt interest is going to be, apply a 5.25 tax rate to that, and then everything else that’s U.S. domestic will be at the 21% rate. So the effective tax rate is going to move, but again that’s the way of calculating it.
Alan Schnitzer:
Kai, just reflecting back on your other question, you were talking about the pricing outlook, and I would just remind you that, as Brian shared with you, that assumes that in BI, the non-cat weather and elevated fire losses, and for that matter in PI, the non-cat weather will both return to normal levels by historical standards. Obviously weather and large losses are going to be what they’re going to be, but the outlook reflects that as well. In terms of the benefit from tax reform and what’s going to happen to it, we--as I tried to express in my prepared remarks, it goes into the mix of everything else that we use to generate the prices we need, so yes, I do think that it will fall to the bottom line.
Kai Pan:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Continuing on, our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Credit Suisse. Please proceed.
Ryan Tunis:
Thanks. Just for Alan, and a follow-up to Kai’s question, just thinking about the fact that last quarter we had a 2018 outlook for broadly consistent margins, and now three months later the outlook is they’ll improve, just wanted to drill down a little further on what it is you’ve seen over the last three months, because I think your outlook on pricing then was also pretty positive. But I guess over the last three months, what’s given you more confidence to really think that margins will be better?
Alan Schnitzer:
You’ve got to remember that when we talk about underwriting margins, we’re talking about dollars, and combined ratio we’re talking about combined ratio points. That’s a function of the written volume, for example, and everything else that goes into the mix, so it’s a combination of all the things that impact margins and combined ratio. I’m not sure how else to express that.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay. I guess just on auto, then, I think what you said is you think that RPC will be a similar level to this year as it was last year, and it seemed like this year, it was several points above loss trend. If you could just talk a little bit about what you’re seeing there, because that sounds like a decent amount of rain. I don’t know if there’s a severity uptick beyond what you expected, or something along those lines. Thanks.
Michael Klein:
Hey Ryan, it’s Michael Klein. Thanks for the question. The short answer is no, it doesn’t reflect anything beyond what we expected. It’s just the follow-on steps in our existing game plan, and I think when you think about pricing, think of it in three pieces, so the written rate we’re going to achieve in 2018 is partly based on the rate we have already filed in addition to the rate we’ll file in ’18, and so that drives a lot of our rate outlook. What I think you’ll see as you look ahead to 2018 is RPC in the first half of the year will be higher than the numbers you see on the page from the first half of 2017, and the back half of the year will be lower than the numbers you see for the back half of ’17. Importantly, on an earned basis since written rate has accelerated through ’17, earned rate will actually rise in 2018 relative to 2017, so that’s sort of the way that we think about it. But no, the broadly consistent RPC outlook doesn’t reflect anything unanticipated in our loss experience.
Ryan Tunis:
That’s helpful, thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar from Buckingham Research Group. Please proceed.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks and good morning. Maybe just staying on personal auto with Michael Klein, you gave some good color on RPC. How should we think about the PIF growth from here, just based on the fact that a majority of your book is 12 months? When should we see some change in that number down the road?
Michael Klein:
Thanks Amit, appreciate the question. I think if you think about just the broad themes on auto, what we talked about in 2017, our objective was to improve profitability and manage growth, manage meaning being reduced. As we think about our objective for ’18, it’s really to try to achieve more balance between growth and profitability in auto, and I think you can certainly see as we talked about last quarter, we felt like we turned the corner on auto profitability in the third quarter. You’re seeing in the year-on-year adjusted underlying combined comparison that improvement accelerating, but again consistent with our RPC outlook, still work to do there. So again, we’re looking to achieve a balance between profitability and growth in ’18, and then as that profitability continues to improve, we’ll look to resume growth. But right now, we’re trying to level off and then move it forward.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks, that’s actually helpful. My follow-up, switching back to commercial lines, I know there was some good texture on the pricing change. I’m curious, if we were to step back and think about the active cat quarter for Q3 and Q4 and its impact on the marketplace, would you say that it’s early days for, I guess, a broad-based firming of the small and middle commercial market, or is it more isolated near term?
Alan Schnitzer:
Amit, it’s Alan. You know, we tried to give you a perspective by line to really address that because putting workers’ comp aside, and that is its own story, the price increases we were able to achieve in the quarter were broader than just the properly lines. As I shared in my prepared remarks, I think the more significant factor driving the pricing is where margins were, certainly for us, and that’s probably true relative to the industry. So you know, I can’t tell you exactly what the industry is going to do or what’s going to happen, but I can tell you what we’re going to do, and that’s to thoughtfully and in close coordination with our agent and broker partners continue to push for rate where we need it to improve the outlook and trend of returns.
Amit Kumar:
Okay, I’ll stop here. Thanks for the answers.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, thank you. Good morning. My first question, in terms of the margin outlook for business insurance for next year, can you quantify the impact that non-cat weather had this year so we know what to adjust for when thinking about ’18? In your margin outlook, how are you thinking about the expense ratio versus the loss ratio as we think about you potentially earning in better rate next year?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Hey Elyse, this is Greg Toczydlowski from Business Insurance. In terms of your first question, think about a point in terms of where large losses and non-cat weather are relative to our longer term expectations for 2017, and that would be a good way to think about a going forward perspective.
Alan Schnitzer:
Elyse, on your question about expenses, we’re going to try to resist the temptation to break out the go-forward perspective on the loss ratio versus the expense ratio. We give you an outlook on the combined ratio, at least qualitatively, because you get into some judgements and a level of precision that is probably further than we’d like to go, at least from an outlook perspective. Jay Benet did say in his opening remarks, or maybe it was Brian, that looking at the full year was probably a better perspective on the outlook, and I will add, just following up on our comments at our recent investor day, that productivity and efficiency are important strategic initiatives for us. We’ve seen that benefit of that this year. We’ve got real productivity and efficiency enhancements on the shop floor right now, and we think there’s more to come, and what that does for us, it’s not necessarily that we’re trying to dial in a much lower expense ratio. What we’re trying to do is create all the benefits that come from operating leverage, so we can take those incremental dollars and, as I’ve said before, we can let them fall to the bottom line, we can use it to invest in important strategic capabilities, or we can put it into pricing, and it really is that flexibility that we’re looking for going forward. But in terms of the outlook, we’re going to stick with the broader commentary on overall margins.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. My second question, in terms of the pricing environment, going back to business insurance again, you said in your opening remarks that you want rates to keep pace with inflation. What are you pegging inflation at right now within your commercial lines book, and when you make that comment, I guess that’s what we should compare when we think about the RPC going forward within business insurance?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes Elyse, we’ve said for a long time that our long-term outlook, and again that’s long-term perspective for all of business insurance, is about 4%, and really no change on that. There’s some texture underneath by line, for example. I’m not sure what your question was about RPC, but rate contributes to margin, and there’s a portion of exposure that’s obviously part of RPC that also contributes to it, so I’m not sure if that’s the texture and color you were looking for.
Elyse Greenspan:
I guess what I was thinking about was your RPC was about 4% in the quarter, and then you were saying that inflation was about 4%, but then to your commentary it seems like you are pushing for more price across your book of business from where we were at in the fourth quarter, so I was just trying to tie those two comments together.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, so Elyse, I would say think of RPC as having two components - one, pure rate, and two, exposure. Of the piece that’s exposure, a portion of that behaves like margin and there’s a portion of it that has real loss content in it and doesn’t. So you know, RPC needs to be above the overall loss trend in order for us to consider margins to be expanding, and you could look at those numbers and you’d say, at least on a written basis, we’re getting close. Although, we do think--I do think over time that insurance like most other businesses, pricing ought to keep up with inflation, but I would say that given where we are now and in terms of the outlook and trend for returns, we’re looking to do a little bit better than just offset inflation, were looking to expand margin.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate the color.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed.
Yaron Kinar:
Good morning everybody. Thanks for taking my questions. My first question is with regards to the rate increases in business insurance. If I strip out commercial auto, I think if my calculation is correct, I get to roughly flat rate for the rest of the business. Am I thinking about that correctly, or are there maybe areas or lines where you are getting more rates outside of commercial auto?
Jay Benet:
Yes Yaron, I don’t think you’re doing the math entirely correctly. There’s a lot of different pieces underneath the net written premium change, which I think you’re trying to back into, so we’re certainly, as Alan said earlier, very much focused on where some of the more distressed lines are - automobile and the catastrophic exposed areas of property, but we’re also pushing ahead on all the products, so the math doesn’t come out where we’re flat on all the other product lines.
Alan Schnitzer:
I would just direct you back to Brian’s comments where he gave you a view of pricing by line, so price is positive in every line outside of workers’ comp, higher both sequentially and year-over-year. We can follow up with you and walk you through the math if that’s helpful.
Yaron Kinar:
Yes, we’ll do that. Then one other question on tax reform. Alan, if I understand your comments correct, basically you’re looking at the results of--you’re targeting a certain return, and tax reform ends up helping that return. I’m just trying to get a sense of are you expecting any change in investment allocation that would further boost or decrease the impact of tax reform?
Alan Schnitzer:
Let me turn that over to Bill Heyman and ask him to respond to that.
Bill Heyman:
I think it was possible there will be over time some reallocation. The elimination of corporate AMT removed a ceiling in terms of the amount of municipals we can own, although that’s very theoretical. Every day we look at what the market throws up in terms of assuming roughly equal credit quality, which is rarely the case, where is the highest after-tax return. I think going forward, that will more often in certain segments of the curve be in taxables rather than municipals. It may even be that we buy taxables and sell municipals in certain parts of the curve, and the reason for that is for the first time I can remember, individual investors and corporate investors have very different utility functions, so at many parts of the curve your municipal is not worth as much to us as it used to be, but it’s worth more to an individual investor than it is to us. So there may be opportunities to pick up after-tax yield on advantageous terms, but obviously we can’t guarantee them or quantify them. But I suspect if you looked at the portfolio three years now, the mix would have changed.
Yaron Kinar:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome with Sandler O’Neill.
Paul Newsome :
I wanted to ask whether or not the outlook for M&A for Travelers has changed with tax reform. Does it make it easier or more interesting to buy something outside the U.S. for Travelers?
Alan Schnitzer:
Good morning, Paul. What I can tell you is that tax reform for us and others who are similarly situated obviously just makes us a more competitive buyer relative to a non-U.S. taxpayer who previously had the benefit of some structural advantages, structural tax advantages. Those advantages have gone away, so that levels the playing field, so relatively speaking we’re a more competitive buyer, so that’s changed for sure. What hasn’t changed, Paul, is either our lens or our propensity to do transactions, and by that I mean we are always looking for opportunities, both organic and inorganic, and when we can make them happen on terms that are attractive to us, we’re going to try hard to do that. As I’ve said before and just to reiterate it, we’re going to try to do deals when it improves our return profile, lowers our volatility, or provides us with other important strategic benefits, so maybe our positioning relative to others changes but our lens or propensity doesn’t. The other thing that won’t change is our capital management strategy. We will continue to think about and allocate capital the same way we have historically. I guess given tax reform and all other things being equal, there’s probably higher earnings and capital to put to through that capital management filter, but our thought process around capital management doesn’t change.
Paul Newsome:
That’s it for me, thanks. Congrats on the quarter.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks Paul.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please proceed.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you. My first question is on capital deployment in 2018. Should we still consider 100% of operating earnings as being deployable for share buybacks and dividends, absent another opportunity emerging?
Jay Benet:
Hi Jay, it’s Jay. As Alan just said, the way we think about capital management hasn’t changed, so we’re always going to try to fund growth, we’re always going to look for opportunities to create shareholder value, and to the extent that we continue to create excess capital, we’ll manage it the same way - returning it to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases, and the driver of that is the earnings of the play. So no change there, and what we’ve said in the 10-K and the 10-Q all along with regard to that still holds.
Jay Gelb:
I appreciate that. Then if I can try one on tax, using your supplement, if I look at the tax-free municipal income and apply the rate you mentioned, I guess I get kind of driven down to a 15.5 to 16% overall effective tax rate. Am I in the neighborhood on that?
Jay Benet:
If the calculation you’re doing is looking at the supplement, taking some view as to what the average asset base would be for the munis, applying the rate that we show in the supplement as the earnings rate on that, you’ll get the pre-tax muni NII, apply 5.25% to that, and you’ll have that component of the tax accrual, and then the rest, whatever you’re assuming with regard to the non-muni income, not just NII but underwriting, apply the 21% to and you’ll get an effective tax rate.
Jay Gelb:
Okay, thanks Jay.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next call is a question from Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please proceed.
Jay Cohen:
Thank you - back-to-back Jays. A couple of questions. First is the surety premiums went up. You said there was more activity. Do you see this being a function of the economy, and should we expect the top line on the surety side to possibly expand, especially if we’ve got more infrastructure spending?
Tom Kunkel:
Jay, this is Tom Kunkel, good morning. I think the way we’re looking at the surety production in the month is it really can be episodic, and those are some very well performing businesses and accounts that we were doing that volume with but I wouldn’t say that we in any way view it as indicative as an increase in activity for the type of work that drives surety bonding. So as they say, a little lumpy.
Jay Cohen:
Got it. Other question, on the commercial lines market, your effort to raise prices a bit more aggressively has been met with a retention that has stayed at a historically high level. It suggests the rest of the market is coming along as well, and I’m wondering if you could speak qualitatively about what you’re hearing from agents and brokers regarding how your competitors are responding to the same pressures that you are.
Alan Schnitzer:
Jay, it’s Alan. We don’t talk a lot to our distribution partners about the way our competitors price. It’s a competitive marketplace, and they do what they do and we do what we do. I will tell you that just in terms of our process, we do a lot of work and we’ve got a lot of talent out there in the field, and our underwriters are out talking to our distribution partners about accounts 90, 120 days out to make sure that we’re working in partnership with them and making sure that we’re sharing with our customers why we’re doing what we’re doing. So you know, we’ve got, I think just a tremendous field organization and I think they’ve done a great job. Obviously we do operate in a competitive marketplace, and so I do think that what you see in our results is to some degree a reflection of the market. I’ve always thought that there are probably two reasons that maybe we have a little bit of incremental pricing power. One is just the franchise value we bring to the marketplace in product breadth and risk control and claims--an unbelievable claims organization, and I think that our agent and broker partners are proud to sell that and I think our customers see value in it. The other advantage I think we have to some degree is data analytics. It’s about risk selection and pricing, and we’ve been a pioneer for a long time in not just data analytics but delivering that data and analytics to the screen of the local underwriter at the point of sale. So I do think those two things probably give us a little bit of an advantage, but certainly there is a marketplace dynamic to what we’re able to achieve.
Jay Cohen:
Got it, thanks Alan.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS. Please proceed.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. Two quick questions here for you. The first one, I’m just curious, could we parse a little bit business insurance as far as what’s going on from a rate perspective? I’m just curious, when small commercial, not a lot of rate, it just doesn’t need it, more competitive pressures, and also on your large ticket property business, that’s one that you had excluded a while from your rate calculations because it’s so competitive, how is that trending now and maybe relative to your expectations? And then I have one follow-up.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Brian, this is Greg. I’ll start with the small commercial one. We’ve been focusing on the small commercial business for a number of years now, really trying to get the margins to a place where we feel very comfortable with them, and we are very much within our target thresholds of where we want to be from a small commercial, so we’ve had a deliberate set of execution around our rate plan there, so that’s the first element around why you see a smaller level of rate in small than middle. The second one really is around our express business, which think of it as the straight through processing of small commercial, really has a more prescriptive flat rating environment, and so when we see some of the pressures of rate reductions in workers’ comp given the extraordinarily profitability on that line over time, we see that more immediately impact that business. Those are the two reasons that are driving the small commercial.
Brian Meredith:
And on the property, large account property?
Greg Toczydlowski:
What was your question on the large property?
Brian Meredith:
How is that--the large account property, how is that playing out from a rate perspective right now? Is it getting the rate that you kind of need in that area, or not?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Given the hurricanes were in the third quarter, we’re very pleased with our agility one quarter in, in terms of what we’ve been trying to do on the national property side. As Alan said, we think franchise value matters, and we’re seeing that inside our numbers where we’ve been able to push thoughtfully and, at the same time, retain the book of business.
Jay Benet:
Brian, just one comment on top of that. Looking back over significant cat events over the years, the impact in the large property book on rate is usually two, three, even sometimes four quarters out, the peak of that, so we’re optimistic that there could be more to come, but that’s just looking at the historical trends.
Alan Schnitzer:
And we made good progress in the quarter.
Jay Benet:
Yes.
Brian Meredith:
Great, and then just on personal lines, and just on tax, I appreciate the comments on how it’s going to fall to the bottom line, but I guess my question more on the personal line space is as you look out, understanding you need more rate to get to the right returns that you really want in that business, but should we expect that kind of your combined ratios, where you’d like them to get, are going to be higher here going forward as a result of tax, and specifically related to at least certain states have return on capital type benchmarks that they look at, is there going to be pushback from those regulators on returns here with tax reform?
Michael Klein:
Brian, it’s Michael. Thanks for the question. I would say where you started is probably where we start, which is we’re not at target returns yet and we’ve got work to do. I think consistent with Alan’s comments in the opening, a lower tax rate sort of helps move us closer but doesn’t get us all the way there, so when you think about it from a filed rate and a regulatory standpoint, we certainly see and actually have seen just this week news from some regulators on the fact that they are thinking about the tax rate and looking to apply it in some of those conversations, but generally speaking it doesn’t change the direction we need to move rates, particularly in auto. We still have work to do there to get to target returns, and we’re going to continue down that path.
Brian Meredith:
Right, it’s just the magnitude you need going forward is probably less today than it would have been before tax reform?
Michael Klein:
I would say all else being equal, but again to Alan’s point earlier, you’ve got expenses, you’ve got loss experience, you’ve got investment yield, a whole bunch of things that go into that mix, and it’s just one factor that we need to consider.
Brian Meredith:
Great, thanks for the answer.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with Keefe, Bruyette and & Woods. Please proceed.
Meyer Shields:
Thanks. I don’t know if I’m over-thinking this, but I guess I was surprised that the outlook for 2018 for personal insurance was only a slightly lower combined ratio with auto earned rates likely to approach double digits. Am I missing something there?
Michael Klein:
Meyer, this is Michael. Thanks for the question, and appreciate it because Brian did give you the overall outlook for the segment, but there’s a little bit of texture underneath. So if you think about auto specifically when you see the 10-K outlook, what you’re going to see is our commentary there is for improved margins and combined ratio. The home outlook, on the other hand, is broadly consistent both from a margin and a combined ratio standpoint, assuming more normalized levels of non-cat weather activity. When you put those two pieces together, you get improved margins and a slightly improved combined ratio in the aggregate. Part of that, I guess the other factor is as auto premium is growing more than home, and auto carries a higher combined ratio, mix impacts the adjustment in the combined ratio.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks. Second, I guess this is a broader question. You’ve talked a lot in the past about how some elements of exposure act like rate. Are those elements more, I guess, reflective of the price of the exposure to the values that are being insured, or of exposure unit growth or on a real basis?
Alan Schnitzer:
I’m not totally sure I understand the question, but I think it’s more of a value than it is unit, right? You increase the value of a unit and it’s that increase in exposure that behaves more like rate. When you actually add another unit of exposure, you have another unit of loss content, so I think that’s the right way to think about it.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, perfect. That’s exactly what I was asking.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sarah Dewitt with JP Morgan. Please proceed.
Sarah Dewitt:
Hey, good morning. Wanted to try one more on the tax rate. What would the pro forma tax rate have been this year under U.S. tax reform?
Jay Benet:
Actually, it’s not something we actually calculated, so I think we would suggest you do the same thing - just look at what the NII was for the tax exempt portfolio and then for everything else, apply the 21% rate. But we haven’t done the calculation.
Sarah Dewitt:
Okay. Yes, I’m coming up with some slightly different numbers than in the previous question, so just--I mean, if you were willing to disclose that, I think that would be helpful.
Jay Benet:
Well just to add, the information is in the supplement, so maybe it’s something Gabby can follow up with you on.
Sarah Dewitt:
Okay, great. Thank you. Then secondly, just on the auto insurance underlying combined ratio, it improved nicely this quarter but it’s still above 100. How long should we be thinking about it will take to get below 100, given some of the pricing actions you’re taking offset by the new business penalty?
Michael Klein:
Thanks Sarah, it’s Michael. I want to just put a point on Brian’s comment earlier about reflecting seasonality to start with. So if you’re looking at Page 15 and you’re looking at the 101 for the full year versus the 104 for the quarter, that is pretty consistent with the seasonality we would typically see in the quarter. In terms of how long it takes, I think we’re certainly optimistic, and as we said last quarter, we feel good about the progress we’re making towards our target combined ratio and see that continuing as we look ahead into ’18 and ’19. I think with the outlook that we’ve given you for RPC, you can sort of make your own estimate of what the earned rate will be, apply a loss trend and get to an earned combined ratio pretty quickly, and I guess at this point as we look at our experience, we don’t see anything that would cause us to tell you to do it any differently.
Sarah Dewitt:
Okay, great.
Jay Benet:
Just as a follow-up to your tax question, in terms of the going forward approach to calculating an effective tax rate, what I said is absolutely on point - there is a little bit of foreign income that’s taxed at a slightly different rate, but that shouldn’t matter. That will matter more this year than in the future because of today’s 35% tax rate versus the future. But one of the other things that we should point out, and you’ll see it in the press release, we did have a favorable tax settlement earlier in the year that would have affected this year’s effective tax rate, so if you’re going to a pro forma for this year, you have to take that into account. Then in addition to that, I mentioned in my commentary that we did some tax planning initiatives in the year that had some impact on the effective tax rate as well, so really the calculation you want to do is not about this year, it’s about going forward.
Sarah Dewitt:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Okay, this will be our last question, please.
Operator:
Certainly. Our final question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg with Janney Montgomery Scott. Please proceed.
Larry Greenberg:
Thank you. If you can believe it, I still have a question to ask. So going back to tax reform and the level playing field, aside from the benefits that might be there on the M&A side, from an operating standpoint or from a business line standpoint, where do you think the most concrete benefits might arise given the more level playing field?
Alan Schnitzer:
You know, I guess the way we think about that is the tax line is an expense line like any other expense line that we work into our pricing models, and to the extent that we’ve got a level playing field and aren’t at a disadvantage in that regard, I think again on a relative basis from a pricing perspective, that helps. I would say after M&A, and maybe even before M&A, that that’s a significant factor in terms of a level playing field.
Larry Greenberg:
But in terms of business insurance, specific lines, there is none that necessarily jump out more than others?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think the same math applies to all of our pricing models for all of our products, so I don’t think I would make a distinction there.
Larry Greenberg:
Okay. Then just with better economic growth perhaps on the horizon, do you think that all things equal, small commercial premium growth should maybe catch up to the middle market and maybe even grow faster in an improving economic environment?
Alan Schnitzer:
I’m not really sure how to answer that question. I do think across all of our businesses, we’re pretty well leveraged and pretty well positioned to benefit from an improving economic environment. In terms of--you know, if you’re asking about growth in GDP by small enterprise versus large, I don’t know that I’ve got a better view on that than you or anyone else. If you’re talking about our own market position, small versus large, there’s so many things that go into growth and we actually don’t think about it that way. We execute, as you’ve heard us say many times, at a very granular level, so whether it’s small or large, we’re trying to keep our best business, improve the profitability on the business where we need to, and do a lot of hustle in leveraging our competitive advantages, trying to generate new business. When that very granular strategy adds up to growth, we grow, so that’s the way I think about it and we don’t really think about the small differently than the large from that perspective.
Larry Greenberg:
Great, thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. I’ll now turn the presentation back to Ms. Nawi. Please proceed.
Gabriella Nawi:
Excellent. Thank you all for joining us today, and as always, if you have any additional questions, we are available in Investor Relations. Thank you and have a great day.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you all for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Thank you, have a great day.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President, Investor Relations Alan Schnitzer - Chairman & CEO Jay Benet - Chief Financial Officer Brian MacLean - Chief Operating Officer Bill Heyman - Chief Investment Officer Michael Klein - President, Personal Insurance Tom Kunkel - President, Bond & Specialty Insurance Greg Toczydlowski - President, Business Insurance
Analysts:
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Jay Gelb - Barclays Randy Binner - FBR Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Amit Kumar - Buckingham Research Group Elyse Greenspan - Wells Fargo Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merill Lynch Sarah DeWitt - JPMorgan Meyer Shields - KBW Brian Meredith - UBS
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Third Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 19, 2017. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our third quarter 2017 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Chief Financial Officer; and Brian MacLean, Chief Operating Officer. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. In addition, other members of senior management are in the room, including Bill Heyman, Chief Investment Officer; Michael Klein, President of Personal Insurance; Tom Kunkel, President of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Greg Toczydlowski, President of Business Insurance. Before I turn it over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials that available in the Investors section on our website travelers.com. And now, Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported third quarter net income of $293 million or $1.05 per diluted share and core income of $253 million or $0.91 per diluted share. The fact that we made a considerable profit in one of the costliest hurricane seasons on record demonstrates the earning power of our franchise which is built on strong foundation of underwriting and investment expertise. This is reflected in our manageable catastrophe losses, underlying underwriting gain of $292 million and after-tax net investment income of $457 million. Our catastrophe losses were well within what we would expect from the events in the quarter. Balancing risk and reward to generate leading results over time is in our DNA. While that's evident in our results this quarter, our underwriting discipline would have been even more evident if Hurricane Irma had taken the track to Miami up the East Coast of Florida which was projected just 48 hours before landfall. Notwithstanding 10 years of relatively moderate Atlantic storm activity, our investors should know we were well positioned for the very realty possibility of $150 billion industry event. That's not to say we'll never have a substantial or even an outsized loss from an event, its just to say that balancing risk and reward is always front and center for us. Our catastrophe underwriting also incorporates lessons learned over the years from events like hurricane Katrina and superstorm Sandy. Those lessons are reflected in our disciplined approach to terms and conditions which make outcomes more predictable, risk control initiatives, which make a difference in risk mitigation, selection, and pricing, and proprietary flood underwriting down to the address level. Our experience with the storms this quarter also reaffirms the competitive advantage in our claim model in terms of the value it delivers to our customers and agents and for our shareholders. Through military-like logistics capabilities and a sophisticated cross-training strategy, we have the capacity to conduct and we did conduct virtually 100% of our claim inspections for hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria with Travelers employees and that would have been the case even if Irma had taken that East Coast of Florida track, and even in that scenario our flexible model would have given us capacity to spare. As compared to an independent adjuster, we’re confident that a highly trained and committed Travelers claim professional produces a better experience for our customers and a much more efficient outcome for us. To that point, we were successful this hurricane season in meeting our objective of having the vast majority of our property claims closed within 30 days of the event. Our response to the storms also included our largest deployment of our drilling fleet to date. We conducted more than a thousand inspections with drones, which significantly accelerates the speed and reduces the cost of handling those claims. Again, a better outcome for our customers and more efficient outcome for us. We own and operate all of our drones and we're on track to have more than 650 drones in regular operation around the country by the middle of next year. Moving beyond catastrophes, we are very pleased with the underlying performance of our businesses. In Business Insurance, the underlying combined ratio of 96.4 was solid, particularly in light of a high level of non-cat fire related losses. To a large degree we believe it was normal period to period volatility. Bond & Specialty Insurance produced another impressive quarter with an underlying combined ratio of 77.7. In Personal Insurance, the underlying results reflect loss trends within expectations, the continued success of the pricing and underwriting actions we began implementing in our auto business a year ago and the successful performance of our Property business. Notably, our consolidated expense ratio has improved 90 basis points year-to-date. The result is maintaining expense discipline, while investing strategically. For example, in Personal Insurance, over the last few years we've invested in product and marketing initiatives, platform improvements and distribution management, resulting in significant net written premium growth. In Business Insurance, we're investing in technology and enhancing work flow to be a better partner for our agents and brokers, deliver compelling value for our customers and improve our operating efficiency. We've made those investments on about flat G&A expense dollars. We're looking forward to sharing more about these initiatives with you at our Investor Day next month. Turning to the top line, we were very pleased with the success of our marketplace strategies, which resulted in 4% net written premium growth to a record $6.7 billion. Across our commercial businesses, we continue to be successful in achieving historically high retention rates, positive renewal premium change and an increase in new business. In business units accounting for around two-thirds of our business insurance premium, pure rate change in the quarter was higher both year-over-year and sequentially. In our personal auto business, our execution was spot on plan and we were again pleased to see continued momentum in our industry-leading homeowners business. There's been no lack of speculation around the outlook for pricing in the wake of an unprecedented hurricane season which still has six weeks to go and in the midst of an ongoing unprecedented wildfire season in California. Big events impact pricing when a material amount of industry surpluses eroded and/or when the events change the markets view of risk. It's not hard to make the argument that we've experienced both. By some estimates 10% or more of industry surplus and counting. The first time more than 1 Category 4 hurricane has made landfall on the U.S. mainland in one season. As devastating as it was, a very close call with Irma, and in the fourth quarter, forest fires that are burning not in forests but in subdivisions, and that's not to mention two earthquakes in Mexico and a cyber event impacting more than 140 million U.S. consumers. And while those events have understandably captured everyone's attention that's only part of the story. Interest rates remain at historically low levels. Loss trend has outpaced rate and exposure for a few years now to a degree that many others in the industry are probably not earning their cost of capital. And insured losses from PCS cat events in each of the last four quarters have exceeded the 10 year average for that quarter. I can't predict what the market is going to do, but I will share with you what we're planning to do. As a component of our strategy to manage all the levers available to us to meet our return objectives, for more than a year now we've been discussing our efforts to improve renewal rate change and for more than a year now we've been making incremental but steady progress. The circumstances I've just described strengthen our resolve. We'll seek rate thoughtfully and in close coordination with our distribution partners and in that regard we believe our customers are well served by a stable and predictable market that keeps pace with inflation, as opposed to the higher pricing swings of the past. Two final comments before I pass the microphone to Jay. First, I want to add my voice in support of the corporate tax reform efforts in Washington. As a country, addressing the corporate tax rate is important for enabling U.S. businesses to compete more effectively at home and abroad against our foreign counterparts. Beyond just the tax rate, we were particularly pleased to see that the big six framework for tax reform promotes levelling the playing field between U.S. and foreign companies. In addition to contributing to the country's tax base, it's important in addressing the decades-long streak of U.S. based Companies losing U.S. market share and American jobs to offshore companies. Case in point, a $2.5 billion transaction announced just yesterday. Finally I'd like to thank our claim organization for an extraordinary effort over these past few months. They've certainly risen to the occasion. It's an understatement to say that events like Harvey, Irma, and Maria and others that have been in the news are devastating and our thoughts and prayers are with all those who have been impacted. Events like those serve as reminders that in the end we sell a promise. We work hard to make sure that our agents and brokers are proud to sell that promise and that at every opportunity we demonstrate the value of that promise to our customers who buy it. And with that, let me turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. Core income was $253 million down from $701 million in the prior-year quarter and core ROE was 4.5% down from 12.5%. As in the first half of the year, these reductions in core income and core ROE were not driven by fundamental changes in our underlying performance, rather they were reflective of the high level of cat activity this quarter. Beginning with underwriting results, our underlying underwriting gain remained strong, as evidenced by our 92.8% underlying combined ratio which was 0.7 points higher than the prior-year quarter. This slight increase was primarily due to a relatively high level of non-cat fire related losses in Business Insurance this quarter. Catastrophe losses were $455 million after-tax compared to only $58 million in the prior-year quarter. This increase of $397 million was driven by estimated losses from Hurricane Harvey of $319 million pre-tax or $207 million after-tax. Hurricane Irma of $242 million pre-tax or $157 million after-tax, and Hurricane Maria of $82 million pre-tax or $54 million after-tax. Net favourable prior-year reserve development which I'll discuss in more detail shortly was $10 million after-tax down from $27 million in the prior-year quarter. Net investment income of $457 million after-tax continued to be strong, although down $15 million from the prior-year quarter. Fixed income NII as anticipated was lower by $20 million after-tax due to the continued low interest rate environment, while non-fixed income NII increased by $5 million after-tax due to the strong private equity returns. Interestingly, when we look at the long-term bonds we hold that are maturing through the end of next year, along with growth in the size of our fixed income portfolio and higher short term interest rates, our outlook for after-tax fixed income NII during the remainder of 2017 and into 2018 is only slightly lower, $10 million or less quarter-over-quarter, as compared to the corresponding quarters in 2016 and 2017, an improvement from what we've been experiencing in recent years. Consolidated net favourable prior-year reserve development was $15 million pre-tax compared to $39 million in the prior-year quarter. Business Insurances net favourable reserve development was $9 million pre-tax compared to $4 million in the prior-year quarter, including an increase to asbestos reserves of $225 million pre-tax, the same amount as in the prior year quarter. Excluding the asbestos reserve increase, BI’s net favourable reserve development was $234 million pre-tax, primarily driven by better-than-expected loss experience in domestic workers comp and GL, partially offset by higher-than-expected loss experience in domestic commercial auto. As has been the case in recent years, the asbestos reserve increase which related to a broad number of policyholders was driven by higher estimates for projected settlement and defense costs for mesothelioma claims than we had previously assumed. Notwithstanding these higher cost estimates, the underlying asbestos environment remained essentially unchanged from recent periods, as compared to our expectation that the environment would improve. As you may recall, the current asbestos environment, which has continued to result in periodic reserve strengthening for us and the industry is still much improved from the high severity environment of 10 to 15 years ago when risks from pre packaged bankruptcies, direct actions filed against insurers, and products, non-products coverage litigation among others led to very expensive settlement activity and a high degree of uncertainty in terns of the outlook. The asbestos environment and more recent years has been frequency driven, the result of people developing mesothelioma and unfortunately dying soon thereafter. Interestingly the most recent data from the Center for Disease Control which we've included on Page 19 of the webcast shows deaths from mesothelioma in 2015 the most recent data available was 7.5% lower than in 2014, and importantly, the age distribution of these deaths has shifted towards higher age groups, possibly due to more people who work with asbestos prior to the mid to late 70s, the high usage years, "living into the disease." What that means is that recent medical advances that have successfully treated a variety of other deadly diseases seem to have enabled more people in this highly exposed cohort to live well into their 70s and 80s and then develop and die from mesothelioma. As nature takes its course this high risk cohort will get smaller over time and accordingly we continue to expect the currently high frequency claim environment to improve over time. Bond & Specialties net favourable development was $6 million pre-tax compared to $46 million in the prior-year quarter, while Personal Insurance had no reserve development compared to $11 million of unfavourable development in the prior-year quarter. Excluding A&E, year-to-date on a combined stat schedule P-basis for all of our subsidiaries all accident years across all product lines in the aggregate developed favourably and other than some modest reserve strengthening for commercial auto, all product lines across all accident years in the aggregate developed favourably or had de minimis unfavourable development. Operating cash flows of over $1.6 billion was very strong and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of almost $2 billion, up from $1.7 billion at the beginning of the year. This higher than normal level of holding company liquidity provides funding for our $450 million of senior notes that mature in December. All of our capital ratios were at or better than target levels, net unrealized gains were $1.5 billion pre-tax or a $1 billion after-tax, up from $1.1 billion and $0.7 billion respectively at the beginning of the year, while book value per share of $86.73 and adjusted book value per share of $83.06 increased over 4% and 3% respectively from the beginning of the year. Despite the high level of cat losses, we returned $528 million of capital to our shareholders this quarter through dividends of $200 million and share repurchases of $328 million bringing total capital return to shareholders to $1.68 billion year-to-date. As we've stated for many years and repeated in this quarters 10-Q, the timing and actual number of shares we will purchase in the future will depend on earnings among a variety of other factors, so consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy, we're keeping our eyes on the California wildfires, which we expect will be a significant cat for us as we evaluate share repurchase activity for the fourth quarter. With that let me turn the microphone over to Brian.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. Starting with this quarter's results in Business Insurance, segment income of $105 million and the combined ratio of 109.8% were both impacted by the significant catastrophe events in the quarter. The underlying combined ratio of 96.4% was 2.3 points higher than the third quarter of 2016 with the underlying loss ratio increasing 3.4 points. The quarterly loss ratio was impacted by an unusually high number of large non-cat property, primarily fire losses and so the year-to-date results are better indication of how the business is performing. On the year-to-date basis the underlying loss ratio is up 1.7 points, 70 basis points of which is due to the large loss volatility I just mentioned, with the remaining about a point driven by loss trend in excessive earned pricing. For the quarter, the underlying expense ratio decreased 1.1 points year-over-year. As with the loss ratio, there are normal fluctuations impacting the quarterly comparison. The year-to-date decline of about a 0.5 is a better indication of our current run rate with the decline driven by both growing earned premium and slightly lower G&A expense dollars. Net written premiums of $3.4 billion for the quarter were up more than a point year-over-year with domestic net written premiums up about 2% driven by strong production results in middle market. International net written premiums were down 3% driven by reinsurance reinstatement premiums related to the cats that occurred in the quarter. Excluding the impact of reinstatement international was up 1%. Turning to domestic production. We were pleased that retention for the quarter of 85% remained at a historically high level. Renewal premium change was strong at about three points in the quarter with rate change that was up slightly from last quarter and up a half a point from a year ago. New business of $434 million was up 6% versus the prior-year. Looking at the individual businesses, I'll begin with Select, where production statistics remained strong, with retention for the quarter of 83%, renewal premium change was nearly five points, while new business premiums of $98 million were up 4% year-over-year. In middle market our results reflect consistent performance in the marketplace as demonstrated by another quarter of strong retention at 87%. Renewal premium change of three points was down slightly from the second quarter due to lower exposure growth, while rate increases of nearly a point were up year-on-year and in line with the second quarter. New business of $267 million was up 12% versus the prior-year quarter. We attribute a large portion of this to great execution in the market by our field organization, particularly as it relates to larger accounts in industry segments that we like. We're also encouraged by how our investments in technology are enabling our underwriters to be more active in the market, we'll talk more about that at our upcoming Investor Day. So all-in quarter that was significantly impacted by the weather and we were pleased with our execution in the marketplace. Our fundamental marketplace strategy remains unchanged. We seek to retain our best performing business, while thoughtfully managing the profitability of the book. Importantly, the market and environmental circumstances that Alan outlined earlier further support our ability to successfully execute on this strategy. I'll now turn to Bond & Specialty insurance where segment income for the quarter was strong at $136 million though down somewhat from the prior year quarter due to a lower level of net favourable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio improved nearly a point from the prior year quarter to under 78%. As to the top line, net written premiums for the quarter were up 2% reflecting growth in both our domestic management liability and international businesses, with the international growth driven by strong production in both our Canadian surety and UK management liability businesses. Turning to production in our domestic management liability businesses, we continue to execute our strategy of growing our profitable portfolio by retaining our best performing accounts and writing new business in return adequate product segments. So we couldn't be more pleased that retention came in at a record high of 89% for the quarter, the fourth consecutive quarter of 88% or better, while new business was up slightly from the third quarter of last year. Renewal premium change of 3.5 points was up slightly from the second quarter due to a modest increase in exposure growth. So Bond & Specialty results remain terrific and we continue to feel great about the segments performance and our market positions. Turning to Personal Insurance. Net written premiums for the segment grew 9% in the quarter with more than half of that growth coming from higher pricing. Despite 8.7 points of catastrophe losses in the quarter, Personal Insurance generated $77 million of segment income with a third quarter combined ratio of 99.7%. The underlying combined ratio of 91% improved about 1.5 point’s year-over-year. The domestic agency auto combined ratio for the quarter was 106% and included 7.2 points of cat losses, far above our normal third quarter auto cat load expectation of about a 0.5. Compared to the third quarter of 2016, the underlying combined ratio is down 2.3 points. As you can see on page 15 of the webcast, 1.3 points of the decrease is due to continued improvement in the expense ratio, as we leverage a consistent level of operating expenses over a larger premium base. The remaining point of decrease is primarily due to the fact that the third quarter of 2016 loss ratio included the year-to-date impact of the bodily injury severity reestimation. As we discussed in previous calls, in response to higher bodily injury loss levels, we are taking actions to improve profitability, most notably by improving the pricing of the book. As a result, renewal premium change increased from 7.9% in the second quarter to 9.5% in the third quarter reaching 10.5% for the month of September. We expect that renewal premium change will remain in double-digits for the fourth quarter and as we told you previously, by year-end we will have obtained enough rate on a written basis to address the elevated bodily injury loss levels. Retention declined modestly in the quarter as expected, but remained strong by historical standards even as we implement meaningful price increases through the book. This growth has decelerated but remain positive driven by lower levels of new business. Importantly, we remain on track to achieving the goals we laid out for the auto book back in January. Turning to agency homeowners and other, the combined ratio of 90.3% for the quarter reflects 12.2 points of cat losses. The underlying combined ratio of 78.1% was in line with the quarter, third quarter of 2016, as net trend was offset by the impact of volume on the expense ratio. Homeowners net written premiums increased 5% in the quarter, somewhat accelerating the momentum we had experienced in recent quarters. As a reminder, we have made a concerted effort to generate growth in this profitable line even as we moderate the growth in auto. Process and technology improvements have made it easier for agents and brokers to do business with us and we have focused on adding more property oriented distribution partners and increasing our average number of policies per customer. Overall in Personal Insurance, setting aside the significant impact of catastrophe losses in the quarter, both the agency auto and homeowners results were in line with our expectations and both lines continued to make good progress towards the goals we laid out at the end of last year. So stepping back and looking across the franchise, while the headline for the quarter is obviously the cats, we feel very good about our underlying results. Considering our significant competitive advantages, the investments that we're making to extend them and to develop additional advantages and our ability to execute, we believe each of our businesses is positioned for continued success. With that, let me turn it back over to Gabby.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. We're now ready to open it up to Q&A and if I can ask you to please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Kai Pan from Morgan Stanley. Please proceed.
Kai Pan:
Thank you, and good morning. My first question is on the outlook for the core combined ratio for the Business Insurance segments. In your 10-Q, you said broadly consistent into 2018. Could you add like what pass through as sort of component of it in terms of your sort of loss – core loss ratio deterioration and also potential normalization of non-cat losses, as well as the improvements in expense ratio and does your forecast including like a probably better pricing outlook?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, Kai. Good morning, it's Alan. Thanks for the question. Let me start with it. We're going to try not to in the outlook try to break this down between the components of loss and expense. We give you a sense as best we can looking at our crystal ball which is never perfect and the world is never going to turn out exactly as we thought, but we try to give you as good a sense as we can on the overall profitability by segment. In terms of the rate in particular, you can see the written rate that we've been getting and obviously you can see for example, in BI, quarter-over-quarter, and so that will of course earn in and that will be a component of what gets reflected in our outlook, as will the impact of the expense ratio that you see in the nine months, but we're going to try not to break it down between the loss and expense ratio component.
Kai Pan:
Okay. My follow-up question on reserves, there are actually two components to that, one is on asbestos, you've been taking charge of about $200 million a year for many years that we know and so why don't you take a big charge upfront or are you considering reinsurance transaction? The commercial auto site was driven that and is that - like has that - do you pick up that like increase your like current year, accident year loss pick on the commercial auto line as well? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, let me start with the auto side and then I'll ask Jay Benet to comment on the reserves. On the auto, we've been seeing and talking about some severity on the commercial auto side for some time and we've been addressing it. We view this as a tweak to those reserves in prior year periods and you know, think about it's $40 billion reserve increase on a couple of $2 billion or $3 billion reserve base, $2 billion or $3 billion reserve base. So we look at that and we don't over react to it. It's just the normal process of every quarter we go through and we look at our reserves and look at the trends and the cases we've got out there and true it up. So it's not anything that has to any significant degree impacted our view of loss trend or what's happening in the current year period. Jay, do you want to address the asbestos?
Jay Benet:
Yes, thanks. As it relates to the asbestos like every other reserve we take our best shot looking at all of the data we have available at points in time to evaluate what the reserve should be, and as part of that, we're making assumptions as to what the future looks like with regard to the level of activity that it will take place in terms of meso deaths and also look at what kind of settlement costs or litigation costs we face, and come up with as I said our best estimate, and what's been taking place over the last several years, as we said in our description of the environment is the environment really hasn't changed very much, but the assumptions we've made that possibly would lead to a fall off in the amount of activity just haven't borne out. So there’s nothing about our reserve increase that reflects a dramatically changing environment and we thought we’d add some color to it this quarter with regard to this page we added to the webcast as it relates to what's been taking place in the various cohorts associated with mesothelioma deaths and we'll see what happens in the future. But as it relates to making any change in process or whatever we didn't think that was appropriate.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Kai, as it relates to the reinsurance you asked that as well. We certainly try to evaluate as best we can from the outside every deal we see announced by others and we are talking to the same people that are on the other side of those transactions evaluating them for us. So no lack of analysis on our end or looking into it. If we found a deal that we thought really made a difference from an economic perspective we would certainly be interested that. We certainly see transactions that provide some limited duration benefit in terms of the GAAP accounting, but when we look at it from an economic basis and get down to the cash flows, we just haven't seen one yet that makes sense for us.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. And our next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please proceed.
Jay Gelb:
Thanks and good morning. I was hoping to touch base on the Business Insurance outlook for commercial insurance pricing. Alan, I believe in your commentary, you talked about seeking thoughtful rate increases in conjunction with your distribution partners, and keeping pricing ahead of loss cost inflation. Given all of the factors that we've seen driving up large losses in the current quarter and into 4Q, can you talk a little bit more in terms of the outlook there?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. We've been saying for some time Jay that for over a year now as we look at our book and we look down the road out at the horizon that we're going to need to improve written rate to meet our return objectives as part of our overall strategy and we've been doing that for some time and you can see we've had some incremental but steady success in it. And when we look at the factors, when we look at the weather we had in the third quarter, when we look at some of the other things going on in the world, that's what's captured everyone's attention. I actually don't think that's the bigger part of the story. I think the bigger part of the story are the underlying dynamics that are driving the overall margins and profitability in this business. And when we look at that and we look at the accounts that we have, we say that it's time to move a little bit. We're not executing towards a headline number. You take all our accounts and we take all our accounts and we segment them very thoughtfully and for some time we've been getting rate in excessive loss trend on the accounts that are most returned challenge for us and we're getting to a point where our need to get rate is sort of extending up the continuum and that's reflected in the fact that this quarter we got rate on the higher percentage of our accounts than we did last quarter and the quarter before that et cetera, et cetera and its been our intention to lead into that. And the events of this quarter and the overall circumstances that I've described caused us to say that we're going to lien into it a little bit more and we feel a little bit more confident in our ability to achieve it.
Jay Gelb:
Makes sense. Thanks. And then my follow-up is on personal auto. The underlying combined ratio for auto was – it was improved to around a 99% and I believe last quarter, the company was talking about kind of a longer term target of 96% to 98% plus some 10 year impact. Clearly, you're getting closer there. How soon before you think we can get into the range?
Michael Klein:
Hey, Jay. This is Michael Klein from Personal Insurance. Thanks for the question. And first, thanks for noticing that the underlying combined ratio was below a hundred and actually improved year-on-year. That's actually the first time in a while that that's been the case. Brian gave the main drivers of the quarter-over-quarter change. I think to your question, you know what's the longer term outlook, we think really, there are two or three really key questions there. One is when are we in terms of pricing, where are we in terms of pricing for the increased bodily injury loss estimates that we recognized in the back half of last year. The second is 10 year playing out the way we anticipated and the third really is you know, at the core of your question what's our outlook for personal auto profitability and I'll just take those three real quickly in turn. Brian did mention we'll have achieved enough rate on our written basis by the end of 2017 to cover the increased level of bodily injury losses. That's on a written basis, so on an earned basis we remain on track to have done that by the end of ‘18 which is consistent with that 18 to 24 month timeframe that we laid out at the beginning of the year. With respect to 10 year, just a couple comments. One, it's important to note that the reason we spiked that out initially was that it had an outsized impact on these kind of period to period comparisons due to the elevated levels of new business that we were writing. As we've talked about the impact of 10 year from one period to the next, the delta that it drives dissipates as new business levels return to normal and as the portfolio matures, which is what's begun to happen in 2017. So from this point forward, 10 year becomes less of an anomaly quarter-over-quarter and just one of many factors that you need to think about as you look at our results. I think what's most important to takeaway this quarter as respect to personal auto as we have begun to turn the corner on profitability. Earned rate is exceeding loss trend and it's combining with underwriting and process changes, growth and expense ratio reduction to drive that improving underlying profitability that you see. As noted in our outlook, we expect underlying profitability and agency auto to improve over the next four quarters relative to the comparable prior periods. I would remind you given we're going into the fourth quarter that fourth quarter is a relatively high combined ratio period from a seasonality perspective, so you've got to sort of factor that into your overall evaluations. But at the end of the day, we feel good about the progress we're making towards our target combined ratio and that progress will continue through 2018 and into 2019.
Jay Gelb:
Thanks for the answers.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Randy Binner with FBR. Please proceed.
Randy Binner:
Hi, good morning. Thanks. I had a question on the cat losses coming in quite a bit lower particularly with Harvey kind of coming in below the previously guided range. What changed there so dramatically? Did it have to deal with the number of total vehicles or your ability to close claims as you commented earlier in the call? Just trying to get a sense of kind of what improved and how settled the claim activity there is on Harvey and the other hurricanes?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, Randy, it's Alan. I'll start and maybe Jay will have something to add, but the only reason that we gave a view on Harvey is because we were speaking at a conference that wasn't FD compliance and we wanted to talk about it at that conference and so we made a disclosure about it. That was relatively near to the event and so there was a relatively higher degree of uncertainty around our losses at that point, and so the range we gave reflected what we thought and all the information and uncertainty we had at the time, and we've had a significant amount of time elapse from then to now. We've had the opportunity to inspect virtually all of our claims and as I said, the vast majority of our property claims are closed. Not that there's no uncertainty left, but we feel much better from a certainty perspective and are confident in the number we put up. So I would really say nothing dramatically changed. It was the passage of time that gave us more insight into the losses.
Randy Binner:
Well, given that comfort, and would buyback be able to resume maybe earlier than would have been the case if there was more demand surge or other aspects making the tail longer on the claims?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, you know, we - in terms of the storms in the third quarter, we ended the third quarter with our balance sheet in very strong shape, so there's nothing from the third quarter where we feel like we've got to build back a capital deficit to any degree at all. So the fourth quarter will be business as usual in the sense that we'll look at what our earnings are expected to be and we'll consider buybacks accordingly. As Jay said in his prepared remarks, the wildfires are out there. That's an ongoing event that will be significant for us and so we'll evaluate that in our fourth quarter outlook for earnings as we make decisions about buybacks.
Randy Binner:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Credit Suisse. Please proceed.
Ryan Tunis:
Thanks, good morning, I just had a couple I think for Brian. I guess the first one is if you were to just look at accounts where there were Q3 property losses on the Business Insurance side or maybe those that didn't even have losses but were in loss affected geographies, what's been the conversation I guess so far about with renewals? What's been the magnitude of rate increases or how those conversations have gone? Thanks.
Jay Benet:
You know, so and I missed a little bit of the beginning. You said accounts of 32- 3Q, I am sorry, yeah. So, I think it's - some of the stuff is obvious. In the really cat-exposed areas, the conversations are very clear. The perspective on the flood risk, the exposure to the wind, we were reminded once again of what those are, so there's more momentum there. But I think that it's more what Alan said in his opening. The overall environment of what we've been seeing in property. Two or three years ago we were saying that the line was in very healthy condition and although experiencing some price decreases. The largest price decreases we were seeing in the book a couple years ago we thought it was a healthy line and we would manage it. A couple years later that compounding has impacted the core profitability. So we're looking at that. We're also seeing a little bit of inflation running through the book of business and that is you know in the labor and material side, a number that wouldn't even be big enough to warrant a comment other than the fact that we're beginning to see the line is already under some pressure and the potential for demand surge out of all of the cat activity is making that more dramatic. So a bunch of stuff going on in the line today and we think there's an opportunity to improve the profitability there.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay, I guess my follow-up was just thinking about just the potential for further favourable or unfavourable developments in these events. I notice in the Q that the commercial property IBNR looked like it as up about $300 mill quarter-over-quarter. I guess just as you think about the losses you've reported where do you see the I guess, the greatest potential for uncertainty from here on out? Thanks.
Jay Benet:
Any time you have large cats, you're settling claims quickly, but generally, those claims that you're settling are more straightforward ones. So when you look at the level of IBNR, that remains a great deal of uncertainty associated with the cat losses. So you know, we'll take - we've taken our best shot based on all of the information that we have available and we can't predict whether that will actually be higher or lower than what this will ultimately come out to be. I think we have a good track record of being fairly good at these estimates, but there is a lot of IBNR at this point in time.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you for the answers.
Jay Benet:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar with Buckingham Research Group. Please proceed.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks and good morning. Two questions if I might. The first question goes back to the discussion on pricing. If I were to take that comment and sort of flip it towards the reinsurance side, how do you expect those discussions with their re-insurers to go? Do you expect to sort of hold the line on pricing based on your outlook or just maybe help us understand that equation a bit better?
Alan Schnitzer:
Amit, I don't think we've got a lot of insight to give you on that. Obviously, we'll be thinking about it over the coming weeks and months, and I guess one reason we're not particularly preoccupied by this, we don't buy all that much reinsurance. We're gross line underwriter. We like our underwriting and so we don't buy that much. So on a relative basis we're less impacted by that. I would hope that our thoughtful underwriting as it was demonstrated in these storms would factor into whatever pricing we negotiate when it comes up, but it's just not something we spend a lot of time running our hands over.
Amit Kumar:
Got it. That's a fair comment. Switching back to the discussion on Business Insurance. If you look at the mix of BI, 50% of the book is comp international and GL. Do you think these cat losses give you an ability to enforce some incremental rate action in the non-cat impacted lines or do you think that this somewhat gets relegated to the exposed line set at this juncture?
Alan Schnitzer:
You know, Amit, you've got commercial auto on one end of the spectrum, you've got workers comp on the other end of the spectrum and everything else sort of falls in the middle in terms of where it is in terms of rate adequacy. But what I would tell you though and one of the reasons why in my prepared remarks I was so deliberate about talking not just about the storms that is captured everyone's attention, but about the other underlying factors in the business is those are real. Things like where interest rates are, things like what weather has done, we've got pricing and loss trend over several years that that impacts all the lines. So we view the - our pricing objectives I should say go beyond the property line, really extend across all our lines and all our geographies. So we're not thinking of this as property-related or coastal related. We're thinking about it much more broadly.
Amit Kumar:
Fair point. Thanks for the answers and good luck for the future.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, good morning. My first question, I'm just trying to get a feel as we think about flood risk here, obviously a big component of the Harvey loss. How much of flood-related risk came through your commercial lines exposure and as you think about going forward is there an opportunity both on the commercial line side and then also maybe depending upon what happens with the national flood program to potentially write more flood risk both within your commercial and personal lines businesses?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, Elyse it's Alan, I'll start and see if Brian has anything to add, but Harvey was by and large a flooding event for us and as it turns out, our underwriting held up and we feel good about it. It's not, you know, we have a pretty good market share in the State and our losses we think are reflected of the fact that we do have proprietary address by address flood underwriting that really stood up to it and so we feel good about it. Whether there's incremental opportunity, you know, after every one of these big events we take a step back and we think about how we feel about our exposures and how we feel about opportunity and what the lessons learned are from that event and how we apply those to exposure elsewhere. So we will be going through a post-mortem process and assessing how we feel about our coastal flood exposure and we may look at that and say, boy we could take on a little bit more. We may look at it and say we're just right or we may look at it and say we would like a little bit less and we're in that process, but it could be we find more opportunity there. On the personal line side, I think that's a much more complicated question and you get into the NFIP. It's really hard to compete with the government program that prices at the discount that it does and as long as there's that program out there, pricing at the discounts at actuarially sound rates, you know, it's not going to be an opportunity for us or anybody.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. And then my second question, earlier on the call you guys did mention that the California fires would be a significant loss. How do we think through the losses there and the potential business interruption claims from some of the wineries that are obviously very significantly impacted from this event? Any color you can just give there? Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, we're as interested in it as you are. I would say it's early. The event is ongoing, and it's hard for us to give a sense right now, so I'm not sure what else to add there.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merill Lynch. Please proceed.
Jay Cohen:
Thank you. Most of my questions have been answered. Just one quick follow-up. The elevated fire losses and the Business Insurance segment, can you talk about or quantify what the impact was in the quarter on the loss ratio?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, in the quarter, Jay, think around two points.
Jay Cohen:
Got it. That's really helpful. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Maybe a tic higher, but two, two and a half something like that.
Jay Cohen:
Got it. Thanks. Operator Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sarah DeWitt with JPMorgan. Please proceed.
Sarah DeWitt:
Hi, good morning. Just following up on the pricing discussion. When you talk about pushing prices to keep pace with loss trends, should we interpret that as Business Insurance renewal rates should move closer to about 2% versus the 1% right now?
Jay Benet:
Yeah, you know, well first good morning, Sarah. Thanks for the question. I think that's a broader brush than we think about it. I think what you should takeaway is more than the one you see now. We talk about loss trend being for and we’d like to get to a point where we've got rate and the component of exposure that behaves like rate offsetting inflation and maybe even improving from there. So - but the other thing I would tell you is we're intent on doing this in a way that is thoughtful and controlled and close partnership with our agents and brokers and doing it in a way that isn't disruptive to our customers and we think that's actually a much better model for them. So this isn't anything we need to achieve tomorrow or next week or all one fell swoop next quarter. This is going to be a gradual process over time.
Sarah DeWitt:
Sure, great. That makes sense. And then just when you say the loss trend being four, is that what you're actually realizing right now or is that what you're booking your reserves at looking at a longer term trend, but I thought maybe more recently its been coming in lower than that?
Jay Benet:
Yeah, the four is a broad number and it covers our whole Business Insurance premium base. So obviously, there's variation among the products and businesses within that, and the fact that we've had as much PYD as we've had over recent years suggests that it's come in lower than that. We don't, in terms of our pricing, expect that that's going to continue forever. We expect that over time loss trend is going to return to a longer term average and so our longer term outlook continues to be four.
Sarah DeWitt:
Okay, great.
Jay Benet:
But that's a very broad observation.
Sarah DeWitt:
Sure. Thanks for the answers.
Jay Benet:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Please proceed.
Meyer Shields:
Thanks. Good morning. Is there - let me think, how does the fact that people are living into the asbestos-related diseases impact your thinking about permanent injuries on the worker's compensation side?
Alan Schnitzer:
Say that again, Meyer?
Meyer Shields:
Okay. So on the asbestos side one of the factors driving the adverse reserve development is the fact that people are living longer, so asbestos-related diseases are manifesting themselves, there are claims associated with them and I'm wondering if people are living longer how is that impacting worker's compensation reserving?
Brian MacLean:
So this is Brian. I'll take a shot. So obviously, we are factoring into everything we look at in worker's comp and permanent injuries, lifetime injuries into - we're looking at the actuarial life expectancies and given the injuries that the workers have, what is their life span and no question that advances in medicine in general have extended that period over time. So I think it's a lot of the same information is - but that's been embedded in our numbers forever, really. We've always looked at it that way, so I don't think there's anything fundamentally new there.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. And then one small question I guess. Within BI, there's a $21 million expense for non-insurance G&A. I was wondering if you could talk through, what's going on there, what that is?
Jay Benet:
Yeah, what you're saying, we closed the acquisition of Simply Business this quarter, so what you're going to start seeing is the G&A expense is going to be influenced by what's taking place with regard to their expense base, and from the other side of the coin, the other revenue line is where their revenue numbers are getting consolidated, so that will just work its way through our consolidated results going forward.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Is this a good run rate, the $21 million of expenses?
Jay Benet:
Well, we acquired them, we closed on the acquisition in August, so it's not quite a full quarter.
Meyer Shields:
Okay.
Alan Schnitzer:
I'm also not sure that on such a small component that we're necessarily going to give a perspective on a run rate expense versus strategic initiative like that. It's all factored into our outlook and margins for the segment.
Jay Benet:
There's also costs associated with the acquisition itself that are flowing through that and so I wouldn't look at it at this point as a run rate, but you can develop it over time. I think ultimately what you'll see is if you look at what's taking place with regard to revenues versus expenses, in total, it's not a big delta.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, perfect. Thanks so much.
Jay Benet:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi’:
And the will be our last question please.
Operator:
Thank you. This question comes from the line of Brian Meredith from UBS. Please proceed.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thank you. First question, I think for Michael. On the personal auto business, is there a way to kind of dissect it where you can give us perspective of how much the improved frequency the industry is seeing that is benefiting you versus what's happening with 10 year and some of the underwriting initiatives that's happening?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Brian. I would say as with respect to the industry trend information, we've seen the second quarter ISOFastTrack data taking a look at it. I would make - I think the same comment we typically make about that data which is it's paid data. It's an interesting data point and certainly not complete, but as we look at the ISOFastTrack data, we look at our own trend experience, you know, we think those results are relatively consistent with what we're seeing. As I mentioned in the earlier questions, sort of dissecting the components, you know, not a lot of change - and I think that I mentioned this, as you think about all of the dimensions underneath the underlying combined ratio there's not really any significant change in any of them this quarter.
Brian Meredith:
Okay, great. And then my second question, just curious you mentioned the cyber loss obviously with Equifax, upfront and there's been some others. Any change in kind of your view of the cyber business here as a result of what's going on, what does the market look like now for cyber? Is that becoming a more attractive growth area at this point?
Michael Klein:
Yes, stepping back I would say that there's an increasing awareness and consciousness in the mind of the risk manager and whether that's a job description for somebody in a big company or proprietor in a small business. I think there's a greater sense of the need for the product and we think that's a healthy thing and we think to a degree that we'll be there to help solve that problem. Having said that, we are extraordinarily mindful that it's an emerging risk and there's a lot about it we know and there's a lot about it we don't know and that gets factored into the way we think about the industries we want to write in, the individual risks we want to write, the lines we put out, the reinsurance programs that we have. And so we do think that it will continue to be a growing opportunity and we will continue to be cautious in the way we approach it.
Brian Meredith:
Great, thank you.
Michael Klein:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you very much for joining us today, and also we look forward to seeing a number of you at our Investor Day on November 13th. Thank you very much and have a good day.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you all for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Thank you once again. Have a great day.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President, Investor Relations Alan Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer Jay Benet - Chief Financial Officer Brian MacLean - Chief Operating Officer Bill Heyman - Chief Investment Officer Michael Klein - President, Personal Insurance Tom Kunkel - President, Bond & Specialty Insurance Greg Toczydlowski - President, Business Insurance
Analysts:
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Elyse Greenspan - Wells Fargo Jay Gelb - Barclays Jay Cohen - Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Meyer Shields - KBW Sarah DeWitt - JPMorgan Brian Meredith - UBS Paul Newsome - Sandler O’Neill Josh Shanker - Deutsche Bank Larry Greenberg - Janney Montgomery Scott
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Second Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 20, 2017. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Kelly. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our second quarter 2017 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chief Executive Officer; Jay Benet, Chief Financial Officer; and Brian MacLean, Chief Operating Officer. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. In addition, other members of senior management are in the room, including Bill Heyman, Chief Investment Officer; Michael Klein, President of Personal Insurance; Tom Kunkel, President of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Greg Toczydlowski, President of Business Insurance. Before I turn it over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. And now, Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported second quarter net income of $595 million and return on equity of 10%. Core income was $543 million and core return on equity was 9.5%. Our results this quarter were impacted by $262 million of after-tax catastrophe losses as well as significant non-cat weather losses, particularly in personal insurance. This has been an active weather year, with first half after-tax catastrophe losses of $488 million or 6 points on the combined ratio. To put that in some context, this was our highest level of first half catastrophe losses since 2011. While relatively high, the level of weather losses this quarter and year are within an over time range that we plan and price for. And we are confident that we are appropriately managing our exposures. Putting aside the weather, we were very pleased with the underwriting results in our commercial businesses and the progress we have made in personal insurance. In business insurance, we improved our underlying combined ratio compared to the prior year quarter. We were able to maintain a flat underlying loss ratio year-over-year in part by managing the non-rate levers that we talked to you about from time-to-time. Things like risk selection, mix, segmentation, risk control and claims handling. We also improved our expense ratio by about half a point. Our Bond & Specialty business delivered another quarter of excellent results with a combined ratio of 68.7%. In personal insurance, the underwriting results in both auto and home for the quarter were significantly impacted by catastrophe and non-cat weather losses. Within personal auto, bodily injury loss trends remained consistent with our expectations and we are on track with the actions we have taken to improve profitability. In terms of our investment results for the quarter, after-tax net investment income increased 6% over the prior year quarter benefiting from strong private equity returns. Our results enabled us to return $676 million to shareholders in the quarter, including $475 million in share repurchases. Turning to the top line, we were very pleased with the success of our marketplace strategies, which resulted in 5% net written premium growth to a record $6.64 billion. Across our commercial businesses, we continued to be successful in achieving historically high retention levels while also delivering positive and in some cases somewhat higher renewal rate change from recent quarters. In our core middle-market business, we achieved positive renewal rate change on an increasing portion of our portfolio. From a little more than half our accounts in the first quarter of last year to almost 60% in the first quarter of this year to just over 60% in the current quarter. And we did so while simultaneously maintaining retention at a very high 88%. As you have heard us say many times, our production is a result of deliberate account by account and class by class execution. Our efforts this quarter and over recent quarters reflect the continued low interest rate environment and the fact that rate together with the component of exposure that has the same impact on margins as rates have been below loss trend for a few years now. We will continue to execute to meet our return objectives, including by managing the non-rate letters and by seeking rate increases selectively and thoughtfully. In Personal Insurance, we continue to improve the profitability in our auto business by implementing the pricing and underwriting actions that we have discussed with you over the last few quarters. We are on track to achieve double-digit renewal premium change on a written basis for the end of the third quarter and loss trend remains consistent with our expectations. Given that progress and the continued growth in our very profitable Homeowners business, we feel good about the trajectory of our personal lines business. Looking forward across all our businesses, we are engaged strategically to maintain and strengthen our competitive advantages. We are focused on our digital agenda on advancing the way we leverage data on exploring and piloting smart investments and things like AI and robotics on setting the standard in terms of the experience for our customers and distribution partners and as always on being as productive and efficient as possible. So as much as we are relentlessly committed to day-to-day execution we are just as committed to our long-term strategic position. And speaking of our digital agenda, we couldn’t be more excited to welcome Simply Business under the Travelers’ umbrella in the third quarter. To sum it up, I am pleased and encouraged by execution in the first half of the year. And with our franchise value, strong balance sheet, superior talent and capital management strategy, we remain well-positioned to continue to deliver industry leading results. And with that, let me turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. Core income was $543 million down from $649 million in the prior year quarter. And core ROE was 9.5%, down from 11.6%. As was the case in the first quarter, these reductions in core income and core ROE were not driven by fundamental changes in our performance rather they were reflective of lower net favorable prior year reserve development and another quarter of relatively high levels of cat and non-cat weather activity. Beginning with underwriting results, net favorable prior year reserve development, which I will discuss in more detail shortly, was $132 million after-tax or $60 million less than the prior year quarter. This decrease was almost entirely in bond and specialty, where net favorable development decreased from a very high amount in the prior year quarter. Cat losses were $262 million after-tax, $40 million higher than the already high $222 million in the prior year quarter. And while remaining strong as evidenced by our 93.5% underlying combined ratio, underlying underwriting gain was lower than the prior year quarter primarily due to two things. As we had anticipated, the timing impact of personal auto bodily injury loss estimates that were consistent with the higher loss trends that we recognized in the second half of 2016 and normal quarterly fluctuations in non-cat weather. Investment results were once again strong, net investment income of $468 million after-tax, increased by 6% or $26 million as compared to the prior year quarter. Non-fixed income, NII increased by $46 million after-tax due to strong private equity returns, which more than offset the fully anticipated $20 million after-tax decrease in fixed income NII driven by the continued low interest rate environment. Consolidated net favorable prior year reserve development was $203 million pre-tax compared to $288 million in the prior year quarter. Business Insurance’s net favorable reserve development was $125 million pre-tax, the same as in the prior year quarter and net of the $65 million pre-tax or $42 million after-tax increase to environmental reserves. BI’s favorable development was driven by better than expected loss experience in our domestic businesses for workers’ comp, CMP liability, NGL. Bond & Specialty’s net favorable development was $78 million pre-tax, down from a very high $159 million in the prior year quarter, driven by better than expected loss experience in our domestic management liability business and it was known that prior year reserve development in PI this quarter. On a combined statutory Schedule P basis for all of our U.S. subs, all accident years across all product lines in the aggregate and all product lines across all accident years in the aggregate develop favorably or had de minimis unfavorable development in the first half of the year. Operating cash flows of $810 million remain very strong and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of $2.6 billion, up from $1.7 billion at the beginning of the year and higher than what we considered to be normal. This $900 million increase driven mostly by the $700 million, up 4% 30-year senior notes that we issued on May 30 allows for the funding of our acquisition of Simply Business expected to close in the third quarter as well as the repayment of our $450 million of senior notes maturing in December. All of our capital ratios were at or better than target levels. Net unrealized investment gains were approximately $1.6 billion pre-tax or $1 billion after-tax, up from $1.1 billion and $0.7 billion respectively at the beginning of the year, while book value per share of $86.46 and adjusted book value per share of $82.71 increased 4% and 3% respectively from the beginning of the year. We continue to generate much more capital than we need to support our businesses allowing us to return $676 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter. We paid dividends of $201 million and repurchased $475 million of our common shares consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy. And year-to-date we returned $1.15 billion to our shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Before turning the mic over to Brian, there is one additional topic I will cover. On Page 19 of the webcast, you can see an update of our cat reinsurance treaties that renewed on July 1. There were no significant changes to these treaties and their cost was modestly lower than last year. As for our one remaining cat bond, which runs through May 2018 it’s attachment point maximum limit were reset as required annually to adjust the modeled expected loss of the layer within a predetermined range. For the year beginning May 16, 2017, we will begin recovering amounts under this cat bond if losses in the covered area for single occurrence reach an initial attachment point of $2.346 billion, up from the previous attachment point of $1.968 billion. The full $300 million of coverage amount is available on a proportional basis until such covered losses reach a maximum of $2.846 billion. With that, I will turn the microphone over to Brian.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. Starting with this quarter’s results in Business Insurance, we are pleased with segment income of $429 million and a combined ratio of 96.5%. The underlying combined ratio was 94.8%, down 0.5 point compared to the second quarter of 2016, driven by a lower expense ratio. The decline in the expense ratio resulted from slightly lower expense dollars and growing earned premium. Turning to the underlying loss ratio, as Alan mentioned earlier, our active management of the non-rate levers along with favorable non-cat weather in Business Insurance contributed to a comparable loss ratio year-over-year. We were especially pleased that we were able to achieve this result in an environment of relatively modest price increases. Net written premiums of $3.5 billion for the quarter were up more than 2% year-over-year, with domestic net written premiums, up about 2% driven by strong production results in select and middle-market. International net written premiums were up 8%, driven by the timing of certain adjustments in the second quarter of 2016. Turning to domestic production, one of our critical objectives is to retain our high-quality book of business. And accordingly, we were pleased that retention for the quarter of 85% remained at a historically high level. Renewal premium change was 3.5 points in the quarter, up about 1 point from the first quarter due to exposure growth in all lines, most notably in our property lines. Rate change remained consistent with last quarter and up more than 0.5 point from a year ago. We continue to achieve rate gains selectively and thoughtfully and are pleased that improvement in rate from a year ago has come broadly across the portfolio. New business of $491 million was consistent with the prior year quarter. Looking at the individual businesses, I will begin with Select, where production statistics remain strong, with retention for the quarter of 83%. Renewal premium change was about 5 points while new business premiums of $109 million were up 10% year-over-year. In middle-market, our results reflect consistent performance in the marketplace as demonstrated by another quarter of strong retention at 88%. Renewal premium change of about 3.5 points was up about a point from the first quarter due primarily to increased exposure across all lines and included nearly a point of renewal rate change, up a bit from the first quarter. New business of $294 million was down slightly versus the prior year quarter. So, all-in a good financial result for the segment with continued stability in the marketplace. I will now turn to Bond & Specialty Insurance, where segment income for the quarter was strong at $163 million. Income was down somewhat from the prior year quarter due to a lower level of net favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio remained very strong 82%. As to the top line, net written premiums for the quarter were up 5% across the segment, with solid growth in our domestic surety and management liability businesses. In international, growth was driven by strong production in our Canadian Surety and UK Management Liability businesses, along with some non-recurring policy and reinsurance timing. Turning to production in our domestic management liability business, we continue to execute our strategy of retaining our best performing accounts, while writing new business in return adequate product segments. So, we couldn’t be more pleased that for the third consecutive quarter, retention came in at a historic high of 88%, while new business was up slightly from the second quarter of last year. Renewal premium change of 3.8 points was down slightly from the first quarter. So, Bond & Specialty results remained terrific and we continue to feel great about the segment’s performance and our market positions. Turning to Personal Insurance, net written premiums for the segment grew 8% in the quarter, with roughly half of that growth coming from price increases. The quarter’s combined ratio of 104.1 was significantly impacted by weather, with catastrophe losses of nearly 10 points for the second consecutive quarter. The underlying combined ratio of 94.5 was also significantly impacted by weather, with non-catastrophe loss levels that were well above what we would normally expect in the second quarter. Turning to auto, in terms of production, we are pleased that we were successful in maintaining strong retention, while achieving significant price increases. New business was down slightly year-over-year, while TIF growth moderated. The domestic agency auto combined ratio for the quarter was 106.4 with 4 points of cat losses more than double our normal second quarter expectation. The auto underlying combined ratio of 102.4 was also impacted by weather, with about 1.5 points of non-cat weather losses, which was above our expectations, but about the same as the second quarter of 2016. Excluding the impact of weather, auto loss results remained in line with our expectations. Compared to the second quarter of 2016, the underlying combined ratio was up 3.8 points. As you can see on Page 15 of the webcast, the increase is primarily due to the timing of the impact of the higher run-rate of bodily injury losses that we recognized in the second half of 2016. As we discussed in our year end results call, in response to higher bodily injury loss levels we are taking actions to improve profitability, most notably by improving the pricing of the book. Renewal premium change increased from about 6% in the first quarter to nearly 8% in the second quarter and we remain on track to reach double-digit increases before the end of the third quarter. By year end, we expect to have obtained enough rate on a written basis to address the elevated bodily injury loss levels. The full earned impact of these written rate increases will be realized by the end of 2018 consistent with the timeframe we mentioned in January. As we have discussed in recent quarters, the combined ratio also continues to be elevated due to the impact of tenure on our book as the higher levels of new business written in previous periods continue to season. We expect this impact will continue to grow for a few more quarters albeit at a decreasing rate. As new business production moderates to a steady state, the tenure impact will gradually diminish. The gradual reduction of the tenure impact, along with rate that keeps pace with loss trend over time, should result in a combined ratio that aligns with our target. It’s important to note that even though the combined ratio is currently elevated due to the impact of tenure, we expect the new business to add economic value on a lifetime basis as the increased volume brings additional profit dollars. Turning to Agency Homeowners and Other, the combined ratio of 100.3 for the second quarter reflects 17.5 points of cat losses. The underlying combined ratio of 82.8 was 4.6 points higher than the second quarter of 2016. The year-over-year increase was primarily due to non-cat weather losses, which were also significantly higher than our long-term average. Continuing the momentum in recent quarters, Homeowners’ net written premiums and policies in-force both grew at levels consistent with the strong results we experienced in the first quarter. We were pleased that we achieved modest price increases in this profitable line, added more property-oriented distribution partners, and focused on account rounding. So clearly, a significant impact from weather in the quarter, but we continued to grow our profitable Homeowners business and made good progress towards the goals we laid out for auto at the end of last year. With that, let me turn it back over to Gabby.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Kelly, we are ready to begin the Q&A portion of the call. Before we begin, I would ask you to limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Kai Pan:
Thank you and good morning. My first question on Personal Insurance, could you quantify the impact from the non-cat weather as well as a tenure in the second quarter results?
Brian MacLean:
Yes. So, I will start with that. This is Brian. And let me do them in reverse order. On the tenure impact, we said last quarter or the quarter before that it was about 2 points and that’s up about 1 point. So right now, it’s about 3 points in total in the combined ratio and that’s about 1 point delta from last year. On the non-cat weather of the 4.6 points you know variance in the underlying, the vast majority of it and you can think roundly about three quarters of that number is due to non-cat weather. And the reason for the lack of total precision there is that we are looking at a lot of loss activity in trying to attribute it and we were pretty accurate on it, but it’s not something that you can specifically tie down and Michael has got a little bit more detail.
Michael Klein:
Yes. I think so again, the 4.6 Brian is referring to as property year-over-year variance. And as you said, the majority of that is due to non-cat weather. I would say a couple of things on that front. One, from our perspective and I think you can look at weather data and see that it was a very active first half of the year from a weather standpoint. NOAA talked about nearly 11,000 severe weather events through May of this year being up over long-term averages. And I think importantly to back it up to what non-cat weather is right. So, our non-cat weather according to our definition does include some PCS events that don’t meet our catastrophe threshold, but it also includes a variety of much smaller weather events that never make the news. And connecting that to the NOAA data one of the things that they talked about is through May, there were over 6,000 reports of wind damage, which is either wind damage or storms that have significant wind associated with them. Again, not the things that show up on the news, but according to their statistics, those events that 6,000 is almost double the average of the 2000 to 2016 run-rate. And it’s the second highest amount of storms of that type since 2011. So, I think our experience is consistent with that, the drivers underneath that non-cat weather. The biggest incurred loss increases we see underneath that estimate are associated with wind and hail.
Kai Pan:
Great.
Alan Schnitzer:
So, that’s a little bit more color on what’s underneath that from a property.
Brian MacLean:
Right. So this is Brian. So, that was a very good long answer to the question you didn’t ask. I apologize for hearing that incorrectly. But on the auto side, there is 1.5 points as I said in the underlying, about 1.5 points of non-cat weather losses, which comparable to what we had in last year’s results and I would say a good bit higher than what we – what our normal expectations would be, what our long-term averages are. So, hopefully that’s responsive.
Kai Pan:
I really appreciate the extensive response. My follow-up questions on expense ratio side, you have seen quite a bit of improvements in Personal Auto, will that continue? And then were you expanding any of these initiatives into the Business Insurance on the expense side, because we have seen some year-over-year improvement there as well? Are there more to come?
Brian MacLean:
Yes. So, let’s take the two pieces. Michael can talk a little bit. Expenses we have done – we have been doing a lot in Personal Insurance for the last couple of years and that is continuing and then we could talk a little bit about Business Insurance and what we are doing there. So, Michael on the PI…
Michael Klein:
Yes, from a Personal Insurance standpoint, the story continues to be that we are adding volume and holding costs pretty consistent. So, I mean that’s a continuation of the story we have been talking about and we continue to see some of that benefit in the quarter.
Alan Schnitzer:
Hey, Kai, good morning, it’s Alan. Let me try to address your question on Business Insurance. So, we don’t give outlook explicitly on expenses and there is always from period-to-period going to be some ups and downs in expenses. But we have had a number of initiatives underway. We have got initiatives underway now. If you looked at our shop floor right now, we’d say that there is improved productivity. It’s – you don’t exactly see that coming through in the numbers in the moment, because for example there is other ups and downs and we have got the expenses associated, the cost associated with creating that productivity, but it is a serious and ongoing initiative that we are all hopeful that we will be seeing in incoming periods.
Kai Pan:
Great. Well, thanks so much for all the answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi, yes. My first question is on just in going through some of your commentary in the queue in terms of the outlook for the Business Insurance business for 2018 you point to stable renewal price changes and also stable margins. I guess just how are you expecting your margins to stay stable when even if we get continued exposure growth, your rate is falling below trend, if you could just provide some additional commentary and how you see kind of your margins in that business playing out in 2018?
AlanSchnitzer:
Yes, good morning, Elyse, it’s Alan. Thanks for the question. We do get that from time-to-time. And I think we have addressed that on this call from time-to-time. We get the math here looking at it’s a very certain narrow rate versus loss trend. But what we have told you and what I tried to address in my prepared remarks this morning is that there are plenty of levers other than just pure rate that contribute to the margin outlook. And I mentioned some of it in my prepared remarks, things like segmentation and risk selection and claims handling and risk control expenses, all the rest. So, all of those things wrap up in margin. The component of margin that is sort of narrow rate versus loss trend, particularly when you take into account the component of exposure that behaves like rate from a margin perspective is and continues to be relatively small. And these incremental rate gains that we have been writing for a few quarters now have offset that to some degree. So, you take all that together and we are comfortable with a broadly consistent outlook. Of course there is going to be volatility from things like weather, but in terms of things we control we feel good about a broadly consistent margin outlook, we have been giving you that outlook for some quarters now and we have delivered on it. So, we feel good about it.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. And then just a couple of quick things on that Personal Auto side, the new business did decline this quarter, policy count still do go up sequentially. How do you see the policy count playing out as you continue to push for more rate? And a second question in the commentary you guys pointed to what you are doing to get back to your target margin in that business. Could you just remind us what your target margin is for the Personal Auto business? Thank you.
Michael Klein:
Sure. And Elyse, this is Michael. I will start with the target margin question. I think broadly a combined ratio range of 96 to 98 points for auto is the range that we are shooting for over time. To your question on TIF and PIF growth, as we have talked about, our strategy is to improve profitability in auto, while growth moderates. We are very pleased with the trajectory that the TIF growth in the new business is on. We are also, I’ll say particularly pleased with the strength of retention in the face of the increased rate. You see retention in the production slide at 85 points, actually above our long run average for that number, a number we are very pleased with as we have moved rate up almost a couple of points quarter-on-quarter. In terms of the outlook for PIF growth again our plan remains consistent. We are looking for moderate growth, while we continue to improve profitability.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Elyse, it’s Alan. I would just add on the margin target. There is some advantage we have to being an account solution, the fact that we have such a good Homeowners’ book enables us to – gives us some advantage in the combined ratio target for the auto and not from a subsidization perspective, but from a synergy perspective, for example, the impact on retention and things like that. So, we think the fact that we are an account solution provider is a big help from that perspective.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thank you very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Gelb:
Thanks and good morning. With regard to the small commercial business market, Travelers is clearly a leader in that space. We have seen a number of other large companies looking to either enter that business or more insured tech focused operations trying to disrupt that business. Can you talk about how Travelers is defending its position in that profitable market?
AlanSchnitzer:
Yes, good morning Jay, it’s Alan. So, yes, we read the same retrofit you read to one degree or another, occasionally we see it in the marketplace, I think different competitors and others are at different stages of their engagement in the marketplace. And just a couple of things, one, we do have – start with a great position, we think that’s important from a competitive perspective. We have got great technology. We have got great talent. We have got great data. We have got great relationships with distribution. We think all that’s – all that’s very important. And we are not standing still. So, some of the investments I mentioned in my prepared remarks are directly related to those businesses. That’s important for us. And you look at investments like Simply Business that is meant to make sure that as we look around the landscape and see how the world is changing that we are positioning Travelers to continue to be effective and very competitive in that marketplace. And lastly, I would have that small commercial, in fact all of our businesses have always been competitive and we have got lots of arrows in the quiver that I guess I should say competitive advantages that enable us to compete effectively. So, we feel good about the outlook.
Jay Gelb:
As competition increases in that space and it moves more towards technology focused, I mean, we see a number of these companies saying essentially one or two clicks and you get the quote to bind. Is Travelers where it needs to be from that perspective?
AlanSchnitzer:
Yes. There is a lot of rhetoric out there. How much business is actually being transacted on that basis and how much is aspirational from the perspective whether that you are saying is something that is worth looking into. But I would say that we are as engaged as anybody on – in all those areas and as aspirational as everybody in all those areas. So, yes, we think we are where we need to be to make sure that we continue to be competitive. And again, just think about the innovation going on around here are the investments that we are making and we are not flat-footed. These aren’t things that we are starting with today, these things that we in many, many cases have been thinking about for many years. And again I will just point to the Simply Business transaction. That’s something that we announced a couple of quarters ago, but it’s nothing we stumbled on a couple of quarters ago. That was the result of having been thinking about the exact issue you are talking about over a number of years and planning and being thoughtful and strategic about it. So I would say yes, we are where we need to be.
Jay Gelb:
Appreciate it. Thank you.
AlanSchnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jay Cohen with Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Cohen:
Yes. Just one follow-up, maybe two follow-ups on the personal line side, one is that PIF growth in the Homeowners business seems pretty resilient in the face of rising auto insurance premium rates. Would you expect to maintain that or could your effort to improve auto have some spillover effect on the Homeowners side?
Michael Klein:
Jay, this is Michael. I think that’s something that we have been talking about and focusing on and it is why in addition to our objective to improve profits and moderate growth in auto. Our other key objective is to maintain the momentum in homes. To Brian’s prepared remarks, we have made some specific efforts to sustain that home growth in the face of seeking the auto rate, focusing more on rounded business. The good news underneath both the auto and the home growth is the strongest growth we see it in rounded accounts where we are writing both the auto and the home or writing the auto or the home with other lines of business. We are focusing on property intensive distribution relationships, focusing on distribution management and working with agents and brokers to make sure they are giving us at least our fair share of the property business that goes with the auto we write. So, I think through a series of specific tactics and strategies that’s what helped us sustain the home growth so far and we are hopeful that we can continue that.
Jay Cohen:
That’s good answer. Thank you. The other just quick one on the auto side, if you look at second quarter underlying loss ratio versus first quarter that did get a bit worth, I am assuming some of that’s non-cat weather and I am assuming some of that is seasonality. Is that a fair assessment?
Alan Schnitzer:
Jay, tell us again what number you are looking at. Just so I want to make sure that we are looking the right thing.
Jay Cohen:
Yes. I am looking at personal auto second quarter underlying loss ratio versus first quarter underlying loss ratio first quarter 2017, so consecutive quarter?
Alan Schnitzer:
As you can see in the webcast, the lion’s share of that is the timing of the recognition of the bodily injury losses and then there is the 10-year component that Brian mentioned.
Jay Benet:
But if you are comparing Q2 this year to Q1 this year, Jay?
Jay Cohen:
The timing shouldn’t be an issue.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, I am sorry, I was thinking you were talking….
Jay Benet:
Right. So, I think to your point, there is seasonality in that expectation is the key driver of that. Again, when we look at underlying consistent with the comments that Brian made, you do have non-cat weather impacting that. We have a higher loss ratio expectation in the second quarter than we do in the first largely related to weather and driving activity picking up.
Jay Cohen:
Got it. Helpful. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Meyer Shields with KBW. Please proceed with your question.
Meyer Shields:
Great. Thanks. Brian, you mentioned when you are discussing to this insurance that there was lower non-cat weather in the quarter, is that just sort of randomness or is there some reason why you would see a divergence in non-cat weather losses between business and personal insurance?
Brian MacLean:
Yes, I think it’s mostly randomness. And when you think of what’s driving the non-cat weather as Michael said, it’s not the big, big catastrophe events, the smaller events are the ones that don’t even make PCS events. And those things are more likely to have a frequency on the Homeowners side than they would on the business insurance side. So, it’s probably mostly randomness and then some the nature of the beast.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. So, Meyer, you think about hail for example and the types of things that individuals ensure are more susceptible to hail damage, for example, than commercial property that’s more resilient.
Meyer Shields:
Okay, that makes sense. The second issue when we look at the pricing changes in business insurance that are hovering around 60 basis points, which is appreciably different than the preceding four quarters. I am saying appreciably, so less than a point. Does that translate into sort of different expectations for core underwriting margins? Is it a little easier as that 60 basis points runs in?
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure. I mean, it’s just math right. As the pure rate goes up and by the way I would point out that the exposure is up 2, we are not calling that a trend, but it’s broadly enough across our portfolio that for the most part we are attributing it to economic activity. But you look at that incremental price and you look at the component of exposure that behaves like rates and sure, it’s math that it’s a good guy from a margin perspective for sure. It’s not – we are not at the point where they are equal to each other, but we are getting closer.
Meyer Shields:
Okay. Thanks so much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Sarah DeWitt with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.
Sarah DeWitt:
Hi, good morning. First, just on the personal auto insurance combined ratio target of 96% to 98%, does that include the tenure impact and what I am trying to get at is when you say you get back to your target margins by the end of ‘18 should we be thinking 96% to 98% plus a couple of points for tenure?
Michael Klein:
So, Sarah to your point, let me just make sure I say this accurately. So when we say at the end of ‘18 we are not talking about the tenure. So, it is 96% to 98% plus a tenure impact. So I think it’s the way you just said it. And…
Alan Schnitzer:
And specifically your comment about the end of ‘18 is rates covering the increased bodily injury loss estimate.
Michael Klein:
Right, right. And so I think as you put those things together it answers I think the other way you asked that which is when we say 96% to 98% we are assuming that tenure has moderated and we are at kind of a steady state.
Jay Benet:
But I will go back just to highlight Brian included in his prepared remarks which is we don’t look as tenure as a bad guy, because it’s part of the plan. It’s adding economic value. And so that’s deliberate.
Sarah DeWitt:
But would it be zero by the end of ‘18 right?
Jay Benet:
No, no, no. I think Michael said this in the last quarter comments I just repeat it is that when we talk about the timing of tenure unwinding what we are talking in terms of years, not quarters.
Sarah DeWitt:
And then my follow-up is just could you revisit again what you are seeing in terms of lot trends this quarter. Are they consistent? Are there any signs of it picking up or moderating and if you could talk about commercial versus personal? That would be helpful.
Michael Klein:
Yes. I will take that Sarah in our personal business, loss trend came in as we expected. So – and I think we have told in the past where expectations were, but there is nothing happened this quarter or first half of the year that was inconsistent with our expectations. And I would make the same comment about business insurance it’s very stable and inconsistent with our expectations. Now, I am addressing in a sentence frequency and severity over $15 billion of business. So, there is always going to be ups and downs in one line versus another, but broadly speaking, we view loss trend in our commercial businesses as I am nothing remarkable consistent with expectations.
Sarah DeWitt:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Brian Meredith with UBS. Please proceed with your question.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. Two questions here. First one, could you talk a little bit about what you are seeing with terms and conditions in the Business Insurance segment, any changes going on is the market getting maybe a little bit more generous in that area?
Alan Schnitzer:
The short answer is no, we are not seeing anything significant. There is obviously always little movements up and down, but nothing dramatic that we are seeing.
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes. Again hard to address doing our premium in one sentence, but by and large, there is nothing that we are looking at that’s causing us to think differently about current results or outlook.
Brian Meredith:
Got it. Deductibles are covered. Okay, great. And then a second question just curious if I look at your commercial auto, some premium growth going on there, is that largely rates driven or you are actually seeing opportunities in the commercial auto to pickup business here?
Greg Toczydlowski:
Yes, the short answer – this is Greg Toczydlowski. The short answer on that one is it’s predominantly rate-driven across the portfolio. Our commercial auto book as we have shared in the past certainly hasn’t been immune to some of the pressures that we are seeing across the entire industry on automobile. And accordingly, we have been pursuing rate on that. So, that’s what you are seeing move through that top line. Because we are so much of an account solution, the retention has been pretty strong and so that gives us that net impact on the top line. So we are going to continue pursuing that strategy.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Paul Newsome with Sandler O’Neill. Please proceed your question.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning. Thanks for the call. I like to revisit that the little tick up we saw in the domestic business insurance from a rate perspective. And to your perspective, could you talk about how much that is you versus maybe the environment if we are assuming maybe a little bit of a tick up and awakening up of competition. We have seen a couple of surveys that suggest maybe sort of flatten your pricing and I just don’t know how much to read into it?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, I would say, it’s definitely both to some degree, right. I mean, it’s us what we transact very deliberately on an account by account and class by class solution, so the rate we are getting is because we are trying to get the rate, but we are getting it because we operate in a very competitive marketplace and if the marketplace weren’t letting as getting, we wouldn’t be getting it. So, we are certainly not given the premium growth we have. So, I would say it’s a combination of both. Now, I do think that we do have some advantages here maybe relative to the market. One, franchise value matters when it comes to pricing. So, product perhaps, relationships with distribution, which is valuable to our customers and our distribution, claims handling, risk control those things, I think really matter when it comes to the value we can deliver. And secondly, I would say we have got really important data and analytics and that helps us from a granular pricing perspective as well. So I would say it’s the combination of the efforts the franchise value and competitive advantage that we have been in the marketplace.
Paul Newsome:
Is there nothing in the competitive environment that you have seen any swings competitors moving it out or vice-versa or it is basically just kind of a general trend?
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s a little soft. Can you repeat that?
Paul Newsome:
Sorry, the soft is voice. Have you seen any actual trends or changes in your competitors themselves, anybody moving in and out or making any changes from a pricing perspective?
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s just – it would be so hard without taking it through competitor by competitor, business by business, geography by geography to give you a sense of that, but there is always movements, competitor by competitor, business by business, geography versus geography. And so to the extent we see any of that occurring now, it would be consistent with the way we see that type of dynamic over time. So, in that respect, I am not really.
Paul Newsome:
Okay, thanks very much.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Okay. Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Josh Shanker with Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your question.
Josh Shanker:
Yes, thank you. A couple of questions on non-cat weather, I guess or maybe one. Allstate has taken the tax of reporting a much lower threshold for what they call catastrophe, but we should assume that of course there is going to be some level of cat activity in every quarter or every time they announced their numbers. When you talk but non-cat weather activity look over your data of the last 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, does that net – does the benefit and hindrance of non-cat weather net out to zero or is it a negative profit layer on the top of how we should look at things?
Alan Schnitzer:
I am not sure, Josh, what you are asking. I mean, we have an expectation of what non-cat weather is going to do over time in a range and we set our prices in part based on that expectation. So whether it’s a positive or negative over time is going to be a function of over time whether we are getting the right price for the losses. So, I don’t – if you are asking sort of where it is in a particular period relative to a long-term average, we can give you that information too. But as I have said in my opening remarks, what we are seeing is certainly relatively high. There is no question about it, but not outside of what we would expect in the context of an over time range.
Josh Shanker:
So when you say that three quarters of the personal lines deterioration is due to non-cat weather, that’s non-cat weather above and beyond a layer of normal expectation?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, actually I think the number that you are talking about was a property number, but I think what we are explaining is a year-over-year variance. So, I think that the year-over-year variance, if I am remembering the number right, assuming like 4.6 points at least in home. And I think what Brian’s comment was is that the lion’s share of that is non-cat weather that was worse in the current quarter as compared to non-cat weather in the prior year quarter.
Brian MacLean:
And then I did. So that’s what I meant by the three quarters. I did also say in my comments that it was also significantly higher than our long-term average. So, maybe a little less than that other number whatever it might be, but still significantly higher than our long-term average and within a volatility as Alan said that isn’t totally out of pattern. One of the tricky things with this, Josh, especially when we are talking about Homeowners but also with our commercial property, weather in totality makes up something between 40% and 50% of our total loss content. So, you are at some point you are almost talking about the loss ratio in aggregate, which if you are trying to include every single weather related loss. So it’s…
Josh Shanker:
And just another avenue I guess of discussion, your results in Business Insurance continued to be very, very good regardless of weather the variance from a quarter ago. If you would accept 100 or 200 basis points lower level of profitability in that line of business, could you grow materially? Are you being – is there an opportunity that’s not being met, because you are being so profitable than maybe you should relax profitably goals and instead grow?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Josh. We have always thought that lowering price to generate incremental premium is a fool’s errand, because we operate in a very competitive marketplace and you just end up with same relative market share at lower profitability. And once you lower the price and consequently lower the margins on the business you are keeping, then you got to write a whole lot of new business to get that margin back. So, we don’t feel like that strategy. We like the strategy of again as I have priced on like a broken record, but on a very granular basis, looking at the accounts and classes of business that we are writing, we look at our loss cost in a yield curve and we calculated price that we think meets our return objective and that’s the way we run the railroad. So, we don’t like the strategy of lowering price to generate volumes.
Josh Shanker:
Okay. Well, good luck and thank you for the answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. Thank you. This is what appears to be our last question.
Operator:
And our last question comes from Larry Greenberg with Janney Montgomery Scott. Please proceed with your question.
Larry Greenberg:
Good morning and thank you. Just wondering can you give us any color on the environmental strengthening whether the complexion of that was any different than it has been in the past. I know it’s a little bit better than a year ago. Is there anything maybe extrapolate from that related to the third quarter, it’s best to sort of view and are you guys thinking any differently about how you should be managing these exposures?
Jay Benet:
Hey, Larry. This is Jay Benet. So, in relation to the environmental charge this year versus what we saw last year you are right it was moderated from the levels of the prior year. It continues to be an area of frustration. It’s – I’d call at the level of a nuisance at this point in time. We are not talking about very large dollars, but as you know every year we take a crack at what we think is going to happen with regard to new policyholders, what happens with regard to the active policyholders, what’s taking place in relation to defense cost versus actual cleanup cost and we have to make lots of assumptions associated with that. A year goes by or 6 months or whatever the period of time is, we look at what’s actually taking place versus those assumptions. And what we say in the Q is what I am going to repeat here that the favorable trends, we have been seeing for a number of years continue. They didn’t continue quite at the level that we expected, but there was still favorable when it came to policies presenting new claims of policyholders with new claims or what’s taking place with regard to other aspects of it. But as we have refined those estimates in this particular case we came up with an additional increase to the reserves. So I’d say that’s the lion’s share of it. I will say that there are parts of the country of the Pacific Northwest in particular, where cleanup costs are being a little more elevated than what we had anticipated. So, you do have certain jurisdictional elements associated with this that will change what your estimates of costs are, but I will go back to what I said before that on the overall context of our reserve levels in Business Insurance in the company as a whole. This is fairly de minimis item at this point in time.
Larry Greenberg:
And nothing defense cost wise to extrapolate to asbestos or anything else?
Jay Benet:
No, I don’t think you can really extrapolate what takes place in environmental to asbestos, but I think you can, if you can extrapolate anything, you can probably look at what other companies have said about the same subjects of the asbestos and environmental and recognize that we are no different than everybody else. So, I think we will continue to address each one of these things. We have our claims study ongoing as it relates to asbestos and we have more news to tell about.
Larry Greenberg:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Excellent. This looks like we are wrapping up. Thank you all for joining us today. And as always, we are available on Investor Relations for any follow-up questions. Have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and we ask that you please disconnect your lines.
Executives:
Alan Schnitzer - CEO and Director Brian MacLean - President and COO Gabriella Nawi - SVP of IR Gregory Toczydlowski - EVP and President of Business Insurance Jay Benet - Vice Chairman and CFO Michael Klein - Head of Enterprise Business Intelligence & Analytics
Analysts:
Amit Kumar - Macquarie Jay Gelb - Barclays Sarah DeWitt - JPMorgan Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill Randy Binner - FBR Elyse Greenspan - Wells Fargo Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Larry Greenberg - Janney Montgomery Scott Brian Meredith - UBS Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Meyer Shields - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentleman, and welcome to the first quarter results teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 20, 2017. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our first quarter 2017 results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chief Executive Officer; Jay Benet, Chief Financial Officer; and Brian MacLean, Chief Operating Officer. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. In addition, other members of senior management are in the room, including Bill Heyman, Chief Investment Officer; Michael Klein, President of Personal Insurance; Tom Kunkel, President of Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Greg Toczydlowski, President of Business Insurance. Before I turn it over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the [ explanatory ] notes included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. One final note before I turn it over to Alan, as a result of recent SEC insurance industry guidance relating to the use of terminology, what we previously referred to as operating income, we now refer to as core income. As we explained in the press release, we have also relabeled related terms. To be clear, this is a wording change, and there were no changes in the calculation of these amounts. And now Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported core income of $614 million and core return on equity of 10.8%, both of which are impacted by $226 million of after-tax catastrophe losses. About half of those losses arose out of storms occurring in the last 2 weeks of March. That kind of weather volatility is certainly in our playbook, but we'd normally expect it a few weeks later in the second quarter. To give you some context, according to the National Weather Service, reported hale, tornado and wind activity in the quarter was almost 2.5 times higher than the 5-year average. The quarter also had 12 PCS wind and hail cat events, an all-time record for Q1. That surpasses the record that was set just last year. As sometimes happens in this business, the weather in the quarter obscures what was otherwise a very good start to the year. Our underlying combined ratio was strong at 91.7%. Importantly, our Personal Auto bodily injury losses were within expectations and the same is generally true for loss trends across all our businesses. In addition to underlying underwriting profitability, we were also pleased with our investment results this quarter with net investment income increasing 9% over the prior year quarter. Turning to production. For all our business segments, we were pleased with our execution in the marketplace, including the record level of premium we wrote in the quarter. In our Commercial businesses, the markets in which we operate remain stable. We continue to achieve historically high levels of retention of 85% in domestic business insurance and 88% in Bond & Specialty Insurance. Renewal rate change improved somewhat over recent quarters, and as always, what's important is the texture underneath the headline numbers. For example, in our core Middle Market business, renewal rate change improved more than 1 point compared to the first quarter of last year. And during the current quarter, Middle Market renewal rate change was positive on 59% of our accounts compared to 53% of our accounts in the prior year quarter. This is the result of our efforts to seek rate selectively and thoughtfully to meet our return objectives in light of the persistently low interest rate environment and the fact that rate change has been below loss trend for a few years now. It's a similar story in our Management Liability business. Contrast that to our Select business, where rate change has been positive and stable for 3 quarters but modestly below where it was a year ago. Given the returns in this portfolio, we were comfortable with the renewal rate change and pleased to see retention in new business levels up, both sequentially and year-over-year. In Personal Insurance, we are encouraged that so far we have been successful in implementing the pricing and underwriting actions that we discussed with you last quarter to improve profitability in our Auto business. And we were very pleased to have maintained momentum in growing our profitable Homeowners business. All in for the company, net written premiums were up 5% compared to the prior year quarter. Brian will take you to the production data and top line results in more detail, but I'll note that, to a very large degree, the growth reflects a combination of higher levels of retention and higher renewal rate change. That speaks to the quality of the premium growth. During the quarter, we were pleased to have announced our agreement to acquire Simply Business, a technology company and a leading digital provider of insurance to small businesses in the United Kingdom. In addition to a number of immediate benefits, like a profitable and growing business in the U.K. and access to talent with leading expertise in digital commerce in our industry, this is a medium- and long-term strategic transaction for us. It's about building important capabilities. It's digital R&D that will give us important insights into serving our customers and working more efficiently with our distribution partners. It's about making sure that we're positioned to serve the customer however, whenever and from wherever they choose to engage with us. We would have undertaken to develop these capabilities in any event and teaming up with the company and people that have been at it for over a decade and that are leading the way, gives us an important head start. Our agreement to acquire Simply Business is an example of our investing thoughtfully and strategically in the business, building on the meaningful competitive advantages that have enabled us to deliver industry-leading returns over time. And just as we have for more than a decade, we'll make investments like that for the long term and continue to right size capital by returning excess capital to our shareholders. There's no change in our capital management philosophy. While Jay Benet will have more to say about our capital management, I'm pleased to report that as a reflection of confidence in our business, today our Board of Directors declared a 7.5% increase in our quarterly dividend to $0.72 per share. This marks the 13th consecutive year of dividend increases. Our board also authorized an additional $5 billion of share repurchases. So wrapping up, weather was a factor this quarter. But the underlying results of the business were strong, we're well positioned for continued success over the near term, and we're excited about the investments we're making for sustained success over time. And with that, I'll turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. Core income was $614 million, down from 698 million in the prior year quarter and core ROE was 10.8%, down from 12.5%. There were several moving pieces this quarter, so let me spend a few minutes providing you with some further insight into these numbers. I'll start by saying that the absolute levels as well as the reductions in core income and core ROE were not driven by underlying performance, rather they reflected the relatively high level of tornado hail that Alan discussed, along with the impact of the so-called Ogden rate adjustment, the U.K. Ministry of Justice's decision to reduce the discount rate applied to lump sum bodily injury payouts from a plus 2.5% to minus 0.75%. Beginning with underwriting, Cat losses were $226 million after tax, $19 million higher than the already high $207 million after tax in the prior year quarter. Page 4 of the webcast provides an analysis as to how our first quarter results compared to analyst estimates and, as best as we can tell, analyst estimates for cat losses appear to be significantly lower than what actually occurred, which more than accounts for the difference. Net favorable prior year reserve development, which I'll discuss in more detail shortly, was 44 million after tax, which was $75 million less than the prior year quarter, mostly due to Ogden. While remaining strong, as evidenced by a 91.7% underlying combined ratio, our underlying underwriting gain was lower than the prior year quarter, primarily due to two things. The first was normal fluctuations in non-cat weather and other loss activity. And the second, as we had anticipate it, was the timing impact of Personal Auto bodily injury loss estimates that were consistent with the higher loss trends that we had recognized in the second half of 2016. Partially offsetting these reductions in the underlying underwriting gain, but not impacting the combined ratio, was a $39 million tax benefit from successfully closing out our federal income tax exams for 2013 and '14. Turning to investment results, which was strong. Net investment income of $480 million after tax increased by 9% or $41 million as compared to the prior year quarter. Non fixed income NII increased by $59 million after tax, primarily due to strong private equity returns more than offsetting the fully anticipated $17 million after tax decrease in fixed income NII that was driven by the continued low interest rate environment. Consolidated net favorable prior year development was $81 million pretax, driven almost entirely by Business and International as compared to $180 million pretax in the prior year quarter. The quarter included the previously announced reserve increase of $62 million pretax that resulted from the Ogden rate change. Since this reserve increase primarily related to our public liability and commercial auto liability lines of business in the U.K., approximately two thirds of which are in runoff, any impact of this Ogden rate change on our future operating results is expected to be insignificant. Excluding the impact of Ogden, Business and International had net favorable reserve development of $133 million pretax, up from $93 million pretax in the prior year quarter and driven once again by better than expected loss experienced in Workers' Comp and General Liability. Bond & Specialty had net favorable development of $10 million pretax, while Personal Insurance had no prior year reserve development, which was an improvement from the unfavorable development we experienced in the two most recent quarters. On a combined stat Schedule P basis for all of our U.S. subs, all accident years across all product lines in the aggregate and all product lines across all accident years in the aggregate developed favorably or had de minimis unfavorable development this quarter. Operating cash flows of $775 million remain very strong and we ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of $2.1 billion, up from $1.7 billion at year end 2016 and higher than normal for us. This increase in holding company liquidity resulted from moving the excess capital that was generated by our highly profitable fourth quarter 2016 from our operating companies to the holding company, coupled with our decision to moderate share repurchases in first quarter 2017 to provide financing flexibility for our pending acquisition of Simply Business. As Alan said, there was no change in our capital management strategy. In the coming weeks, taking into account then current capital market conditions, we'll finalize our financing plans for Simply Business, which will likely include some combination of debt and internal resources. And once we've made that determination, we'll return remaining excess capital to our shareholders. All of our capital ratios were at or better than their target levels. Net unrealized investment gains were approximately $1.3 billion pretax or $0.8 billion after tax, up from $1.1 billion and $0.7 billion, respectively, at the beginning of the year, while book value per share of $84.51 and adjusted book value per share of $81.56 increased 2% and 1%, respectively, from the beginning of the year. We continue to generate much more capital than we need to support our businesses, allowing us to return $476 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter. We paid dividends of $190 million and repurchased $286 million of our common shares this quarter, including $225 million under our publicly announced share repurchase program, consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy and $61 million to partially offset shares issued under employee incentive plans, mostly to cover employee withholding taxes due upon the vesting and payout of performance and restricted stock awards. And as Alan said, the board raised our quarterly dividend from $0.67 to $0.72 per share and authorized an additional $5 billion in share repurchases. With that, let me turn the microphone over to Brian.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. Starting with this quarter's results in Business and International Insurance. Segment income was $468 million, with a combined ratio of 96.3%, a strong result even with the impacts of above-average catastrophe losses and the $51 million after tax related to the Ogden rate adjustment. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of cats and prior year reserve development, was 94.5%, up a little more than a point compared to the first quarter of 2016, due to normal quarterly variability in weather related and other loss activity, along with loss cost trends that modestly exceeded earned pricing. Net written premiums for the quarter of over $4 billion, a record level, were up 3% year-over-year. Domestic Business Insurance premiums were up 2.5 points, driven by strong production results in Select and Middle Market. International net written premiums were up 6%, due primarily to the timing of certain adjustments in the first quarter of both years. Turning to Domestic Production. Our focus continues to be on retaining our business. And accordingly, we were pleased that retention for the quarter of 85% remained at historically high levels. Renewal premium change came in at 2.8 points, up 0.5 point from the fourth quarter of 2016 and included positive renewal rate change of about 0.5. New business was $532 million, down from a very strong prior year quarter. Looking at the individual businesses. Beginning with Select, where we continue to make product and technology investments to drive growth. And we're pleased with the progress we're making as evidenced by this quarter's production statistics. Retention of 83% has remained at historically high levels for three consecutive quarters. Renewal premium change was over five points and new business premiums of $121 million was the highest level since the first quarter of 2012. In Middle Market, our results reflect a continued stable marketplace. Retention of 88% was at historically high levels, while renewal premium change was nearly three points and included about a point of renewal rate change. Our new business writings continued to reflect our underwriting standards and return objectives, and although down from last year, were in line with our expectations. The combination of strong retention, positive RPC and solid new business levels resulted in meaningful premium growth during the quarter. In Other Business Insurance, renewal premium change was up slightly compared to the fourth quarter of 2016 with renewal rate change that was flat. Retention came in at 79% and new business premiums were $121 million. In International, production was also very strong in the quarter. Retention improved to 84%, while renewal premium change was slightly positive and new business volumes are strong. So all in for the segment, it was a good start to 2017. I'll now turn to Bond & Specialty Insurance, where segment income for the quarter of $129 million was strong, though down somewhat from the prior year driven by a lower level of net favorable prior year reserve development, partially offset by the segment's portion of the tax item that Jay mentioned earlier. The underlying combined ratio of 81.1% was very strong and unchanged from the prior year. As to the top line, net written premiums for the quarter were up slightly for both Surety and Management Liability. In our Management Liability business, we continue to execute our strategy of retaining our best performing accounts, while writing new business in return adequate product segments. So we couldn't be more pleased that retention for the quarter again came in at historically high levels at 88%, while we continued to add a substantial level of new business. Renewal premium change of 4.4 points was up from recent quarters, reflecting a modest increase in average policy duration along with improvement in the rate component of RPC. Shifting from the financials, I'd like to comment on 2 things that we did in the quarter to advance our product offerings. First, we added to our expertise in Surety by bringing on board Family Business Institute, a specialist in strategic planning services for closely held construction businesses. We also entered into an agreement with Symantec Corp. to provide our cyber policy holders with leading cyber risk services. These actions will allow us to deliver additional value-added services to our customers, further enhancing our industry-leading product portfolio. So Bond & Specialty results remain terrific, and we continue to feel great about the segment's performance and our position in the market. Turning to Personal Insurance. Net written premiums for the segment grew 12% in the quarter, with a combined ratio of just under 100%. As you've already heard, there was a historically high level of tornado hail activity in the quarter. And as a result, catastrophe losses of 10 points were significantly higher than our expectations. Excluding the impact of cats, the underlying combined ratio of 89.5% was in line with our expectations. Weather aside, both Agency Auto and Agency Homeowners got off to a good start toward achieving the goals we laid out in the fourth quarter earnings call. The Agency Auto combined ratio for the quarter was 101.1%, and consistent with the segment, the cat component was larger than we would normally expect in the first quarter, with catastrophe losses accounting for 2.5 points. The underlying combined ratio came in at 98.6%. Excluding cats, first quarter auto loss experience was in line with our expectations. Compared to the first quarter of 2016, the underlying combined ratio is up 4.6 points. As you can see on Page 18 of the webcast, 3.2 points of the increase was due to the timing of the higher run rate of bodily injury losses that we recognized in the second half of 2016 and that Jay mentioned earlier. The remaining 1.5 points was primarily due to the additional impact of tenure, which resulted from the earning-in of the increased levels of new business that we wrote last year. As we explained a couple of quarters ago, while the higher level of new business is creating loss ratio pressure in the short term, we believe it is a good thing for the long-term economic value of the portfolio. As we mentioned last quarter, in response to the higher bodily injury loss levels, we're taking actions to improve profitability, and our primary response is to improve the pricing of the book. Renewal premium change ticked up in the quarter to 5.9%, reflecting some of the impact of rate changes that have been approved thus far. As additional rate filings are approved and impact policies at the renewal date, we expect RPC to increase sequentially each quarter, likely approaching double digits in the third quarter. The rate of TIF growth both sequentially and year-over-year, slowed modestly in the quarter. While within the quarter, the monthly rate of growth decelerated, reflecting our efforts to manage growth while profitability improves. As we said last quarter, it will take time for the actions we're implementing to fully earn into the portfolio, but the first quarter results are on track with our expectations. Turning to Agency Homeowners and Other, we believe the quarter's results once again reinforced the value of providing portfolio solutions. In a quarter when our combined ratio included 19 points of cat losses, more than double our expectation, we still posted a 96.7% combined ratio. The underlying combined of 77.6% was a little more than 1 point higher than the first quarter of 2016, due primarily to higher levels of non-cat weather. Importantly, net written premium and policies in force both grew at an accelerating rate in the quarter despite moderation in the growth rates for Auto. The 4% growth in net written premiums was the strongest result since 2011. We said in recent quarters that it was important for us to maintain focus on generating growth in our Homeowners book, and we feel good about the results so far in 2017. So for the segment as a whole, we're encouraged by our first quarter results. Before I turn it over to Gabby, I'd like to comment on a change in the reporting of our segment results going forward. Effective April 1, 2017, the company's results will be reported in 3 business segments
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. We're ready to start the Q&A portion of the call. [Operator Instructions]
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Amit Kumar with Macquarie. Please proceed.
Amit Kumar:
Two questions, the first question is, I guess, going back to the discussion on the Personal Auto book, you talked about the higher underlying loss ratio, which is not a surprise. I'm curious, how should we think about that loss ratio, either stabilizing at the current level or ticking up or down going forward based on the market environment.
Michael Klein:
This is Michael Klein. So in terms of the underlying, you see the 3.2 points on Page 18. When we talked about that last quarter, we talked about the fact that the full year impact of that in 2016 was about 3.5 points. The fact that 3.2 versus 3.5, there's some quarterly fluctuation in what that number will be quarter to quarter, but underlying coming into the year, we've got a 3.5 point gap that as we talked about last quarter we're working to close. The amount to which that starts to get reduced will, again, as we talked about, sort of earn in over 18 to 24 months as the rate comes through. So there's a couple of things going on there. There's the rate that we're taking that will eventually eat into that 3.5 points, but there's certainly an unfavorable year over year comparison for the first three quarters of this year because we don't have the full 3.5 points recognized till you get to the basis of the full year 2016.
Amit Kumar:
Okay. The other question I had and this is switching gears on I guess, the broader reserve releases and some other questions we've gotten from investors have obviously focused on the lower level of reserve releases. Bond & Specialty was higher in Q1 2016 due to the AOI experience back in 2016. I'm curious, was that sort of a one off benefit we got in Q1 2016? And hence, we should be careful how we think about reserve releases going forward. Or am I over thinking the meaningful decline in reserve releases this quarter?
Jay Benet:
Hi. This is Jay Benet. Let me start by saying what we always remind people of. That is, that every quarter, we're looking at, literally, all the reserves, doing lots of analysis and when there's an indication that the reserves needs to change, we make those changes. So we always try to get and always get our best estimate of what those reserves are on a quarter by quarter basis. We've seen things take place in all of the segments that in different quarters have led to mostly favorable development, although we did have a little unfavorable development in Personal Insurance last year. So I don't look at the reserves and try to predict anything in terms of patterns, in terms of intent, in terms of how things are going to emerge. I think of it more as episodic, and that we had large -- larger reserve development in Bond & Specialty last year versus a smaller amount this year. I just look at, that's just what the data said, and we'll see what the data brings in subsequent quarters.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of a Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please proceed.
Jay Gelb:
For Personal Auto, I was a little surprised at the persistent high level of policy in force growth at 12%, given the efforts to fix profitability there, can you give us a bit more insight on that?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Jay. This is Michael Klein. So the one thing I would point out about policy in force growth, particularly if you're looking at that 12% year on year number, is that's really a lagging indicator of growth. So think of the 12% as the 12 month weighted average of the growth we've seen over the last 12 months, right? It's this year's policy in force in the quarter relative to the first quarter of last year. So there's built into that 12% number, primarily is the growth we saw last year. That said, Brian mentioned growth decelerated within the quarter. So what you'll see as you look forward and what we expect is that annual policy in force growth number will come down, but it will come down relatively slowly, again, because of sort of the embedded volume already in the back half of 2016. To Brian's comments about growth decelerating in the quarter, we've seen and you can look at it in the production statistics, a bit of a drop in renewal retention in response to the rate. But also importantly, we're essentially where we expected to be. We continue to see win rates come down as we put rate into the marketplace. And then equally importantly, we talked about at bats last quarter, the efforts we've undertaken to take underwriting action and manage the flow of quote volume into the business have started to take hold, and so where it's actually seeing our quote activity and our win rates come down consistent with expectation and the growth continue to moderate.
Alan Schnitzer:
Jay, it's Alan. I would just emphasize what Michael said that we were generally able to achieve what we wanted to achieve, and we generally are where we expected to be. So a quarter past, what we talked to you about last quarter, so far so good.
Jay Gelb:
I appreciate that. And then my follow-up is on the buyback and how the Simply Business acquisition affected that. So in the Q, it says the Simply Business acquisition was total consideration of around $490 million. I thought an acquisition of that size might not have slowed the pace of buybacks in the quarter. And I'm just trying to think about what the implications are for buybacks going forward.
Jay Benet:
Yes. Jay, this is Jay. The way we manage capital, as you recall, we're preserving capital for organic growth in our business and for any kind of activity that would add to shareholder value over time. So what we looked at here was a relatively modest acquisition, given the size of Travelers. But it does impact the resource space that we have. So in this particular case, what we've decided to do in the first quarter was just hold back a little bit on share repurchases. We know we have an obligation that this thing will close later in the year. We never rely on capital markets being favorable or open or whatever. We take a very conservative look. So all we've done is held back some funds to be able to unequivocally close on the transaction. As we said before, as we get closer to finalizing our financing plans for it, which will be a combination of debt and some of the internal capital, we'll make a final determination as to what the capital level should be, and then return the remaining excess. So I wouldn't look into it as anything other than some cash planning on our part, and no change whatsoever in the whole capital management strategy in the place.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of a Sarah DeWitt with JPMorgan. Please proceed.
Sarah DeWitt:
Could you talk about what you're seeing in terms of loss trends in Business Insurance? Do you expect any upward pressure there? I know last quarter, you talked a little bit about how the propensity to litigate in Auto had spread to Small Commercial.
Alan Schnitzer:
Sarah, good morning. It's Alan. I would say, broadly speaking, we haven't seen any significant changes in loss trend in really any of our commercial businesses. And I think you mentioned propensity to litigate. That's not exactly right. What we've seen is a little bit of an increase in attorney representation. And that, actually, we're typically seeing it at smaller less complex cases. So not necessarily increased litigation, just a factor that takes longer to settle the cases and sometimes results in ordering more medical diagnostics, things like that. That's impacting severity. But that's actually not new. We've been seeing that manifest itself on our commercial businesses probably over a couple of years. But I would say, broadly speaking, Sarah, no real change in what's been a pretty favorable loss trend environment. Now in terms of the way we think about that and price and set reserves, we always assume things will return to longer-term normal, but I would say, maybe with the exception of Auto that's been persistently difficult, really no change.
Sarah DeWitt:
Okay, great. And then in Business Insurance, you've been taking modest renewal rate increases for the past 2 quarters, but you mentioned it's still below loss trends. What would need to happen for you to take rates to keep up with loss trends?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, first of all, we'd have to keep going. And I guess I'd step back, Sarah, and I would say that what we were able to do in the quarter reflects what we were trying to do in the quarter. It was very small, very thoughtful, very subtle shifts, and it's just a reflection of what we thought we needed to do, given what's happened to interest rates and where pricing has been relative to loss trends over a couple of years now. And so we were really encouraged by what we were able to accomplish, and we'll see where that goes in the future. I would point out that we've told you in Business Insurance broadly, loss trends about 4%. Rate would not need to get to 4% in order to be flat because, as we've said before, there's real economic impact from incremental exposure that we're getting. And there's other levers we can pull to improve profitability. And we've talked about those before, terms and conditions, mix, expenses, claims handling, other strategic investments. So all those things add up, Sarah.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed.
Kai Pan:
First question to follow up on the Personal Auto side. The 140-basis-point deterioration, it's, if you're excluding the reinstate, reestimates, that's assuming mostly coming from the new business drag or tenure impact. If your TIF growth is gradually slowing down, is that impact will drag on for a little bit longer?
Michael Klein:
Sure, Kai, this is Michael. Couple of comments and one, just to remind everybody, there is also seasonality in the overall underlying combined ratio in Personal Insurance. So the 98.6% for the first quarter is reflective of, generally speaking, a lower underlying loss ratio in the first quarter than for the balance of the year. So I just wanted to clarify that point. In terms of the 1.5 or so drag from tenure, you're right, that will mitigate over time. But remember that it's not just the new business we've just recently written. It's the cohorts of business we've written over the last couple of years, earning their way through the book. So as we've talked about in the past, the reduction in the tenure impact is something that we measure in years, not quarters. So it will take a while for that to roll off.
Kai Pan:
Okay, great. My follow-up question is on Simply Business. So Alan, I just wonder, could you explore a little bit about the strategic rationale behind it? And why do you do that in the U.K. rather than do that in the U.S.? And do you expect to expand that platform in the U.S. market, because you have a dominant, kind of like a leading position in Small Business Insurance here?
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure, Kai. Good morning. Thanks for the question. We've been thinking about everything changing in the world for a long time. And clearly, one of the things changing most significantly and maybe poised to have the biggest impact on us is the world becoming more digital and more mobile. And so every aspect of our business has to get more digital and more mobile. And so that's the way we engage with our customers, the way we engage with our agents. We've got to be there when and however they want. It's the way we manufacture our products and underwrite our risks. It's the way we market our products. It's the way we manage our internal operations. It's about creating a better experience really for all of our constituencies, internally and externally. We've got to be faster, we've got to be more efficient and we've got to be more flexible. So we look around the world, and we think how are we going to develop those capabilities? And we've got two choices
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of a Paul Newsome with Sandler O'Neill.
Paul Newsome:
I'm curious about the change in the International business. Could you -- in one sense, you said that the strategy isn't changing, but it sounds like there is some change going on there, either from a who's in charge kind of position or something else that would drive the segment change. Could you just give us a little bit more color on what actually is changing from a business perspective as opposed to a reporting perspective?
Alan Schnitzer:
It really is a way -- it's -- this is completely born out of the way that we plan to manage the business and really, it's the opportunity we think we have to leverage our terrific know-how and capabilities in the U.S. to deliver those capabilities outside of the U.S. It's really -- not that that's not significant, but it's nothing more significant than that. It's not a different approach the way we think about the opportunity outside the U.S., it's just a different approach to how we think we can best deliver our capabilities. And we've been on a journey for eight or so years now in trying to invest in and improve our international businesses. We've invested in technology, we've invested in talent, we've -- we're running a better railroad, and we've had a lot of success. And so the leadership that's brought us there will continue to be actively involved in managing those businesses as a portfolio. We'll have an ongoing obligation to manage those companies on a standalone basis, because we've got regulated entities in the various countries, and we'll continue to do that with the great leadership that has always done that. But we've got an opportunity with the talent and the capabilities in the U.S. to just do a better job of leveraging that outside of the U.S.
Jon Newsome:
But there's nobody is there an actually a change in who reports to who or anything like that in those segments?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, it's -- we've always had a matrix reporting structure, and we'll continue to have a matrix reporting structure of the international business and our the people that run the countries will continue to report to Kevin Smith, and he'll have responsibility for that. But beneath that organizational alignment, we'll look at Greg Toczydlowski for Business Insurance and Tom Kunkel for Bond & Specialty and Michael Klein for Personal Insurance, and they will, on a matrix basis, manage their product delivery outside the United States. It's not it's actually not that different than the way we've thought about it all along. It's just an opportunity to reinforce the engagement on a product level.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of a Randy Binner with FBR. Please proceed.
Randy Binner:
I had a follow up to Amit's question earlier. And the question is, how are actual severity trends developing relative to the assumption you made, call it, late last year? And if there's commentary on frequency as well, this is in Auto, of course. I'm just wondering, yes, I know that you are re-pricing against elevated trend, but anecdotally, we all observe, I think kind of continued challenges in auto accident frequency and severity. So the question is, how is the actual loss environment developing relative to that re-pricing assumption that started late last year?
Michael Klein:
Yes. So Randy, it's Michael. The actual development is consistent with the re-pricing assumptions, whether that's the 3.5 points of elevated bodily injury losses that are now in the underlying or whether it's the elevated level of loss trend that we talked to you about in the fourth quarter that we added to our pricing. So as we sit here today, the experience in the first quarter of 2017 developed consistent with those expectations. The only thing I just want to add a point back to the question from Kai, and I think it was implied in my answer, but the 1.5 of tenure impact that we're talking about year on year is year on year, and therefore, that's not the full amount of tenure impact, right? There's -- there was tenure impact in the base in 2016, the 1.5 point is an additional 1.5 point on top of that, just to clarify. But to your question, the experience thus far this year has been consistent with both the elevated starting point and the elevated trend that we factored into our expectations.
Randy Binner:
Okay, great. And then, I guess, the follow up there is understanding that and understanding the price that you're moving, you're putting into the market. Do you see Travelers as an auto insurance company that's going to gain market share because of the dislocation out there with some of the mutual's really having to push very high pricing? Or do you see yourself kind of in the middle or potentially losing market share as we see market share dislocation in U.S. auto insurance?
Michael Klein:
Sure. So just a couple of points. First of all, in 2016, we gained share ever so slightly, 0.1 point based on the growth that we experienced last year. Certainly, coming into this quarter, you see the TIF growth at 12%, you see the period to period TIF growth at 2%. We would view in the first quarter, our growth probably outpacing the market. That said, our objective is to improve profitability and manage growth. So our the glide path we're trying to move the business down is one to reduce the growth rate but continue to grow as we manage profitability. What that amounts to in terms of market share really depends on what happens with the other players in the marketplace. We would tell you that the pricing actions that we're putting into market, again, consistent with our view of the loss trends being environmental, we're not alone in terms of driving rate. But what that ultimately amounts to in terms of share, we'll have to wait and see.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Randy, we don't really manage to market share, we manage to returns, profitability, balancing that with growth, and market share will fall out of that.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.
Elyse Greenspan:
First question, I was hoping to get some additional color on your outlook for the Business Insurance pricing environment. In the Q, you guys point to the renewal premium change basically being consistent with the Q1 for the balance of the year. So I mean, how do you view kind of pricing compared to expectations or any changes in the U.S. economy when you came to that outlook for the RPC?
Alan Schnitzer:
So Elyse, RPC obviously includes rate and exposure. And so it's a broader measure, and there's obviously a corridor around the words "broadly consistent." And so we're probably not going to break that down into pure rate and exposure. Obviously, we thought we needed to get more pure rate in the first quarter. And as I said, we were encouraged, we were able to do that. I will say that the trends that lead us to do that, namely a lower interest rate environment and where rate has been for a while relative to loss trends, those trends still persist out there, and so we'll have to take that into account. And so we'll take it from there. Obviously, we operate in a competitive marketplace, and so that will be a factor. So we're encouraged and then we'll see where it goes.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay, thank you. And then just a couple of numbers question and going back to the Personal Auto book. If I look at your underlying loss ratio this Q1 compared to the adjusted last year, it seems like there's about 2.5 points of deterioration. You guys said year-over-year the delta was about 1.5 points that changed from tenure. So what else am I missing when I look at that calculation, since it's adjusted with the elevated trends last Q1? And a second-part question in terms of the auto margins, your expense ratio in the Personal Auto book came down in the fourth quarter, and then also with that, that kind of lower level this quarter. How do you think about the expense ratio for the Auto book when you think about your margin outlook for that business for the balance of 2017?
Michael Klein:
Yes. So Elyse, it's Michael, to your point I'll start with expense ratio. We continue to manage expenses on a pretty disciplined basis inside PI, and we're enjoying the benefit of the increased volume over relatively flat expense base. And that continues to be our plan going forward. In terms of the other components of loss ratio, it's really normal period-to-period fluctuation. There's nothing -- there's some puts and takes underneath that, but it's really normal period-to-period fluctuation has explained those other changes in the underlying.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of a Ryan Tunis with Credit Suisse. Please proceed.
Ryan Tunis:
I guess my first one was just a follow up on Alan's comments about -- in Domestic, the positive rate indication this quarter on 59% of the book versus 53% a year ago. And I guess, just thinking a little bit more granularly, what is leading to the upward rate indication? Is there pressure on certain accounts? Or is it, I think the point you made just several years of rate running below loss cost trend?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, good morning, Ryan. So we manage the business on a very granular level with a return objective in mind. And we had a bunch of years going back to 2010 or '11, where we had a rising rate environment and that put us in a very good position in terms of where our earned and written returns were. And since, I don't know, beginning of 2014 or so, we've been in an environment where rate's been below loss trend, and we've had low, continued low interest rate environment. I think the 10-year this morning was slightly over 2.2% or something like that. And so over time those things have an impact. And while today, we're satisfied with our [written] returns, we look out the windshield into the future and see where things are going, and it causes us to, again, very selectively, very thoughtfully in a way that we think makes sense, given our portfolio, our returns, working with our distribution partners in a way that's never intended to be disruptive to them or our customers. We try to improve the return outlook. And not everywhere, I made the point, in our Select business was in a different position from our return perspective. And we were happy to take the rate where it was, where it's been over recent quarters, and so it's just very granular execution with the return objective in mind.
Ryan Tunis:
That's helpful. And then, I guess, just following up on the line of questioning in Auto. I guess thinking about weather in Q1, it seemed like January, February, weather was somewhat benign. You had warmer temperatures. I'm wondering if, how you characterize the impact of weather on Auto in 1Q in the first quarter. I think the way to ask it is, how did frequency trend year-over-year?
Michael Klein:
Yes, again, I would say, broadly speaking, frequency and severity in the first quarter came in consistent with our expectation. I think, we talk about the impact of the weather, and we'll talk about warm temperatures, above freezing in cold months, can give you sometimes higher speeds and higher severity. Cold temperatures below freezing will give you ice and will give you more high frequency, low severity bumping into things. But you see those period-to-period fluctuations, and again, that's part of my point in the response to Elyse, is we got just normal period-to-period fluctuations, but we didn't see anything in the first quarter significantly different than our expectations.
Brian MacLean:
Well, and specifically, this is Brian. When you think of the first quarter cat activity, it's the tornado hail and specifically the hail that is driving the numbers. And that is usually the case. So especially in Auto, hail will bring about an immediate uptick. And that's what we saw in March, as Alan pointed out.
Ryan Tunis:
Got it. So maybe over March, weather normalized some. Okay.
Operator:
The next question comes from the line of a Larry Greenberg with Janney Montgomery Scott. Please proceed.
Lawrence Greenberg:
Just staying on Auto, are you seeing anything new in how you think about the long-term value of the business that you put on in the last couple of few years, probably undeniable that you'd, like to have repriced some of that a little bit earlier. But are you seeing anything new that would support or refute that this is business that you ultimately want and will be value enhancing over the long term?
Brian MacLean:
No, Larry, we're not. I mean, as we've talked about over the past several quarters, we're slicing and dicing it 18 ways to Sunday. But from a quality perspective, the quality of the business, the profile of the business is very consistent with what we targeted when we designed and developed and launched the Quantum Auto 2.0 product. Again, the profile of the business coming in doors is consistent with what we've been looking for. We continue to evaluate and examine that tenure impact and make sure that the business is tenuring consistent with our expectations. And so to your point from a long-term economic value perspective, it's tracking with our expectations. Again, we would have liked to have charged more for it, but that is really the primary conclusion. And that's why the strategy to improve the profitability is to go after it with base rate.
Alan Schnitzer:
And to the extent that we do keep it and improve profitability from an economic perspective, it'll be a good thing in terms of creating economic value.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of a Brian Meredith with UBS.
Brian Meredith:
A couple of quick questions here. First, Brian, Alan, can you talk a little bit about the competitive dynamics right now in the Workers' Compensation insurance area? The premiums are down a little bit the last couple of quarters. And are you seeing any impact in the marketplace from, perhaps a competitor having some issues?
Brian MacLean:
Yes. So thanks, Brian. And I always preface our comments with we feel great about our Workers' Comp capabilities. We clearly feel we're the industry leader. We've got, between our underwritten book and our service book, the largest portfolio in the industry. So we know the line well. We know the difficulty there can be with any long-tail line and more than any business we have, incredibly granular, industry-by-industry, state-by-state, account-size-by-account-size. So we look at that a lot. Yes, pricing is -- so directionally, there is definitely good news on the loss trend side, now it's a very long tail line of business. So short-term movements in loss trend get blended in as we look at long-tail loss trend. But loss trends have been positive, but pricing is reacting and probably overreacting to that in the marketplace. So we're looking at it very closely. There has been some disruption with carriers out there in the market, and we are looking at that business closely. It's still got to meet the economic hurdles that we have in the profitability, so to the extent that there are opportunities out there that we think we can write at appropriately prices, and we're excited about it. But we'll look into that closely.
Brian Meredith:
Okay. Great. And then, next question, I'm just curious in the Management Liability area. What are you seeing with loss trends there?
Alan Schnitzer:
Nothing significant. There's been a lot written about securities class actions being up and the numbers may be up. I would say as it relates to us, we've got a very diversified Management Liability book. We manage positions in the tower and limits very carefully. And the activity that we've seen that's been at elevated levels is in industries where we're under-weighted. It's been biotech, pharma, health care, and we're under-weighted there. I'd also add that as you look at that commentary out there that suggests that numbers of security class actions are up, sometimes the methodology in counting the cases distorts the numbers. You've got to look at cases that were previously brought in state court that are now being brought in federal court for reasons you'd have to ask a plaintiff's bar about, but you really have to look at the aggregate of those two numbers to see the trends in claim counts.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of a Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please proceed.
Jay Cohen:
Most of my questions have been answered. But just one question. When you look at the difference in the renewal rate change versus the renewal premium change, that difference is much bigger in Select than it is for the broader Commercial or Business Insurance segment. And I'm wondering why that is. Why is there a bigger difference in Select?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Hey, Jay, this is Greg Toczydlowski. In the Select business, just given the smaller nature of those policies, we have a certain segment of the business that we call Express business and the CMP or the BOP portion has some inflationary guards inside there. So that's automatically applied, typically to the property line, so underneath the CMP or the BOP product. So that's one of the drivers. The other one is around Workers' Comp. Workers' Comp, we continue to see the type of mix that we're writing, some wage increases and some increases in payroll. So the combination of the two has really given us that exposure lift that we're getting in that business.
Jay Cohen:
And Workers' Comp then is a bigger piece of the Select business than it is of the overall segments business?
Gregory Toczydlowski:
Is the question as a percentage of the overall premium? It's got a similar mix profile, if that's the question.
Operator:
Next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods.
Meyer Shields:
Very briefly, when you talk about reallocating the international business to the individual segments, can you talk broadly about what impact that would have on the reported underlying combined ratios?
Brian MacLean:
Just procedurally, one of the things we're in the process of doing is reconstituting the 10-K information as well as the supplement. So just in line with your question, we'll be providing this kind of data to you in advance of the webcast for the second quarter. We expect late in the second quarter to get the information out into the public. But I think when you look at the overall size of the various segments versus the size of the international operations, I think the impact on the combined ratios will generally be pretty modest.
Alan Schnitzer:
And just to state the obvious, when you look at the consolidated number for prior periods, there will be no change, right? It'll be modest reallocation among the segments, but relatively small impact.
Meyer Shields:
Right. No, that makes sense. And then, the Simply Business acquisition, where are we going to see those earnings in the segments and then in the income statement?
Jay Benet:
Simply Business, will be part we expect it to be part of the Business Insurance segment. So it'll be there, but we'll see how we'll present that. I mean, it'll be part of the segment, it'll be wrapped in. But again, and just in terms of the size of the Business Insurance segment, Simply Business will be a pretty small piece of that.
Gabriella Nawi:
Excellent. That concludes our call for today. Thank you very much for joining.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Have a great day.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - SVP of IR Alan Schnitzer - CEO Jay Benet - Vice Chairman and CFO Brian MacLean - President and COO Michael Klein - EVP and President, Personal Insurance Tom Kunkel - EVP and President, Bond & Specialty Insurance Greg Toczydlowski - EVP and President of Business Insurance
Analysts:
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill Larry Greenberg - Janney Montgomery Scott Meyer Shields - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Brian Meredith - UBS Jay Cohen - Bank of America, Merrill Lynch Amit Kumar - Macquarie Group Limited Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Elyse Greenspan - Wells Fargo Jay Gelb - Barclays
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks. At which time, you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on January 24, 2017. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our 2016 fourth quarter and full year results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation, released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our Web site at www.travelers.com, under the Investor section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chief Executive Officer; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; and Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks, and then we will take questions. In addition, other members of senior management are in the room, including Michael Klein, Executive Vice President and President, Personal Insurance; Tom Kunkel, Executive Vice President and President, Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Greg Toczydlowski, Executive Vice President and President of Business Insurance. Before I turn it over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The Company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties, and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement, and other materials that are available in the Investor section on our Web site, travelers.com. And now Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. This morning we’ve released solid underwriting and investment results with record net and operating earnings per share for the quarter. Operating income was $919 million, generating an operating return on equity of 16.4%. This brings our full year operating income to nearly $3 billion and operating return on equity to 13.3%. That’s in line with the 13.5% average annual operating ROE we’ve delivered over the last ten years. During the year, we grew adjusted book value per share by 7% after returning more than $3.2 billion of excess capital to our share holders. Overall, our underwriting results for the year were strong as evidenced by our consolidating combined ratio of 92%. Underwriting results in business and international insurance were solid, and once again, we posted impressive underwriting results in bond and specialty insurance. Despite the disappointing impact of higher than expected personal auto bodily injury losses. Our personal insurance combined ratio for the year was 95.1%, demonstrating the value of having a balanced homeowners and auto personalized business. In our commercial business, we continue to be successful in the execution of our marketplace strategies. That resulted in continued historically high levels of retention and positive renewal premium change in the quarter, all of which reflects stable environment. In our core middle market business peer renewal rates change improved by 4 points from the third quarter as we continue to execute at a very granular level to achieve our written return objectives. I shall hear from Brain in terms of new business, we continue to be quite active in terms of submission and quote activity, but also fall in terms of underwriting discipline. Turning to personal insurance, as you've seen, the results by line were mixed. Our homeowners business once again produced excellent results and grew net written premium for the first time since 2011. In our Auto business, we're clearly disappointed by the underwriting results. During the fourth quarter, bodily injury losses were higher than expected and they developed unfavorably for the first three accident quarters of 2016 and the back half of 2015. Our claim data, the public chatter we hear from others in the marketplace and other third party data, all calls us to continue to believe that our experience is principally environmental as opposed to specific to us or a Quantum Auto product. Whilst trends change in our business, and as I've said before, our objective is to recognize it and react to the data we have as quickly as possible. We're taking actions to improve the personal auto profitability, and Brain will address this in more detail. Before I pass the mic to Jay Benet, let me conclude with this. 2016 was another strong year adding to our long-term record of delivering superior results. We entered 2017 with a great deal of momentum, and we're well positioned for continued success. And with that, I'll turn it over to Jay Benet.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. As Alan mentioned, we were very pleased with our results this quarter; a record net and operating income per diluted share of $3.28 and $3.20 respectively; operating income of $919 million, up 4% from the prior year quarter; and operating ROE at 16.4%. These results were driven by the continued solid underwriting performance as evidenced by our consolidated combined ratio of 90%, which included the favorable impact of prior year reserve developments which I'll discuss shortly, as well as the unfavorable impacts and cat losses of the $137 million pretax related to Hurricane Matthew and the fires and Tennessee, and higher than expected auto BI losses in personal insurance. The quarter also benefitted from the settlement of a reinsurance dispute and higher after-tax net investment income, which, after increasing sequentially quarter-by-quarter this year, increased 12% this quarter over the prior year quarter, all due to higher non-fixed income returns. Fixed income NII of $405 million after-tax was down $17 million from the prior year quarter due to the continuing impact of the low interest rate environment. Looking forward, into 2017 and based on the current interest rate environment and the specific securities that are scheduled to mature in 2017, we expect approximately $15 million to $20 million of lower after tax NII on a quarterly basis in 2017 when compared to the corresponding periods of 2016. This is a $5 million per quarter improvement for what we communicated last quarter due to the recent rise in interest rates. And of course, if interest rates were to continue to rise from the current levels, this expected decrease in fixed income NII would be reduced even further. In contrast of the decrease in fixed income NII, non-fixed income NII of $96 million after-tax was up $71 million from the prior year quarter, driven by significantly higher private equity returns. We continue to experience net favorable prior year reserve development on a consolidated basis, which totaled $264 million pretax this quarter, down a bit from the $292 million pretax in the prior year quarter. In business and international, net favorable development of $234 million pretax was driven by better than expected loss experienced in workers' comp and general liability. While in bond in special take, net favorable development of $75 million pretty tax resulted from better than expected loss experienced and fidelity and surety and general liability. Reserve development was unfavorable this quarter, and personal insurance $45 million pretax, driven by higher than expected auto BI injury losses related to the later part of the 2015 accident year. This corresponds with the increase in auto BI loss estimates that we made for the current accident year, which Brian will be discussing. In total, for the full year, we have consolidated net favorable reserve development of $771 million pretax with approximately $665 million coming from our U.S. operations and $106 million coming from international. As I’ve done in the past, I’m also providing you with some inside into what our combined 2016 Schedule P is expected to show when we file it on May 01. On a combined stat basis for all of our U.S. subs, all accident years across all product lines, in the aggregate, would have developed favorably. On a Schedule P product line basis, all of our commercial products will show favorable developments or very modest amounts of unfavorable development. For personal insurance, homeowners will show a modest amount of unfavorable development, primarily resulting from the higher than expected loss experience, that I discussed in the third quarter webcast related to a small number of liability claims from accident years 2013 and 2014, and private passenger auto liability will show the unfavorable development that I just referred to. There are two topics I would like to cover relating to reinsurance. First, we’re very pleased this quarter to have settled with one of our reinsurers in the USF&G versus AMRI at Elcase [ph], a reinsurance dispute that’s been pending for many years. As result of the settlement, we recognize a $126 million pretax, or $82 million after-tax gain, in our fourth quarter earnings. I refer you to the Form 10-K that we filed on November 8th for more information related to this settlement. Second, as shown on page 21 of the webcast, effective January 01, we renewed our corporate cat aggregate XOL treaty that provides coverage for both single cat events and an accumulation of losses from multiple cat events with similar terms as in the prior year and at a slightly lower cost. The treaty continues to provide $1.5 billion of coverage part of $2 billion in excess of $3 billion after $100 million deductible per occurrence. It keeps the same broad peril and geographic coverage and the same positioning of the coverage layer, providing a significant buffer between earnings and capital, the treaty has a single limit with no reinstatement provisions. And please note that the total costs of this treaty and therefore the reduction in costs are quite small in relation to our operating income. Operating cash flows were very strong this quarter, $1.14 billion, including the proceeds from the settlement of the reinsurance dispute I just mentioned, and after making $200 million discretionary contribution to our now fully funded U.S. qualified pension plan, bringing total operating cash flows for the year to over $4.2 billion. We continue to generate much more capital than is needed to support our businesses, and consistent with our on-going capital management strategy, we returned $942 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter with dividends of $191 million and common share repurchases of $151 million. For the full year, we returned over $3.2 billion of excess capital to shareholders through dividends of $762 million and common share repurchases of over $2.4 billion. Holding company liquidity ended the year at $1.68 billion, well above our target level. And our debt to total capital ratio, excluding the impact of net unrealized investment gains, ended the year at 22.3%, well within its target range. Net unrealized investment gains were $1.1 billion pretax, or $0.7 billion after-tax, down from almost $2 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, at the beginning of the due to the recent run-up in interest rates and spreads. As you may recall, we generally as a buy and hold approach with fixed income investing, so any change in unrealized that relates to a change in the general level of interest rates is something we do not pay much attention to. Cash flows from the portfolio are what matter to us. Book value per share of $83.05 grew 4% from the beginning of the year. And importantly, adjusted book value per share of $80.44, which eliminates the after-tax impact of net unrealized investment gains, grew by 7% this year. With that, let me give the microphone over to Brain.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. I’ll start with business and international insurance, where we are pleased with our full year financial and production results. We continue to generate excellent returns, achieving a combined ratio of 94.3%. Retention for our domestic businesses remained at historically high levels. And we successfully achieved positive rate change with renewal premium increases of over 2%. As Alan mentioned, retention for the industry remains very strong, reflecting a stable marketplace. And in that light, we were quite pleased that we were able to generate nearly $2 billion of new business premiums, up slightly from 2015. Looking at the quarters financial results, operating income of $722 million was higher than the prior year quarter by $156 million with a very strong combined ratio of 89%. Operating income included the $82 million after-tax gain related to the settlement of a reinsurance dispute that Jay mentioned earlier. This gain was in other income, and accordingly, do not benefit the combined ratio. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of cats and prior year reserve development, was 93.1. The underlying loss ratio was 1.4 points lower than the prior year due to lower large losses and non-catastrophe weather related losses, partially offset by a modest amount of margin compression. Turning to production, given the returns that we are generating in the segment, our focus continues to be on retention. And we are very pleased that retention for our domestic business remained at 85% for the quarter. Renewal premium change of two and half points included renewal rate change of seven tenths of point, which was higher than recent quarters, while new business came in at $439 million for the quarter. Turning to the individual businesses, in select, retention continued its improving trend and came in at a strong 83%. Renewal premium change was nearly 6 points, and we generated new business premiums of $92 million, up 7% versus the prior year. In middle market, retention of 87% remained at a historically high level, while renewal premium change was over 2 points, including 1.4 points of renewal change, or 4 point higher than the third quarter. New business activity, as measured in submissions and quotes, has been up for the year and in the quarter remained consistent with the prior year. However, as 2016 progressed, fewer of these opportunities met our underwriting standards and/or return objectives, and accordingly, new business premiums of $226 million in the quarter, were down 9% year-over-year. In other business insurance, renewal premium change was down slightly with a relatively flat rate environment compared to the third quarter of 2016. While retention remained strong at 80% and new business premiums up $121 million. New business volumes for other business insurance were impacted by the same market dynamics, I discussed the middle market. In international, production results were very strong in the quarter. Retention remained at 82%, while renewal premium change of over 2 points was higher than recent quarters with the biggest single driver of the increase being Lloyds, which due to the transactional nature of that market, is subject to variability. New business volume of $91 million was up 14% year-over-year driven by Lloyds, including the results of our new global construction and renewable energy groups. So all-in for the segment, it was a very good quarter, capping off the year with strong production and profitability. Before turning to bond and specialty, I want to comment on our outlook for operating margins, which we include in our quarterly filings. Since our 10-K won’t be filed for a few weeks, I would note that we expect underlying underwriting margins and the underlying combined ratio during 2017 will be broadly consistent with those in 2016. This is subject to the usual caveats and forward looking statement disclaimers. I’ll turn to bond and specialty insurance, which continues to perform exceptionally well. Operating income for the quarter of $161 million remained strong and was in line with the prior year’s quarter; as in improved underlying underwriting margin was offset by slightly lower level of net favorable prior year reserve development; the underlying combined ratio of 79.7 for both the quarter and year with the full year result being an all-time best for the segment. On top line, net written premiums for the quarter were consistent with the prior year for both surety and management liability. In our management liability business, we continue to execute our strategy of retaining our best performing accounts while writing new business in return adequate product segments. And so, we couldn’t be more pleased that retention for the quarter was a record 88%, while we added $41 million of new business. Renewal premium change of 2.3 points down about a point from recent quarters, reflecting the mix change impacting average policy duration. The other components of renewal premium change that drive profitability were essentially unchanged. So bond and specialty results remained terrific and we continue to feel great about the segment’s performance and execution in the market. In terms of outlook as with business insurance, for 2017, we expect both the underlying underwriting margin and underlying combined ratio will be broadly consistent with 2016. Turing to personal insurance, net return premiums for the segment grew 12% in the quarter with a combined ratio of 98.2 and an underlying combined ratio of 93.2. For the full year, net written premiums grew 10% with a combined ratio of 95.1 and an underlying combined ratio of 90.1. So, overall, strong results for the segment, but results by line were mixed. In auto, as Alan mentioned, we booked further upward revisions in our loss estimates for 2016 and for the second half of 2015. The auto combined ratio for the quarter was 116.7 and include both the full year impact of the bodily injury related adjustments that I just mentioned, and seasonably higher fourth quarter loss levels. So instead of taking you to a detailed reconciliation of the quarter, it would be more productive to focus on the full year ratios. For the full year combined ratio, we had a 104.0 and the underlying combined ratio was 101.8. These were both higher than we expected and at a level that does not meet our target returns. For full year 2016 underwriting combined ratio included about 2 points from the 10-year effect that we discussed last quarter. As we said then, when you are growing your book of business, the higher levels of new business will temporarily increase the combined ratio and the impact of 10 year in the year was as we expected. In addition to the impact of 10-year, the full year of 2016 underlying combined ratio was elevated by 3.5 points due to the recognition of the increased bodily injury liability losses. This result represents a gap that we are working to close. You will recall that we reacted to signs of adverse bodily injury loss development with a reserve adjustment in the third quarter. Unfortunately, since then, we saw a further development in excess of even those increased expectations, which drove our actions this quarter. The deterioration is primarily driven by an increase in the trend towards more severe accidents. Some of the factors that lead us to this observation are a higher percentage of claims involving distracted driving, more accidents involving higher speeds and more accidents on highways and at intersections. This is also consistent with recent industry data. For example, the National Safety Council report of significantly higher traffic cyclicalities in 2015 and 2016, a two year trend that we haven’t seen in decades. In response to these developments, we are taking action in the marketplace. Our primary response is to file for increased base rate. And in November and December of 2016, rate increases were implemented in 16 states, which cover about 60% of our quote volume. More rate changes at higher aggregate levels are planned for 2017 along with other ongoing actions to refine and optimize our underwriting process. The combined impact of these actions should be to both reduce the rate of growth and improve profitability. While it will take 18 to 24 months for the actions we’re implementing to fully earn into the portfolio, we do expect that the auto combined ratio will improve in 2017. Turning to homeowners and other, our results for the quarter and the full year remains strong, and reinforce the value of a portfolio underwriter. The underlying combined ratio of 70.4 for the quarter and 75.7 for the year, demonstrate consistent performance relative to 2015. In terms of top line 2016 saw growth in net written premiums of 2%, and we look to continue the momentum in 2017. So, as I said, mixed results by line in the segment with challenges in auto mitigated by strong results in home, resulting in a segment combined ratio of 95:1 for the full year. We are fully aware that our recent auto results need to improve. Pricing and underwriting actions we’re implementing should put us on track to deliver a more profitable portfolio in the years ahead. Finally, as it relates to our outlook for personal insurance, we expect underlying underwriting margins during 2017 will be slightly higher than in 2016, and the underlying combined ratio during 2017 will be broadly consistent with 2016. In agency automobile, we expect underlying underwriting margins and the underlying combined ratio will improve in 2017 compared to 2016. In agency homeowners and other, we expect that underlying underwriting margins will be slightly lower, and the underlying combined ratio will be slightly higher in 2017 than in 2016, reflecting higher and more normalized levels of loss activity. With that, let me turn it back to Gabby.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. We're now ready to start the Q&A portion. Before we start, if I could just ask you to limit yourself to one question and one follow up. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you [Operator Instructions]. And our first question comes from the line of Michael Nannizzi with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Nannizzi:
Brian may be a little bit on auto. If you could just give us some indication of how we should be thinking about the starting points for ’17, and given the adjustments you made through the year. When should we start to see the rate increases flow through? And should we expect the starting point to be closer to the develop loss ratio picks you have said now for ‘16?
Michael Klein:
Michael, this is Michael Klein from Personal Insurance. I’ll take a crack at that. So, I think you will see the rate increases start to flow through in the first quarter. As Brian said, we began making rate filings in the fourth quarter, really in response to what we saw in the third quarter. Rate filings that we’re now making as we looked ahead to the first half of the year reflects the increased loss of content that we saw in the fourth quarter. Importantly, you don’t see a lot of the fourth quarter rate filing activity in the production statistics, just because of the timing of those rate increases. They went in November and December, largely impacted renewals not until December. And so, it’s really a timing issue in terms of not seeing and show-up in the fourth quarter of this year. But we would expect that you will see the rate momentum start to build in the first quarter of 2017, and continue from there. In terms of the starting point for 2017, I would say two things; first of all, as Brian mentioned that 3.5 points that you see on the webcast slide. He mentioned that represents a gap that we’re looking to close. And so in other words that 3.5 points is built into our base-line expectations as we start 2017. And then we’re taking trend and forecasting in actual word from that point. So, the starting point does include that 3.5 points of additional losses and the gap that we’re looking to close.
Brian MacLean:
Michael, just let one -- this is Brian. I would also just emphasize, obviously, thinking through the written versus earned dynamic with the rate. And as we obviously get it on a written basis, it has to earn-in overtime; hence, my comment of 18 to 24 months to work-through the 3.5 points.
Michael Nannizzi:
And then when you think about the -- and most of your policies are 50-50 annual versus six month policies. Is that right, or somewhere in that range?
Michael Klein:
It’s a little bit more tilted towards the annual. So, it's about 60-40 annual versus six months.
Michael Nannizzi:
And then Brian when you mentioned the margin outlook for ’17 versus ’16.does that contemplate that whatever trend you’re seeing is sort of the need-year, and that we’re not going to see more deterioration? Or does that contemplate that you’re going to see that, the loss trend continue to increase, at may be some pace not at same levels we’ve seen, or if you give some context there, thanks.
Brian MacLean:
I think, as Michael just said, the 3.5 elevation is built into our expectation. Above that, we're expecting normal 3.5% loss trend, which includes more normal inflation of severity. But we don’t expect another spike. Michael?
Michael Klein:
I would say that just to clarify, so Brain mentioned the 3.5 loss trend. That is an elevated loss trend relative to where we've been. So the forecast, importantly, I think, it's important to take away that and includes both the increased base-line and a higher trend estimate going forward than we had in the past. It's modestly higher but it is a bit of an increase at front.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Kai Pan:
First question is just on the deterioration of fourth quarter. What exactly, sort of like if you are looking back in third quarter, what exactly sort of like accelerate in terms of loss cost trend from the third quarter? And just want to get the confidence that over that what you book in the fourth quarter. Do you think that's -- and it probably not be much matured like a deterioration from that levels?
Brian MacLean:
Yes. So the first thing I would say, Kai, it's all the normal stuff. Now, we're talking about very recent accident periods for a very long tail-line of business, so just as a perspective. At the end of 2016, we have paid less than 15% of what we believe the ultimate losses will be for auto bodily injuries. So, it's by nature a long tail-line of business, so it takes a while to play-out. We’re looking at all of the activity that we see, both in frequency and severity of loss, cut every which way you can think of, and looking at frequency activity, incurred losses, the paid losses. And importantly, we're also, as we went into 2016, we're looking at that coming loss of 2013, ’14 and early ‘2015 where we actually had slightly favorable development in the ’13 and ‘14 years, and consistent experience in the early part of the ’15 year. So we're looking at the history that we have coming into the year. As we went into ’16, we started to see a little bit of movement in the fourth quarter ’15 and early ’16, but still within our range of expectations. We got to the third quarter, and those periods, again fourth quarter ‘15, first two quarters of ’16, started to elevate above the expectations. Hence, we took the activity and the actions that we did last quarter. And this quarter, as we look at all of those periods. Again, now we’re looking at the end of ’15, early first three quarters of ’16, and obviously, now another quarter of data. We saw a continuation in that trend that was accelerating. And we took what we think was the appropriate management’s best estimate, given all of those factors. And we feel good about it but there’re certainly no guarantees that we can see what's going to happen next quarter. I mean, Michael, if you want to?
Michael Klein:
Yes, I think, that's exactly right. I think it's a combination of additional development on the periods that we saw before, and an additional quarter’s worth of data that again reflects the fact that that adverse development continues through the end of the year. And we've made our best estimate based on the information Brain just described.
Kai Pan:
My full-up on auto side again is that, if you look at this growth 13% year-over-year is actually accelerated from the last few quarters. As you increase price, do you think that one coming down? And do you think that 2 points of these are new business penalty impact will be smaller in 2017?
Michael Klein:
Thanks Kai, this is Michael. I would say a couple of things, and let me give you a little bit of the moving part underneath this growth in the fourth quarter. We do expect, as we put rate into the marketplace and put additional rate into the marketplace, that our win rates will decline. So on the business that we quote, do we convert it? We’ve actually seen, in 16 states that Brian mentioned, our win rates have come down as we put that rate into the marketplace. So, think of that as our batting average, our batting average is dropping as we put rate into the marketplace. The reason this growth is up in the fourth quarter is actually largely driven by the fact that we ended up with more as fast than we expected in the quarter, so quote growth is actually elevated. So we’ve got more played appearances, if you will, but the batting average, the win rate, has actually come down in response to the rate. Again, we think some of that is timing, some of that, as we mentioned in the last quarter, the ultimate impact of the actions we take depend somewhat on the fact that we’re in a competitive environment, and the impact on growth and a little bit on what happens in the marketplace. So our perception of what happened in the fourth quarter is we took rates so did the market. The rate impacted our batting average, but the rate also drove business into the market, which drove that quote growth. So the PIF growth is really a quote growth story, not a conversation rate story. In terms of your question about expectations, as we looked ahead, our actions are focused on two things; improving profitability and managing growth. And we expect, that’s why I give you a little bit of analog for 2017 rate looking ahead into the first quarter, we would expect rate will rise and growth will drop as we look into first quarter. What ultimately happens will depend on how those actions play out in the marketplace.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome with Sandler O'Neill. Please proceed with your question.
Paul Newsome:
I wanted to switch the question onto the commercial business a little bit. And I was wondering if you could give just a little bit more color on the pricing environment in the domestic insurance business. And it's a little bit tough to read the tealeaves. But is it better or is it worse? Is there really any change from a competitive perspective in that business?
Brian MacLean:
Paul, this is Brian. I will start, I’m sure there will be follow ups to this. But broadly speaking, we feel good about the trends that we see. When you look across the data on the renewal book, we continue to see some, albeit modest, but pretty consistent improvement in what we’re seeing. And we’re encouraged by that. We think that might be somewhat reflection of the market. But fundamentally, I think it’s a reflection of our execution. Our strategy on our portfolio remains incredibly consistent, and that is to look at in on a very granular or account-by-account or class-by-class basis. And simplistically, for the really well performing business, keep it at the best price that we can keep it at and the appropriate price, and then work hard at improving the rest of the portfolio. And when we look at that granular level, we feel really good about the momentum and also feel good about the aggregate statistics. So directionally we feel positive.
Alan Schnitzer:
Paul, it's Alan. I would add to that that it's not just a market dynamic, it's in our execution dynamic. It's a very granular, as Brain said, account-by-account class-by-class. And I think in some respects and importantly it's the franchisee value we bring to the marketplace. So we look at an account and we figure out what we need to do to achieve the written objectives that we have. And I would say probably speaking we've been speaking.
Paul Newsome:
How closely does the commercial auto business, or has the commercial auto business, track the results of the private passenger auto?
Alan Schnitzer:
Paul, I'd say that we see a lot of the same trends in the businesses. There are different businesses. They have different starting points. The coverages aren’t exactly the same; for example, on the personal line side, you've got uninsured and under insured motors, that's not such a factor on the commercial side. So I would say, broadly speaking, the trends are consistent. We see consistency across them. But the results don’t actually come out the same for a whole host of reasons.
Paul Newsome:
So we haven’t seen the severity issue even at a level in the…
Alan Schnitzer:
No, I wouldn’t think we haven’t seen it. We have seen. It has impacted recent years. We see a lot of the same trends. But on the auto side, it's largely private passenger. On the commercial side, you've got a lot of trucking. So you've got different dynamics there. Also it just manifests itself differently. And on the commercial side, I mean on the personal line side, auto was obviously a bigger contributor to the segment more in terms of volume, so it just manifests itself more prominently. On the BI side, obviously, commercial auto is a smaller piece of whole, so it manifests itself differently. So we do see very consistent trends across books.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg with Janney Montgomery Scott. Please proceed with your question.
Larry Greenberg:
So, I want to go back to the auto. And I appreciate that you think it's mostly environmental on top of the 10 year issue. But I guess I just want to challenge you a bit on it. And just question, whether you think it's fair to say that maybe you picked up on some of these environmental factors later than some of the others did. And if you agree with that, why do you think that's the case? And I kind of say this in the context of, when you were growing rapidly in auto and before you picked on the BI trends, I know you talked about being keenly focused on what was driving that growth. So I'm just curious on your thoughts on all that.
Brian MacLean:
Larry, this is Brain. And I'll start with, there’s a lot in your question. And we do believe it's a fundamentally environmental issue. We would never say it is definitively exclusively an environmental issue. As I think I said last quarter as I'm sure I said last quarter, Quantum 2 is a relatively new product that we’re working now. And accordingly we are very atoned to looking at how it is performing and always looking to improve it. I would not agree with your statement that we are late to seeing the fundamental trend of what's going on in bodily injury severity. And without doing a long history, you can go back 2011, 2012, 2013, we were talking about this a lot, distractive driving and speeds are not brand new things, and we were talking about it then. We got to ’13 and talked about a elevated level of bodily injury, and we were hoping that that would remain pretty constant. And we went through about two year period, 2013, 2014 into 2015, where we saw very constant, again elevated levels but constant with our expectations, of what we were getting in bodily injury. In fact, 2014 has developed favorably and we continue to see that. And what we are talking about now is another increase in that trend. And we’re talking about very, very recent accident periods, and looking at the data and responding, I think pretty quickly. And so I think there is a bunch of things. Further on the comment of, you’re sure it’s not Quantum 2. We’re sure it’s not exclusively Quantum 2, because when we look across our business the same fundamental trends are in the legacy book of business, are in the Quantum 1 book of business, are in the Quantum 2 book of business, are in the business insurance business. It’s in industry data. It’s without the carriers. So it’s not exclusively a Quantum issue. With that said, we are very granularly looking at how that product is performing, state-by-state sell-by-sell and reacting. So, I know that, and that’s this probably sounding way more defensive than I should, but it…
Alan Schnitzer:
The one thing I would add to that, Larry its Alan. The profile of the business that we’re attracting, we actually like it. We look at the profile of all the business coming in, and if we didn’t like that profile, we would have the defending answers for you. But fundamentally, we like it. We just like it at a higher base rate.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Please proceed with your question.
Meyer Shields:
One, I guess, question on the actual quarter. There was a slowdown in exposure unit growth within the middle market. I was hoping you could talk to that a little bit?
Brian MacLean:
There is nothing fundamental in terms of trends changing there. There is always going to be some normal volatility from quarter-to-quarter and things that drive the exposure. But there is really nothing fundamental that we would identify as a trend.
Meyer Shields:
So not related to the improving renewal rate changes?
Brian MacLean:
No.
Meyer Shields:
And then more broadly speaking, when you look at the targeted after tax returns, would a change in tax rate change what you’re targeting?
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s an interesting question. And I guess instead of answering that specific question, let me just back-up because my guess is there is a lot of questions on the call in terms of change administration, macro environment, how it’s going to change, a lot of different things. And so maybe I’ll just back-up. We are very return focused in the way we think about this business. It is the lens which we evaluate just about every decision that we make. And so, we calibrate our return expectation to our cost of capital. And so there are couples of things going on that could impact cost and capital. For example, if the risk free rate goes up, cost of equity goes up. If the tax rate goes down then our after-tax cost of borrowing theoretically goes up. There could be other things in a change in tax policy. But if you just started with those two simple assumptions, you would look at that and say, gee, if the risk free rate goes up and if the tax rate goes down, you would speculate that our overall cost of capital would go up. If our overall cost of capital went up then our return objectives would go up with it.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Please proceed with your question.
Brian Meredith:
Couple of questions here, just first on the personal lines, do you think that the rate actions you are taking on auto insurance will have an impact on homeowners growth here going forward?
Michael Klein:
I think that's possible. We've certainly talked about the fact that our auto growth has -- one of the benefits of our auto growth has been growth in home. That said, we’re doing what we can to mitigate that impact. And we've got specific actions we're taken from an agency management and a distribution standpoint and in another areas to try to make sure that any impacts from the rate actions in auto don’t have any impact on our ability to grow home. We’re trying to continue the momentum that we have in the home line into 2017.
Alan Schnitzer:
In other words, they definitely co-relate. But we think -- we’re hopeful there are things we can do to offset that and try to lever up the home growth.
Brian Meredith:
And then the second question here. On the domestic business insurance, we've seen your rate activity modestly increase the last several quarters. Is that a trend we should continue? And are you getting to a point now where you’re saying all right, can't let the underlying loss ratio deteriorate anymore on an underwriting year basis?
Alan Schnitzer:
I know this won't be totally satisfying, but I think we need to go back to the answer we gave, which is we look at the accounts that are up for renewal every quarter and we try to figure out what we need to do to achieve our written objectives. And it's every single one of those transactions, or every portfolio on the flow stuff, really evaluated one at the time that rises up to that number. So, we don’t think with a broad brush. We don’t go out to the market and say get 1.4 points of rate in middle market. We say this is our overall return objective, and go out and execute one account or class at a time to get there. And we will when we get to the 10-K give you an outlook on RPC. So we haven’t showed that yet, it will be in the 10-K when it comes out. But we never forecast on uniquely on peer rates.
Brian Meredith:
But you are forecasting for a flat underlying combined ratio for the next year. And then if I remember correctly that was part of it. But yes, there is going to be better non-cap with at least normalization and then deterioration from rate below trend, right?
Alan Schnitzer:
So the margin compression that we've had this quarter and the last few quarters has been relatively modest. And this quarter and in past quarters, it's been within other things that cause volatility in the period-over-period comparison. Most notably, this quarter and probably recent quarters weather and large losses. So, when we give you that outlook and yes we did say broadly consistent, we're certainly not measuring to the basis points, but probably consistent within a relatively narrow range. That takes into account lots of things rate, loss trend, mix, claims handling initiatives, other strategic objectives. So it really is an all-in assessment and we try not to focus too narrowly on that narrow rate loss trend. You’ve got exposure in there too, contributing to margin. So, it really is a [technical difficulty] when it comes to our outlook on margin.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Cohen with Bank of America, Merrill Lynch. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Cohen:
One more question, I guess, about the new administration. Obviously, something that’s being talked about relative to taxes is a board or adjustment tax. I’m wondering if you could share your thoughts on how that may affect your purchase of reinsurance from non-U.S. companies.
Alan Schnitzer:
Jay, good mornings, it’s Alan let me start. It’s really hard to answer that question without knowing what the board or adjustments going to look like. And we’ve all read it depends on whether it’s characterized as an export or an import and whether the dialogs or defaults to the new bill, and we’ll see where that comes out. I think broadly speaking, as it relates to us in reinsurance, I think, our answer would be, we’re by enlarge a gross line underwriter. We like our underwriting. We like to keep it. And we buy reinsurance in pretty modest amounts. And so, if there were tax adjustments that change the cost of reinsurance, obviously, we could look for alternative providers of reinsurance. We could buy a little bit less, buy a little bit more. But it would come down to evaluating the individual transaction. But I think the broader point for us is reinsurance is just isn’t that big deal for us.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar with Macquarie. Please proceed with your question.
Amit Kumar:
Two quick follow up on personal auto, the first question I have is. If I go back and look at the rates that were put in place for 2016, I guess, average rate filling for in the range of, let's say 3% or so. So, when you talk about the rate filings in November, December and going forward, how should we think about that number compared to the historical 3% average number?
Alan Schnitzer:
I would say it’s a pretty broad range. It depends on the state, and even there, it depends on two things; one, our experience in that state; and the rate need, but also recent rate fillings in that state right, because there is a cumulative nature to it. But certainly, it’s getting bigger than what you’d seen earlier in 2016. And we expect more the same during 2017 to try to close that gap of 3.5 points.
Amit Kumar:
Okay, so probably more than that. Is that a fair way to look at it?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, definitely.
Amit Kumar:
The second question and the final question I have is, you talked about 60% of your book, 16 states. You said more filings for in the pipeline. Is that immediate? Is that like a Jan-Feb thing, or is that more spread out versus the actions taken in the past?
Michael Klein :
Amit, this is Michael. I would just to clarify the comment. So the comment was 60% of our quote volume. So, again think of that as that’s a new business statistics, right. So, the 16 states that we filed-in so far, those represent roughly 60% of our new business quote volumes; not exactly the same as 60% of the book, just a point of clarification. I would say the majority of the rest of the states have rate filings plan for the first quarter. And so broadly speaking, we will have made rate filings in the majority of the states where we have the auto product by the end of the first quarter. We also have additional rate actions planned for later in the year. And that obviously is all subject to regulatory approval and regulatory constraints to the timing and the amount. But I would say the first round ought to be in market by late in the first quarter, and then we've got follow-up actions on the drawing board as we look into the remainder of 2017.
Amit Kumar:
I think that's very helpful. Thanks for the answers and good luck for the future.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Credit Suisse. Please proceed with your question.
Ryan Tunis:
My first question, I guess, just for Brain, and it's on the new business penalty. It doesn’t sound like the thinking has really changed on the impact to the new business penalty. I guess, even though the environments revealed it-self to be a bit more of an issue maybe than we thought a couple of quarters ago. Just what gives you confidence, I guess, to continue to compartmentalize the BI severity versus the new business drag, especially when you think about the fact that a pretty good size of the book is new business? And I guess along those lines, if there so is a big 10 year impact, why wouldn’t we assume that a lot of that strain alleviate itself in 2017 with the growth pull-back?
Brian MacLean:
Yes, so a couple of things. So I think of the 10 year impact as being discreet from the bodily injury trend. And so the 10 year impact is just the math of the maturing of the book of business. And in fact where it goes in 2017 is a function somewhat of what growth rates do. It will likely increase in 2017 slightly, as the growth that we've seen in the back half of 2016 earns through the business. But I think of the 10 year impact is more of just the arithmetic of. I don’t think of it is a new business penalty as in a BI where you’re pricing differently.
Michael Klein:
Yes, I think, and again I think it's, this is Michael. I would say just to reinforce what Brain said. When we talk about the 10 year effect, what we’re really trying to do is just isolate the impact on the loss ratio from the relative age of the business, if you will, right. How tenured it is? What renewal it is at? And as Brain said, it's essentially a mathematical exercise that estimate what that component is or was. And then the rest of it, the environmental turn that we talked about the 3.5 points that's in the full year loss ratio, is absolutely the gap that we’re actively working to close. What we do in the meantime is we monitor the performance of the tenuring and try to isolate that, and make sure that that is developing as we expected. And that analysis has remained relatively consistent, and is why we continue to have that same 2% estimate a quarter later.
Ryan Tunis:
And then a couple of quick ones for Jay Benet, first on the workers comps and general liability, just curious the accident years and those reserve releases. And also just getting color on how new money yields have changed, I guess, today versus the end of the third quarter? Thanks.
Jay Benet:
As it relates to the accident year question, it's really spread amongst a number of accident years. We, in the past in our disclosures have said, at times, it's related to accident years X and Y. And when we’re preparing disclosures this time, the laundry list of accident years was exceptionally long and we just said why don’t we just say what it relates to. So, there isn’t any particular accident year for either one of them, it's just spread amongst various ones. As it relates to the new money yields, just looking up some stats as it relate, let’s say -- we generally tend to focus on the ten year treasury. So, if you look at where the 10 year treasury was at the end of September, it was 1.6 and ended December 2.45. And spreads moved in that time frame as well. So I think you could look at the public data as so what to place, but a considerable rise in interest rates from one period to the next. Bill, do you want to add something?
Brian MacLean:
I thought I might add a little. Obviously, the question goes to at what point will new money yields exceed maturing yields. And obviously, the actions before this quarter gets us close to that point. But we’re not yet where we need to be. We’ve done a fair amount of work on it in the last few weeks, and using a whole bunch of assumptions, which would take long times really. We think that where taxable is being replaced by taxables, we reached that point sometime in the first half of 2017; for municipals replacing municipals closer to the first half of 2019. Obviously, a lot is going to be determined by the shape of any tax legislation as a very extreme, if you needed, a revenue neutral bill and the municipal exemption itself were affected, that would be non-trivial. If corporate rates were simple, and individual rates were simply lowered and the relative value of municipal were affected then they’ve already achieved it. That would be less important to us. But in the bottom line is where is, what I think you’re getting at, we’re not quite there yet.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay, that’s really helpful. Thanks guys.
Jay Benet:
And this is Jay Benet, again. If I could just add one thing, not relating to your questions but during my remarks one of my collogues tap me on the shoulder, indicating that instead of referring back to November’s filling of Form 8-K, I inadvertently said 10-K. So, we don’t file a 10-K in November. We did file an 8-K about the settlement. So, I just wanted to correct the record.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.
Elyse Greenspan:
One question first on the personal auto book, as you pointed to your margin outlook for 2017. Can you talk about, I guess, the components of the expense ratio and the underlying loss ratio? The expense ratio do tick down in the Q4, so it’s part of helping to get to your margin goal for next year on some kind of improvement in the expense ratio to offset potentially your continued deterioration on the loss side. Can you just take us through the components a little bit?
Alan Schnitzer:
Elyse, good morning it’s Alan. I would say that we go about as far as we want to go and getting outlook. And we’re pretty hesitant to start breaking it down to the component pieces. Part of our strategy, at least on the auto side, was obviously reducing expenses. And you’ve seen that come through to some extent already. But going forward, we prefer not to break out the pieces.
Elyse Greenspan:
And then one other question, the business insurance reserve releases picked up materially year-over-year, as well as sequentially. I know you reference it spanned numerous accident years and workers comp with GL lines. As we think about potentially an environment where we’ll see higher inflation levels going forward, just wondering if you could provide some commentary surrounding the pics that you’re using on some of your longer tail lines? And what give you confidence for such a high level reserve releases given the uncertainties surrounding forward inflation levels? Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, as it relates to reserving, as well as pricing and loss mix, so particularly year. We’re not assuming in any of the work we do this year or in any previous years that whatever the inflation environment that currently exists. And I have to say, it's an inflation environment related to the specific drivers of losses in our product as opposed to the general level of inflation. But we never assume that things are going to stay stagnant. There is an underlying assumption that things will overtime reverts back to the mean. And as you can well imagine, there is a great deal of actuarial judgment, management judgment, as to what that means. So - and looking at the reserves as they exist today, looking at how the development patterns have manifested themselves in the lost triangles, we come up with what our best estimate is of the future payments that we will be making. And if those best estimates are lower than what the carried reserves are, we’ll make adjustments for it. But it is factoring in a long-term view as to what the levels of inflation might be.
Operator:
And that's from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Gelb:
I had a question on your asbestos exposure. Earlier this month, the Hartford announced an economically favorable transaction, Berkshire Hathaway, to buy retroactive reinsurance contract. The size of Hartford's exposure is very similar to Travelers’, at $1.8 billion for asbestos environmental. And there's been $300 million annual pretax drag on Travelers’ earnings for the past two years. I'm wondering what your thoughts are now that other companies are taking steps to address these legacy exposures?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, thanks for asking, Jay. There's nothing fundamentally novel about those transactions. And as you can imagine, we look at them from time-to-time. So far, we haven't seen terms on one of those deals that we found attractive enough to do. And I'm not sure what else to say about it.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. Thank you very much for joining us today. Have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation. And ask that you please disconnect your lines.
Executives:
Alan Schnitzer - CEO and Director Jay Benet - Vice Chairman and CFO Brian MacLean - President and COO Michael Klein - EVP and President-Personal Insurance Gabriella Nawi - SVP, IR
Analysts:
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Randy Binner - FBR Amit Kumar - Macquarie Elyse Greenspan - Wells Fargo Securities Jay Gelb - Barclays Charles Sebaski - BMO Capital Markets Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Sarah DeWitt - JPMorgan Larry Greenberg - Janney
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Third Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 20, 2016. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our 2016 third quarter results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our Web site at www.travelers.com, under the Investor section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, Chief Executive Officer; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; and Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks, and then we will take questions. In addition, other members of senior management are in the room, including Michael Klein, Executive Vice President and President, Personal Insurance; Tom Kunkel, Executive Vice President and President, Bond & Specialty Insurance; and Greg Toczydlowski, Executive Vice President and President of Business Insurance. Before I turn it over to Alan, I'd like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also, in our remarks and responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement, and other materials that are available in the Investor section on our Web site, travelers.com. And now, Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. Unfortunately, I need to start on a sad note this morning. This is my fourth earnings call as CEO but the first since we’ve lost our friend, Jay Fishman. I know I am not alone in feeling his loss. Many of you have sent thoughts and prayers. Thank you, we appreciate it. All of us at Travelers take a great deal of comfort in knowing that we’re carrying on in a culture of excellence, performance and innovation that Jay left behind. It outlives him. It’s an enormous part of his legacy and we’re grateful for it. To sum it up in Jay’s words, we all feel remarkably fortunate to have known him and worked with him. At this point, Jay would have of course demand that we get back to work, so let’s get to the results. This morning, we reported third quarter operating income of $701 million or $2.40 per share and operating return on equity of 12.5%. Our underwriting results remain strong as reflected in a 92.9% combined ratio and our net investment income is down only slightly from the prior year quarter. Across all our businesses, the third quarter was another example of the successful execution of our marketplace strategies, and generally speaking underlying trends have not changed. Pricing and retention remain stable and consistent with recent trends. In our commercial businesses, retention continues to be at historic highs with positive renewal premium change. In domestic business insurance, renewal rate change has improved a little bit for two sequential quarters led by our middle market business where rate has also increased sequentially month-to-month in the quarter. Underneath that middle market, we again achieved rate gains in excess of loss trend on our poorer-performing segments. We also benefited from a mix shift in our better performing segments as the loss ratio on the retained business in those segments was better than the loss ratio on non-renewed business, the results of managing the business on a very granular level. In personal insurance, we continue to achieve strong top line growth in the quarter with continued growth in policies in force in both our agency auto and homeowners businesses. We believe that being able to deliver an account solution to our customers and agents is an important and meaningful competitive advantage. More than half of our personalized premium come from accounts for which we write both auto and home policies. When we write both the auto and the home, we can be more competitive in the pricing for our customers since it creates higher customer lifetime value for us through higher retentions and a more complete view of the risk. While we manage the profitability of the auto and home lines independently, we also manage to a portfolio return. We’ll be focusing more than usual on the performance of the auto business this morning but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the all-in combined ratio for a personalized business was 94.1% for the nine months, a very good result. Turning back to consolidated results for all three segments, underwriting results for the quarter were impacted by lower levels of net favorable prior year reserve development, higher non-cat weather-related losses and in personal lines higher-than-expected losses associated with auto bodily injury. Jay Benet will have more to say about the prior year development. The higher bodily injury severity in personal auto had a $29 million after-tax impact on the current accident year, $20 million of which related to the first and second quarters, a modest impact. Brian will discuss it in more detail. I'd like to highlight that we believe that the increase in auto bodily severity is environmental and not specific to the Quantum Auto 2.0 product, as we see it across all our personal insurance auto program and in our commercial auto and trucking books. In anticipation of this trend continuing, we are addressing it through pricing and we believe that the product remains positioned to deliver target returns over time. I’d also add that it’s important to understand that when trends change in any part of our business and they will, what’s important is having the ability to recognize it and react quickly. We believe our leading analytics give us an important advantage in this regard. In terms of net investment income, fixed income returns declined in line with our expectations and we were pleased to see an improvement in our return from the non-fixed income portfolio. All of this resulted in a very strong operating return on equity in the quarter and year-to-date. Given the continued historically low interest rate environment and the other items impacting our results this quarter, we’re particularly pleased with that result. In terms of the strategy going forward, you can expect more of the same. In this low interest rate environment, we’re underwriting matters more than ever. We have significant competitive advantages in our data and analytics expertise, claim and risk control capabilities and talent. Combining that with our active capital management strategy, we remain well positioned to continue to deliver industry-leading returns over time. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Jay Benet.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. Consistent with what we had said about the first two quarters of the year, we are once again pleased with our results this quarter; operating income of $701 million and operating return on equity of 12.5% notwithstanding their being lower than the prior year quarter. As in the first half of the year, these reductions did not result from fundamental changes in business trends, rather as Alan said, they were primarily driven by lower net favorable prior year reserve development and higher non-cat weather-related losses. Net investment income, which totaled $472 million after-tax, was down only 12 million from the prior year quarter entirely due to the continuing impact of the low interest rate environment on fixed income returns. Non-fixed income returns improved from recent quarters to a level that was slightly higher than the prior year quarter. We continue to experience net favorable prior year reserve development on a consolidated basis, which totaled $39 million pre-tax, down from 199 million pre-tax in the prior year quarter. The business in international insurance, net favorable development of $19 million pre-tax primarily resulted from better than expected loss experienced in GL ex-A&E for accident years 2006 and prior and for 2014 and 2015, in workers’ comp for accident years 2006 and prior and for 2015 and in commercial auto for accident years 2011 and prior, partially offset by a $225 million increase to our asbestos reserves. The asbestos reserve increase related to a broad number of policyholders and was driven by higher estimates for projected settlement and defense costs for mesothelioma claims than we had previously assumed. Notwithstanding these higher cost estimates, our overall view of the underlying asbestos environment remained essentially unchanged from recent periods. In bond and specialty insurance, net favorable development of $41 million pre-tax primarily resulted from better than expected loss experience in fidelity and surety for accident years 2009 through 2015, while reserve development in personal insurance which remained favorable to-date. Homeowners and other had a modest amount of unfavorable development this quarter, $21 million pre-tax primarily resulting from higher than expected loss experience for a small number of liability claims related to the 2013 and 2014 accident years. Notwithstanding this current quarter activity, the homeowners and other 2013 and 2014 accident years have developed net favorably since their inception. I should also point out that the unfavorable development in homeowners and other this quarter did not result from any change in our reserve setting philosophy or methodologies. As we’ve stated in the past and in our Qs and Ks, we always book to our best estimates and we use our advanced data and analytics to respond as quickly as we can to new information. By its nature, reserve development is episodic and in lines like homeowners and other, much of it has historically related to truing up estimated losses caused by storm damage. The number of severe storms in recent reporting periods, their timing in relation to the reporting period in which they occurred, the causes and severity of the losses such as wind versus water, the actual size and extent of any hail, the actual amount of additional living expenses provided, et cetera has and will cause significant fluctuations in reserve development from period to period. And changes in levels of reserve development should not be regarded as a “trend.” Ex-A&E on a combined stat basis for all of our U.S. subs, all accident years across all product lines in the aggregate and all product lines across all accident years in the aggregate developed favorably or had de minimis unfavorable development year-to-date. While CMP currently looks as if it developed unfavorably year-to-date by $37 million, as I pointed out in the second quarter, there was offsetting favorable development in the property product line as middle market property losses that had been recorded in the property line at year-end 2015 was subsequently determined to be CMP-related. Operating cash flows of 1.77 billion were very strong this quarter. We ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of $1.8 billion and all of our capital ratios remained at or better than their target levels. Net unrealized investment gains were approximately $3.1 billion pre-tax or 2 billion after-tax, up from 2 billion and 1.3 billion, respectively, at the beginning of the year while book value per share of $86.04 and adjusted book value per share of $78.82 increased 8% and 5%, respectively, also from the beginning of the year. We continue to generate much more capital than we need to support our businesses and consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy, we returned 755 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter through dividends of 193 million and share repurchases of 562 million. And year-to-date, we returned nearly 2.3 billion to our shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. So with that, I’ll turn things over to Brian.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. I’ll start with business in international insurance where we had another good quarter, with strong returns and production results. We were very pleased that retention remained at historically high levels while we achieved positive renewal premium change and solid new business results. Turning to the financial results for the segment, operating income was $457 million with the combined ratio of 96.1%. The underlying combined ratio was 94.7, up 2.2 points compared to the prior year. The increase in the underlying loss ratio was driven primarily by non-cat weather, which was higher than both the prior year quarter and our expectation and about three quarters of a point impact from loss cost trends in excess of earned pricing. These were partially offset by lower large loss activity. Turning to production, given the returns that we are generating in this segment, our focus continues to be on retention and so we’re very pleased that retention for our domestic business remained at 85% for the quarter. Renewal premium change was nearly 3 points including renewal rate change that was slightly positive, while we produced new business of $431 million. Turning to the individual businesses, in select, retention continued to remain strong at 82% while renewal premium change was over 5 points and we’re quite pleased that new business was up 7% over the prior year. In middle market, retention of 87% remained at a historical high with renewal premium change of over 2 points. New business dollars were essentially consistent with prior year with submissions, quotes and the number of new accounts written in the quarter up. The average size of accounts written was down slightly versus last year, but we're encouraged by the increased activity. In other business insurance, on Page 12, you can see that rate and RPC both improved in the quarter and retention remains strong. New business of $124 million was down compared to the third quarter of 2015, reflecting continued disciplined underwriting for larger accounts where we don't feel that market pricing will allow us to achieve target returns. In international, we achieved 82% retention with positive renewal premium change and a 46% increase in new business volume, resulting in a 4% increase in net written premiums excluding the impact of foreign exchange. These increases were driven by our new global construction and renewable energy groups in Lloyd's and continued success in Canada with our recently introduced personal lines auto product Optima. So all-in, a good quarter for the segment with strong production and profitability. Turning to bond and specialty insurance, this business continues to perform exceptionally well. Operating income for the quarter of $146 million was down from the prior year quarter driven primarily by a lower level of net favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio of 77.4 remains strong and well within our target return levels. On top line, net written premiums for the quarter were flat to the prior year. Across our management liability businesses, retention remained at historically high levels and new business volumes were up, as we continue to execute our strategy of retaining our best accounts and writing more business in our return adequate product segments. So bond and specialty results remained terrific, and we continue to feel great about the segment's performance and execution in the marketplace. I’ll now turn to personal insurance. Alan touched on the highlights. We once again had a solid quarter with a combined ratio of 92.9 and net written premiums reaching an all-time high of $2.2 billion. Auto continues to be the bigger factor driving the growth but homeowners’ growth continues to accelerate as well, and both products generated strong retention and new business levels. We believe being a portfolio provider sets us apart in the marketplace and we remain pleased with the financial performance of the overall segment. The third quarter underlying combined ratio of 91% was impacted by an adjustment to our auto loss ratio that I'll discuss in a moment and year-to-date underlying combined ratio of 88.9 remained strong, a very good result. Looking at auto profitability, the underlying combined ratio for the quarter was 101.1, up about 5 points from the prior year. About 4.5 points of this increase was due to the year-to-date impact of an adjustment we made to the loss ratio related to bodily injury severity for 2016, which, for the most part, reflects higher severity in our smaller claims. About 3 points of that increase relates to the first two quarters of this year. With respect to this change, I want to emphasize a few points. First, as Alan said, we believe this is environmental in nature; that is we are seeing it across all our auto products both in personal and commercial lines. Second, what we are seeing is from the last four accident quarters and for a long tail line like auto liability, that is very recent activity. Lastly, while we have been closely watching and talking to you about auto bodily injury severity for a number of years and reflecting it in our underwriting claim, pricing and reserving, recently severity has increased to a level that’s a little more than we anticipated. In response to this recent trend, we’re taking the appropriate pricing actions. Looking at auto frequency, overall year-to-date 2016 frequency is generally in line with our long-term view. That said, we have seen some texture within the year. Collision frequency for the first half of the year was favorable to our long-term view while the third quarter was unfavorable. We believe the frequency volatility that we've seen in 2016 reflects normal period-to-period fluctuations. As always, we are watching the data closely and will adjust if and when appropriate. But as of now, we have not changed our long-term frequency expectations. For perspective, the net adjustments we have made year-to-date related to collision frequency have less than the $3 million after-tax unfavorable impact. Normally, we wouldn't talk about a variance this small but given the amount of recent industry discussion on the topic, we felt that disclosure would be helpful. We've also been talking to you about the impact of tenure on our auto loss ratio for a while. So let me take a few minutes to walk you through the slide on Page 19 that we've added to demonstrate the impact of tenure on a loss ratio. Exhibit 1 in the upper left illustrates the underlying dynamic that drives the impact of tenure, namely that the loss ratio of the given cohort of business improves over time as poor-performing business defects and pricing segmentation improves on the business that is retained. Moving to Exhibits 2 through 4, of course, any given calendar period consist of a number of cohorts ranging from new to multiple years of age. In these exhibits, the curved line represents loss ratio by tenure, think policy year. The vertical bars represent premium volume remaining for those years and the horizontal line is the calendar period loss ratio for all cohorts, which is a premium weighted average of the loss ratio of each cohort of business during that calendar period. Exhibit 2 demonstrates a steady state growth scenario, think base case. During periods of consistent growth, the newer cohorts blend with the older ones and the calendar period loss experience will generate the target loss ratio. Exhibit 3 illustrates the impact of a higher new business growth environment where calendar period results are more heavily influenced by the newer cohorts of business that naturally have a higher loss ratio. This drives the calendar period loss ratio higher. Exhibit 4 illustrates a return to steady state growth at the higher levels of premium volume. The balance between the older and newer cohorts improves the calendar period loss ratio returns target levels, and in addition increased volume brings additional profit dollars. So obviously these are theoretical illustrations that raise a few important questions for our business. First, what is the current impact of tenure on our auto loss ratio? And the answer is that our loss ratio is about 2 points higher than it would've been excluding this tenure impact. Second, do we believe that our Quantum Auto 2.0 product is performing as expected? And the answer to this is that it has been maturing in line with our loss ratio expectations. Of course, we manage the business at a very granular level and monitor the book across multiple dimensions. For example, loss cost, retention and other proxies of profitability such as limits profile, prior experience and insurance score. In aggregate, based on all the data we have we believe this business is on track to produce appropriate returns. We clearly realized that the product is still relatively new in the marketplace having launched late in 2013, but three years in we are very pleased with the performance. Turning to homeowners, the underlying combined ratio for the quarter was a very strong 78.3, although up about 7 points year-over-year due primarily to an unusually low amount of non-catastrophe weather-related losses last year. The current quarter results is in line with our expectations and we remain very pleased with the returns we're seeing in this business. So stepping back from a lot of moving pieces in the quarter, this is a franchise with a year-to-date combined ratio of 94.1% and 9% premium growth; results we feel very good about. With that, let me turn it back to Gabby.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. We can now start the Q&A portion please. Before we get started, if I could please ask you to limit yourself to one question and one follow up, so we can get as many people on the call.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from the line of Kai Pan of Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Kai Pan:
Thank you. Good morning. First, my condolences to the Travelers’ family. My first question is on the personal auto, thanks for the detailed explanation. If I look at the year-over-year, like for first nine months, the deterioration by 2.6 points underlying combined ratio, you explained about 2 points coming from new business and another point maybe coming from the rising severity re-estimates about $29 million for the first nine months. Is that the right way to think about it is that these two factors has driven the underlying combined ratio going higher? And then if you see your outlook, you’re expecting actually improvements in the combined ratio into 2017. I just wonder what’s that coming from; is that coming from the last track [ph], from the new business penalty going forward or anything else. Thanks.
Brian MacLean:
So, Kai, it’s Brian MacLean and let me clarify just a couple of things. So the two points that I referenced in my comments are that the loss ratio is elevated. You went to the delta year-over-year. That’s about one point. So if you're thinking of where our combined ratio or loss ratio is relative to what it should be without it, it’s 200 basis points but the year-over-year change, only 100. Another thing that when speaking – a lot of our commentary was to loss ratio and importantly remember in this business, as we rolled out Quantum, it was really built around a pretty decent change to our cost structure. So the expense ratio is seeing some benefit and going forward will see more as volume increases. So if you're talking combined ratio, there is an expense ratio good guy in there. The basic dynamics of what you were mentioning though are the right components.
Alan Schnitzer:
Kai, it’s Alan. As to the outlook, you're right. We did suggest it was going down slightly and we’ve identified in the outlook three moving pieces. One, a lower level of loss activity just returning to a more normal level, rate versus trend as given our outlook for rate and loss trend and that's offset by the continued adverse impact to tenure.
Kai Pan:
Okay, that’s great. Then a follow-up question. Do you have any early indication from potential losses from Hurricane Matthew in the fourth quarter?
Alan Schnitzer:
Kai, we anticipated that and we’re happy to give you an early range but I do want to indicate that we’re just three weeks post storm, so it’s still early for us. And it could be influenced from here through the end of the quarter by large BI claims that come up that we haven’t identified yet. So we would say our range at this point is $75 million to $150 million and that’s pre-tax. And again, the risk factor going forward is going to be claims that we haven’t seen or don’t know of yet but they could come in between now and the end of the quarter.
Kai Pan:
Thank you so much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Randy Binner of FBR. Please proceed with your question.
Randy Binner:
Good morning and thanks. I wanted to just talk on severity and just to understand what it is a little bit better. Is it that the actual injury and the bodily injury in these accidents is worse or is it a process by which claims are being used more to cover various medical conditions or is it a function of more aggressive trial bar or is it all three? I’m trying to understand what it is that’s actually driving the severity higher on the auto?
Alan Schnitzer:
Randy, it’s Alan. I’d say you got it right sort of across the board. Generally speaking, we are seeing a high level of severity generally in the smaller claims and it’s a little bit more aggressive litigation and a little bit more complexity in those smaller cases. You can’t turn on the TV without seeing some kind of advertisement from the trial bar, so it’s hard to pinpoint it with a high degree of specificity, but generally all those things.
Randy Binner:
Maybe the follow up then is you mentioned that you’re seeing it across your commercial and personal auto book in small case, if I got that right. So is it – what’s the similarity across the classes and is it more people being involved in accidents, is that a piece of it too?
Alan Schnitzer:
In some cases, there are more accidents of the vehicles and in some cases that is driving it. And generally we can just tell you that we see the same phenomenon across both books, commercial and personal.
Randy Binner:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar of Macquarie. Please proceed with your question.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks and good morning. I was wondering – the first question is, if you could better help me understand the auto BI uptake. You’ve obviously cited outside environmental factors, yet there was modest re-estimation for the first half of 2016. Why would that not be a Travelers specific issue? And if you look at other companies such as Allstate and The Hartford who have had similar issues, what you have learned is this is rarely a one quarter issue. So maybe just help me understand why it’s external and not internal?
Brian MacLean:
So this is Brian, let me do a couple of pieces of that. First, when we look at claim experience across our business and we see it in personal lines, in recently written business, legacy long tenured business across pretty much the entire spectrum of customer profile and we see it in our commercial business from small to large trucking, that tells that this isn’t something specific to our underwriting some product we have a marketplace. So it would be in our view highly unlikely that we’d see it that broad based and have it be just our issue. I would also talk to – I would completely agree with the comment that auto liability, any liability line of business, it’s hard to see clarity in the near term. And so we’re constantly watching these events. I am very confident though that we’re as on top of this as anybody. And for reference I’d say look back to commentary we had going back as far as 2011, 2012 into 2013. We were talking about liability trends, what we were seeing in the auto product relative to distracted driving relative to increased litigation relative to increased utilization of medical diagnostic tools and the impacts on bodily injury. And to be totally honest, there were a couple of years there where we were getting a lot of questions from folks on this call about why are you seeing something that no one else is talking about? And over the years, I think everybody has been talking about it. So I’m not saying that we’ve got it perfectly right or we ever do, but we’re looking at the trends very, very closely. And what we’ve seen in the last three or four accident quarters has been somewhat of an elevation, as we said, particularly on the lower end of the claim size but driving more complexity.
Alan Schnitzer:
I would also add. It didn’t take us completely by surprise. Our loss PIPs [ph] had anticipated some increased severity. This was just a tick higher than we anticipated.
Amit Kumar:
My second question is in the opening comments you talked about pricing actions. Does that indicate that we should anticipate a slowdown in Quantum growth? Why or why not? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
So I’m going to let Michael Klein jump in on that one.
Michael Klein:
Sure. This is Michael. I would say the impact on growth will depend upon how our pricing actions compare to those taken in the marketplace. What I can tell you and it’s very incremental, but if you look at the production statistics on the webcast, you’ll see our pricing rise quarter-over-quarter relative to where we were in 2015, and yet the growth has increased. So our view of where we sit currently is while we have taken some price increases above where we were running, our competitive position so far has actually remained consistent, if not improved and you’re seeing actually increased growth this quarter relative to the couple of quarters before. To the degree that we’re right about this being environmental and we think it is, we believe the marketplace will respond and we think that our pricing actions will be sort of absorbed in the market. Could it have an impact on growth, it certainly could. But again, to the degree we think it’s environmental we think we’ll be in line what’s going on in the marketplace.
Amit Kumar:
Just a quick follow up to that. Would it actually be prudent to say we’re trying to get a better handle on this issue, let’s just pull back on growth? Let’s get this piece right and then come back on the growth trajectory?
Michael Klein:
What I would say to that is we are addressing what we’re seeing with our pricing actions and focused on making sure we’ve got the right price in the marketplace. The growth will be what it will be as a result, but our focus is on getting the right terms and conditions in the market to respond to this change that we’ve just seen.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks…
Alan Schnitzer:
That’s exactly right. We’re trying to get the right price on the right account. And based on that and the market reaction will determine the degree to which we grow.
Amit Kumar:
I’ll stop here. Thank you for the answers.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan of Wells Fargo. Please proceed.
Elyse Greenspan:
Hi. Good morning. First on the personal auto book as well, when you guys think about your margin outlook in Q4 and into 2017, what type of increase in rates are you expecting from what we saw in the third quarter? And then as we think about the margin in the fourth quarter, I guess given the fact that you added to the current accident year, should we look for a sequential improvement in the auto underlying margin? And then one other, you guys did mention adding to the four recent accident quarters, so was there prior year adverse development on the auto book for 2015?
Alan Schnitzer:
So that was a lot and quickly, so let me try to address what I caught and then maybe I’ll ask you to repeat what we didn’t get to. So I think you asked for the outlook on rate in auto. We don’t give outlook on rate. We do provide outlook on overall price. And so I think you’ll see that generally we are forecasting an increase in renewal price change, which is all-in rate and exposure. We don’t quantify it any more than that other to say an increase. And I’m sorry, Elyse, what were the other questions?
Elyse Greenspan:
Well, I was looking – You guys had mentioned adding to the auto losses for the four most recent accident quarters, so were there adverse development on 2015?
Alan Schnitzer:
There was a very little bit of adverse in the fourth quarter. It’s obviously in the overall net PYD number, but it’s a very small think after-tax single-digit number.
Gabriella Nawi:
Elyse, it’s Gabby. I think if I’ve understood your question correctly on the current year prior quarter addition, it was 30 million pre-tax related to the first six months and then there was roughly – which means 15 million a quarter, which continued in the third quarter’s '16 and can then use in the fourth quarter '16. Is that your question?
Alan Schnitzer:
I interpreted your question to be, is there anything in prior year development related to this?
Elyse Greenspan:
Yes, that was the question.
Alan Schnitzer:
And the answer to that is in the overall net number of prior year developments, there is a single digit after-tax million dollar number in the fourth quarter.
Michael Klein:
This is Michael Klein, offset by other items so there is no adverse prior year development in auto. That number is zero.
Alan Schnitzer:
And there always is in PYD over the various accident years if you’re going one way or another and the aggregate of those things was zero.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. And then one, if I may switch topics a little bit, in terms of your commercial line pricing view, with inflation levels looking like they could be picking up and reserved cushions for you guys and maybe some others starting to slow overall for the industry, do you think that it’s time that some companies look to take price to kind of get ahead of the infection point if current trends continue as they are?
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s hard to answer that. I certainly can’t answer that question for anybody else. You can see what our pricing has done and in our pricing, the headline number you see is really the aggregate of the many thousands of transactions that we complete during the quarter. And you can see that it picked up a little bit. I will tell you that generally speaking, we feel like we are achieving the written margins that we’re seeking to achieve today and feel pretty good about their product returns given where the tenure is. We do give you some outlook in the 10-Q for underwriting margins. So we’ll see where the market goes.
Elyse Greenspan:
Okay. Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb of Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Gelb:
Thanks very much. On the excess capital position for the company, clearly Travelers continues to buy back stock and increase its dividend, although that pace of capital return has slowed for the year-to-date compared to the same period in 2015. I’m trying to get a perspective on how much excess capital you feel Travelers holds now in excess of rating agency requirements?
Jay Benet:
Hi, Jay. This is Jay. You’ve asked the question in the past and when we go back to what we’ve said at those times as well as in our Qs and Ks, ultimately it’s going to be the earnings level of the company that’s going to drive how much we return to our shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. As it relates to the specifics of excess capital, we try to manage the operating companies of two what the rating agencies require of us as it relates to being an AA company. In any given quarter, based on profitability of that quarter, we might end up with a little extra capital. I think it’s very, very rare that we end up with anything less than we need. So it’s not a significant number and it’s just going to vary from timing. Ultimately, we carry our rating agency capital level in line with the AA over time and we return the excess. We don’t sit on the excess capital.
Jay Gelb:
All right, thanks for clarifying that. Alan, on the merger and acquisition front, essentially all the growth it seems in Travelers this year is coming from personal lines with little overall top line growth in commercial insurance. Is there any interest in accelerating the commercial insurance growth through acquisitions?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, Jay, we always give the same answer to that question. I can’t tell you whether we will or we won’t but I can tell you that I think our shareholders should demand that we have a view on what the attractive businesses are in every market that we operate in or might want to operate in and have a view on whether we won’t to do them. We do think that we’ve come together over a couple of decades through a lot of transactions. We feel like it’s a competitive advantage for us. We’re good at finding them. We’re good doing the diligence. We’re good at negotiating them. We’re good at integrating them. So we feel highly qualified to do it and under the right terms and conditions, interested in doing it. Having said that, over the years we’re also highly attentive to the risks; you buy the entire balance sheet, you buy system issues, you buy people issues. So we’re very – I’d say we’re very aware on both sides of the analysis. But we are certainly interested in doing things if we can get them done on the right terms. And generally speaking for us, those are – we think about it through the lens of returns. Will a transaction improve our return profile and/or will it improve our volatility. And so that’s the lens and we’re always interested in looking.
Jay Gelb:
That makes sense, Alan. Would that include large deals as well, something that might require issuing shares?
Alan Schnitzer:
Jay, I wouldn’t make any distinction between a large deal and a small deal. All I can tell you is what the lens is through which we would evaluate it.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Charles Sebaski of BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
Charles Sebaski:
Good morning. Thanks. I guess the first one, just a follow up back on personal auto really quickly. And I guess the question’s on the timing of the rate actions that you guys took and what I’m trying to figure out is with regard to the growth. While the PIF growth was obviously very strong, I’m wondering if the severity issues were recognized at the close of the quarter and the rating actions are going to be perspective or these were rating actions that were taken at the beginning of the quarter and the 11% PIF growth was after those rating actions took place?
Michael Klein:
Charles, this is Michael. I would say that we have been putting some rate into the market, first of all, throughout the year. The filed rate has started to rise in the quarter. I would say the growth in the quarter reflects some of that activity but just a little bit, and there’s more to come.
Charles Sebaski:
Excellent. Thank you. And then a follow up on the weather and the commentary on higher losses from non-cat weather. You guys already provide a lot of detail, which is very helpful. I’m just wondering if you could help us out a little further and give some kind of baseline of what weather losses are intended, I guess particularly maybe in like a homeowners line of business? I guess the commentary that losses are higher or lower in a particular period due to higher non-cat weather that isn’t specific identified without a baseline is color what’s hard to model or understand. I don’t know if there’s some clarity you could give on a baseline for us on what non-cat weather should be and what the volatility is that through the year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Charles, it’s Alan. I do appreciate the question and why you want to know and also I’d just thank you for acknowledging the fact that we do give a lot of color and texture and we try to be very thoughtful about that. This is one that we think a lot about and we think it’s hard to do for a couple of reasons. One is, weather is just inherently unpredictable. There’s a lot of volatility obviously and we don’t know. We do have a plan. We do price for weather, but that reflects generally speaking longer term trends. So we just don’t feel like it would be particularly meaningful for us to give you a plan for next quarter or next year just given the volatility. So we shy away from getting that specific relative to our expectations. But what I will tell you in case it’s helpful is one a year-to-date basis for the company, weather was about – non-cat weather was about $70 million worse after-tax than it was in the prior year. So I know that’s not exactly what you asked for. Maybe that’s a little bit of color that would be helpful. But we’re just a little bit hesitant to start giving you plan numbers.
Charles Sebaski:
I appreciate the answers. Thanks a lot, guys.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Michael Nannizzi of Goldman Sachs. Please proceed.
Michael Nannizzi:
Thanks so much. Just back to auto for a second, if I could. Is it possible to kind of understand where the action quarter loss ratio is here at the beginning of the fourth quarter, or just post these adjustments that you made to the current calendar year in the third quarter? And then where is that relative to kind of where you wanted that business to be running when the sort of Quantum 2.0 effort began?
Alan Schnitzer:
I guess we’re looking at each other trying to understand exactly what it is you’re asking. If you’re looking for a view on fourth quarter, we’re not really inclined to give any information about the fourth quarter yet.
Michael Nannizzi:
How about where did the third quarter end? In terms of – so you made the adjustments to the third quarter, so I would imagine if you’re thinking about your prospective trend then you’re going to start with the third quarter, you’re going to look at rate and then you’re going to look at loss. I’m just trying to get an idea of what’s your starting point for new business today?
Alan Schnitzer:
Stepping back, if you look at it on the nine months and you look at PI auto, the underlying combined ratio was about 98. Is that helpful?
Michael Nannizzi:
Yes.
Alan Schnitzer:
That’s for the nine months in PI and that’s on an underlying basis ex-cat and ex-PYD.
Michael Nannizzi:
Okay. And so that’s in our numbers. Has that changed throughout the year or is that just kind of back to shareholders?
Michael Klein:
Michael, this is Michael. I would just say, so for context on that underlying right, Brian talked about the fact that there’s a point of impact from tenure year-on-year in that number. The other thing is if you take the bodily injury severity number and decompose that 45 million by quarter, it’s about 1.5 on a run rate basis for the year-to-date. That 1.5 we expect to go forward into the fourth quarter. And the other thing I would say, just clarification on the fourth quarter outlook, the fourth quarter outlook says that we expect the combined ratio to be higher in the fourth quarter. There is a seasonality impact underneath that number, right. The combined ratio and the loss ratio in the fourth quarter run higher in the fourth quarter than they do in the first three quarters of the year. And so that’s part of what’s underneath that outlook number as well.
Michael Nannizzi:
Got it. I guess one question I have, Quantum is – it sounds like it’s been very effective in a lot of ways. We’ve seen PIF growth, the acceptance in the market, all of those things seem like a real positive. And then we have the sort of environmental trend that has been occurring like fits and spurts over the last couple of years. So taking those things separately, is it possible that the growth that you’ve seen just might have occurred at a difficult time sort of before some of these loss trends emerged? And following up on a prior question, should that imply that at some point we should see that growth revert back until you calibrate those things, or is this still within your sort of expectations when you rolled out Quantum?
Alan Schnitzer:
So let’s go back a few years to where we were three or four years ago or two or three years ago when this business was shrinking in double digits. So we put Quantum Auto in and we took a lot of cost out, and we’ve dramatically improved the overall profile of the business. So we shouldn’t lose sight of that. This has been a big success. And a lot of the growth you’re seeing is high in percentage terms, because it’s off a smaller base after a couple years of shrinking. So, that’s I think just important context to keep in mind. We don’t go out there and try to manage the growth. We try to go out there based on everything that we see and price for the return that we’re looking for. And based on the market, we’ll grow or we won’t grow. We feel very good about the growth. Maybe we don’t have it exactly right, maybe we’ll have to adjust, I’m not really sure and honestly we could be adjusting up or down, not really sure. And this isn’t unusual for any line of business that we have. As I said before, cost trends are going to change for one reason or another. We’ve got other trends in other parts of our business that have emerged favorably. And so we watch these things, we think having the diagnostics and the ability to understand it, to diagnose it, to price for it is what’s really important.
Michael Nannizzi:
Great. Thanks so much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Cohen of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Cohen:
Thank you. I guess we hit most of the issues on the auto side. Can you give us an update on the workers’ comp business? It feels like it’s been relatively stable. Are you seeing any changes in that environment, either pricing or claims?
Alan Schnitzer:
I would say continued stable environment, no real change in the trends. Obviously, we had a couple of court cases in Florida that the overall market has reacted to and we’ve reacted to. Those dollars weren’t enormous for us. I think last year we had something on the order of $34 million, $35 million pre-tax that we added the reserves for those two court cases, so relatively minor for us. But other than that, no real trends from workers’ comp.
Jay Cohen:
Great. Thanks, Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Okay. Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis of Credit Suisse. Please proceed with your question.
Ryan Tunis:
Thanks. Good morning. My first question is just on thinking about the BI severity on the commercial auto side. It sounds like you guys are flagging this as an environmental issue kind of across all the wheels business. Is there a way that you can maybe help us think about the impact that had year-over-year on the loss ratio in commercial just from the severity in commercial auto?
Alan Schnitzer:
Ryan, what I’ll tell you is on the business insurance side, the proportion of premium that comes from auto is just much smaller than the same is true for the PI segment. So overall, the numbers are just less significant to that segment. There were some small numbers but nothing all that significant. The other thing I’d point out is on the commercial line side, we have more flexibility to change pricing more quickly than we do on the personal line side.
Brian MacLean:
The other thing I would add, Ryan, this is Brian is when you really look at the commercial exposure, when you’re thinking of smaller claims that could be more of a PI thing. So the actual – we did have some activity on the severity side in BI this quarter. The dollars were actually less than PI. Obviously, as Alan said, the percentage was dramatically less. We actually had a little bit of good news from frequency in the current year; again, small dollars. So you don’t see the impact as much, so a bunch of different factors going into it.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay, understood. And then I guess a follow up for Brian, I guess, on the impact of tenure. So I guess over the last couple years, it’s been 2 points. If we would have had this conversation a year ago, it would have been 1. So the new business penalty I guess has grown year-over-year. And I guess this introduces the question of just how and over what time period can we really get that 2 points back? I guess especially when you think about the fact that Quantum 2, it seems like it’s supposed to be a more competitively priced product. So over time, there should be a higher percentage of premium in new business. Just anything you can give us on getting that 2 points back, and whether or not you can get it back and keep growth anywhere close to where it is for Quantum? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, so a couple of things and again this is back to the theoretical example. Although not possible, if you keep growing – you keep trying to chasing it, but if you keep growing with business that you believe has lifetime value that’s meeting your returns, then it’s all a good thing. And I get that that’s a theoretical comment. We’re not going to disclose exactly what the timing is, because that would lead someone to be able to triangulate exactly how we’re pricing in the returns that we’re – specific returns we’re targeting. But the answer is, it’s kind of a function of what do you think is going to happen to our growth. It’s not going to reverse in the next year or two. It’s going to take a while to play out. The other thing that is certainly worth noting is we talk a lot about the ratio. As we grow and it performs, we’re generating profit dollars that are incremental to the franchise and obviously that’s a good thing.
Ryan Tunis:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Sarah DeWitt of JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.
Sarah DeWitt:
Hi, good morning. In the Q, you provide guidance that the personal auto combined ratio on an underlying basis could improve in 2017. What are your assumptions in terms of the auto BI severity there? Do you assume any further uptick or is that a risk?
Michael Klein:
This is Michael. I would say what we’ve said is that auto severity uptick is about 1.5 on a run rate basis. We assume that continues on a go-forward basis. There’s always a risk it could change from here, it could change up, it could change down. When you look at the outlook, the outlook reflects the comments we’ve made this morning that we’re responding with price, and so the outlook I think literally says we believe price will exceed loss trend, which will be a good guy. The outlook says I believe that offsets some continued adverse impact from tenure. And then the other big component is an expectation about more normalized loss levels, which relates a little bit to the non-cat weather conversation we’ve been having this morning and just a broader more consistent expectation on the loss level. So, again, I think the pricing and the outlook anticipate that the bodily injury severity, the higher levels of bodily injury severity are with us going forward but we’re responding with price and believe that we’ll get price ahead of loss trend in '17.
Sarah DeWitt:
Great. Thanks for the answer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
This will be our last question. Thank you.
Operator:
Okay. Our last question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg of Janney. Please proceed with your question.
Larry Greenberg:
Thanks and good morning. And just about all my questions were answered, but I have one nerdy one. In the bond line – were you waiting for that, Gabby?
Gabriella Nawi:
No, it’s just it’s such a great business and nobody ever ask questions. If we can inadvertent cheer for [indiscernible].
Larry Greenberg:
The underlying loss ratio improved a few points. And I’m just wondering, was there any re-estimation of the first half here similar to what you did a year ago in the third quarter?
Alan Schnitzer:
There was a re-estimation in the quarter, yes, and it was an improvement loss ratio of 2.3 points. And so that’s when you pull the first two quarters back in and add what’s into the third quarter. So, yes, that’s correct.
Larry Greenberg:
Great. That’s all I had. Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you all for joining. And as always, we’re available for follow-up question and answer in Investor Relations, and we’ll be speaking with a number of you in the next few days. Thank you and have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your line.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - SVP, Investor Relations Alan Schnitzer - CEO & Director Jay Benet - Vice Chairman & CFO Brian MacLean - President & COO Michael Klein - EVP and President-Personal Insurance Bill Heyman - Vice Chairman and CIO
Analysts:
Randy Binner - FBR and Co Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Amit Kumar - Macquarie Charles Sebaski - BMO Capital Markets Jay Gelb - Barclays Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Larry Greenberg - Janney
Presentation:
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 21, 2016. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Tina. Good morning and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our 2016 second quarter results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com, under the Investor section. Speaking today will be
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported second quarter operating income of $649 million or $2.20 per share, and an operating return on equity of 11.6%. Our underwriting results remained strong, as reflected in our 93.1% combined ratio for the quarter, despite the impacts of higher catastrophe and non-cat weather-related losses year-over-year. For the six months, we reported operating income of $1.35 billion or $4.52 per share, and an operating return on equity of 12%. Given the cumulative impact of years and years of declining interest rates on our investment portfolio and also relative to the fresh lows in the risk-free rate, we feel terrific about the returns we continue to generate. Our expertise in risk selection and pricing, our thoughtful and consistent investment strategy and our active approach to capital management all come together to enable us to achieve our objectives of delivering superior returns and creating shareholder value. Turning to production, the second quarter was another example of the successful execution of our market place strategies. We are very pleased with the record volume of premium that we wrote in the quarter and we continue to be very pleased with the amount of returns in the business we’re writing. In our commercial businesses, retentions remained high and renewal premium change was positive. Underneath that, consistent with our very granular approach to execution, in middle market, we retained 90% of the premium from our best-performing accounts with only a modest decline in renewal rate change on that business. On our poor-performing accounts, we achieved renewal rate change in excess of loss trend. You might have noticed that renewal rate change in domestic business insurance was slightly positive as compared to slightly negative in the first quarter, and renewal rate change in middle market improved by four point, we don’t forecast rate and we’re not calling a bottom, but the significance of this to us is that the market remains remarkably stable and we’re generally successful in achieving our written objectives. In terms of new business, we are actively seeking and finding opportunities that meet our return thresholds, and we delivered strong new business growth in our commercial businesses, including 10% growth in new business and domestic business insurance. In personal insurance, net written premiums grew 9% to a record of over $2.1 billion, with accelerating momentum in both auto and homeowners. New business was up 21% year-over-year, driven by the success of the Quantum product. Quantum Auto 2.0 continues to meet our financial expectations and is successfully enhancing our market position. Our success in the market place across all our businesses really speaks to the value of the talent that we have in the home office and in the field, and their ability to leverage our data and analytics and work with our distribution partners to deliver great products and services and fair prices to our customers. Franchise value matters. Before I turn the call over to Jay Benet, I’d like to acknowledge and thank all of our colleagues in the Claim organization for their extraordinary efforts and handling the claims of our customers, affected by severe weather and fire so far this year. These experts are on the frontline for us delivering on the promise we extend with every policy that we write and it has been a very active year so far for them. Their responsiveness and expertise are great to our customers and an important competitive advantage for us. In Canada, where we saw significant wild fires in the Fort McMurray area, both our customers and we benefited from the work we’ve done to replicate our US claim model, which enables us to respond to large scale events with our own highly-trained professionals and resources without resorting to independent adjustors. So, all in all, solid results for the quarter and the first half, particularly in light of the weather and wildfires and continued excellent execution in the market place. And with that, I’ll turn it over Jay Benet.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. As I did in the first quarter, I’d like to start by saying that we were pleased with our results. Operating income of $649 million and operating return on equity of 11.6%, despite they’re being lower than in the prior-year quarter. These reductions did not result from significant changes in underlying business trends, notably as indicated on page four of the webcast. The quarter-over-quarter decrease in operating income was impacted by among other things, PCS, cat events and lower fixed income, net investment income. Losses from PCS cat events was met or exceeded our threshold for recording as cat, which is $79 million higher after tax than in the prior-year quarter, while losses from PCS cat events has gone below our cap thresholds which we recorded as part of non-cat weather related losses within underlying underwriting results for $56 million higher after tax than in the prior-year quarter. And fixed income NII was $21 million lower after tax, primarily due to the continuing the low interest rate environment as we had anticipated in the outlook section of our first quarter 2016 10-Q. Everything else was pretty much a wash. We continued to experience net favorable prior-year reserve development, which totaled $288 million pretax or $192 million after tax this quarter, up from $207 million pretax or $133 million after tax in the prior-year quarter. The business in International Insurance, net favorable development of $138 million pretax or $94 million after tax, primarily resulted from better than expected loss in domestic workers comp for accident years 2006 and prior and accident year 2015. Better than expected loss experience in domestic general liability for accident years 2011 and 2015 and better than expected loss experience in our European operations partially offset by an $82 million pretax of $53 million after tax increased through environmental reserves. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net favorable development of $150 million pre-tax or $98 million after tax, primarily resulted from better than expected loss experience in Fidelity and Surety for accident years 2010, 2013 and 2014, and better than expected loss experience in GL for accident years 2007 through 2011. Year-to-date, on a combined-stat basis, for all of our US subs, all accidents years have developed favorably or had de minimis unfavorable development. In addition, other than commercial multi-peril, all product lines have developed favorably year-to-date. While CMP developed unfavorably by $42 million year-to-date, you may recall me telling you in the first quarter that there was an offsetting favorable development in the Property product line, as middle market property losses that had been recorded in the Property line at year-end 2015 was subsequently determined to be CMP-related. Operating cash flows of $443 million were very strong, particularly recognizing that they were net off the $524 million payment we made this quarter as final settlement of the PPG asbestos litigation. We ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of $1.75 billion and all of our capital ratios were at or better than their target levels. Net unrealized investment gains increased to approximately $3.6 billion pre-tax or $2.3 billion after tax, up from $2 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, at the beginning of the year, while book value per share of $85.73 and adjusted book value per share of $77.61 increased 7% and 3%, respectively, also from the beginning of the year. We continue to generate much more capital than we need to support our businesses and consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy, we returned $747 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter, through dividends of $197 million and share repurchases of $550 million. Year-to-date, we’ve retuned over $1.5 billion to our shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Before turning the microphone over to Brian, there is one additional topic I'd like to cover, our cap reinsurance coverage. In addition to our corporate cat aggregate XOL treaty, which we renewed at the beginning of the year, our cap reinsurance includes cap bonds that are specific to the Northeast US along with the Northeast Gen Cat Treaty. With respect to the cat bonds, one, that had provided up to $300 million of coverage for certain losses, expired as scheduled in May 2016, and given our current risk profile, we decided not to replace it. With respect to the remaining cat bond, which will not expire until May 2018, the attachment point and maximum limit will reset as required annually to adjust the model’s expected loss of the layer within the predetermined range. For the year beginning May, 16, 2016, we will begin recovering amounts under this cat bond as losses in the covered area for single occurrence reaching additional attachment amount of $1.968 billion. The full $300 million coverage amount is available on a proportional basis until such covered losses reach a maximum $2.468 billion. And finally, our Northeast Gen Cat Treaty was renewed on July 1. This treaty provides up to $800 million, part of $850 million of coverage, subject to $2.25 billion retention. The certain losses arising from hurricanes, tornadoes, hail storms, earthquakes, and winter storm or freeze losses from Virginia to Maine. A more complete description of our cat reinsurance coverage including a description of earthquake and international coverage is included in our second quarter 10-Q, which we filed earlier today as well as in our 2015 10-K. While the total cost of these treaties is small, in relation to our operational income, we were able to save some money by not replacing the expiring cat bond. And with that, let me turn the microphone over to Brian.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. In business, the new international insurance, we're pleased with the results this quarter. In domestic business insurance, we achieved a very strong retention along with the modest increase in renewal rate change versus the first quarter and higher levels of new business. Our strategy has not changed as we strive to retain our best-performing accounts, get rate where needed and write new business when it meets our target returns. This has been our strategy for some time. And as a result, we continue to be viewed as the stable and financially strong market by our distributors and customers. Along with the meaningful competitive advantages that we deliver, this consistent leadership position is resulting in additional growth opportunities for us. Turning to the financial results for the segment, operating income was $393 million with the combined ratio of $97.5 million. Cat losses for the quarter were $143 million net after-tax, which included $61 million from the Canadian wildfires. Excluding the Canadian fires, cat losses were slightly higher than the prior year quarter. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of cats in prior-year reserve development, was $95.5 million, up 2.4 points compared to the second quarter of 2015. The loss ratio increased by 1.7 points, driven primarily by non-cat weather, which was higher than prior-year quarter and our expectation. The expense ratio was up seven tens of a point over last year, driven primarily by commissions as the second quarter of 2015 benefited from a one-time favorable adjustment. Net written premiums for the quarter were in line with the prior-year quarter with domestic business insurance premiums up about 2%. Given the returns that we are generating in this business, our focus continues to be on retention. And so, we were very pleased that retention remains at 85% for the quarter, renewal premium change was just over two points, including renewal rate change that was slightly positive. New business of $525 million was up 10% versus the second quarter of 2015. Turning to the individual businesses within Business Insurance, beginning with select, we achieved retention of 82% and renewal premium change of nearly 6%. Rate change was down slightly versus the first quarter of 2016, while exposure was in line with recent periods and new business was up slightly year-over-year. In middle market, retention remained very strong at 87% with renewal premium change of about a point and a half, in line with recent quarters. In terms of new business opportunities, given our leadership position in the market, submissions were up year-over-year. Accordingly, we had more opportunities to quote on the types and classes of business we find attractive and to grow our new business while maintaining our return thresholds. In Other Business Insurance, retention of 82% was up a point year-over-year, while renewal premium change was 0.5 and new business of $154 million was consistent with the second quarter of 2015. As we've mentioned in the past, Other Business insurance includes our National Property Business. While there continues to be some rate pressure in this business, returns remain attractive, and as a result, retention is our priority. As you can see, on Page 13 of the webcast, excluding National Property, renewal rate change for Other Business Insurance remains positive and was relatively consistent with recent quarters. In International, net written premiums for the second quarter were down about 12% quarter-over-quarter, excluding the impact of foreign exchange, net written premiums were down about 9%, driven by disciplined underwriting actions in our UK business, along with lower economic activity impacting the Marine and energy lines of our Lloyd's business. New business of $107 million was up 67% year-over-year, driven primarily by Optima, our new strategic Personal Lines Auto product in Canada, which was modeled after our US-based Quantum Auto 2.0 product, so always a good quarter for the segment with strong production and profitability. I'll turn now to Bond & Specialty Insurance where we had another terrific quarter. Operating income of $202 million was up significantly from the prior-year quarter, driven by a higher level of net favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio of 80.9% remains exceptionally strong. As for topline, net written premiums for the quarter were in line with the prior year, as growth in Management Liability was offset by lower Surety premium. The lower Surety volume was due almost entirely to favorable one-time reinsurance impacts in the prior-year quarter. Across our Management Liability business, retention remained at historically high levels and new business volumes were up, as we continue to execute our strategy of retaining our best accounts, underwriting more business in our return adequate product segments. We continue to feel great about this segment's performance. In Personal Insurance, results were again strong and remain particularly pleased with our ability to add topline growth at appropriate financial returns. Net written premiums for the quarter up $2.1 billion were an all-time high with double-digit growth in Agency Auto, while growth also accelerated in Agency Homeowners and other. In both products, we continue to produce strong retention and new business levels. Agent and consumer receptivity to Quantum Auto 2.0 remains exceptional and importantly, as significant amount of Quantum Auto 2.0 business are now coming through their renewal cycles, we're pleased with the retention rates we're seeing on those policies. In Homeowners, our growth momentum is building due to crossover benefits from Quantum Auto 2.0, as well as pricing changes and improvements to Agent and customer experience. Turning to profitability, operating income for the segment was down compared to the prior year quarter, due primarily to lower net favorable prior-year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio of 89.5% was in line with our expectations, but up about point from the prior year, driven by the impact of the significant new business volume in recent years and normal quarterly volatility in weather and other loss activity. In Agency Auto, the 101.3 combined ratio included 2.7 points in cash, primarily resulting from hail storms. Weather also impacted the underlying combined ratio with 1.7 points of non-cat weather-related losses, which is approximately one point higher than both our expectations and the second quarter of 2015. The remaining increase in the underlying combined ratio was driven by the high levels of new business that I just mentioned. As we've noted before, the Quantum Auto 2.0 business is priced to our long-term target returns and loss experiences performing in-line with our expectations. Turning to Agency Homeowners and other, underlying financial results remain strong. The second quarter underlying combined ratio of 78.2% is well within our target return levels as we continue to execute our disciplined underwriting and pricing strategies. So overall, for Personal Insurance, we feel great about the growth in the financial returns that the business is generating. Before I turn it back to Gabby, I would like to take a moment to recognize Doreen Spadorcia who announced her retirement from Travelers' effective September 1st of this year. Over the past 30 years, Doreen has played an important role on our management team, and we wish her well as she enjoys a new chapter of her life. With that, let me turn it over to Gabby.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Brian. Tina, we are now ready to start the Q&A portion of the call if I could ask the participants to limit yourself to one question and 1 follow-up, please. Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Randy Binner of FBR and Co. Please go ahead.
Randy Binner:
Hey, Good morning. Thank you. I wanted to talk about the underlying combined ratio in business and international. And I think in the comments and in the press release, you attributed the increase of 2.4% to non-cat weather, but as well as loss cost not being covered by earned pricing. And so, I think - can we get more granular on that, because we’re at a point in the cycle where not covering loss cost with earned trend is potentially an issue and just wanted to get a better detail on that.
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure, Randy, it's Alan, I'll take that. So the underlying combined ratio in that segment, you're right, was down 2.4 points. Part of that was commission and that was a year-over-year comparison thing, nothing going on there. The other piece of that was in the loss ratio, the majority of that does come from non-cat weather. There is a relatively small piece of earned rate versus loss trend coming through. And one of the reasons we showed you Page four in the webcast was to try to put that in a little bit of context. So really what's impacting year-over-year is the weather. You get, as we said before, we tried to make clear that rate and loss trend is one small piece of what goes on, but there is also taxes, expenses, base year, mixed - the impact of changes in claim handling, things like that. Everything else, as we would've expected was a wash. So, there is nothing in that that earned rate versus loss trend that was surprising to us or that we think shouldn't had been evident from the return information we’ve provided over the last year or so.
Randy Binner:
Is that - is the piece of it, though, that's the loss trend versus earned pricing, is that - I think you're saying that it’s not surprising you, but it does seem to be changing, is it a bigger piece of the equation than it has been in the last few quarters?
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s the earned impact of what we’ve been disclosing is written over the past year. So it's earning in as we would've expected and we called it out just in the interest of transparency. But again, nothing that surprises us and given where our return and earned returns are, nothing that we’re not comfortable with.
Randy Binner:
And then just finally… Sorry, go ahead.
Alan Schnitzer:
I would just say - as I said in my prepared remarks, Randy, we're very comfortable with the model returns on the business we’re writing, and so just to give you a little bit more context.
Randy Binner:
And then with non-cat whether, this would be truly episodic, nothing trend wise you’ve seen in that?
Alan Schnitzer:
That's correct. Nothing trend wise and that, it's all volatility and non-cat weather.
Randy Binner:
All right. Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Kai Pan, Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Kai Pan:
Good morning. First question is on the pricing, slight uptick in the second quarter. Could you give a little bit more granularity in term by lines or by count size, what do you see underlying sort of trends there in terms of both by - from supply and demand side. And what do you see could potentially be the upside pricing as well as downside to that pricing?
Brian MacLean:
Yeah, Kai, so this is Brian. I’ll start, a couple of broad dynamics. Not surprisingly, Auto was the line where we're seeing the most positive pricing movement. Comp is, I think, the line with the most pressure, and that's, I think, really consistent with workers comp, if you see what’s coming out of NCCI and other competitors, that's not surprising. From an account size perspective, larger accounts under more pressure, so we've talked a lot and others have talked about a large property business. We think that's somewhat consistent with the returns that have been in that business, but some pressures are there, I think, even larger casualty business is under a little more pressure than the middle and small type of business. I don’t think from an industry perspective, there is anything appreciable, but that would be the broad strokes.
Kai Pan:
Okay. Then a follow-up on the reserve side, looks like reserve continued to be strong. And I just want to focus on those three areas. One is that, workers comp released in 2015, is that sort of like - is that too early for a long-term on the business. And secondly, the $82 million environmental charges, looks like we are having those amounts for - at least for the last five to six years, just wondering any, like, why wouldn't you book, if you know the pattern is there, why wouldn't you book a big charge upfront. And then the third piece is a pretty strong, like a bond, especially continue to release that any underlying loss cost trend there will be appreciated. Thank you so much.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Kai. This is Jay Benet. Let’s try to take them in order. So, as far as the workers comp, you're absolutely right, when you have a very long tail line of business, you look very, very carefully at things that happened in the short-term and don't necessarily react to them. In the case of workers’ comp, what you're seeing here is favorable development in 2015 that related to a relatively short component of it relating to medical where medical bills come in quickly, they get resolved quickly, and the assumption that we had put in there for medical inflation was just too high. So while the line itself is a long tail line, there are components of it that are more short tail, and that's primarily why we reacted to there. As far as the environmental piece is concerned, I think, if you look at us, as well as the industry, you'll see a similar pattern, if you will, of people trying to, at various points in time, estimate what the ultimate is going to be for environmental losses, and recognizing that you're dealing with something that is a very difficult kind of reserve to truly evaluate. So, in doing so, you have to make various assumptions as to what the future is going to look like in terms of new claims, new policyholders, what the average frequency and severity might be associated with things that have been reported or not reported. And it's those assumptions that you're constantly updating as time goes on. So what we disclosed, I’ll point you to the 10-Q, what we disclosed this year is actually very similar to what we've disclosed in prior periods and what you've seen other companies disclose that there really hasn't been a change in the environment per se, things have gotten a little better, but the rate of them getting better has just been less than - previously assumed or hoped for, and that's a chunk of the reserve addition. In addition to that, we’re always subject to judicial rulings or other things to take place episodically in various jurisdictions. There was one that came out of the Northwest, increased modestly, some of our claim cost there that we also recognized. And then finally, on the Bond & Specialty, this was a quarter for a fairly large prior reserve development benefit. I wouldn't say there was anything unusual about it. This is, as you know, it's a high severity low frequency business. It's one where information emerges slowly. As it emerges, you're always evaluating whether or not it's blossomed to a level where you really feel action is appropriate. So, there are things that have been taking place whether it's in items related to the financial crisis or whatever that we’ve been watching, but things got to a point this quarter where we recognized that it was appropriate to take some reserve action. It wasn't any one product line, it wasn't any one particular claim or things like that, it was pretty much spread across the whole Management Liability and Surety book of business.
Kai Pan:
Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Nannizzi of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Michael Nannizi:
Thanks so much. Can you talk a little bit about, when we talked about non-cat weather in BI and Personal Auto.? Can you talk about non-cat weather in homeowners’ book and how that has looked recently?
Brian MacLean:
Michael, this is Brian, again. In this quarter, similarly there was some, but not to the same degree. So just to quantify this, as I said about a point on the Auto side, it was probably about half-a-point on the Personal Property side of some impact there, so some, but not as dramatic of that, again, that specifically the PCS event.
Michael Nannizi:
Got it. I guess I am just curious because it looks like in the last few quarters, like especially in BI, we've talked about non-cat weather impacting the underlying and sort of a driver for the year-over-year comps being negative. And then in Auto, it looks like it was a factor this quarter as well, but when I look at my estimates and your results over the last several quarters, Homeowners has been consistently better. And I think better even relative to your outlook as you've disclosed in your Qs. So, I’m just trying to understand how - why the impact is potentially disproportionate in these areas, because the nature of the risk is different or reinsurance or something else that's causing non-cat weather to be - it looks like a tailwind in one and potentially a headwind in the others.
Michael Klein:
Yeah, Michael, this is Michael Klein. I think what you're seeing is a combination of factors in the Home product and weather is one of them. In the case of this quarter, I think what you see is, to Brian’s point on the net impact, it's a couple of moving parts underneath. You’ve got the weather impact, but we also have sort of underlying experience on fire, non-weather water losses. That again, also fluctuate quarter-to-quarter. So when Brian talked about weather and other normal quarterly fluctuations, that's really what he’s talking about and this quarter was an example of that where we had some other non-cat weather, again, non-weather water, fire experience that came in better than expected. And importantly, for the year-over-year comparison, this quarter, there actually was a significant individual risk fire loss in the second quarter of last year that helps the quarter-over-quarter comparison just to give you a little bit of color on that.
Michael Nannizzi:
Got it. That's very helpful, thanks. And then, maybe Brian, on BI, so it sounded like from Alan’s comments that the lift in the expense ratio was commissioned related. I'm guessing that means that it should continue, because I'm also just sort of trying to square that, because at 33, no, it’s not, okay.
Brian MacLean:
Yeah, the commission - last year in the second quarter, we had a takedown in our contingent commission accrual that reduced the number. So that created a year-over-year kind of difference.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah. The delta is not really in the base commission, so delta is in these other things that caused quarter-to-quarter variances.
Brian MacLean:
Yeah.
Michael Nannizzi:
Got it. But I guess my other point is so the 33.3 expense ratio in this quarter, forget the comps, but just the app number this quarter, is that how we should be thinking about, because it sounds like there was some one-offs last year, but this quarter, is that how we should be thinking about the expense ratio from here?
Alan Schnitzer:
It's Alan, Michael. I guess I would say that we try not to forecast on these individual pieces, but what I’d suggest is maybe you go back over the last - I don’t know, somewhere between two and four quarters and average the number and maybe use that as sort of a proxy for a go-forward number, but there is always going to be some volatility quarter-to-quarter.
Michael Nannizzi:
Okay. Got it. Just because it does scream relatively high when I go back, so it sounds like maybe there is some volatility, I was just trying to understand what drove just some episode of higher expense ratio that should cause that to normalize as you’re sort of suggesting, it should, but maybe I can follow up afterwards. Thanks.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Thanks. Our next question comes from Ryan Tunis of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
Hey, thanks. My first question I guess is for Brian. I was just hoping for a little bit more color on what's been driving the solid new business growth in middle markets. I think you mentioned submissions are up, but I guess sort of like over the past couple of quarters that it has been pretty strong and just sort of what you're seeing on the new business front?
Brian MacLean:
I think it's a couple of factors. We believe, as I tried to say in my comments, driven by the factor, I think we're in a pretty strong position in the marketplace. We’ve been executing in a very stable and effective way, I think for a long period of time. We've got some real competitive advantages. The overall market is pretty stable, but there has been some pretty well publicized dislocations, and at least a couple of very large carriers had been very open about taking profit, improvement actions, and so that's created some specific opportunities, but I think, we think more broadly, has also created a little bit of a mood in the marketplace of flight to quality. So like I said, we've seen our submission activity up a decent amount and we've also, consistent with that, been driving a message to our organization, not strategically to do anything different with returns, but to be more active, and to be out there quoting more. So, just to be blunt about it, we're pushing our place pretty hard right now to be real active in the marketplace and get out of the quotes and not compromise on returns, but try to meet the opportunity of the submission activity, and that's been paying off in specifically our core middle market, commercial accounts business and the construction areas.
Alan Schnitzer:
Ryan, I would add to that that part of our motivation behind pushing little bit more activities, just where returns are, product returns in the marketplace after five or so years of price increases, and so there is a lot out there that's potentially attractive to us, consistent. This is really important, consistent with our return objectives. So we're not making any compromises on that.
Ryan Tunis:
Okay. That makes a lot of sense. I guess my other question was just looking at the margin trajectory in Agency Auto and how to think about that on a go-forward basis. I guess, year-to-date, there have been a couple of things that have been - that seemed to have been weighing on the loss, actually on loss ratio some, is the new business drag, then there is the elevated non-cat weather, but something that we were a little bit - interesting was looking at the 10-Q, it looks like the language looking in to 2017 was that margins would remain kind of where they have been. And I'm just kind of curious, as you lap the elevated new business and you get rid of the lower non-cat weather, why would margins not be improving kind of as you look out into 2017?
Brian MacLean:
So I think, just a couple of quick comments and I will pass it to Michael. Certainly, we view that the non-cat weather as episodic, and so we think that should absolutely return to normal levels. On the new business dynamic, the good news is that we continue to write some significant levels of new business through that product. So we feel great that we are building real embedded value in that portfolio, but it is going to take longer. The stronger the production topline is, the longer it is going to take for that to really work through the loss ratio. The other point I'd make is, the Quantum 2.0 product also was designed to have a lower expense ratio and a little bit higher on loss side. So you have to look at the combined in total to get that product. So...
Michael Klein:
Brian, if I can just clarify something. One of the things we actually added to the Q this quarter was in the outlook section, we have previously spoken to underlying underwriting margins. So we thought it was important to add combined ratio, because people often use those terms interchangeably. And as you know, the combined ratio is a function of the premium volume, whereas, the margins are just dollars. And just to clarify what we're saying here in the Q is, for Auto, which I think is what we're talking about, the early part of '17, the company expects underlying underwriting margins, the dollars to be slightly higher because of what's taking place with writing higher volumes of business, that's profitable. But writing a higher percentage of new business relative to the base is also causing a slight uptick in the underlying combined ratio. So, you have this feature here where the dollars are going up, at the same time that the combined ratio is going up. So I just wanted to clarify that.
Ryan Tunis:
Yes. That’s helpful. I think I was a little bit confused by that. Thanks guys, appreciate it.
Alan Schnitzer:
Ryan, the other factor just to know it's not all this new business impact from what we are writing. As Michael explained a second ago, we haven't had this last quarter or so, this favorable non-weather loss activity. And as we also highlighted in 10-Q, we expect that to return to a more normal level. So that's also having on a go-forward basis, a slight adverse impact.
Michael Klein:
This is Michael Klein. We’re looking at what is underneath just to reiterate, right, Quantum Auto 2.0 is priced at the same return level as the book of business has been priced to. So it really is the dynamic of preponderance of newer I think of it as younger business, right, the portfolio is getting younger because of the outsized growth that we've seen over the last couple of years. But the long-term return targets for the product will remain consistent with where they have been.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Amit Kumar of Macquarie. Please go ahead.
Amit Kumar:
Thanks, and good morning. Two quick questions, probably these are follow-ups. And I apologize if I'm still not clear. Just going back to the discussion on BI and what Randy was asking, if you ex out all the moving parts, and just focus on the underlying discussion on the negative loss cost trends versus on pricing, is it episodic as what you're seeing or is this - the usual sort of trend line, i.e., you've talked about this in the past that overtime this equation will get flipped, and now we're at the point where it has flipped. I'm just trying to understand that.
Alan Schnitzer:
It's not episodic. There is a trend there, but I think what we've told in the past is, there is some danger to looking at that very narrow definition of rate versus loss trend. And obviously, anybody could look at rate which is sort of around zero and loss trend, which is something north of zero on a written basis, and it has been moving in that direction for some number of quarters, so as anybody as we would've expected, as that earns in over time, there will be some negative pressure on margin. But what we've said in the past is you've got to look at that in the context of all the other moving pieces that impact underlying underwriting margin, things like we have a tax impact year-over-year this quarter, there is expenses, there is base years, there is mix, all those other things go into that number, and what we've shown you this quarter is all that comes out to about a wash. And I guess, I'd also point you to the outlook where we give you a sense of over the next four quarters or so that we would expect underlying underwriting margins obviously subject to the volatility of weather and whatnot to continue to be broadly consistent.
Brian MacLean:
The other thing I’d emphasize, this is Brian, is that there's a lot of things in there that we have to react to, and there are other things in there that we are actively managing. And so, you shouldn't have the impression that we are just sitting by, and as Alan just said, pricing is at roughly zero this quarter, rate and loss trend is something north of that that we're just conceding that margins will recede. We are managing our mix, we're taking actions in underwriting selection, we're taking actions in claim execution, which are all impacting our loss trend. And then, we are reacting to weather volatility, et cetera, that might be moving through the business. So there is no denying that the sheer arithmetic of that narrow piece, the loss trend in the rate right now is a negative. We've said in the past that it's relatively modest, and it continues to be relatively modest, and then there are all the other impacts that are going through.
Amit Kumar:
Got it. That's a fair comment. The second question I had was just going back to the discussion on Quantum 2.0. In the past, when we’ve talked about loss cost trends, frequency was pecked at 0.5, severity was at 2.5. Has there been any evolution in that number or is it still the same?
Brian MacLean:
No. We didn't see anything different in the core underlying trends of what was going on in the Auto book. So we would be at exactly those numbers you just said, about 0.5 frequency, 2.5 severity. And as we’ve said in the Quantum Auto 2.0 specifically, still running consistent with our loss expectations.
Amit Kumar:
Yeah, got it. That’s all I have. Thanks for the answers.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Charles Sebaski of BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Charles Sebaski:
Thanks for getting me in. I guess I'd like to follow-up again on, following [indiscernible] Quantum 2.0, and the Agency Auto book, and the clarity. I realized there is an additional disclosure in the Q, but how you guys expect the Auto book to evolve out. I guess, the commentary of early '17 being plus or minus 16, which is plus or minus 15, and you say that you’re underwriting to a same return dynamic. But I guess, this has been a book influx that coming out of 2011 and '12 where it’s been underperforming and the introduction of Quantum 2.0, just where is the run rate on what you should - what we should expect that - there is so many moving parts, but it seemed like there should be a story that was improving, and I guess, the commentary seems to be that it's maybe gotten as good as it's going to get. Is that right?
Brian MacLean:
So the message absolutely is not, this is as good as it's going to get. The core from a profitability perspective, let me start with the top line perspective, because what’s the story on Quantum 2.0. We have been pleasantly surprised with the traction the product has gotten in the business in the marketplace. We clearly went in with an expectation that this would enhance growth and we've done better than our original expectations there and you can see the numbers. So we feel good about that. And we are not sure where that's going to go exactly in the future, but we think that we're going to be able to sustain some pretty decent amount of growth going forward. From the profitability perspective, just as it is true of all business that we've ever written in this product, it matures over the years, and so there's a tenure impact. And as Michael just said, the younger tenured business is typically not as profitable as we write the business where we’re targeting a tenured, longer-term return and we're on track to do that. So as this portfolio matures, and as Quantum 2.0, as we get more and more of the aging of the book, we believe the trend should absolutely be improving profitability on this business.
Charles Sebaski:
Okay. I guess, on that, could you give us some additional insight on the tenure, the curing of the Auto book on what is the average policy life for you guys on this? I guess, when I think of some commercial accounts that might be longer, it seems that Auto still is a quick-return product. So this introduction of new growth, which has really been strong, what's the timeline for curing on an Auto book and how long do you average keep Auto policies?
Michael Klein:
So, Charles, I don't know that I’ll get into the specifics of the policy life expectancy, et cetera, but to give you a little bit more color, this is Michael, on aging of the Auto book, you have to really think about both components of what's going on here, right. So first, you need to think about a vintage and think about a book of business we're writing to given policy year, and that new business that we write in that term that comes on at a higher loss ratio early, and then as we renew, it improves. If you look at the production statistics that we've been disclosing and the high levels of new business, what's happening inside the portfolio then, which is the second piece, is on average the portfolio is getting younger, right. And if younger business carries a higher loss ratio, that's what we described as the increase in the combined. So when you look at the outlook for the first half of - or I'm sorry, the second of '16, we see the combined ratio will be higher due to the impact of the higher new business levels we’ve been writing, that is the underlying dynamic that's flowing through the book, that does continue into the first half of '17, it just gets offset by an expectation of return to normalized non-cat weather levels. And so the underlying dynamic of the book getting younger meaning, less tenured, right, we’ve had the accounts not as long, continues into ‘17, recognize also though that as we write more Quantum Auto 2.0 business, there is a benefit to the combined ratio from an offsetting improvement in the expense ratio, because it carries commissions. So that underlying ageing of the book or reducing average tenure of the book does continue into ‘17, it just gets offset by again an expectation of a return to more normalized weather. That’s why the outlook reads the way it does.
Brian MacLean:
It's an assumption, not an expectation.
Michael Klein:
I'm sorry, it's an assumption.
Alan Schnitzer:
So one of the point on that, so again, as Michael said, we’re not going to give you explicitly the target we have for life expectancy on policies. We think that's part of our competitive kind of conversation. We clearly accept that hitting the expectations of retaining the business is important, which is why in my comments, I emphasized that as we are going into year two and in some cases year three for the Quantum Auto 2.0 product, we feel really good that we are hitting the retention rates we expected. So whatever our expectation was for life expectancy, along with our statement about losses are progressing, so is the retention of the business and you can look at our long-term retention and begin to deduce some kind of policy life expectancy by just doing the arithmetic.
Charles Sebaski:
Thank you very much for the answers.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jay Gelb of Barclays. Please go ahead.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you. I was hoping to get a bit more insight on the pace of share buybacks. It's slowed over the past few quarters on a linked-quarter basis. And the slowdown in share buybacks was actually a little greater than the reduction in earnings for the first half of 2015 to the first half of 2016. Can you give us a bit more insight on that?
Jay Benet:
Yes. Jay, this is Jay. I think you’re looking back at a period of time where, as we’ve said in the past, over time, share buybacks are going to be enabled by earnings and all these pension contributions and whatever, it's the earnings of the place over time that will drive what the total share buybacks and dividends are and what you saw and I think you even ask the question in the past can we continue to buyback at levels that are higher than our earnings, well, this is the flipside of it. This is just an indication of the timing element of when we look and see what the future quarter projections are. They obviously come out to be whatever they will be and we’re just taking the numbers in the particular quarter that we’re doing the share buybacks over a longer term view to say in this particular quarter, 550 sounds like the right number. So I wouldn't read anything into it in terms of a change in philosophy or a change in execution, it's just going to be the, what we’d refer to as the normal quarterly variation and the policy and a discipline that's been set for a long period of time.
Jay Gelb:
I see. Okay. Thank you for that. Second one, what was the overall impact in the combined ratio in 2Q from non-cat weather? On a combined ratio basis?
Alan Schnitzer:
We are looking.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. While you're - if you have that number. I also wanted to ask about - I know the UK leave vote is not significant relative to Travelers in its overall business, but if you have any thoughts on that, I think that would be real helpful for us.
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure. In terms of BREXIT, the most significant impact to us would be whatever it means for the overall economic activity, the amount of premium that we write out of the UK that relies on passporting is very, very small, it’s something like 5% of our overall international premium and about half of that is to Lloyd’s and we assume that one way or another, Lloyd’s will address the passporting issue as will we by the way. A long way to go to see how that's going to work out and what the ultimate arrangements are going to be, but other than the overall macro impact, we don't expect any significant impact to us.
Jay Gelb:
Appreciate that, Alan.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Paul Newsome of Sandler O'Neill. Please go ahead.
Paul Newsome:
Good morning. And congratulations on the quarter. I wanted to ask about the competitive landscape in the personal lines business. We've had a few management changes of recent note, like places at Progressive and State Farm. I'm wondering if the components of who is being competitive out there have changed in the last year.
Michael Klein:
Yes, Paul. This is Michael Klein. I would say broadly speaking, the answer to that question is no, I mean, competitive dynamics are very local in the business as well. And so while there have been changes in management at some national competitors and frankly, some local regionals as well, the broad competitive dynamics in the business remain consistent, when we look at the rate filing monitoring that we do in the business to assess the rates that carry and take in particular states in auto or home. We don't see a lot of shift in behavior there. So I would say the competitive dynamics are broadly consistent.
Paul Newsome:
So, the general idea that the agency folks keep losing share and the regionals and the direct people are the most competitive? Is that still kind of really the case?
Michael Klein:
I think if you look at the latest A.M. Best data, you continue to see some incremental shift in share by channel. Interestingly, I think consistent with the last couple of years, the majority of the games you are seeing in the sort of online direct channel are actually coming from captive and less and less from independent agency, but broadly I think those trends continue.
Paul Newsome:
Great, thanks. Appreciated.
Jay Benet:
This is Jay Benet. Somebody asked the question about what was the impact on the combined ratio of non-cat weather. And one thing, I will give you the number but I also have to give a little bit of a preface to it. Now, we are parsing things very thin here and talking strictly about that. So if you have the question what's the impact of non-cat weather on a combined ratio on a consolidated basis, we would say 150 basis points. But I’d also point out that if you ask the question about well what about other losses that goes in a different direction and what about mix and that goes in a different direction. So we will answer your question but there is lots and lots of things that are taking place here that makes the one number not necessarily indicative of the trends or of what's going to or what the expectation is. So I would just urge you to go back to the Q and the outlook to see what all of this to us actually translates into.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jay Cohen of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.
Jay Cohen:
Just to follow up, the language in the Q on the commercial - on the business insurance segment, you extended the commentary on the margin into 2017. Again, the broadly consistent language, I assume that’s largely because of the first half of ‘16 at a high level of loss activity non-cat weather, is that fair?
Alan Schnitzer:
That’s right there are some large losses in non-cat weather that in the outlook we would expect to return to normal levels, we would assume.
Jay Cohen:
Got it. Thanks and then the second question may be for Bill Heyman because he hasn’t had a chance to speak yet. Obviously, as we would expect the non-fixed income returns are always going to be variable. Can you give us a sense given how the portfolio is constructed today, what is an expected return for that portfolio at this point?
Bill Heyman:
Thanks Jay, I think an expected return for non-fixed income ought to be in the high single digits pre-tax. If you look at this quarter, we made a bit more real estate then we figured, real estate has two components rentals from properties we own, and NII from real estate funds. Hedge funds were below what we expected but positive and the big variable was private equity where the portfolio was almost flat maybe few million dollars and we would have expected about $50 million pre-tax. Now what’s interesting is the cash flow from that portfolio has remained at historical levels. And it typically hasn’t contained as much NII in the past. So, we still we would aim for a double-digit pre-tax return on these assets and if we didn't feel we can do that we probably would reduce our allocation. But I think a fair expectation is high-single digits pre-tax.
Gabriella Nawi:
And the next question will be our last question. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our final question comes from Larry Greenberg with Janney. Please go ahead.
Larry Greenberg:
And I apologize for going back to this but I mean just listening to some of the chatter that’s out there this morning, there is something of a view that you guys elaborating on the pricing lost trend relationship in business insurance suggests that you’re seeing or thinking something new. And if I hear what you're saying it really doesn't appear to be the case and I just want to be sure that I’ve got that right.
Alan Schnitzer:
Larry, it's Alan. Let me be very clear about this there is nothing that’s changed there is nothing that’s surprising us and everything is consistent with what we’ve reported to you on a written basis over the last four quarters. The real reason we put it in there is we wanted to be completely transparent, it’s a very small piece but we thought gee, if we didn't put it in there, you or somebody would have said to us, gee, how can this not be happening because we are looking at your written numbers over the last three or four quarters. So I’ll just reiterate it’s small, it's within our expectations, it wraps up with all the other things that are typically moving around in a quarter, it’s about a wash in terms of the year-over-year impact and nothing - no message intended in terms of anything out of the ordinary, completely expected, completely consistent with what we've seen on a written basis and we continue to be very pleased with the model of returns on the business that we're writing.
Larry Greenberg:
And then just my follow up, Jay in your discussion on non-renewing that cat on, I think you said that the reason was due to your current risk profile and I'm just curious about that comment and if you could elaborate a little bit on that?
Jay Benet:
Primarily our cat program is one that products capital not one that really deals with income protection, if you look at where limits are and things of that sort and where the attachment points are, it's pretty high up there. So in any given period, we’re looking at the entirety of it, where our property exposures are and just given the way the book has evolved over the last few years, we just felt that this wasn't really adding much on a risk versus cost basis so we decided not to renew it.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great, that's it. It concludes our call for today, as always we at investor relations are available for follow-up questions. Have a great day. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen that does conclude the conference call for today, we thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect all lines. Thank you and have a good day.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director Jay S. Benet - Vice Chairman & Chief Financial Officer Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance
Analysts:
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Ryan J. Tunis - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Charles Joseph Sebaski - BMO Capital Markets (United States) Vinay Misquith - Sterne Agee CRT Jay Gelb - Barclays Capital, Inc. Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co. Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP Sarah E. DeWitt - JPMorgan Securities LLC Brian Robert Meredith - UBS Securities LLC Meyer Shields - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the First Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 21, 2016. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may now begin.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our 2016 first quarter results. Hopefully, all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com, under the Investor section. Speaking today will be
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thank you, Gabby. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. This morning, we reported first quarter operating income of $698 million, or $2.33 per share, and operating return on equity of 12.5%. Especially in light of a relatively high level of catastrophe losses in the quarter, our underwriting results across the board remain strong, as reflected in our combined ratio of 92.3%. To put the weather in some context, our catastrophe losses were about $100 million, after tax, higher in the quarter than they were last year, and these are the highest first quarter cat losses we've had since 2010. The timing of catastrophes is, of course, unpredictable, but this level of weather volatility is certainly within our playbook. We're confident in our ability to model and manage our exposures and that we're pricing appropriately for the risk. In this case, it just so happens that, by design, we have a healthy market share in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, where severe hailstorms were concentrated. Doreen will have more to say about the severity and about our claim analytics. The real story this quarter is about our execution in the marketplace. And across all our businesses, we couldn't be more pleased. In our commercial businesses, we continued to be successful in our efforts to maximize retentions on our best-performing accounts and improved profitability on poor-performing business. Retentions in the quarter were again at very high levels by historical standards and renewal premium change was positive. We believe these production results were right on target, given our view of product returns, but as we've explained before, we don't manage the business on an aggregate basis. We execute deliberately, account-by-account or class-by-class. And you can see this on Slide 13 of the webcast, which displays the distribution of rate changes for our Middle Market accounts in the first quarter. As you can see from the slide, most accounts received a single-digit rate increase and there were a number of accounts that had a rate increase of greater than 5% or even 10%. So even now with the headline pure rate change just slightly negative, we continue to achieve rate gains in excess of loss trend on our poorer-performing business. The real takeaway from this slide is that the aggregate rate number is simply an average of thousands of individual account actions, and that success in this business is not about the aggregate rate number. It's about taking the right action on each account and generating an appropriate return over time. Our execution in the quarter also benefited from a commercial lines pricing environment that, from our vantage point, continues to be remarkably stable. The outlook that we provided this morning in our 10-Q for our BII and BSI segments suggest more of the same
Jay S. Benet - Vice Chairman & Chief Financial Officer:
Thanks, Alan. I'll start by saying that we were pleased with our first quarter results, operating income of $698 million and operating return on equity of 12.5%, despite their being lower than the prior year quarter. As page 4 of the webcast indicates, the $129 million decrease in operating income from last year's first quarter did not come about due to lower underlying underwriting results. Our consolidated underlying combined ratio is 90% this quarter, 30 basis points better than the prior year quarter. Rather, the decrease in operating income, along with the decrease in operating ROE, resulted from two items
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Thanks, Jay. In Business and International Insurance, operating income was $476 million, with a combined ratio of 94.8%. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of cats and prior year reserve development, was 93.3%, up about 0.5 point compared to the first quarter of 2015, reflecting a typical level of quarterly fluctuations within both the loss and expense ratios. This result is in line with our expectations, and we continue to feel very good about our underlying results. Net written premiums for the quarter were up 3% year-over-year, with Domestic Business Insurance premiums up about 5%, driven by the strong production results across all our businesses. In Domestic Business Insurance, we remain pleased with the continued execution of our pricing strategy. Given the attractive returns that we are generating in this business, our focus continues to be on retention and, accordingly, we're very pleased that retention is at a historical high of 85% for the quarter. Renewal premium change came in at 2.2 points, while renewal rate change was down slightly in the quarter and about flat overall. New business increased to $575 million, reflecting strong results across all our businesses. Turning to the individual businesses, beginning with Select, we achieved strong retention of 81%, and renewal premium change of nearly 7%. Rate change was down about a point versus the fourth quarter of 2015, driven in large part by recently filed rate changes in Workers' Compensation. We generated new business of $103 million, up slightly year-over-year. In Middle Market, retention reached a historic high of 88%, with renewal premium change of a point, in line with the fourth quarter of 2015. Importantly, retention of our best-performing business was approximately 90%, while for our poorer-performing accounts, we achieved rate gains in excess of loss trend. New business of $321 million was up 8% year-over-year, due in large part to strong results in our Construction business. In Other Business Insurance, retention of 82% was up both year-over-year and compared to the fourth quarter of 2015. Renewal premium change of about a point was in line with recent quarters, while new business of $151 million was up 24% versus the prior year, driven by Inland Marine, Boiler and Transportation lines of business. So across Domestic Business Insurance, we achieved strong retention and saw an increased level of new business opportunities in the marketplace. As Alan mentioned, our agents and brokers view us as a stable market with industry-leading products and services, which we believe had a favorable impact on both retention and new business, particularly in this environment, where several significant competitors are experiencing some degree of disruption. Turning to International, net written premiums for the first quarter were down about 10% year-over-year, primarily due to the adverse impact of foreign exchange rates. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, net written premiums were down about 4%, driven by disciplined underwriting in the face of highly competitive market conditions in the property lines at Lloyds. Retention for the quarter was strong at 82%. Renewal premium change was slightly negative, but above recent quarters, and new business of $76 million was up more than 30% year-over-year, driven primarily by Optima, our new strategic personal lines auto product in Canada. This product was modeled after our U.S.-based Quantum Auto 2.0 product. And while we're still in the early days of the rollout, we're encouraged by the response, as we continue to see a significant increase in new business volume. In summary, in the segment, we achieved strong underlying underwriting and production results, a great start to 2016. And with that, let me turn it over to Doreen.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Thank you, Brian, and good morning, everyone. Bond & Specialty Insurance started 2016 with a strong first quarter. And we remain exceptionally pleased with the financial returns in this segment. For the quarter, operating income was $144 million, up from the first quarter of 2015, due primarily to a higher level of net favorable prior year reserve development. We've also improved underlying underwriting results. The underlying combined ratio of 81.1% was almost two points better than the prior year, driven by two items
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Thank you. We're now ready to take Q&A, if I could ask you to limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Operator, go ahead.
Operator:
Thank you. And our first question is from the line of Kai Pan from Morgan Stanley. Please proceed.
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thank you and good morning. My first question on catastrophe in the quarter, the $380 million, almost a third of your sort of normalized annual budget of $1 billion, so does this surprise you? And there were talk about heightened activity in hailstorms. Does it have implication for your pricing as well as your market exposure?
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Kai, good morning. It's Alan. Let me start and I'll see if others want to fill in. As I said in my opening remarks, the timing of catastrophes are always surprising to us, but there's nothing about the level of losses in that storm that are particularly surprising. It's in our playbook and we do feel like our risk selection and pricing is spot on, so nothing about this event that causes us to rethink anything. And if it had been a couple of weeks later in the second quarter, where we typically expect more frequency of severe storms, we wouldn't really have thought anything about it, so timing off by maybe a couple of weeks but nothing about it that we find surprising.
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. My follow-up question is on the BI pricing, looks like continue the downward trends. I just wonder what give you confidence to maintain the good level of core margin or underlying margin, given the downward pricing trend, as well as now you have a higher level of new business. How do you make sure the underwriting of this or will that increase your initial accident year loss pick?
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Kai, if you look at the gradual slope of that pricing trend, yes, pricing is going down, but it's very, very gradual and it's consistent with our product returns. And this is why we wanted to put in Slide 13 that really shows you the redistribution. We continue to look at the execution on a granular basis, and we're very comfortable with the way that we're pricing relative to the returns that we expect, that we're getting on these products.
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah and, Kai, this is Brian MacLean. I'd just chime in on the new business front. First of all, I'd emphasize that we haven't changed any of our return thresholds or our target pricing. And if we're obsessing about one thing in the business today, it's the quality of the new business that we're taking in, and we remain very comfortable that it's in customer segments, products and industries that we really think we understand. So we feel very good about it.
Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Great. Well, thank you so much.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question is from the line of Ryan Tunis from Credit Suisse. Please proceed.
Ryan J. Tunis - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Hey, great. Thanks. My first question, I think, is for Doreen. Just looking at margins, I guess, in Agency Auto, looked like the accident year loss ratio deteriorated by a little more than 1.5 points. And it sounded like you're still attributing that mostly to just the impact of new business. I'm just wondering if that's the type of margin drag we should expect for the remainder of the year from the pressure from new business, or if there's anything else, at least in the short-term, that maybe drove up that accident year loss ratio?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Let me talk about that for a minute. It is really attributable, and I would say solely; obviously, there's always a few things bouncing around, but driven by the volume of new business. What we build in to our modeling curves is the maturity of the book of business. And so what you'll see over time is, each cohort will begin to produce what our long-term returns are. So it is due to the level of new business.
Ryan J. Tunis - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Okay, understood. And then, I guess my follow-up then would just be for Jay Benet, on the investment income side. And it seems like a lot of the discussion's around lower investment yields, but something that stood out to us a little bit is that it looks like the average invested assets were down about a little more than 1% on the quarter. And it also looked like there was, in the 10-Q, an allusion to a $0.5 billion payment on the asbestos side that's coming in the second quarter. So just trying to understand, when you think about that $25 million to $30 million quarterly drag, is that contemplating sort of a lower level of invested assets, or should we think about that as all just being driven by your view of lower reinvestment rates? Thanks.
Jay S. Benet - Vice Chairman & Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah, hi. This is Jay Benet. It is a combination of our view as to what the rate environment looks like, as well as what the average invested assets are and will be. As you'll recall, in the first quarter of last year, we had a large payment to finalize the direct actions settlement for asbestos. That brought the average down a little bit. And, as you rightly point out, we're expecting to make a final payment on the PPG settlement when other parties finalize some of the remaining issues, which we don't view as significant issues, in the second quarter. We expect to make that payment in the second quarter, so that will have an impact as well. Something else that affects the average invested assets, some of our assets are denominated in foreign currency. So you do have some currency exchange taking place where, in effect, the assets are still the same, just the currency-adjusted value is a little lower. But those are the two primary things, the two asbestos payments, that bring it down.
Ryan J. Tunis - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Hey, thanks so much.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Next question.
Operator:
Our next question is from the line of Charles Sebaski of BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed.
Charles Joseph Sebaski - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Good morning. Thank you. First question is on that new business growth in Business Insurance, hoping to just get a little bit more color on, if that's coming from sort of disruption? It seems like the growth relative to the pricing trend, or what is talked about in the industry, is a little bit upside down. I mean, it's a little surprising, the size of it, so I would appreciate any help you could give on what's, you think, is really causing that expansion.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Sure. It's Alan and, again, I'll start. We don't think there's anything different in the pricing, and there's certainly nothing different in the return thresholds that we're seeking that's driving that. At – both increased levels of retention and new business are contributing to it. I think that's an important point. And we really start with what I said in my opening remarks. We think it's the quality and breadth of our products and services, the talent we have in the field, the relationships we have with our producers. All of that always puts us in a great position to win. And on top of that this quarter, as both Brian and I noted, there was some disruption in the marketplace. And given our stability out there, we do think we benefit from that. It's hard, probably impossible, for any of us to try to put a finer point on the allocation of dollars to one cause or another, but we do think all of those things coming together resulted in the higher new business levels.
Charles Joseph Sebaski - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
All right. And then, I guess for Doreen, I saw earlier in the quarter, you guys had a press release out that you're offering a discount for connected homeowners policies. I'm just curious. Any update on kind of that, or any of the other initiatives using technology into personal lines, be it pricing, be it UBI, et cetera?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Yeah, we're still a little new in the space. I'll tell you a couple of things that we have. You know we have IntelliDrive, where we do offer a discount. It's mileage based. We're actually looking further into that, based on the apps (31:19) that are available and perhaps moving beyond mileage. So that's obviously on the list. Second, we did roll out, in a couple of pilot states, for use for individuals when they're using their car for Uber. And what it really does is, it covers what's called the trolling period. Until there's a match, then the coverage is clear that there isn't any personal insurance coverage. And then, this discount for connected homes and if you think about it, similar to what we would do for someone who has an alarm or something of that sort, but we do have both of our homes up at Claim U are connected homes. So we can study how the data comes in. We can study what that changes about the underwriting process and the claim process. And we're also a member of CNET, which has a very sophisticated connected home in Kentucky. And we're the only insurer on that CNET home board looking for all the applications in the connected space, so that's just a little of what we've got going on.
Charles Joseph Sebaski - BMO Capital Markets (United States):
Appreciate all the answers. Thanks a lot, guys.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question is from the line of Vinay Misquith from Sterne Agee. Please proceed.
Vinay Misquith - Sterne Agee CRT:
Hi. Good morning. So the first question for Doreen, just wanted to follow up on the personal auto side. I believe you said frequency was up 3% this quarter for personal auto. Curious as to what it was last year, and have you seen any negative impact from the warmer weather so far in the northeast in the first quarter on your frequency?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
I'm going to give you really detailed answer, but the first thing I want do is correct that we've seen frequency of 3%. We've seen a normalized trend of 3%, which includes 0.5 point for frequency and 2.5 for severity. And that's been something that we've basically had baked into our results for two to three years at this point. So let me just go back a little bit on frequency, because I know we've talked a lot about it. We talked a lot about it at AFA, (34:03) too. We know that others have commented on frequency in the industry. Some have commented that they're seeing higher frequency. Some have not commented at all. So we don't feel like it's the thing that's just ripping through the industry. It's affecting very specific companies. And the most important thing for us is where you're starting from. What assumptions have you made? So we have not assumed flat frequency for a number of years. It's been a 0.5 point. And we may have talked about this last quarter, so I apologize if it's repetitive, but in 2014, there were some observations that frequency was dropping. We analyzed that very, very carefully and really didn't think it was systemic or sustainable. And so at that point, while we recognized the financial impact of that lower frequency for 2014, we went into 2015 assuming that trend was going to go back to where it was, and it did. And so the 0.5 point remains unchanged. The trend remains unchanged, and it really goes back to where you start from.
Vinay Misquith - Sterne Agee CRT:
Okay. That's helpful. The second question is just a follow-up on the new business growth on the Business Insurance. And it seems that the growth was faster in Middle Market and Other Business Insurance, where pricing is maybe slightly weaker than the Select accounts. So was that just a coincidence or just curious as to what's happening between those segments. Thank you.
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, so this is Brian. I think in Middle Market, in particular, we've been doing a lot of things with our process and our people to be really active in the marketplace. Our flow in new business opportunities there are up a bit. And so I think part of it is the activity we've had. I think it's also linked to, and, again, as Alan said, you can't draw perfect connections here, but there is disruption in the marketplace amongst some significant competitors. And I think our strong position with agents and brokers and the breadth of product that we have in capabilities have really helped us there. So I think we're very comfortable. As I also said, we're obsessing over the quality, so we're looking at all of those deals. In the Other Business Insurance world, there is some specific opportunities. We've got a transportation company, Northland Insurance, that does the smaller end of the trucking business, so not the large fleets primarily. They've had some neat opportunities. There's been some opportunity in the Inland Marine and Boiler business, again, somewhat a result of some actions that other carriers have taken. So I think all of those things have added up to it. And I think, I guess the main point, it's not tied directly to pricing and price change opportunity.
Vinay Misquith - Sterne Agee CRT:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question is from the line of Jay Gelb from Barclays. Please proceed.
Jay Gelb - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Thank you. On the Business Insurance rate increase now turning negative, in the 10-Q, I saw in your outlook that for Business Insurance, the expectation is still a stable underlying combined ratio. Can you help me square those two factors?
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Sure, Jay. It's Alan. When we talk about underlying underwriting margin in the outlook, what we're really talking about are dollars, not the combined ratio. And you could look at that as opposite sides of a coin, but we, for instance, would consider volume in there as well. But we've got the outlook being broadly consistent, and obviously we think about that as a margin of something around the prior year period. But in that outlook, earned margin is a little bit negative, and we've got an expectation for large losses improving and volume also improving, and those two things adding give us an outlook of broadly consistent.
Jay Gelb - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
I see. All right. And then my follow-up question is clearly you had elevated first quarter catastrophe losses; given all the destruction in Houston from the floods, if you can give us your perspective on that. Now, I know flooding isn't typically covered for things like homeowners, but it would impact comprehensive auto or maybe some commercial property insurance, if you could help us out there.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, Jay, we're not going to pre-announce second quarter results. I would say we're early in the quarter and we typically expect the typical spring storms in the second quarter. So again, from a human perspective, human side of the news is terrible, but there's nothing about this that strikes us as particularly unusual. There are bad second quarter storms.
Jay Gelb - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Understood. Thanks.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question is from the line of Michael Nannizzi from Goldman Sachs. Please proceed.
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Thank you. Doreen, just to follow-up then on Ryan's question on personal auto, so is it then fair then if it's a function of sort of new business versus the older book that's impacting the loss ratio, so is it fair to assume that as long as the Quantum book continues to grow that that drags sort of continue to run through calendar year results?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Michael, I'm not sure I heard the question, but was it that as long as we're writing Quantum Auto 2.0, we see a drag?
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Well, I think the answer to Ryan's question was something like it's not the new business discount so much a part of it, but it's also because the Quantum book is growing faster than the older book, so there's some mix as well. And so I'm just trying to understand like we had about 180 basis points of drag in the first quarter. Is it fair to assume that as long as Quantum continues to outpace your legacy book in growth, that that drag will continue to roll forward?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Well, Michael, in the outlook, what we said is that our combined ratio would slightly deteriorate. And so I think that's fair for 2016. So we did expect that that pressure would come, and a lot of it has to do with the volume of the business.
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Yes. This is Brian. And I'm trying to get at what I think you're getting at. I'd make the point, the Quantum 2.0 profitability targets and margins are not different from our core book of business.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Right.
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
It's the normal vintaging and aging of business. So if we continue to write significant levels of new business, that will have a comparable impact.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
And...
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Okay.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Sorry, Mike, just to draw your attention it to; this is Gabby. Again, in the outlook, we do say the underlying underwriting margin and just to make fulsome, you've asked about the loss ratio, but, in fact, as we had talked about the Quantum product, it's the loss ratio and the expense ratio, given everything we had taken out. So if you look at the success of the product and what we're thinking about in terms of profitability, it all hangs together.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Yeah. And look at the...
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Got it. Okay. Thank you.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
And to your point, the combined.
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Yeah. Great. And then just on the homeowners' side, just quickly, I saw the expense ratio tick down. It looks like that's sort of seasonally first quarter. But on the loss ratio side, is there anything that we should be thinking about in the underlying there or it looks like obviously you had cat activity, but was the non-cat weather element just lower in the quarter?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Yeah. For the first quarter, it was favorable non-cat weather.
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Okay. Got it. And then last quickly, the tax...
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
That made it favorable.
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
The tax rate in the quarter, maybe this is for Jay.
Jay S. Benet - Vice Chairman & Chief Financial Officer:
Yeah, I think you're asking the question why is the effective tax rate lower this quarter than it had been in prior year quarter. And the effective tax rate is always going to be driven by the mix of tax exempt income and fully taxable income. So what you're seeing here is the taxable income, fully taxable income, as a proportion of the total getting a little less because of the cat activity primarily. The change in the non-fully taxable income, the tax exempt income, was pretty de minimis. So if you do the math on that, you'll see that's the effect on the effective tax rate.
Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Perfect. Thank you so much.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question is from Paul Newsome from Sandler O'Neill. Please proceed.
Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Good morning. Thanks for the call. Congratulations on the quarter. Is there a similar new business effect on the commercial lines side where the seasoning causes an increase in the accident year? And if we see a continued acceleration of new business in the commercial lines side, would we see a similar pattern that we're seeing on the personal lines side?
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. In short, yes. There's a new business vintaging kind of concept, where if you've got disproportionately more new business, that would affect your performance on the current year stuff.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
And, Paul, it's Alan. That's one of the reasons we point out that when we look at the higher levels of premium, it's pretty much evenly distributed between retention and new business. So it's not all coming from...
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
New business at higher loss ratios.
Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Understood. Is it more or less pronounced, in your opinion, than we see in the personal lines business?
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
We're looking at each other. It's hard to say. It's probably similar, maybe a little less.
Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Okay. And then separately, I'd love to know a little bit more, from a product perspective, where we're seeing the disruptions from the competitive perspective?
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
I mentioned some of them. In the construction space, there has been action by other underwriters in the larger account size on the casualty side. There's been some action in the loss responsive businesses. But I think it's also broadly across middle market, and this is where, as Alan said, you can't triangulate to precisely what the numbers are. I think that we have a very strong position with distribution. We've got quality products, and we're viewed as a very stable market. So I think the broad market conditions, even beyond specific products, have been helpful, maybe uniquely to us there. (46:15)
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, Paul, we definitely saw it in those lines of business where we know some of our competitors were taking some actions, but we also saw retention just up generally across middle market. And so, when we look at the flow we're seeing and the businesses that we're seeing it in, it's pretty broadly based.
Paul Newsome - Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP:
Good sign. Thank you very much.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Next question.
Operator:
Our next question is from the line of Sarah DeWitt from JPMorgan. Please proceed.
Sarah E. DeWitt - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Hi. Good morning. Following up on the Business Insurance underlying margin, is it fair to say that it's stable this year mostly because there was higher non-cat weather in 2015, but then, as you look out going forward, it would probably deteriorate because prices are below loss cost inflation? Is that a fair assumption, or am I off?
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, Sarah, it wasn't so much weather in Business Insurance as it was a higher volume of large losses in the last three quarters of last year.
Sarah E. DeWitt - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
And one of the reasons that we give outlook for three or four quarters is because it's just, our perspective beyond that gets unreliable, so I don't know. But what I would point you to is the way we've been able to manage returns across all three business segments over a long period of time throughout a bunch of different conditions. And so, you look at what Doreen and Greg and Michael have done in Personal Insurance by taking some difficult actions and repositioning that business and rolling out a new product; you look at what Tom Kunkel did in Bond & Specialty in a bunch of credit-sensitive businesses through a very difficult period in a financial crisis; think about what we've done in Business Insurance going back to 2010, when you look at the – we went back then, we looked at the outlook for returns and realized that we had to do some things differently. So your perspective that it might fall off beyond where we're giving guidance for suggests purely current course and speed. And I would say that we're current course and speed now because we like product returns, and when we get to a point in time where we don't like product returns, then we'll do different things. So I wouldn't necessarily draw the conclusion you were drawing. But I don't know for sure.
Sarah E. DeWitt - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
We're all speculating beyond three or four quarters.
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
One of the other things that makes it very challenging is, we do talk about loss trend, and the loss trend is off of a starting point, and sometimes we adjust the starting point. You've heard us talk about base year movement. That comes about when we see favorable development and try to evaluate, well, what does that mean for the very loss picks that we had, that were the starting point for the loss trends that go forward. So it is, as Alan said, a pretty complicated set of variables that go into it, and the ability to look out much beyond three quarters or four quarters is a bit challenging.
Sarah E. DeWitt - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay, great. Thank you. And then just on, in Auto Insurance, the top line growth there was very strong. Could you just elaborate on what was driving that? And is that a level that we should view as sustainable?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Well, what we've talked about, Sarah, is that the percentages probably won't be the same, because our base is growing. And, as you probably recall, Quantum 2.0 rolled out over a couple of years, and even including three more states this year, California, North Carolina and Massachusetts. And so, we think that the percentage will moderate, but we're not anticipating that the product would be less competitive. We also are pleased to see, and so were our agents, that they're actually getting a disproportionate share of their new business from captives in the direct marketplace, which is something that we talked to them about. So, I would say the percentage, we definitely don't think will stay the same, but probably from a count perspective, we expect it to continue to perform at similar levels.
Sarah E. DeWitt - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Great. Thank you for the answers.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Uh huh.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question is from Brian Meredith from UBS. Please proceed.
Brian Robert Meredith - UBS Securities LLC:
Yeah, thanks. A couple of just quick questions here, first, Doreen, I think you spoke at AFA (50:54) a little bit about increasing limits on homeowners. I'm just curious, kind of initial success you're having with that. How are agents responding?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Brian, let me just make sure that I reset, because what we talked about at AFA (51:14) was we had pilots underway with 10 agents in a couple of states and we took all of those suggestions
Brian Robert Meredith - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
So we're anticipating later in the year, beginning of 2017, that that would be broadly available. So all the work's being done, but it's not yet broadly in the marketplace.
Brian Robert Meredith - UBS Securities LLC:
Is that going to require an increase in just your overhead expense, i.e. different types of claims adjusters as you get into that higher limit stuff; different types of underwriting, product, that kind of stuff?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
No, Brian. What we did as part of this assessment was looked at whether our current infrastructure, our current claim handling and our current product, could support that. We'll need to make a few tweaks to that, but we're not building this super high-end home capability. This is really the mass affluent and we think we have a really good match with our current capabilities in that marketplace.
Brian Robert Meredith - UBS Securities LLC:
Great. And just a quick one for Jay; Jay, it looks like your pension expense down, earned benefits (52:39) down about $17 million on a year-over-year basis. Is that something we should expect kind of going forward? And where does that hit in your P&L?
Jay S. Benet - Vice Chairman & Chief Financial Officer:
Okay. Well, in terms of the P&L, it's in a couple of places because pension expense, of course, relates to head count. And head count ends up in G&A as well as ULAE. So it's in more than one spot. But as it relates to, you know, what's taking place in the pension area, you may recall in the 10-K, we provided a disclosure saying that we were adopting a new methodology that went into the estimation of pension, and that dealt with using a yield curve approach rather than a spot rate for looking at the interest and service costs to coincide with how the PBO was being calculated. And that did have a benefit, and that'll be a benefit that carries on into the future.
Brian Robert Meredith - UBS Securities LLC:
Great. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question is from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Please proceed.
Meyer Shields - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.:
Thanks. Good morning. I think this is for Doreen. When you have a quarter like this where catastrophes are a little bit higher, does that actually affect the G&A expense? I'm asking specifically homeowners, because that was down sequentially.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Yeah, I didn't hear it.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
I think it was about G&A expense?
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Yeah. No, not...
Jay S. Benet - Vice Chairman & Chief Financial Officer:
No. Yeah, I think the answer is no, it doesn't really. There's obviously some claim expense that could be impacted, but...
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Right.
Jay S. Benet - Vice Chairman & Chief Financial Officer:
But in that case, nothing unusual this past quarter.
Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance:
Yeah. And the only thing down the road I would say about G&A is if we have a very, very profitable year in home, that's where we would add contingent commission, and so we'd be really happy if that went up because it was a great year.
Meyer Shields - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.:
Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. And then more broadly speaking, I think you've mentioned the disruption in the marketplace a few times. Is there enough disruption out there to make it worthwhile to look at sort of building out the skill set into more specialty lines?
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Well, there's nothing about the current level of disruption that's causing us to look at that, in the sense that we look at that all the time. We're always looking for opportunities to expand our product set and to drive our competitive advantages and capabilities into new lines of business, new products. So we certainly don't wait for a moment in time to do that.
Meyer Shields - Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.:
Okay, great. Thanks very much.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Great. And this will be our last question, please.
Operator:
And our final question comes from the line of Jay Cohen from Bank of America. Please proceed.
Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. I guess question on the retention in Business Insurance; is it fair to say that this retention would have been at the upper end of what you might have expected given market conditions?
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah, Jay, this is Brian. Yeah. I mean, the 88% retention in Middle Market was very, very strong, and clearly would be at the upper end. We dissect where we're getting the retention. We feel great that it's about 90% in our best business. But it's our experience in the business would be that those are very tough levels to sustain.
Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
So given that, Brian, then did you guys ever think, gee, we could push a bit more on pricing, maybe let that retention settle in at a still phenomenal 84%, 85%? I know it's a tough balancing act, but is that part of your thought process?
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
So every single day in the marketplace, with every transaction, that's what our underwriters are doing. They're working with agents and brokers in the Middle Market and in the Other Business Insurance stuff account-by-account, and they're trying to determine what's the appropriate thing to do for that account. You can get caught up in the arithmetic of what you just said. And we do ourselves at times, but it's not as straight a line to say, well, if you reduce retention two points and you raise prices X, that's not exactly how the marketplace dynamics work. But we are always trying to look at the retention rate trade-off and looking at that in the context, first and foremost, of the return that we believe we're generating on that account or that book of business and is it appropriate and where do we want to go.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah.
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
So we're balancing it all the time.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
I would take you back to the conversation about account-by-account execution.
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Yeah. The graph that Alan referenced in his opening comments and...
Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Got it. Well, thank you for the answer.
Brian W. MacLean - President & Chief Operating Officer:
Thank you.
Alan D. Schnitzer - Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President-Investor Relations:
Great. Well, this completes our call. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. And as always, we're available in Investor Relations for any follow-up. Thank you and have a nice day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines. Thank you.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - SVP of IR Alan Schnitzer - CEO Jay Benet - Vice Chairman and CFO Brian MacLean - President and COO Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman, CEO of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance Bill Heyman - Vice Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
Analysts:
Jay Gelb - Barclays Randy Binner - FBR & Co. Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Josh Stirling - Sanford Bernstein Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Vinay Misquith - Sterne Agee Charles Sebaski - BMO Capital Markets Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on January 21, 2016. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Tina. Good morning and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our 2015 fourth quarter and full year results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement, and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com, under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, CEO, Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer; and Doreen Spadorcia, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. In addition, Jay Fishman and other members of the Senior Management team are also in the room. Before I turn it over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement, and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. And now, Alan Schnitzer.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Gabi. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. We are very pleased to finish 2015 with another strong quarter. As I'm sure you've seen, we reported operating income of $886 million or $2.90 per share and operating return on equity of 15.8%. That caps off another terrific year with operating income of just over $3.4 billion, operating income per diluted share of a record high $10.87 and operating return on equity of 15.2%. Our underwriting results across the board remains strong as you can see from our combined ratio of 86.6% for the quarter and 88.3% for the year. In domestic business insurance consistent with our marketplace objectives, we achieved a record level of retention in the quarter with positive renewal rate change. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, we generated an all time best underlying combined ratio of 80.1% for the year. Broadly speaking, the market dynamics in the commercial insurance marketplace continued to be remarkably stable. In personal lines, Quantum Auto 2.0 continues to meet our expectations. In agency auto, we had year-over-year policy in force growth of 8% in the fourth quarter, and as you can see in the webcast that's the sixth consecutive sequential quarter of increasing discount. Those of you who have been following our agency auto know what a success it has been. We are also pleased to be seeing an impact from the success of Quantum Auto 2.0 in our homeowners business, and you'll hear more about that from Doreen. Jay Benet will have more to say about our current investment results, but I’ll just note that we have delivered pretty exceptional returns on equity for quite some time notwithstanding over the headwinds in the investment arena. Historically, low interest rates, the decline in energy prices, and volatility in the equity markets just is examples from this quarter. This speaks volumes about our ability to select in price underwriting risk and the strength of our insurance franchises. Just as a data point, our after-tax net investment income is about $1 billion lower in 2015 as compared to its high in 2007. On the other hand, our after-tax underlying underwriting margin is about $1 billion higher in 2015, than it was at its low in 2011. Particularly to the extent the fixed income yields remain low and that seems like the outlook for at least some time. And with capital finding its way into the largest end of this business, expertise and generating underwriting returns and having strong franchises in the smaller middle marketplaces with meaningful barriers to entry will really matter. Turning to capital management, consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy, we returned nearly $1.2 billion of capital to our shareholders in the quarter and nearly $4 billion during the year. For long time consistent strength of our results since behind our capital management strategy. Just as we have for nearly a decade, we will continue to right size capital and invest profitably in the business. Things to that strategy we have now returned close to $35 billion of capital to shareholders since the middle of 2006 when we started our share repurchase program. Let me take just a minute to comment on the leadership transition. What I suspect many of you want to hear from me is where do go from here? As I've explained to our leadership team, our challenge is this, to take today's summit and make it tomorrow's base camp. I'm confident that we already have the right strategy in place to do that and we've got the right team to execute it. We've been executing it. We understand it and it has been remarkably successful. It's this team's strategy. Delivering superior returns overtime will continue to be our North Star. We'll do that by investing in and leveraging our competitive advantages, delivering industry-leading products and services, and making sure this is a great place to work for the best talent in this industry. That's not to say that we won't challenge ourselves constantly to make sure that both the strategy and the way we are executing on it remains relevant. It's critical that we reassess all the time and we will continue to be a leader in evolving and innovating, particularly given the potential for change around this. Among other things, we'll continue to refine our data and analytics to make sure that we lead in reselection and pricing. We'll continue to innovate on the product side and our claim in risk control organizations to make sure that we're delivering at the forefront for agents, brokers and customers. And we'll continue to build on our leading position with our distribution partners to make sure that we're partner of choice for them. We've always understood the value of size and scale and we're well-positioned in that regard. Just as in the past, we'll seek opportunities to grow thoughtfully and in ways that contribute to shareholder value. And as always, we'll manage our expenses thoughtfully. All of that is business as usual for us. Our confidence in our strategy and our track record in executing on it give us confidence in our ability to continue to deliver for our shareholders. And with that, I'll turn it over to Jay Benet.
Jay Benet:
Thanks Alan. As Alan mentioned, we're very pleased with our results this quarter; net income per diluted share of $2.83, operating income per diluted share $2.90 and an operating ROE of 15.8%. These results were driven by the continuation of our very strong current accident year underwriting performance as evidenced by an underlying combined ratio of 90.7% despite relatively high non-cat weather related losses in the quarter. Net favorable prior year reserve development was very strong at $292 million pretax and cat losses were relatively modest at $46 million pretax. That said, as shown on Page 4 of the webcast, current quarter results were lower than our very strong fourth quarter of 2014 results, mostly due to the impact of low interest rates and private equity returns on net investment income and in even higher amount of net favorable prior year reserve development in the prior year quarter. Underlying underwriting margins were pretty much the same in both quarters. Fixed income NII of $422 million after-tax was down $31 million from the prior year quarter, principally due to what we have been saying for many years. Securities has had higher book yields have gone off during the past 12 months and have been replaced with securities having lower yields due to the current low interest rate environment. Another contributing factor to lower fixed income NII was the modest reduction in average investments that resulted in part from the company's $579 million first quarter 2015 payment to settle the Asbestos Direct Action Litigation. Looking forward based on the current interest rate environment, we would expect to the impact of lower reinvestment yields and a lower level of fixed maturity investments could in 2016 result in approximately $20 million to $25 million of lower after-tax NII on a quarterly basis when compared to the corresponding periods of 2015. Non-fixed income NII of $25 million after tax was down $42 million from the prior year quarter, primarily due to lower private equity returns. Private equities essential broke even this quarter as compared to earning $30 million after tax in the prior year quarter due to lower valuations for energy-related investments. Each of our business segments continue to benefit from net favorable prior year reserve development and business in international insurance, net favorable development of $176 million pretax primarily resulted from better than expected loss experience in workers comp for accident years 2006 and prior and accident year 2014. In general, liability for both primary and excess coverage’s for accident years 2012 and prior and then the company's operations in Canada. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, net favorable development of $80 million pretax primarily resulted from better than expected loss experience and fidelity ensured date, for rest of the years 2012 through 2014. And in personal insurance, net favorable development of $36 million pretax primarily resulted from better than expected loss experience in auto liability for accident years 2013 and 14 and in homeowners and other liability for accident year 2014. As I have done in the past, I'd also like to provide you with some insight into what our combined 2015 scheduled peak is expected to share when it's filed on May 01. On a combined stat basis for all of our U.S. subs, all accident years in the aggregate across all product lines are expected to develop favorably and all that one product line on scheduled peak are expected to develop either favorably or show very modest or de minimis unfavorable development. The product line that is expected to develop unfavorably by approximately $50 million free tax is products liability occurrence but another product line other liability occurrence will have an offsetting amount of favorable development as we've refined our allocation of IBNR between these two components of general liability based upon how losses, such as those related to construction defect have been developing by coverage type. In total, our general liabilities were not - general liability reserves were not affected by this action. Returning to GAAP for the year we had net favorable development of $941 million pretax with approximately $840 million coming from our U.S. ops and a little over $100 million coming from our Canadian and U.K. operations. There are two additional topics I'd like to update you on. As shown on Page 21 on the webcast, we renewed our corporate cat aggregate XOL Treaty effective January 1. The treaty provides coverage for both single cat events and an accumulation of losses from multiple cat events with similar terms as in the prior year, but at a lower cost. The treaty continues to provide $1.5 billion of coverage, part of $2 billion excess of $3 billion after a $100 million deductible per occurrence. It keeps the same broad parallel and geographic coverage in the same positioning of the coverage layer providing a significant buffer between earnings and capital. The treaty has a single limit with no reinstatement provisions. And please note that the total cost of this treaty and therefore the reduction and cost are quite small in relation to our operating income. The second topic relates to the recent drop in oil prices. Page 22 of the webcast contains updated information showing the magnitude of our investments in below investment-grade energy bonds and energy-related equities. And you can see that some of these investments is relatively small and the exposure is quite manageable. Operating cash flows remain strong, $760 million in the fourth quarter after making a $100 million discretionary contribution to our qualified pension plan bringing total operating cash flows to over $3.4 billion for the year. We continue to generate much more capital than we need to support our businesses and consistent with our ongoing capital management strategies as you heard from Alan. We returned to almost $1.2 billion of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter through dividends of $183 million and common share repurchases of a little over $1 billion. For the full year, we returned almost $4 billion of excess capital to our shareholders through dividends of $744 million and common share repurchases of over $3.2 billion. Holding company liquidly ended the year at $1.6 billion, well above our target level and our debt-to-total capital ratio, which was 23% at the beginning of the quarter slightly elevated due to our having issued $400 million of debt in the third quarter to prefund $400 million of debt that was maturing in the fourth quarter, has come back down to 22.1% well within its target range with the retirement of that debt. Net unrealized investment gains were almost $2 billion pretax or $1.3 billion after tax, which was down from $3 billion and $2 billion respectively at the beginning of the year due to an increase in interest rates and spreads. Book value per share of $79.75 grew 3% from the beginning of the year and importantly adjusted book value per share of $75.39, which eliminates the after tax impact of net unrealized investment gains grew by 6% this year. So with that, let me turn the microphone over to Brian.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks Jay. Business in international insurance results for both the fourth quarter and the full year was strong. We continue to generate excellent returns with a full year combined ratio of 92.1% and our retention throughout the year was very strong and reached a record level this quarter in our domestic business. Pricing trends remained relatively consistent with renewal rate change still slightly positive at the end of the year, while new business volume in our domestic business saw a modest increase. Turning to the quarter's financial results, operating income was $566 million with a very strong combined ratio of 89.6. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of cats and prior year reserve development was 94.4%, up a half a point compared to the fourth quarter of 2014 primarily due to a higher level of non- cat weather related losses. Looking at the topline, net written premiums for the quarter were down about 1.5 points compared to the fourth quarter of 2014 with domestic business insurance premiums up about a point. In domestic business insurance we remain pleased with the continued execution of our pricing strategy. As we've been saying for some time, given the attractive returns that we are generating in this business our focus continues to be on retention and accordingly we’re very pleased that retention improved to a record 85% in the quarter. Renewal premium change came in at 2.4 points, while renewal rate change remained positive but down slightly versus the third quarter. New business of $476 million was up compared to both the prior year and the third quarter. Looking at each of our individual domestic businesses beginning with Select, rate in renewal premium change were in line with recent quarters while retention remains strong at 82% demonstrating continued stability in this segment of the market. In the middle market, we achieved record retention of 88%, overall rate change was about flat and reflected a decline of about a point from the third quarter. As we've always said, the execution below the headline numbers is what matters and we continue to see a great about the granular results. Retention for our best performing business was just over 90% within average rate decline of less than 2% on those accounts, while for our poor performing business we continued to get a rate in excess of loss trend. In terms of exposure, the quarter's results include a drag of about a point from our oil and gas business resulting from reduced economic activity due to lower energy prices. Just as a reference point, our oil and gas business makes up only about 3% of domestic business insurance written premium. Middle market new business of $254 million was up from the third quarter and in line with the prior year. In other business insurance retention was strong at 80%, renewal rate change was about flat even after being negatively impacted by our national property business. As I mentioned last quarter, although national property is seeing the largest rate declines of any business in our portfolio, we are pleased with the overall performance of this business. Returns and retention remains strong and pricing trends are stable. Excluding national property, renewal rate change for other business insurance remains positive and was relatively stable with the third quarter. Turning to international, net written premiums were down about 16% for the quarter and 14% for the full year primarily due to the adverse impact of foreign exchange rate. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, net written premiums for the fourth quarter were down about 6% largely driven by declines in retention in Canada and to a lesser extent at Lloyd's. International retention was down in the quarter to 79%, however renewal premium change was slightly positive and new business for the quarter was very strong at $80 million up 18% year-over-year. In Canada, our competitive renewal environment adversely impacted retention across our book. However in June, we launched Optima, our new strategic insurance platform in Canada for personal insurance. Optima was modeled after our U.S. based Quantum Auto 2.0. product. We’re in the early days of the roll-out but are pleased with the initial response as we are seeing a significant increase in new business volume. In Lloyd’s, we continue to see a challenging markets resulting from global economic conditions particularly in our marine business. Offsetting this pressure, our two new business products that we have recently launched focused on renewable energy and global construction and early returns are encouraging. So all in for the segment, it was a terrific 2015 with strong financial results and what we see as a remarkably stable environment when our competitive advantages really matter to our customers and agents. Before I turn it over to Doreen, I want to make one comment on our outlook for operating margins which we include in our quarterly fillings. Since our 10-K won’t be filed for a few weeks, I would note that we expect our 2016 underlying underwriting margins for the segment will be broadly consistent with 2015. This is subject to the usual caveats and forward looking statement disclaimers. With that, let me turn it over to Doreen.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Thank you, Brian and good morning everyone. Bond & Specialty Insurance finished 2015 with another quarter of exceptional financial results. Operating income for the quarter was 162 million down from the fourth quarter of 2014 due to lower net favorable prior year reserve development but overall still a great result. The underlying combined ratio of 80.7 was three point, four points better than the prior year quarter due primarily to two factors, a modest increase in a loss ratio in the prior year quarter that resulted from a re-estimation of the first three quarters of 2014, and secondly the impact of certain customer related intangible assets which became fully amortized during the second quarter of 2015. Underlying underwriting results continue to run well within our long term target ranges and as Alan mentioned, the full year underlying combined ratio of 80.1 was an all time best. We obviously don't think these results come by accident. We pride ourselves on maintaining the underwriting discipline, aggressive management of risk and limits, strong accountant and agency relationship, analytics and claims management that drive these results. As we look ahead to 2016 for this segment, we expect underlying underwriting margin to remain broadly consistent with 2015. As for top line net written premiums in the aggregate were down 4% from the fourth quarter of 2014, primarily due to a decline in surety volume driven by lower bonding needs for our accounts particularly as compared to the strong production in the fourth quarter of 2014. Surety production can vary significantly quarter-over-quarter based on the number, size and timing of bonded construction projects awarded to our customers. We have a strong portfolio of surety clients and believe we remain well positioned to capitalize on increased bonding needs that might result from an improved economy. Across our management liability businesses, retention remains strong at 85% while new business premium was up 17% from the fourth quarter of 2014. Renewal premium changed trended down with lower rate being partially offset by an increase in other RPC which includes changes in the size of insured exposures, in the midst written attachment point and policy duration. The lower rate was as expected and is consistent with the strong profitability of our portfolio. So all-in-all, another great quarter closing a strong year for Bond & Specialty Insurance. I'll turn now to personal insurance where we closed out the year with another quarter of exceptional underwriting results. So the segment operating income for the quarter was 222 million and the underlying combined ratio was 86.2%. Great results and as we move forward the segment remains positioned to perform in line with our long term return growth. I'll touch on the quarterly results for agency auto and agency property in a moment but first I’d like to share with you some thoughts on how we view the underlying health of these businesses. First for auto, I’ll start by saying how pleased we are with the vibrancy of our auto business. The market response from both agents and consumers to Quantum Auto 2.0 remains incredibly strong and the portfolio is positioned to generate financial returns within our long term target range. In the agency channel we added 167,000 policies during 2015, an 8% increase from the end of 2014. As always there remains competition in auto and we remain committed to keeping our products priced accordingly through disciplined expense management and superior pricing and underwriting segmentation. As we look ahead to 2016, we expect the auto business to continue to grow in both policy accounts and premium volume although at a more moderated percentage than 2015 as the portfolio grows. As per agency auto profitability, we’ve mentioned on several occasions that we’re comfortable with where our margins are given the current market environment. That still remains the case today. The full year underlying agency combined ratio of just under 97% was in line with our expectations for the year and a result we are pleased with. This combined ratio is somewhat higher than our long term goal. We have been particular by the amount of new business that we've added over the past two years. Quantum Auto 2.0 is priced to our long term target returns. But as you all know, the relatively higher combined ratio of new business improves over time. As we look into 2016, the significant volume of new business we've added will drive a slightly higher calendar year combined ratio, compared to 2015. So far the profitability of Quantum Auto 2.0 is maturing in line with our expectation. With this return profile, we continue to seek more new business as it should be accretive to long term return. In homeowner, the financial returns generated in the last couple of years have been exceptional and well within our target range. As you recall, we made significant improvement in the risk profile of this business over the last few years including changes in deductibles, other terms and conditions, and tightened underwriting guidelines. Of course, this is a more volatile business that will always have a weather dynamic to it. The weather in the last couple of years has been somewhat lower than our model suggested. But we know that won't always be the case. As we look ahead to 2016, we expect the profitability - we do expect underlying underwriting margins in agency homeowners and other to be lower than 2015 reflecting more normalized levels of loss activity. As Alan mentioned, we are also very pleased with the improvements we've seen in homeowners production. This is attributable in part to account rounding along with making some localized pricing and process adjustments. And certainly the turnaround benefited from the momentum and agent engagement from the roll-out of Quantum Auto 2.0. At this point, the business has leveled-off from a policies and force perspective and we expect modest growth in 2016. Now, I'll just highlight a couple of things specific to the quarter. Looking at agency auto, new business premium was up 32% and net premium was up 12% from fourth quarter 2014 level and we have added 51,000 policies during the quarter. The combined ratio for the quarter was 98.1 and included over two points of favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio was a 100.2, up from the prior year due predominantly to adverse weather in this year's quarter and the benefit in the prior year quarter of a 2.5 point favorable re-estimation of losses related to the first three quarters of 2014. As per loss trend in auto, our view of normalized frequency and severity remained consistent with recent quarters at around 3% in aggregate. There continues to be a lot of discussion about trend, particularly increase in frequency. From our advantage point, while we may observe normal fluctuations in any particular period due to things like weather, we see a stable and unchanged long term frequency trend. As always, we continue to monitor external information and our own data closely using our expenses analytic capability. Turning to agency homeowners and other for the quarter, we once again had strong financial results despite relatively active weather in the month of December. The underlying combined ratio of 59.5 was slightly higher than the exceptionally favorable prior year quarter. As for production, new business premiums were up 27% from the prior year quarter and continue to trend favorably, while retention remained strong at 85%. Policies in force were up slightly both sequentially from last quarter and from the fourth quarter of 2014. So to sum up personal insurance, we are exceptionally proud of the year we've had and look forward to more of the same in 2016. With that, I'll turn the call back to Gabi.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Doreen. Tina, we are now ready for the Q&A portion of the call. If I can ask you all to please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Thank you very much. Tina, go ahead please.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Jay Gelb of Barclays. Please go ahead.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you and good morning. The first question I had was on the potential for share buyback. Alan, any change in view in terms of deploying loan excess annual earnings and share buybacks - got buybacks is – just slightly annually over the past - thinking we might put that trend in place for 2016, 2017 as well.
Alan Schnitzer:
Jay, good morning. Thanks for the question. No change in strategy or approach to share buybacks or capital management overall and there is no intent to this, it's never been an effort to deploy more than earnings right. We had excess capital in past years and we made that very clear that we were sort of adding that to our annual income to buy back stock but, we said I don't know, a year or two ago that our level of buybacks would be tied to our level of income. And so we’ll have a level of earnings, we’ll do what we need to do with it whether that’s making pension contributions or investments in the business and we’ll take what’s left in and return that to shareholders and there won’t be a perfect correlation between earnings in a year and share buybacks in a year. There is some timing differences but I think as we said pretty consistently recently, share buybacks going forward will be tied to earnings.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. And then on the investment income from the non-fixed income investments, it was clearly impacted by lower energy prices in 4Q and given the collapse in energy prices so far this year, I’m just trying to get a base on what you might expect for 2016, is that $25 million results, taking ahead lower on a quarterly basis from what we saw in 4Q.
Jay Benet:
Let me just clarify one thing, $25 million that relates to fixed income portfolio not the non-fixed income portfolio.
Bill Heyman:
Jay, its Bill Heyman. Obviously this week is a hard week from which to extrapolate for the rest of the year. The marks as of year-end reflected a price which was an oil price higher than the price which obtained today but not by as much as one might think. During the year most funds wrote down their holdings and in some cases after the write-downs the price of petroleum rose but nothing was written up again. So we think a lot of these portfolios have been marked pretty hard. That said, if we had to predict either way, there is probably a little downside left in the portfolio but the portfolio isn’t that big that the amount are to be material then the aggregate.
Jay Benet:
Okay, that's helpful for a starting point. And Jay just to clarify, so as talking about the $25 million of income in 4Q from the non-fixed income investment portfolio in terms of the – fixed income, I understand what you were saying in terms of lower -
Jay Gelb:
I apologize for the confusion there.
Jay Benet:
That's okay, no problem so, but Bill you’re saying that $25 million after tax we saw in 4Q shouldn't be that impacted by lower energy prices even so far.
Bill Heyman:
No, I couldn’t put a number on this especially after the first part of this month but I’m simply saying that everyone assumes that there is a lot of downside based on prices as they are today and there might be less downside than it appears simply because of the way in which funds mark their holdings in 2015.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Tina. Next question please?
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Randy Binner of FBR & Co. Please go ahead.
Randy Binner:
I think you touched on this in the opening commentary but from my perspective the pricing - the headline pricing number you provided in the slide-deck the plus 0.6% was better than expected and I guess I’m interested in your perspective and if you think Travelers is unique here, a lot of the headlines surveys that we will get in the industry for commercial lines are moving significantly negative across the board. So I just want to get your perspective on it if you think Travelers is unique here and how kind of much discipline I guess you think - your competitors are holding against the software market?
Alan Schnitzer:
Randy, good morning it’s Alan. You said it was a surprise, it wasn't a so a surprise to us, it may've been a surprise to you or others but relatively to the surveys what we can tell you is, we’re showing a real data and I think what we’ve always seen is surveys tend to be anecdotally based and tend to maybe over emphasize some volatility either up or down because maybe the people respond to the surveys or thinking about the last transaction or the transactions in their mind. So there is really nothing about this that surprises us and you know we've been saying for a while that we expect the amplitude of the market to moderate. This appears to have moderated and I think you know the fact that we can achieve what we did is, I think a function of two things, one our data and analytics, our expertise, our ability to execute at a very, very granular level and a marketplace that is, we would describe as remarkably stable and at the moment rational.
Randy Binner:
Just a quick follow up, are there any lines that are really helping that figure, meaning is workers’ comp still kind of the best from a pricing perspective where some other casually lines might be moving negative?
Brian MacLean:
No, this is Brian. It's still a pretty tight band to be honest with you across all the lines. So nothing is dramatically out of pattern up or down. As we commented and Alan touched on in his comments and I in mine, it’s a more larger accounts feeling more pressure than medium and smaller accounts as we said national property is the space where we’re seeing you know more significant rate declines than others. So I think it’s more an account size than a line of business volatility or variability.
Randy Binner:
That's great. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Nannizzi of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Michael Nannizzi:
I guess Doreen maybe a little bit more on the auto side, have you seen any impact from the rise in miles driven in your auto book just given the fact that your growth is sort of come alongside that rise in miles driven?
Doreen Spadorcia:
So let me just talk a little bit about miles driven. The data shows that probably year-to-date the miles driven are up about 2.5% per capita and there is still a lot of debate about whether that makes a difference if it's a long trip, a short trip, whether there is unemployment, whether you have safety features in your vehicles, and so you know we watch that closely but our long term trend of 3% anticipate that and we really haven't seen anything that that particular item is causing us to view frequency differently today.
Brian MacLean:
And just to be crystal clear, the 3% is total trend where the frequency being a small fraction of it.
Michael Nannizzi:
And then I guess in middle market, I mean with retention up in the high 80s, is that something that you could see that maybe coming down or would you be comfortable with that at a lower level if you saw an opportunity to find some more rate increase opportunities. Just seems like high 80s if pricing is flat and the result are pretty good, I mean is that an area where you could look to push for some more rate at some point?
Brian MacLean:
This is Brian again. That is a constant balancing act in our organization every day. I will tell you that overall our core middle market business from a return perspective is in a very healthy spot and as I said in the comments when we look at our better performing business which is not a tiny part of the portfolio, our very well performing business, we are at retentions north of 90 with pretty modest price increases. We’d obviously love to renew it in the 90s with different price increases but retaining that business is a real priority because it is returning very, very well. With that said, we’re always looking for opportunities to see where we can balance the rate and retention trade off.
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, I'd add to that that, even though that’s not the headline number, that continues to be a headline number and the execution below that number is very, very granular. So we’re not managing that headline number, we’re managing every single account.
Michael Nannizzi:
And just real quick. Alan or Bill, did you guys disclose - definitely appreciate your scores on the energy portfolio. Do you guys disclose anywhere you have the BBB minus category of energy exposure as well just that sort of next rating level up?
Alan Schnitzer:
Well, I can say that the investment grade portfolio has an average rating of single A and the high-yield portfolio, which is 23 credits with book value of $162 million has an average rating of BB minus, which given the size or to give you what you need.
Michael Nannizzi:
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Josh Stirling of Sanford Bernstein. Please go ahead.
Josh Stirling:
I was just thinking may you live an interesting times. You've had good fortune here to become CEO at the time the industry structure is changing very rapidly. I mean obviously over the past six months, we've seen ACE and Chubb merge. It creates a very large and powerful competitor. And on the other hand over at AIG there is presumably going to be lots of opportunities for everyone in the industry. As you thought from Travelers perspective, how the environment is evolving, how are you guys going to sort of tackle these new challenges and opportunities and what should we do to seek Travelers take advantage of all these change in the market?
Alan Schnitzer:
So I guess what I would share with you is that we are very aware and deeply engaged in all of those things. So whether that's - what's going on with any of our competitors or what's going on with technology or big data or driverless cars, consolidation among distribution, you could go on and on. I think what I would share with you is we're very aware and deeply engaged. As we see all of those things and others, those by the way weren't meant to be necessarily in order what's top in my mind, just what came to my mind but as we think of everything that's got the potential to change in this marketplace, nothing is going to change overnight. These are things that are all going to evolve and develop overtime. And what we've got great confidence in is our positioning to manage all of them. So we think we can understand and manage. We've got the talent, we've got the resources, we've got a deep understanding of risk and reward. And the quality of our underlying business, the results you see this quarter and this year, we've got no distractions. So we are starting from a really good point as we think about and engage on all of those issues. And without taking one by one, for the most part and maybe all in, we see more opportunities than we do risk. But we're certainly examining them from both sides making sure that where there is opportunity, we're positioning ourselves to be able to leverage it and where there is risk that we're making sure we do everything we need to do to mitigate it.
Josh Stirling:
I wonder if we could maybe just switch gears a little bit. You've mentioned risk. Could you give us a little bit of - either Alan or Brian or whoever is appropriate, a little bit of help of understanding what the liability side exposures maybe not Travelers per say, but generally for the industry from a meltdown and the commodities and energy patch would be. I mean presumably, we might see a bunch of bankruptcies, use a lot of different product lines that everybody in the industry sells under companies. And I remember a decade or so ago, Chubb really surprised people when they had got hurt and energy surety deal with Enron. And obviously both D&O and E&O exposures and maybe work comps severity. So I'm sure you guys are playing defense here. I'm wondering if you can help us sort of things through how you and your underwriters are thinking about potential exposures if they've had part of the role keeps getting hurt.
Alan Schnitzer:
I'll start and I'll look at either Brian or Doreen, and invite them to jump in. I'll say you sort of hit it. We think about the loss side of that equation all the time and whether it's going to our measure and liability book or surety book making sure that we understand what our exposures are. And I'll say that we look at these things - we don't wait for there to be something significant in the marketplace to look at it, we're looking at it all the time and as far out as we can. So we're managing our nets, we're looking on the surety side what kind of collateral we have for instance on some of these accounts. We exit accounts when we need to exit accounts. But we've got a really good track record I think in all of those businesses. So just on manageable liability side, for example, we're much more heavily waited on the private non-profit side as opposed to the large public D&O. And so it's - this is what we do every day is manage risk and think about risk and reward.
Doreen Spadorcia:
The only thing I'd add to that is that when we see any potential issue, we run that through our entire book of business not just what that class of business is. So we look at all the consequential effects that they may have on related industries. And so for example in writing bank we look at the level of their portfolios that are exposed not just to oil and gas, but any one thing in particular. So obviously, surety watching credit and looking at collateral, other management liability areas looking at concentration, but this is unique to us. We always take an issue and run it through the entire book and look at any consequences that might come from that.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Ryan Tunis of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
I think my first question is for Brian. And I think he mentioned in his prepared remarks that in middle market I think the better accounts you were - renewing I think with the modest rate decline. The decline, but it's kind of like it was only modest. I guess I'm just curious how is the conversation changing with those better accounts, now versus maybe a year ago. Right now like I said, something maybe a modest decline, I mean is that kind of where - whatever one is kind of looking for is still just modest or - how's that conversation evolving?
Brian MacLean:
It's pretty much as you're saying and as you would expect based on the data. A couple of years ago, almost every conversation was starting with some form of price increase even for the best accounts, because everybody saw where the trends were and that is gradually mitigated overtime. But even with those better accounts, the conversation start somewhere with trying to renew it at a modest decline or flat. Obviously, if the average is less than 2% there is still some that are positive. The thing that we're doing probably a little different than we were a year or two ago is we're really trying to get out as early as possible frequently at least three if not six months ahead of time, have conversations with the broker and the account. I think we do have a strong franchise with a valued product and valued services. And fortunately most of those company start by wanting to stay with us. And then I think the other key point is really being able to have the data and analytics where our frontline people can see and really segment their portfolio and in the middle market account by account. Look at how they're performing. And when there are issues either in that account, in that line or in that class of business being able to have an informed conversation with the broker about what those are and why we're trying to do what we're doing on the account really, really makes a difference. So I'd say the big change is getting out early and having a kind of granular conversation on the performance of that line and that business.
Ryan Tunis:
My follow up was actually follow-up to Jay's question on capital return and excessive operating income. I guess since the start of 2014, we see like your premiums surplus ratio has drifted up from about 1% to 1.2%. Leverage has been relatively flat. You've said over the past couple of years you've had access. You've been able to deploy. How do we think about that level of access? Just because on those metrics it does seem like whatever access you did have, you have sort of used to at certain extend. Are those metrics even relevant?
Jay Benet:
The premium to surplus ratio, I would view as not being relevant at all. I mean that was a ratio that was used at a time when rating agencies and regulators didn't have the sophisticated models they have today. So I've said on previous calls, we deal with each one of the models whether it's our internal models, regulatory models or the rating agency models to come to a place where given the profile of our business as it relates to each quarter what is the capital that we think we need in the operating entities that we manage to support AA rating and support a solid AA rating, not one with the wind blows we're worried about our ratings going down. So that's always the starting point. Given the size of our book, it doesn't change very much from quarter to quarter, but what does change is the profitability in each quarter. So there are some quarters where the profitability whether it's for favorable development or some other things to take place, it's higher than our expectations keeping in mind that we have a flow of monies out of the operating companies up to the holding company each quarter based on expectation. So to the extend we earn more. We bring some more up probably a little later than that. I think if you go back over time and you go pass two years ago to an earlier period and start adding up, the earning versus the share repurchase that you see that there is a very, very strong correlation to that. So I wouldn't read into anything that says one year we've done a little more than earnings, in other year we did less. It's really just as Alan said earlier the timing. The premium to surplus ratio goes up a little bit, I've kind of ignored that and what I would look at is in our supplement, we talk about specifically on a quarterly basis what the stat surplus is. And I think you can see that, that moves around probably in a pretty narrow band.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Vinay Misquith of Sterne Agee. Please go ahead.
Vinay Misquith:
Just a question on loss cost trend and the pricing roughly flat. Curious how you’re managing to leave margins flat in '16 versus '15?
Brian MacLean:
So this is Brian. And speaking for the BII segment, you start with the kind of simple arithmetic of the earned premium. And again it's not just rate, its price, which includes exposure change and does offset some of trends. So when we look at the arithmetic of earned rate versus loss trend, we come up with a very modest about a 0.5% of loss ratio compression into 2016. And that of course is based on our assumption of loss trend, which is as we've said running right now at about 4% and looking at a relatively stable orderly marketplace. And then that's offset by a variety of other factors you can think of whether large losses mix change underwriting actions, et cetera. But the real starting point is that compression from the rate loss trend dynamic, price loss trends dynamic is a pretty modest number in how we're looking at it.
Alan Schnitzer:
And I think that distinction between price and rate is important, because as we said in the past there is a meaningful component of exposure that from a profitability perspective behaves like rate. And so what we really see in that true margin deterioration, is we see going forward as Brian said it's very small and probably within the margin of error of all the other things that impact margin.
Vinay Misquith:
The second question is on the pace of future rate increases you mentioned that on a best counts you have, rate decreases of less than 2%. So curious to what proportion of the accounts now are well performing. So should we see sort for the pressure on pricing this year, because more of the accounts are better performing?
Alan Schnitzer:
I think there is a level of granularity and precision here that's for competitive reasons. I'm not going to overly segment the portfolio. I think the backdrop to this is really the view of, do we think the industry is going to continue to fundamentally be focused on the returns on the products. And we think that's the right way to be thinking about the business and we're optimistic that the majority of the marketplace is actually looking at that. So the healthier the business, the more pressure there should be on pricing, but in the aggregate we're pretty comfortable that we should be able to generate appropriate with pricing to maintain reasonable returns. And then you can come up with any variation on the theme you want off of that and be as bullish or as bearish as you want.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Charles Sebaski with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Charles Sebaski:
I have couple of question I guess on the personal lines business. I guess the first on the personal auto growth and the success you had from Quantum. Is that coming from standalone auto policies? I guess I'm trying to just understand that you kind of sweet spot seems to be on package, multi policy programs. You have auto growth while homeowners' is flat. Just kind of, wondering how you're working in the auto growth relative to your, kind of, packaged program?
Doreen Spadorcia:
Good morning, this is Doreen. We've actually seen success in force. I think this was some of what Alan and I referred to in our earlier comments. Clearly our auto product was competitive in agent's office and also in the direct channel. And in many cases, what that did, because we are an account focused company, that allowed us then to bring the home with it. So we've seen standalone auto come in, we've seen more opportunities for cross-selling. And I don't think it's anything small, given Quantum Auto 2.0 that we've been able to actually increase and stop the shrinkage in homeowners. We've also put some processes in place that have been very helpful where it prefills certain information so that if someone is looking at an auto quote, it will prefill for home. So we like the account business, we continue to look for that. But given where the returns are and where we're going with auto, we are pleased with that as well.
Charles Sebaski:
Just a follow up to a comment that you guys made in the business insurance regarding the exposure drag and the oil and gas exposure, I think you said that oil and gas accounted for one point exposure drag but that oil and gas only accounted for 3% of the book, or is that 3% of the exposure? I guess I was trying to understand how 3% could account for a one point drag.
Jay Benet:
The 3% is a premium number but the exposure, as you can imagine, was down pretty significantly. So when you've combined the 3% against a pretty big exposure delta in oil and gas, that drove the 1%.
Gabriella Nawi:
And the 3% is the total domestic business insurance, not to middle market in that written premium.
Jay Benet:
So that's a good point and maybe we shouldn't mix those two numbers. The 1% drag was on the middle market exposure change. The 3% was on total domestic BI. So we did that arithmetic quickly.
Alan Schnitzer:
The 3% is the premium, the book. The 1% is on the charge and the exposure. The 1% exposure drag is middle market exposure, the 3% is quantifying a percentage of the premiums of our oil and gas business on the total business insurance.
Jay Benet:
Right. The premium on just middle market would be a higher number.
Charles Sebaski:
The math just didn't seem to work, I appreciate the clarity.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. And this will be our last and final question please.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Kai Pan of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Kai Pan:
First question is on reserve releases. Looks like workers comp have releases in 2014 accident year, just curious while it is already release rather than for this - normally a long tail line of basis, can you talk also in general, what's loss cost trend by major lines and how that compare with your 4% assumption in overall loss cost trends?
Jay Benet:
This is Jay Benet. Just in terms of the reserve release, when you're dealing with a long tail line, you've two components to how you're going to look to results. One is, what has developed in terms of loss activity, and you're absolutely right. In a short period of time, you're not going to really see a great deal of activity. On the other hand, what you've done is, you established the starting point for what you think the loss activity is going to be and we refer to that as the loss pick. So just imagine on January 1, trying to predict what the losses are going to be for the entire period of time as those workers comp policies will be out there. And we come up with a loss pick, and the example I'm going to use, I'm just making up a number, let's say it's 60%, based on what you've seen historically. And looking at the historical data then for earlier accident years and evaluating that against that initial loss pick that you had for a current year and there were times when you see loss activity in prior years that you say, that really has no barring whatsoever on how I thought about the starting point for the current year and then there are times, when you look at it and say, no actually this really does change the bar for the starting point. So usually on a long tail line of business when you see us do what we’ve done here, it's based on what we refer to is base here moment. Looking at the history and just saying that, the initial loss pick was a little on the high side.
A – Brian MacLean:
This is Brian. Just to respond to your - trend by line in business is actually a pretty tight band with ranging from the high 3s to the high 4s but an average trend of right around 4%. So nothing is really out of pattern by line.
Kai Pan:
My follow up question is for Alan. Now you have 7 weeks on the new role, so I just wonder what’s your top priority these days and what you think - you have the right strategy in place now, but what are you focusing on?
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure. Thanks for the question Kai. So I had experienced managing essentially all of our commercial business and our businesses outside the U.S. what I haven't had experienced with is, the personalized business on a relative basis not as much, personalized business in some of our functions like claim and IT and ops and things like that, risk control, so, I’m trying to spend a lot of time in those businesses and areas that I haven't had the experience with, trying to spend a lot of time on the road out in the field with distribution and our employees in the field which has always been a priority of mine. And I guess beyond that in my comments I said one of the things that we’re going to do is continue to evolve and innovate and reassessing is something that we’ve always done and Jay Fishman has always led that initiative. And so I have taken that over from Jay and just like Jay didn’t do it alone, Jay did it with the group, I’ll continue to leave the group in making sure that we’re accessing what’s going on in the marketplace and we’re evolving and innovating. So I would say that makes up so the way I'm allocating my turn.
Kai Pan:
Thank you very much for all the answers.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. Thank you very much for joining us today. As always, the Investors Relation team is available for any follow up questions you might have. Thank you and have a good day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect all lines. Thank you and have a good day.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President, Investor Relations Jay Fishman - Chairman and CEO Jay Benet - Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer Brian MacLean - President and Chief Operating Officer Alan Schnitzer - Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Business and International Insurance Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance
Analysts:
Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Larry Greenberg - Janney Josh Stirling - Sanford Bernstein Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Brian Meredith - UBS Jay Gelb - Barclays Amit Kumar - Macquarie
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Third Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all your questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on October 20, 2015. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our 2015 third quarter results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement, and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com, under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Jay Fishman, Chairman and CEO; Alan Schnitzer, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Business and International Insurance and who as already announced will succeed Jay as CEO on December 1; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer; and Doreen Spadorcia, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance. They will go through the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn it over to Jay, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement, and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. And now it’s my pleasure to pass it to Jay Fishman.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you, Gabi and good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. By now you have seen our third quarter results and as you can see from the release it was a terrific quarter that adds meaningfully to our very strong 2015 year-to-date performance. We reported operating income of $918 million and an impressive operating return on equity of 16.2%, bringing our year-to-date results from more than $2.5 billion in operating income and a nearly 15% operating return on equity. We achieved these results through very strong underwriting performances across all of our business segments and solid investment performance consistent with our expectations. Our long term average annual operating return on equity stands at 13.4%, well in excess of our cost of capital and since 2006 we have returned a total of more than $33.5 billion in capital to our shareholders, remarkable numbers and we couldn’t be more pleased. We have shared with many of you that one of our missions over the last couple of years has been to identify that which we do right and institutionalize those behaviours to make sure that they have continuity and will continue to contribute to our absolute as well as our relative superior performance. Some of those behaviours are obvious and they include things like our remarkable expertise in workers’ comp claim handling which certainly provides Travelers with a relative competitive advantage. But as I reflected on this quarter’s earnings as well as the string of quarters that we put together over the recent past, my hypothesis is that the competitive advantage of analytics, risk selection and pricing management have had a meaningful effect, particularly cumulatively. I can’t prove it to you because I don't know what our results would have been if we weren't just good as we are. But I do believe that one of the important factors that has led us to produce industry-leading returns is the fact that we have managed the changing rate environment over the last five years as effectively as we have. Everybody understands that our capital management policies have added to those returns and that analysis is easy to do. But I am a believer that the numerator in that calculation has been positively impacted and will continue to be so by the way we have managed with rate retention and capital allocation across all accounts. I am certain that it has mattered and you should know that the commitment to analytical insight that produces these advantages is very much a part of the DNA of this place. In short, the place is in great shape. It was another impressive quarter. It’s business as usual and it feels like the perfect time to be conveying the leadership to the next generation. And in that regard, let me turn the call over to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Jay and good morning. It was a great quarter and speaking for the next generation, we’re very grateful to be stepping in with things in such great shape. Thanks for that Jay and congratulations. I will share just a few thoughts this morning before Brian and Doreen take you through the segment results and let me start with personal insurance. We are about two years into Quantum Auto 2.0 and the results have been excellent. Our initial loss experience is in line with our original estimates while the take-up of the product has been better and faster than we had anticipated. It’s nice to see the industry auto policy count and premium growing, very well done and congratulations to the team. In business and international insurance and bond specialty, we posted excellent results. We are pleased to see production in a quarter that reflects a continuation of the trends we have been seeing all year, very high and consistent retentions reflective of the stable marketplace and steady real premium increases at levels that are reflective of healthy returns. These results are consistent with the messaging we’re giving to our field organization which is to retain those accounts that are meeting our return expectation and to try and improve the profitability on those accounts that don’t. In that regard, in our middle market business, we continue to be successful in improving the written margins on our quintile four and five business. As you’ve heard us say many times, including in Jay’s commentary this morning, we managed on a very granular account by account or class by class basis and giving current returns that blends to a very high retentions and stable renewal premium increases. To sum it up, the operating and production results over the past nine months are very encouraging and taken together with our relentless focus on execution and deep and talented management team give us great confidence in our ability to continue to deliver superior returns. And with that, I’d like to turn it over to Jay Benet.
Jay Benet:
Thanks, Alan. As you heard from Jay and Alan, we are very pleased with our third quarter results
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. Business and international insurance had a great quarter with excellent returns and production results. Retention remained at a historically high level, the pricing environment was stable and renewal rate change continued to be positive. New business results were solid although as we have discussed previously, new business flow was somewhat lower than we would like as a result of strong retentions across the industry. Turning to the financial results. Operating income for the quarter was strong at $546 million while the combined ratio was 92.2%. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of cats in prior year reserve development was 92.5% for the quarter, an improvement of about 2.5 points year-over-year driven primarily by favorable non-catastrophe weather losses. Looking at the topline, net written premiums for the segment were up a point year-over-year. Domestic business insurance premiums were up 4% driven by changes in the timing and structure of some of our reinsurance treaties in prior quarters which primarily impacted our first party businesses and property lines. Turning to domestic BI production trends, we remain pleased with the continued execution of our very granular pricing strategy. As we have been saying for some time given the attractive returns that we are generating in this business, our focus continues to be on retention and accordingly we are very pleased that retention remains at 84% for the third quarter in a row. In addition, as Alan mentioned, we continue to seek and are able to get price increases where needed. Overall renewal premium change came in at 3% with renewal rate change consistent with the second quarter. New business of $444 million was down somewhat compared to both the prior year and recent quarters reflecting the market dynamics I mentioned earlier. Looking at each of our individual domestic businesses, the production story is generally consistent with what I just described. I would however bring your attention to other business insurance. As we mentioned last quarter, renewal rate change for this business has turned negative driven by the national property business but even here it’s a very positive overall story with strong returns, retentions in the low 90s and pricing that is slightly negative but stable. Excluding national property, renewal rate change for other business insurance remains positive and down only slightly from the second quarter. Turning to international, net written premiums were down 19% primarily due to the adverse impact of foreign-exchange. Excluding this impact, international net written premiums were down 6% driven by highly competitive market conditions at Lloyd’s reflective of global economic pressure on the marine and energy lines. In terms of production, retention remained strong. Renewal premium change turned slightly negative due to about a 1.5 of negative exposure change resulting from the lower line sizes that we've taken in the Lloyd’s business. The rate change component of renewal premium change was a little more than a point positive. In Canada, renewal premium change continued to be positive. New business was down somewhat quarter over quarter with half of the decline driven by the impact of foreign exchange and the remainder driven by Lloyd’s. So all in, we continue to feel great about the performance across the segment. Returns continue to be attractive and stable and we remain pleased with the granular execution of our strategy. With that, let me turn it over to Doreen.
Doreen Spadorcia :
Thank you, Brian and good morning everyone. Please forgive me for having a scratchy voice and apologize to all of you. Bond and specialty insurance had another quarter with exceptional financial results. We feel terrific about the fundamentals to drive these results. Disciplined underwriting execution, aggressive management of risk and limits, a continued enhancement of underwriting analytics, strong account and agency relationships and superior claims management. Operating income for the quarter was $196 million, an increase of almost 20% from the third quarter of 2014, driven by better underlying underwriting results and higher net favorable prior year reserve development. Third-quarter underlying combined ratio of 76.1% for the segment improved by 5.6 points from the prior year. About half of this improvement was due to favorable re-estimation of losses in management liability. Underlying underwriting results remained very strong and well within our target. As for topline, net written premiums in the aggregate were up slightly from 2014. Surety was 3% higher primarily attributable to middle-market construction accounts and across our management liability businesses, we drove to higher retention of 87% and improved new business from the prior year quarter. So all in all, another great quarter for bond and specialty. I'll turn now to personal insurance where we once again produced strong underwriting results in both agency auto and agency homeowners and other. We continue to be exceptionally pleased with the growth in our auto book and are very encouraged with the continued momentum we are seeing in homeowners. For the segment, operating income for the quarter was $241 million, a slight increase from the third quarter of 2014. The underlying combined ratio was strong at 85.2% and benefited from generally benign losses in homeowners. On a run rate basis, the segment continues to perform in line with our long-term return goals. Looking specifically at agency auto, we continue to be very pleased with the profitable growth we are generating. Topline results remained strong driven by both new business and retention and underlying margins continue to run in line with expectations and in a range we’re comfortable with. The combined ratio for the quarter was 93.9% and included almost 2.5 points of favorable prior year reserve development. Similar to the last couple of quarters, the favorable prior year reserve development was driven by better-than-expected severity in bodily injury. The underlying combined ratio of 96.2% was essentially flat to the prior year results. As for loss trend, our view of frequency and severity remain consistent with recent quarters. We are certainly aware that there's a lot of discussion in the industry about trend particularly increasing frequency. While we may observe normal fluctuations in any particular period due to things like weather, we currently are not seeing any meaningful change in our overall frequency trend. As always we continue to monitor external data and our own results very closely. But as I said, our view of overall loss trend remains consistent with recent quarters at around 3%. As for agency auto production, retention of 83% has trended up meaningfully from the beginning of 2014 and remains consistent with recent periods. New business premium of $218 million was more than 30% higher than the third quarter of 2014. We continue to grow policies in force which increased by almost 50,000 during the quarter. Net written premiums increased 10% from the prior year quarter. So again by all measures, great results for auto for the quarter. Turning to agency homeowners and others, we once again had strong financial results with an underlying combined ratio of 71.5% driven by benign loss experience both in weather and non-weather. This result is somewhat higher than the prior year quarter due to last year’s losses being even more favorable than this year. Run rate margins in this business remain well within our expectation. As for agency homeowners production, we are very pleased with the progress we're making. New business premiums were up 28% from the prior year quarter and continued to trend favorably while retention remained strong at 84%. Policies in force have leveled off sequentially for the last two quarters and net written premiums when adjusted for the timing and structure of certain reinsurance treaties in prior periods were essentially flat from the prior year quarter. As we said in previous calls, this is an area of high focus for us and we’re encouraged with the positive results we’re seeing to date. So to sum up personal insurance, another great quarter. With that, I'll turn the call back to Gabi.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. We are ready to start the Q&A portion please.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Jay Cohen, Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Jay Cohen :
Just a numbers question, I think you said on the call and I missed. There were some current year development I think in the management liability side. Could you just give me that number again? I am sorry I missed that.
Doreen Spadorcia:
On the numbers about 10 million, and that’s generally due to fidelity and crime and I will just tell you we had favorable reserve development in prior accident years and that indicated to us that 2015 will perform better than we originally projected.
Jay Cohen :
And then I guess bigger picture on the development which just continues to be such an incredible source of earnings and so resilient. Can you talk maybe broadly, Doreen, about the claims environment, what you’re seeing and what you are not seeing certainly on the liability side?
Doreen Spadorcia:
So you are moving out of surety then at this point.
Jay Cohen :
Correct.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Okay. I think we tend to see a pretty stable environment in general liability and there were things that we were thinking might impact that, whether it was people, higher unemployment rate and we might see more liability claims. We thought maybe as people also were in the financial crisis that they thought, we thought jury awards might go up. We didn’t see any of that. So the litigation rates are pretty consistent. We don’t have less or more of that, and it’s performed pretty much I would say better than we thought it would have during the really tough years. For us, in certain lines it’s due to particular things. We have some areas where we have fewer large losses, others we might see the opposite of that but to us, the legal environment has performed pretty well, not what we would have expected politically either.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Larry Greenberg of Janney.
Larry Greenberg :
I guess before a question, given that Alan is stepping in very shortly. Jay, I just want to congratulate you on an incredible career and legacy and certainly wish you the best of luck in the future. You’ve been – you’ve really been a leader for Travelers but also the industry, and have created some phenomenal value for your shareholders and taught a lot of people about the value of prudent capital management and you’ve been generous and patient in answering our sometimes inane questions and certainly sharing your industry insights and I just want to thank you personally for that, and I am sure many others on the call feel the same way.
Jay Fishman:
Larry, thank you. I’d say over and over, I have been so fortunate to be surrounded, I am sitting at a table here, with what I think is the most thoughtful, smartest, most committed management team I have ever been around. It’s just extremely quite remarkable when you are surrounded by people like this, it just isn’t nearly as hard as it may seem and so thank you. I’d also tell you that one of the great things that’s been fun for this is there’s a handful of you on the call and there’s a couple in the room here but there is a few people that we have been speaking to right from the very beginning, I was doing the arithmetic this morning, I think this is my 56th earnings call and there is a few of you who have been there right from the beginning, and it’s been great fun to work with people over that period of time, just a real great joy actually in watching how people can change their view of the business and how the business has changed. So thank you for the comment, I most appreciate it. Nobody else follow up please with that. That’s the last thank you we will get but Larry, thanks. Go ahead with your question.
Larry Greenberg :
I know you talked a bit about Quantum and maybe it’s nothing more than, it just continues to develop traction in the marketplace. But it seems like the traction is more than certainly I would have expected at this point. And I am just wondering if you could give some more color on what’s really happening, where the rubber meets the road, what’s the feedback from the agents, is it simply that in more time you are getting more traction or anything you could share on that would be helpful for me?
Doreen Spadorcia:
Sure. This is Doreen and good morning. I think that it’s fair to say that it’s gotten more traction quicker than even we thought and Alan commented on that. We did a lot of work before we designed the product looking at what we thought it needed to be from a pricing standpoint before we started modelling it and looking at, on what expenses needed to take out. Along with that, we have a really, I would say, gifted sales force that is out with agents every day talking about the products. We’ve also introduced some sales marketing toolkits that allows agents to regularly reach out to prospective customers. I think the agents – I am a little biased in this – I think the agents really want to do business with us and we gave them a competitive product and a quality product that allow them to do that. And I think the other really exciting thing about it is that the agents are also seeing as they are picking up a bigger share from the captive and the direct market which is what we hope would happen for them, so they just didn’t see that they were getting a lower commission, so they see that net, net, they are getting into markets that they might not have been successful and they are producing more volume and the feedback has been very good. We meet with them very very often and I think that’s probably – it’s just worked as we hoped it would.
Larry Greenberg :
Do you think that the issues that some in the industry are having with frequency might be additionally creating some opportunities for you?
Jay Fishman:
No, Larry, it’s Jay. I can’t think of a topic that we’ve spent more time trying to understand ourselves and as obviously we are anticipating someone asking, why don’t you think you are experiencing some of the frequency trends that are bizarre, and the truth is that we don’t know. But I’d make the following observations. One is that where you start from is an important assumption. These are – we are talking about changes in frequency from period to period and so one of the interesting questions is always how good are those original estimates from which you are adjusting, was there a pattern or trend that evidenced itself, later, sooner but so the starting point matters and it can’t be dismissed. The other which I find more than intriguing, there is a tendency to assume, analysts in particular, that the auto insurance customers the equivalent of a monolith there. They are all the same. And we know definitively in the data, that’s just not the case. And we know that for example from our experience of being the GEICO partner for as many years as we have been, the customers that buy directly are on average, now it doesn’t mean that we are on lots of exceptions but on average they are younger, more single, more single cars, more minimum limits, they are a different driver than a higher end older, importantly older driver, the sort of type that was typically been a Travelers customer. So you can speculate and it’s all it is, is it possible that distracted driving is impacting that younger group disproportionately relative to the older drivers. Is it possible that as employment has improved and miles driven increased, that the unemployment improved amongst the younger drivers at a faster rate than older because they have not come down as much, and as a consequence you are seeing – and this is hypothesis, not a fact, that you are seeing an increase in miles in the group that tends to have a higher rate of frequency. So that’s the best we can offer at the moment. Those two dynamics of who’s the driver and what’s changed in their world and they are quite different and then what’s the starting point from which they are coming. I think Doreen had it exactly right – I had a conversation a couple of years ago with an agent and it’s just one. He was using Quantum 2 to do outbound calling to those customers that Travelers had the homeowners on but someone else had the auto. And so he was out there reaching out and saying look, we’ve got a product that’s lower rate than the old Travelers was and you put the two products together and you’ve got the combined product discount, and suddenly that quote for the auto retained remarkably compelling for a meaningful number of customers out there. So sort of one of the surprises was the account rounding that took place around Quantum and that certainly added to the volume. So it started off with really hard management work of reducing costs, tough stuff, tough to execute locally, hard meaning things, and then having a product that could compete with the marketplace that exists today, the core reality of making sure you are not – you’re relevant in a changing marketplace.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Josh Stirling of Sanford Bernstein.
Josh Stirling :
So I was hoping you could talk a little bit about pricing and you guys have done a good job of laying out a really interesting phenomenon in the other business insurance line, it’s just a huge difference between property and your overall renewal rate changes and if you sort of observe from 50,000 feet, it looks like most of your renewal rate changes across lot of line to kind of like ending up in 1% or 2% sort of positive and not as much as that was a couple of years ago phenomenon, in other business insurance which I think you will correct me, but I think this is national account and more specialty and wholesale stuff, obviously is declining now for the past couple of quarters and I am wondering if you could sort of talk a little bit about what’s structurally different about this business relative to some of the other sort of more small, bit more commercial personal line things, if it is and if we can sort of understand that and sort of as we get better into forecasting it. But then also perhaps even more technically, is this something that’s really just a phenomenon of the property pressures that are coming from sort of changes in the reinsurance market and then ultimately, almost if you reframe that, is it not as a question of pricing but is a question of margins, would you guys think yourselves as letting property business today at a stable margin but perhaps with less total price?
Jay Fishman:
Josh, Alan and I are going to tatting this. First, I’d make the observation that to the extent that capital – new capital comes into our industry, it comes into those areas that are easiest to put capital to work quickly. So you will often find it in large account business where frequency – claims frequency is not an issue, you will find it in unregulated – not as middle market in this – so capital goes where it can be most easily deployed and the large account property business is a really good example of an area where capital can be committed pretty easily without much infrastructure for regulatory hoops to go through. Now there is something in particular about the national property business and Alan talked about that, but first, we start off with an industry phenomena, to the extent new capital is coming in, that’s an area.
Alan Schnitzer:
Josh, it’s Alan. Let me start with – we’re just getting a little bit of perspective on your commentary. You said that ex the national property, I think it was zero to 1 and I would say that’s not exactly true. There is a range from a little bit negative on national property to say the auto lines where it’s a challenge from a return perspective and we’re getting rate in excess of loss trend there. So I would just encourage you not to think about the whole book being at a zero or 1 but they are being a range that really corresponds to profitability. Also in terms of what’s in that business, it’s certainly our national property but there is really no casualty in that business at all, it’s national property, it’s boiler, inland, ocean, so just to be clear about what’s in it. You made the comment about returns but the returns in that national property business are very very attractive. And so I would say that the pressure that we are seeing from price really is coming from two places, there probably is a component of – that’s an easy place for the incremental capital coming into the business to find a home but also the returns are very very good, and so we continue to have very high retentions and to grow that business.
Josh Stirling :
So if I can ask a final question and obviously the past decade or so of Travelers has been one of capital returns and discipline, and that’s been fantastic for shareholders, to the credit of everybody on the call. But the trade-off from that obviously naturally is that there are some other companies have chosen different approaches where they basically retain earnings and they grow through acquisition or other sources. And I am wondering as you guys look sort of from where you are today as you look forward, think about the next five or 10 years, and think about other companies getting bigger and the importance I presume of Travelers even maintaining its market share as sort of a number one or number two player with all of your agencies. I am wondering how your strategic calculus might change in sort of more of a focus on growth to keep up with [indiscernible] something we should anticipate from Travelers?
Alan Schnitzer:
Josh, let me take that too and let me start by saying and I said these words before, Jay has really managed this through on ensemble cast. So everyone around this table I think feels like we are contributing authors to the strategy that we put in place in that we’ve implemented and executed over the years, and we’re also very very comfortable that what we’ve done has created enormous shareholder value, and so we will continue to be return focused and I would encourage you to all look at the first slide that we put in the webcast every single quarter, quarter in, quarter out, and we spent a lot of time looking at that internally. I would – if you go back 10 years, and you look at – and Jay has actually put up the slide before, look at the way we’ve deployed capital, we have grown and we do – we would certainly rather grow than not grow and we’ve deployed capital where we think we can and grow at attractive returns. So if you look at commercial accounts over the years, or you look at the surety business when the credit environment allowed us to do it, there is all sorts of examples in all different time periods across all of our businesses when we’ve grown, and we will continue to make every effort to do that when we can. We understand that there is a relevance to market share and scale, so we are not indifferent to it, and we will hopefully make the right judgments in balancing the way we manage the business for returns and thinking about the relevance of growth and scale over time.
Jay Fishman:
And I would just add that in the context of acquisitions, we’ve been actively engaged with anything that’s transpired, we have looked at, we’ve established views of value and where value can be created, and points at which it can be and if we would have find the transaction, that would fit strategically, that would enable us to either reduce the volatility of our own returns or potentially even improve them and of course, that’s hard being the highest return competitor in the industry, but if we can find that, we’re not uncomfortable moving ahead, where we have done a few transactions in our lives and feel that we have got the skill base to execute and so we will always keep looking.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Kai Pan of Morgan Stanley.
Kai Pan :
Thank you. I had to say, Jay, congratulations on a great career ending on such a high note. And then for Alan, I think seeing the announcement, I wonder you must have gave some thoughts on your priorities or where do you see area you can further improve the organization.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thanks for the question, Kai. Certainly been thinking a lot about it and I guess I would go back to where I started with the last question which is we’ve all been managing this and we’ve all been on this trajectory and talked together and we will continue to do that. I mean it’s a really fortunate position at the moment as I said at the opening of the call, not just that I am stepping into terrific results but I am stepping into a very familiar situation. So the management team, the strategy, the board, all of that’s really familiar and that gives me a great opportunity to be thoughtful and very deliberate and to take my time together with the rest of the team as we think about what’s next. So we will do that in due course and this has really given me an opportunity over the last couple of months to spend time with the leadership team to be on the road with our field organizations, to spend time with distribution, so it’s been really a luxury and a privilege and we will take the time to be thoughtful and deliberate about it.
Kai Pan :
And follow up question, on your year-over-year improvement on the underlying margin, you said the lower non-cat loss has contributed to that. My understanding is that last year third quarter you have above normal and I don't know if this year's like below normal of non-cat activities and could you quantify that? Just wonder, going forward, we see this year's level would be more normalized non-cat weather events.
Jay Benet:
This is Jay Benet. I mean as you’ve heard us say on the call before, we’ve always struggled with the concept of what actually is normal, and what we do in our Qs and Ks is – for weather – for other things, we do know what is normal. But when it comes to weather, what we are doing in our Qs and Ks is really making comparisons of actual cost in one quarter to actual cost in another, so you do hear us talk about this was more favorable than last year or this was less favorable than last year but to try to quantify in any meaningful way, how that then compares to what’s normal is difficult. What we do try to provide is some color to say that the weather seemed to be fairly benign this quarter. So I think we would say that whatever normal is, is probably a little more expensive than what we saw this quarter but we leave it to you to actually try to dollarize that if you will.
Kai Pan :
Well, just year over year comparison, if you look relative basis, like how much that contribute to the 240 basis points?
Jay Benet:
Well just look at it a year to year basis, it was primarily a change due to the level of non-cat weather in BI. And that’s what we try to communicate hopefully clearly in the Q and the press release.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Ryan Tunis of Credit Suisse.
Ryan Tunis :
My first question, I guess, is just given the 10-year back at 2%, how should we think about the NII run rate on the fixed income portfolio headed into next year as it compares to this year? Also, how should we be thinking about alternative returns headed into fourth quarter with, I guess, probably some lagged odds on PE, especially given energy?
Jay Benet:
We try to be very clear in our Q and the outlook as to what’s taking place in the fixed income environment and we don’t try to make predictions of the future interest rates, we more or less look at it on a basis of its today’s rates or to maintain themselves over the next 12 months or so, what’s the likely impact of that on the reinvestment capabilities for assets that are turning over in that timeframe, and based upon that, we’ve made a disclosure in the Q saying that on a quarterly basis we would expect the fixed income NII all things being equal to go down about $25 million to $30 million from where it would have been in the prior year quarter on a comparative basis. And that would be an aftertax number. And that’s frankly consistent with not only what we have been saying but more or less what we have been seeing over the last several years, if you followed what’s taken place in our fixed income portfolio. As it relates to the non-fixed income portfolio, we do report private equities on a three month lag basis, we report hedge funds on a one month lag basis, so it’s not quite the same in terms of the time differential and from our own forecasting standpoint, we do our best to look forward and try to determine based on equity markets and not just the private equities and hedge funds, but what the real estate markets are doing because that’s a substantial portion of the non-fixed income portfolio and we try to internally estimate what we think fourth quarter and into next quarter returns are going to be but we don’t have a crystal ball, so when people ask me what we think, I try to guide them to look at the past several quarters and draw some conclusions from that as to what kind of trajectory we might be on. If you look, last year versus this year, we did disclose that the repricing of oil worldwide had an impact on our valuations and that’s worked its way through the valuations at this point in time. So other than that, there’s really nothing more I can think of adding to that.
Ryan Tunis :
And then I just had two quick number questions on FPI. And my first one, I think, is a follow-up on Jay Cohen's question on the current accident year favorable development and I think Doreen mentioned it was in fidelity and crime. I'm wondering should we think about that as a change in trend that will, all things being equal, also be a tailwind headed into next year?
Doreen Spadorcia:
My answer to that is no. It's really more of a factor of what we've seen in prior accident years and that influencing what we think 2015 would be. So, no, we would not view that as a trend going forward in ‘16.
Ryan Tunis :
And then the other one for FPI was just looking at the general admin expenses, they were down about $6 million to $10 million this quarter from where we've seen the run rate. Is this a good run rate going forward or is that one-time, that $93 million?
Doreen Spadorcia:
You're speaking to the intangible that was fully amortized, so that's a one-time event, yes, in the second quarter, is that what we were talking about?
Jay Benet:
Yes, if you talk about bond and specialty, the reduction in expenses that you are referring to, there was an intangible that became fully amortized and as a result, that expense now goes away. It continues to go away.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Nannizzi of Goldman Sachs.
Michael Nannizzi :
So just returning to auto for just a second, if I could, I guess not being an operator, trying to see inside the operating lens a little bit, it looks like you're increasing rate and growing as a result of Quantum 2.0. This frequency dynamic has popped up elsewhere that you guys haven't seen. It's still not clear what's underneath that. How do you sort of balance the goal of repositioning auto via Quantum 2.0 and being top three traders and growing at a pace you're comfortable with, but doing that in a changing loss environment and whether that creates the risk of adverse selection?
Jay Fishman:
It’s Jay Fishman. Just two or three observations, after he wants to add in. One is if you set higher rate that’s 2.0 versus 1.0, it’s actually a lower rate, in other words the 2.0, again you get all sorts of sales that are different and different underwriting elements but the concept behind 2.0 was across the board a lower priced product than 1.0 was, 1.0 in a comparative rating environment was not nearly competitive enough, 2.0 was designed to be substantially more competitive and that actually has happened. The volume and the product is a function of how it shows up on a technology platform in an agent’s office and in that regard, 2.0 was doing exactly what we had hoped it would. As to the changing loss environment, I am not sure we could look any harder than we looked, for us it hasn’t happened, we could and so we just keep going on. Whether it’s in losses, incurred losses, early indicators of losses, early indicators of activity, there’s just been not a meaningful change and I don’t mean to hammer hard that, because any quarter numbers move a little up or down, all the time. But in looking for something systemic, we just don’t see it here. So those are the – I don’t know, Doreen, if you want to --
Doreen Spadorcia:
I would like to add, we do expect when we add new business, that that’s going to perform at least initially at a higher loss ratio and that as that becomes more tenured, it begins to perform in the range of where our tenured business is. So when we have said that everything is in line with our expectations, that’s exactly what we mean, we assume certain things about how the book to new business will perform, and it’s within those garb rails, we just started going through our renewal cycle with the first of the Quantum book, we expect that to even perform at lower levels of loss but within planned expectations. So I agree with Jay, we are not seeing anything that’s systemic in the environment but our view of new business is it gets to the returns over time and we expect it ---
Jay Fishman:
I would just add because it’s something we take for granted here, I often find there is confusion. There is no difference in the price between a new account and a renewal account. They are the same and so when Doreen says that a block of new business doesn’t perform as well as once it’s seasoned, it’s not because the rate changes, it’s because the underwriting improves with performance. As you begin to understand the dynamics of each individual account, you can begin to make adjustments all the way from lowering rate where someone has earned it, increasing rate where someone has earned that, or non-renewing where the circumstances warranted, and so the improvement with age is not about a new business penalty, the phrase is often used, it’s really about the unseasoned underwriting performance that occurs in any new block of business in any business and improves with time.
Michael Nannizzi :
I guess my question, when I mentioned rate increase I was looking at the renewal premium change. So I guess what you're saying is that the cost reductions that you made, including the commission reductions, are enough to even make the premium lower in 2.0 versus what it would have been in 1.0 despite the fact that you've got renewal premium change?
Jay Fishman:
Exactly right. And so the renewal premium change is positive and obviously some of that, a meaningful amount of that is still Quantum 1 that’s on the books, and where Quantum 2 is, is entirely our new business now but there is a insignificant amount of Quantum 1 that continues its aging, its meaningfully profitable does quite well. Now that obviously will – the Quantum 1 percentage will go down with time, the Quantum 2 in the portfolio will go up but you’ve got it exactly right.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Brian Meredith of UBS.
Brian Meredith :
Yes, thanks, two questions here. First one, Doreen, I noticed in the 10-Q that you've changed your outlook for underlying margins in the personal line sub-segment to go from kind of stable going to ‘16 to now I guess smaller margins. What's behind that change?
Doreen Spadorcia :
Brian, that's really as the amount of the Quantum business comes in.
Brian Meredith :
So expectation is still pretty strong growth in Quantum, so that’s why it’s just better than expected.
Gabriella Nawi:
Brian, it’s Gabi. Are you talking to all of PI or was that specifically auto –
Brian Meredith :
It’s all personal lines, when you look at all personal lines, make that overall kind of general comment.
Brian MacLean:
It’s a combination of the new business and Quantum is – Jay and Doreen just talked about, that impact as well as the whole concept of what the weather in that might be.
Brian Meredith :
It’s good solid weather in the third quarter, so kind of looking forward. Okay. That makes sense. The second question, just quickly, and maybe I'm reading too much into this, is looking into your exposure in business insurance, it continued to kind of moderate here, exposure increases. Anything to read into that?
Alan Schnitzer:
No, Brian, it’s Alan. I would say generally reflective of economic conditions.
Brian Meredith :
Okay. So you're seeing economic conditions to may be slowing a little bit?
Alan Schnitzer:
No, we are seeing –
Jay Fishman:
We are trying – that we are all looking at each other trying to understand what to look, what you are seeing and reacting to.
Brian Meredith :
Just looking at business insurance. If I look at -- you provide the exposure other as a percentage. It's been moderating over the last year. Small business you definitely saw it come down as far as the rate of increase.
Alan Schnitzer:
Pretty small numbers you are looking at. So if you are looking at selective, sequentially it’s 4.9 to 4.1, if you are looking it overall BI, it’s national, it’s something like 2.4 to 2.2, so you’re really talking very small changes in the number that is hard to even calculate with any precision.
Brian MacLean:
And Brian, this is Brian MacLean. Remember that that in the production statistics those are really the underwriter, and the account and the producers estimate of what’s going to happen with the exposures going forward. So it’s a little bit of what gets pushed into the price, then there is also audit premium which is come into the actual premium line which has been a little bit higher. So the actual exposures we are seeing are pretty consistent.
Jay Fishman:
And typically as it ages it goes up, but the audit premium gets reflected and so the natural trend is for a customer to under-estimate perspective exposure to save rates and then of course the audit brings it back up and comes in later. So there is a bit of – I wouldn’t call it seasonality time of year, but time may associate with it.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jay Gelb of Barclays.
Jay Gelb :
I want to follow up on the M&A environment and I know there's some previous commentary around in what circumstances Travelers might be interested in doing a deal. I wanted to see if you could tailor those comments a bit more towards international versus domestic.
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure, Jay, it’s Alan. I will take that. So we would apply the same kind of thought process and lens to a transaction outside the US as we would to the US, either it’s going to contribute to our mission of improving returns or creating more profit dollars at the same returns or improving volatility. And so we would apply the same lens and go through the same thought process. A transaction outside the United States given our footprint and our scale may be different in that analysis than one would be in the US, so that’s why a $1 billion transaction in Canada for instance was so attractive to us, a $1 billion transaction in the US would certainly less strategic from that perspective. So we will continue to look in our existing and beyond footprint outside the US and we will undertake transactions when they make sense on that basis.
Jay Gelb :
Thanks for that. And then on the premium growth for the quarter, gross written premiums up 0.6%, net up 2.6%. So am I right in assuming that it was purchasing less reinsurance was a main driver of the net growth or was there something else there?
Jay Benet:
This is Jay Benet. In prior quarters, we made some changes to our reinsurance, it was not that we were purchasing less reinsurance but you will recall earlier in the year we talked about changing our cat cover which previously had been on July 1 renewal and we cancelled it as of 12/31. This was the gen cat, cancelled it as of 12/31 last year and on January 1 of this year bought the gen cat cumulative cover. So what you have in this particular quarter is a comparison to a quarter last year where we had a purchase of reinsurance, this year we didn’t have it but the same kind of cover with a different set of limits and different types of aggregation, was done in January 1. All that said, if you want to get a better view of things without looking at the reinsurance, look at year to date information because it washes itself out. There were some other similar types of changes, some in terms of timing, some gone from quota share to excess cover but we really haven’t fundamentally changed the program.
Jay Gelb :
So the year to date net written premium growth trends, should it probably be a better indicator?
Jay Benet:
Yes.
Jay Fishman:
Just one additional thought, again we take for granted you so often -- your acquisition question. We are a small and middle market insurance company, we are a very big one. But we are small and middle market company, we really don’t for substantive reasons aspire to be a globally account casualty underwriter. It’s a different business, it’s not one that we are particularly well suited, we really don’t do it in the US in any meaningful way. And so all these questions about international acquisitions and they are relevant, really we get very local focused, what can we do in a particular geography that we are talking about as opposed to how does it allow us to write global casualty for a fortune 10 company, that’s just not our business, not what we do. So we tend to think of it as quite local and not a global in that sense.
Operator:
Thank you. Our final question comes from Amit Kumar of Macquarie.
Amit Kumar :
Thanks for fitting me in. Just one question, a clarification question. In response to Larry's question I think you mentioned that you're capturing more share in the captive and direct channels. And I was trying to figure out, that's a different shopping experience and why would a captive policyholder be willing to move their auto policy to an independent agent I guess given the lack of a bundling discount? Maybe just explain that a bit more to me.
Doreen Spadorcia:
I mean I don't know exactly why they might switch from one to the other, but they have more choice. If they're with a captive agent they have a product and that's it and if they start shopping around, which we know many more customers are shopping, then they might choose a different distribution channel so that they can have choice.
Jay Fishman:
The data is that I'm thinking about is quite dated. I know we have information, of course it's self disclosed where the customer tells us their previous insurer was and I'm going back quite a ways. But it has been -- it has long-standing been predominantly captive companies and other direct companies moving into the independent agent channel disproportionate of our new business rather than -- there's obviously one agent company moving to us, but disproportionately more captive and direct as a percentage of that volume. I haven't looked at that in a couple of years but that's at least what the standard has been.
Doreen Spadorcia:
And we've seen more of it with 2.0 End of Q&A
Gabriella Nawi:
Very good. That will conclude our call for today. As always, we are available in investor relations for any follow up questions. Thank you very much and have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask you to please disconnect all lines. Thank you and have a good day.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President, Investor Relations Jay Fishman - Chairman and CEO Jay Benet - Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer Brian MacLean - President and Chief Operating Officer Alan Schnitzer - Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Business and International Insurance Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance
Analysts:
Randy Binner - FBR Capital Markets Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Jay Gelb - Barclays Josh Stirling - Sanford Bernstein Ryan Tunis - Credit Suisse Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Larry Greenberg - Janney Brian Meredith - UBS Charles Sebaski - BMO Capital Markets
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all your questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 21, 2015. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you Carlos. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our second quarter 2015 results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement, and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com, under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Jay Fishman, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer; Alan Schnitzer, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Business and International Insurance; and Doreen Spadorcia, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn it over to Jay, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement, and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. And now, Jay Fishman.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you, Gabi and good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. By now you have seen our second quarter results and as you can see from the release it was another strong quarter contributing to a very strong first half of 2015. We reported operating income of $806 million and an operating return on equity of 14.2%, bringing our year-to-date results to $1.6 billion in operating income and a 14.3% operating return on equity. We achieved these results through strong underwriting performance and solid investment performance consistent with our expectations. Most importantly, our long-term average annual operating return on equity now stands at 13.4% well in excess of a cost of capital. This quarter is another brick in the wall of exceptional long-term performance. For all of the recent market commentary about the industry, our experience remains business as usual. At the point of sale, where business is actually conducted that is one agent, one underwriter dealing with one account, things are very stable and just fine. In fact, the commercial insurance marketplace dynamics over the last six months have been remarkably consistent with what we believe would happen and have been far different from the historical conventional wisdom. We continue to believe that the amplitude of the cyclicality that our industry will deal with is much less than would have been the case historically and you can trace that comment back to our Investor Day in May of 2007; and of course while things can change, so far so good. Anticipating that some of you are going to ask us about our take on the recent consolidation in the primary P&C industry, let me make a few observations. No primary P&C insurer has come together over the past two decades through acquisition activity more than we have. We are very good at it and while we haven't announced any mega transactions in a number of years, our shareholders should expect that we are aware of the possibilities and that we are expert at evaluating them. That evaluation comes down to determining the best way to create shareholder value. The return driven strategy that we’ve been executing for nearly a decade now has been highly successful in creating shareholder value. Our total return to shareholders over virtually whatever period you want to pick is at the top of the heap. So, when we evaluate M&A opportunities, which we do all the time, we evaluate them against that standard. As it relates to Chubb, when we consider the modest opportunity to improve the performance of an already high performing company with some of the best people in the industry, the high degree of risk inherent in combining two successful, but very different cultures and the significant impact on returns on equity from the combination of the premium we expect it would be required, as well as all of the required purchase accounting adjustments. The return just didn't measure up. We have the luxury of a plan A that sets a very high bar, a strategy that comes from having highly differentiated competitive advantages and highly successful business franchises with industry-leading product breath. Again, we believe that our total return to shareholders over the recent past, as well as over the longer term speaks for itself and we are confident in our ability to continue to deliver superior returns, but we do keep looking at M&A opportunities and when we believe there is a transaction that contributes to creating shareholder value, we will make every effort to complete it. Other than addressing the potential market implications of the transaction, which Brian will do, I hope this addresses your questions on the topic. We really don't expect to comment further on that recently announced transaction. And with that I’m going to turn the call over to Jay Benet.
Jay Benet:
Thanks Jay. As Jay said, we are very pleased with our second quarter results. Operating income of $806 million, up 20% from the prior year quarter, and operating return on equity of 14.2%. Current quarter operating income was driven by a very strong consolidated combined ratio of 90.8%, which was 4.3 points better than the prior year quarter, due to strong underlying underwriting performance, continued net favorable prior year reserve development and lower catastrophe losses, as well as the inclusion of a $32 million benefit from the favorable resolution of prior year tax matters. Operating income was also driven by solid net investment income consistent with our expenses expectations, although lower than in the prior year quarter. Brian, Alan, and Doreen will talk more about underlying results in a little while, so let me say a few words about NII. As was the case in the first quarter, current quarter net investment income is being compared to a very strong quarter last year. Fixed income NII of $431 million after-tax is down $32 million from the prior year quarter, principally due to what we have been saying for many years, securities that had higher book yields have run-off during the past 12 months and have been replaced with securities having lower yields due to the current interest rate environment. Another contributing factor to lower fixed income NII was the modest reduction in average investments that resulted in part from the company's $579 million first quarter 2015 payment to settle the Asbestos Direct Action Litigation. Non-fixed income NII of $79 million after-tax was down $16 million from the prior year quarter, due to lower returns for energy-related private equity investments. These investments produced negative NII of $9 million after-tax this quarter, which was better than the negative NII of $21 million in the first quarter as compared to positive NII of $11 million after tax in the prior year quarter. As I mentioned, earnings continues to benefit from net favorable prior year reserve development, which amounted to $207 million pre-tax this quarter, up $24 million from the prior year quarter. In business and international insurance net favorable development of $103 million pretax resulted from better than expected loss experience in several different product lines, including workers comp for accident years 2006 and prior, GL for 2008 through 2013, Lloyd’s in Canada and property in both CMP and the property product line for more recent accident years, partially offset by a $47 million after-tax versus $72 million pretax increase to environmental reserves. In bond and specialty insurance, net favorable development of $40 million pretax resulted from better than expected loss experience in contract surety for 2010 through 2013. And in personal insurance, net favorable development of $64 million pretax resulted from better than expected loss experience in homeowners and other liability for 2011 through 2014; and for non-CAT weather-related losses for 2014, as well as better than expected loss experience in auto liability for 2012 through 2014. On a combined stat basis for all of our U.S. subs there were no accident years or product lines that had any meaningful unfavorable development this quarter or year to date. Second quarter operating cash flows were also strong at $676 million, up $51 million from the prior year quarter, while holding company liquidity ended the quarter at over $1.7 billion and all of our capital ratios remained at or better than their target levels. Net unrealized investment gains were approximately $2.1 billion pretax or $1.4 billion after tax, down from $3 billion and $2 billion respectively at the beginning of the year, due to the recent rise in interest rates causing book value per share at $77.51 to grow by only 1% from the beginning of the year. Importantly, adjusted book value per share of $73.09, which eliminates the impact of unrealized investment gains grew by 3% during this time period. We continue to generate much more capital than we needed to support our business and consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy, we returned almost $1 billion of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter through dividends of $194 million and common share repurchases of $801 million bringing total capital returned to shareholders to almost $1.85 billion year-to-date. Before turning the microphone over to Brian there is one more topic I would like to cover, our cat reinsurance coverage. As you may recall, effective January 1 of this year, we significantly increased the attachment point of our Gen CAT reinsurance by replacing our previous Gen CAT treaties, the $400 million CAT aggregate of excess of loss treaty, which expired as scheduled on December 31 and the $400 million Gen CAT treaty, which our reinsurers agreed to terminate early as of that date with the new aggregate ex-OL treaty that provides coverage for both single events and accumulation of losses from multiple events. $1.5 billion of coverage part of $2 billion, excess of $3 billion, after $100 million deductible per occurrence. By doing this, we retain the same broad pharaoh and geographic coverage as the former Gen CAT and ex-OL treaties, while positioning the coverage layer to provide a significant buffer between earnings and capital. During the second quarter, we repositioned our Northeast specific cat coverage, lowering its attachment point from about $2 billion, while maintaining its maximum recovery. Our current combination of two Northeast CAT bonds and the new Northeast Gen CAT reinsurance treaty attaches at $1.058 billion of covered losses and provides $1.4 billion of coverage through $3.1 billion, the point at which the Gen CAT aggregate ex-OL treaty takes over. Taken collectively, we increased our potential reinsurance recoveries and repositioned the attachment points to more closely align with the risks in our business, while spending essentially the same amount. A more complete description of our captains reinsurance coverage, including a description of new earthquake and international coverage’s is included in our second quarter 10-Q, which we filed earlier today as well as in our 2014 10-K. So with that now let me turn the mic over to Brian who is going to speak about underwriting results.
Brian MacLean:
Thank you, Jay. Alan and Doreen will go over the segment details, but before they do I want to make a few comments about the macro environment. Echoing Jay's comments we're certainly very pleased with our results, both in the quarter and for the first half of 2015. We are at a 90% combined ratio year-to-date, very strong retention, stable renewal price increases and no major surprises in our loss trend. In fact, results like this or what we spend our carriers hoping to achieve and here we are, but importantly we didn't get here by accident. We did it with the relentless and consistent execution on our strategies and by investing in and developing a broad rapid products and services and other meaningful sustainable competitive advantages in the markets we serve. But while we feel great and want to talk about how well we’re positioned, I suspect many of you are also interested in our thoughts on the impact that the ACE/Chubb transaction may have on the marketplace. So let me share a few thoughts on that. First, we already compete against these two companies more so Chubb than ACE given our business and geographic focus and we don’t anticipate a lot of difference in competing against them as a single entity. Any company that is large enough can disrupt the market if it’s willing to accept meaningfully lower returns over time, but both ACE and Chubb were probably large enough to have done that before the transaction, so we don’t see that risk being any different going forward. Second, we have great long-term and trusted relationships with our important broker and agent partners and we don’t see that being disrupted. We remain a leading independent agency commercial insurer in our principal market, the United States. And in Personal lines, we are the leading independent agency market in the Homeowners business and we don’t generally compete in the high-end home product, which is Chubb’s primary personal line focus. Third, having completed a number of large scale transactions ourselves, we know that there inevitably will be disruption and dislocation of people and business. This will likely create near- and medium-term opportunities and it’s possible we will benefit from these. Obviously, only time will tell what the long-term impact maybe. But as I said before, we feel great about Travelers. We remain very pleased with how our business is performing and more importantly how well we are positioned for opportunities in this marketplace going forward. Before I turn the call over to Alan, I’m sure that many of you have seen that recently we made some senior level organizational changes and I want to recognize a few of those folks on their new responsibility. Greg Toczydlowski, who’s done a fabulous job managing our personal insurance business, is moving over to business insurance to oversee our small commercial operation as well as take on responsibilities for technology, operations, and business platforms across all of Business Insurance. Michael Klein, who had been managing our middle market commercial business, will take Greg’s spot in Personal. Michael has had a broad range of experiences in his 25-plus years with the company and his management skills, knowledge of analytics in our products make him a perfectly suited to run the personal business. Marc Schmittlein, who for the last 12 years has led our small commercial business, will take on the role of coordinating our cyber insurance efforts across our business. We see cyber coverage as an important opportunity in the marketplace. Scott Higgins will assume leadership of our middle market commercial business and Darren Hinshaw [ph] has been appointed Chief Operating Officer of Personal Insurance. We are thrilled that we have this depth of management talent and the collaborative culture in which great people can thrive. After all, in this industry when we talk about competitive advantages, we start with talent and culture and to succeed you need both of them. With that, let me turn it over to Alan to cover the Business Insurance and International segment.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Brian, and good morning. We delivered another quarter of strong performance in business and international insurance with operating income of $543 million. Our underlying combine ratio was relatively consistent with the prior year quarter at 93.1% reflecting attractive and stable product returns. In terms of the top line, net written premiums decreased by a little over 1% from the prior year quarter. This was driven by our international business where net written premiums were down 15% primarily as a result of the adverse impact of foreign exchange. Domestic business insurance net written premiums were up about a 0.5. In terms of our domestic production results, as Jay said, we remain pleased with the stability of the market as evidenced by historically high retention and positive rate change. We’ve commented for some time now, that this pricing has improved more of our portfolio is generating attractive returns and our objective has been to retain more of that business. We’ve now posted a very strong 84% retention for two consecutive quarters. As you can see on slide 9, excluding the impact of our large account property business, which I will get back to in a minute, positive renewal rate change and domestic BI was unchanged from the first quarter. Our ability to deliver these results comes from the excellent execution by our field organization of our very granular account by account and class by class strategy. Turning to slide 10 in the webcast, in select retention hit a 6 year high, while renewal premium change moderated only slightly. In middle market, we posted a very strong retention and steady sequential renewal premium change. Notably within renewal premium change, renewal rate change has been remarkably steady over the past five months. In terms of retention, we are retaining around 90% of our best performing business, while achieving renewal rate gains in excess of loss trend on our worst performing business. New business and middle market was down year-over-year. While we like the marketplace stability, one consequence of the stable market is the submission flow was down somewhat. In other domestic business insurance, while renewal rate change turned negative this quarter as you can see on slide 12 of the webcast, the decrease is driven by national property, our large account property business. Excluding the impact of national property, renewal rate change in other domestic BI would have been a positive 1.9%. To put it in context, national property accounts were about 25% of the net written premium and other domestic BI were only about 5% of the net written premium in this segment. Even with the rate change in national property, current pricing levels and returns in that business are attractive and accordingly, we have successfully driven retention to near record levels. In our international business, retention continues to be strong and steady at 82% while renewal premium change of 1.5% was consistent with last quarter. New business is down over the prior year quarter, primarily as a result of disciplined underwriting and a competitive environment in Lloyd’s and the impact of foreign exchange rates. To sum it up, we are pleased with the stability in the marketplace and the results we delivered in the quarter and with the depth and breadth of our talent particularly in the field, our deep analytical capabilities and our market leading products and services, we are well positioned to continue to deliver superior results. And with that, let me turn it over to Doreen.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Thank you, Alan, and good morning, everyone. Bond and speciality insurance had another strong quarter with exceptional financial returns. For the quarter, operating income was $151 million, a reduction from the second quarter of 2014 driven by a lower level of net favourable prior year reserve development partially offset by a favourable resolution of prior year tax matters. Underlying underwriting results remain very strong and well within our target. As for top line, net written premiums were generally flat to 2014. Across our management liability businesses, retention and new business premiums picked up modestly while renewal premium change was down slightly. So, great results for this segment. I will now turn to personal insurance where we also had another terrific quarter with strong underwriting results in both agency auto and agency homeowners and other. For this segment, operating income for the quarter was $174 million, up significantly from the second quarter of 2014 due primarily to lower cat and non-cat weather and higher net favourable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio improved by more than a point from the prior year quarter, driven by favourable non-cat weather. We continue to feel great about the margins in this segment. Looking at agency auto, we once again delivered strong top and bottom line results for the quarter and continue to be very pleased with the performance of this business. The 96.5% combined ratio for the quarter included 2.5 points of favourable prior year reserve development, which was driven by better than expected severity in bodily injury. The underlying combined ratio of 96.9% continues to run in a range we are comfortable with, given current market condition. This result was up modestly from the prior year quarter due to a variety of small items including non-cat weather, which although materially favourable for homeowners, was slightly adverse year-over-year for auto. Our loss trends remain consistent with recent quarters. Production results also continued to be strong driven by Quantum Auto 2.0 where we are now coming up on two years since the start of the roll out. New business premium was 37% higher than the second quarter of 2014 and we continue to grow policies in force, which increased more than 35,000 during the quarter. Net written premiums increased 7% from the prior year quarter. So, by all measures, great results for auto for the quarter. Turning to agency homeowners and other, we once again delivered strong financial results with an underlying combined ratio of 77.5%, a 4 point improvement from the prior year quarter driven by relatively benign non-cat weather. Margins in this business remain well within our return expectations. As for agency homeowners production, we are very pleased with the progress we’re making. New business premiums were up 33% from the prior year quarter and continued to trend favorably, while retention remained strong. Policies in force have leveled off and net written premiums are essentially flat from the prior year so the book has stabilized. As we have said in prior quarters, this is an area of high focus for growth and we’re encouraged with the positive results we’re seeing. So to sum up, personal insurance another great quarter; and with that I’ll turn the call back to Gabi.
A - Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. We’ll now take questions please. [Operator Instructions] Carlos, go ahead.
Operator:
Thank you so much. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Randy Binner with FBR Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Randy Minor:
Hi, great, thank you very much. So Travelers has followed the kind of the moderation in price decreases we've seen across commercial lines and so I was wondering if we could go a little more into detail and what you’re seeing out there, what's causing that headline pricing number to moderate more as it approaches the zero level?
Alan Schnitzer:
Randy it's Alan's Schnitzer, I’ll take that. You guys focus on the headline rate number a lot more than we do. We’re looking at this on an account by account basis and it will build up to whatever builds up to and at least in our performance I think what you see is, as more of our business is reaching rate adequacy our objective is to keep that business not to continue to necessarily get price on it. So, it really is a function of more of that business going over four years of rate increases to rate adequate for us and what you see in the headline number is just the aggregation of all those individual transactions.
Randy Minor:
But is there, I know we focus on that number, but it is important for us, is there more, kind of more consistency or more rational behavior in the environment is there less, I mean I know Travelers is a big company and there is a lot going on, like property, for instance. But is there kind of less bad behavior out there in the most recent quarter compared to what we saw later last year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes, so Randy, I didn't mean to suggest that the number is not important, I’m just suggesting we focus on it differently than you do because we’re executing really on a very, very granular basis and we’re looking at it one account at a time, but to get back to your other question I think when we talk about the market ourselves among ourselves and we talk to our field organization, we would say that by and large it does appear to be a pretty rational marketplace and it appears that there is a real return focus in the industry.
Jay Fishman:
This is Jay Fishman. I think it’s absolutely right. And Brian spoke about it as well it’s - any one company if it’s large enough and is willing to accept subpar returns over time can affect the marketplace from a pricing perspective, that’s not been the case, it’s not been the case for a long time. Now why that is, I actually think a lot of it is data and analytics and the fact that people actually understand their returns better than they did 10 years ago. No one would open knowingly say, well I’m pricing this to produce subpar returns, I think that happened to some extent accidentally, not intentionally and so I think the data is different than the business, it’s been different for some time. I get asked all the time, are we pleased or not that other people seem to be getting good at it? I think it is great. I think the more people understand the cost of goods sold in our business and the risks associated with it, the more we look like a normal financial services business and less of one that’s operating in the dark. So, I think that we may have led this and I’m sure we did, but the fact is that you see it in virtually everyone’s reporting, greater reliance on analytics and return focus and that's I think what's causing it. We’re allowing it to happen perhaps is a better expression.
Alan Schnitzer:
And Randy the other thing I would point you to is the rate at which insurance companies by and large are returning capital to shareholders and if you look at that trend over long period of time, I think you will see a lot more capital being returned. So, to the extent capital can't be deployed at acceptable returns, I think you see a trend toward getting it back.
Randy Minor:
All right. Thank you very much.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley, please go ahead.
Kai Pan:
Good morning, thank you. The first question regarding to the full -- the pricing trend. Just wonder if that -- if the trend stabilized, will we see the margin also stabilizing at this level or there could potentially be some margin pressure relatively to the loss cost or inside?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes Kai, it’s Alan, let me take that as well. And I guess it depends on how you look at it. So let's just say rates are point or point and a half at the moment. We've said that loss trend is running at about four, so if you are looking on a very narrow basis at the relationship of those two things maybe you’d say that rate isn't covering loss trend, but there is obviously a lot more in margin. So, you’ve got volume mix, claims handling practices, underwriting initiatives, expenses whether all those things come through the margin every quarter and there is always going to be moments in those things. So, I would say that were rate and loss trend are sort of too close to call where margins are going to drift over time, given the current relationships of those two things.
Kai Pan:
So, our non-CAT weather benefits the quarter overall?
Alan Schnitzer:
Non-CAT weather in, weather overall in the quarter compared to the prior year was favorable if you take CATs and small weather. Small weather was about the same year-over-year.
Kai Pan:
Okay, great. A follow-up question.
Alan Schnitzer:
You know what, Kai I am sorry about that. I was looking at the wrong number. There was a benefit to quarter and small weather.
Kai Pan:
Great. Follow up question on management succession, Jay you have been running the firm fabulously well like for the past 10 years and you also like some management change recently show you have a deep bench there. I just wonder what is the board consideration about manage succession planning?
Jay Fishman:
Actually thank you for asking that question. I will actually answer it a little bit broader, just in case anybody really wants to, but it is uncomfortable because it is a perfectly reasonable question given our announcement a year ago about my health status, to ask about what's going on. So first I would observe that we’ve been I would say as open as anyone can be about my own personal health status. And more importantly, perhaps most importantly I’ve kept my partners and the Board of Directors here completely price knowledgeable, as I've done along in that process. I am very much on the job and fully engaged and at least from my own perspective there is no decline in my cognitive scale, may be others around here might disagree, but I don't feel I'm struggling in that regard. Now we've always taken succession planning seriously whether it was five years ago, when I was 57, if I did the math correctly, or now that I'm going to be 63 and dealing with health issue, it’s no different, we take it as seriously now as we did then, and there is absolutely a plan in place, with certainty I will tell you that and for the moment all good and when we have more to say about succession and given the fact that I'm going to be 63, we will have more to say, we're going to say it and until then I’m on the job and we’re doing just fine.
Kai Pan:
Great, well thank you so much.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Michael Nannizzi with Goldman Sachs, please go ahead.
Michael Nannizzi:
Thank you. I guess one question maybe for both Jay Fishman and Jay Benet on the capital generation, capital deployment timing, recently you been deploying more cash than you’ve generated when we look at operating cash flows and the deduction for dividends and buybacks, is that something that you expect to continue to do just given capital efficiency that you're generating and you know when we think about potential M&A or capacity for M&A or maybe a desire to do something to bolt something on, does that pattern need to change to be able to create more of a base to start from? Thanks.
Jay Fishman:
We’re both to answer that because I think there are parts of it that are relevant to both of us. I just couldn't have imagined accumulating cash over the last 10 years hoping that there would be an acquisition opportunity that would make that judgment with hindsight look thoughtful. You all would have been highly critical, I suspect of that in our returns would have been considerably lower and one of the things I learned from working with Sandy for as long as I did is that if a transaction makes sense you get it financed, and that treating your shareholders’ money like it’s a bank account to be – to just sit on is really not appropriate. So I think we’ve done exactly the right thing and when there is a transaction that we want to do, we will do it. We will go ahead and we will do it. So I will let Jay speak more to the capital and it’s timing, but philosophically we’ve done exactly what we wanted to do.
Jay Benet:
And Jay said the keyword timing. In any quarter, our share repurchases is going to be based upon what our views of prior capital build up has been. So just because in one quarter or series of quarters, it’s higher than what the earnings look like is really on an indication of a fundamental change in philosophy. It’s still being driven by the creation of operating income and, therefore, capital in excess of what’s need to support our business. And we will look for opportunities to organically grow our business, which will require capital. There may be, as Jay said, some M&A activity that requires capital like we did in Brazil or with Dominion. But overall, it’s a matter of finding those opportunities that provide the appropriate returns and where we don’t find those opportunities, we return the excess capital on a real-time basis to you.
Michael Nannizzi:
Thanks. And then maybe just a quick one for Doreen in personal lines. Any frequency trend as a result of kind of employment or other environmental factors that you saw in 2Q or departure from trends so far this year? And thank you Jay and Jay for those answers.
Doreen Spadorcia:
We’ve obviously been paying very close attention to miles driven and unemployment, which we’ve heard others speak about. But I will tell you at this point, our trend is 3%, which it has been historically, so we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary. There has been a little bit of non-cat weather, but that was just in Q1, but our trend remains consistent.
Michael Nannizzi:
Great. Thank you so much.
Doreen Spadorcia:
You know what, I’m sorry, I just wanted to correct. 3% is our trend overall, that includes frequency and severity. That’s what I meant, but Gaby wanted to make sure.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
The next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you. My first question is just a follow-up on the potential for industry consolidation. The last major deal I believe that Travelers had completed was the St. Paul merger around 12 years ago. And I just want to clarify that, if there’s a large deal that presents itself strategically and financially, that Travelers feel is the right deal to do that, the company would be willing to issue stock for that?
Jay Fishman:
Yes, no question about it. I would observe by the way that your – Dominion was for most people, that would be considered a not insignificant transaction on its own, but I grant you that the kind of mega transaction dates back to that one, yes.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. That’s helpful. Thank you. And then, with regard to the – I know you – I don't want to dig in too much on the commentary on Chubb. But I just wanted to clarify, did Travelers get a chance to look at the Chubb deal before ACE announced the transaction?
Jay Fishman:
I said everything on the transaction I think that’s appropriate for me to say.
Jay Gelb:
Fair enough. And then finally, the third quarter annual asbestos review, it's probably in process. Any updates on that front?
Brian MacLean:
No updates at this point. We do continually look at asbestos on a quarterly basis. We have the annual in depth claim review that takes place and we expect to complete that in the third quarter.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Josh Stirling with Sanford Bernstein. Please go ahead.
Josh Stirling:
Good morning, and thank you for taking the call. So I wanted to talk a little bit about, not so much ACE and Chubb, about the company and so on and so forth per se, but just generally as the market evolves if there’s going to be more concentration? In the independent agency market, there is maybe some more competition that comes from people that have to drive growth to pay for the revenue synergies that they promised, how does that play out? You obviously have a bunch of claims capabilities and pricing capabilities, and you’re sort of number one and number two with most of our agents. But is there going to be sort of a strategic need to get larger, to drive either greater market power or expense leverage or something like that? Or should we just imagine that this is – there is a lot of different companies, and you’re going to basically stick to your knitting, looking at one policy at time, and sort of keep doing what you’re doing?
Jay Fishman:
Yeah, it’s Jay Fishman. I answered the question at the end there. That’s exactly right. We are going to keep doing what we are doing. There isn’t anything that we expect will happen or contemplate will happen that would require any kind of change in our own strategy. Now having said that, lots of companies that are out there, not just new ones, but old ones too and each of them operate everyday and present their offerings to agents and their services and their people, and we compete against all of them. And we expect we are going to continue to compete against all of them. And I’d really don’t anticipate any change. The funny thing as I reflect on it often about taking a lower price to drive revenue synergies is that the arithmetic doesn’t really work. If you cut your rate, your premiums go down. You want to raise premiums, you got to do a whole lot more new business at lower levels of profit, just to get back to where you were. So the simple arithmetic of taking a lower rate on a large book in the hope of driving revenue synergies is often a fool’s errand. Now it isn’t always. Some people can do perhaps elegantly, but there haven’t been too many of them. So I suspect that the market will continue to think about interest rates and weather and the cost of capital and all of it seems to be incorporating as it prices its product with an unknown cost of goods sold. I don’t expect a lot of change. Could be dead wrong, but that’s one person’s view.
Josh Stirling:
That’s helpful. That’s helpful. If I could honestly ask a sort of similar question, but at the other end of the spectrum? So six months or so ago, one of your big mono line competitors in the auto side, announced a deal to get into the homeowners’ insurance business. Obviously it’s probably not material yet, maybe won’t be for some time. But this is a big business for you guys, the source of margins, and it’s been a place you’ve really invested to build a franchise. But I’m wondering if there’s some risk here? Either from losing some of the value you have with agents, from having the bundled offering and the market share that you do. Or I believe you guys distribute a lot with some other – or at least one or two other direct insurance companies, and I’m wondering if there’s a risk that you would lose some of the business, if it becomes sort of popular to bring the homeowners business back in-house?
Doreen Spadorcia:
This is Doreen. I’ll answer your question. We’ve, as we’ve stated before, our business strategy is based on account business and overall service to consumers. To the extent that a certain company has acquired a homeowners’ capability, we think that’s probably a good thing for them. If we were looking at it, it’s smart, but it’s a start-up. It’s very small. And I think you heard Brian’s or Jay’s points in the beginning that we’re the number one homeowners franchise with independent agents. We don’t take that for granted. We’re going to be very, very aggressive about maintaining that position. And so, while I think it’s an interesting twist to things, I think it more validates what our view is about the importance of the product to the customer.
Jay Fishman:
I would add one other – this is Jay Fishman. I would add one other point. We really like the homeowners business.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Yeah.
Jay Fishman:
We really do. We are not in it reluctantly, quite the contrary. The record that we’ve posted there is really remarkable. I think if you look over the past now even 11 and 12 years, it was one year we had a combined ratio in the homeowners business in excess of 100 and that was actually 2011. It was Tuscaloosa, and it was Joplin, and it was Irene. Other than that, we’ve been sub-400 every year and – so we’re in it because we like it and we think we are real good at it. So, it’s okay, we will keep going.
Josh Stirling:
Okay. Thanks, guys. They’re probably 10 years late. So we’ll check back in 5.
Jay Fishman:
It’s okay, we were 10 years late on direct. So we’ll trade them.
Josh Stirling:
That’s fair. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. I guess my first question is just for Jay. I guess Travelers has probably more experience than any other company in integrating large companies or large P&C companies over the last two decades, you know it is obviously a dealer specific question, but in what ways do you see it easier or harder to integrate a large company today versus 8, 10 years ago either from cost save standpoint revenue synergy any of that type of stuff? [Audio Gap]
Jay Fishman:
These are hard to do, they are hard from the human side of the news. People get concerned about their jobs, their families, their positions all legitimate concerns and lots of really good talented people and it’s hard, the people side of this is a very, very hard thing to do; and that’s kind of my experience. I never rely too much on revenue synergies, I used to worry a lot about revenue loss. Our goal was to keep it intact, if we thought if we could keep it intact we were actually doing pretty good given some of the pressures that emerge from it. So, synergies I have absolutely no idea, yes it’s hard tough job.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merrill Lynch, please go ahead.
Jay Cohen:
Yes. A couple of questions. First is will you, in the 10-Q you gave an outlook for 2016 March, I think that’s the first time you did that in the business, kind of the underlying margins and you are suggesting relative stability as you go into 2016, I guess to read into that is a fair to assume you believe pricing will remain relatively stable through at least the first half of next year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes Jay, it’s Alan. So embedded in that outlook in 2016 we think there will be some improvements in the large losses and the weather. But in terms of pricing, I direct your attention to another part of that outlook where we do talk about renewal premium change. We don't get into a distinction between exposure and price, but we do give you a sense there of relative stability in renewal premium change.
Jay Cohen:
That's great. And then maybe a question for Jay Benet, you talk about potential M&A and then you mentioned you will be able to finance it not worry about excess capital and holding on to it, but what kind of leveraged do you think you could deploy if it was a good solid acquisition?
Jay Benet:
We operate at the holding company with leverage target of somewhere in the 15% to 25% range, relative to total capital and we’re running a little under 22% at this point in time. That’s consistent with our ratings objective, it’s consistent with the discussions we have with the rating agencies, you know if there was some transaction that caused it to go to the higher end of that target range, I would think the rating agencies would be very comfortable with that, I think, you know if you could probably go a higher, if you had plans to bring it down over a period of time, you know there is some flexibility there, but that’s the general characteristic of a leverage ratio that we think of.
Jay Fishman:
I actually agree and I think that you could, of course Jay’s smiling. I was just going to make a little bit different point, I think you can take it somewhat above the limit recognizing that you would not be in the share buyback position for some time, it would not make sense to be out issuing shares and then turn around very quickly and be buying back doesn't make a lot of sense. So, redirection cash flows gives you some leveraged capacity as well.
Jay Cohen:
Got it. Thanks for the answers.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg with Janney. Please go ahead.
Larry Greenberg:
Hi good morning. Thank you. Just a little bit of clarity on the net non-cat weather comments specifically in personal alliance, the year ago non-cat weather if my memory serves me was a bit worse than what you might characterize as normal, so recognizing that this quarter was better than a year ago, was it better than what you would characterize as normal?
Doreen Spadorcia:
I think for homeowners it was, for auto it was slightly negative.
Jay Fishman:
So, aggregate for this segment.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Net positive, but it was a little different by line.
Larry Greenberg:
Okay thanks. And then just to talk a little bit about the expense ratios, and I might be microscoping things a little bit too much here, but it looks like in business and personal lines, the expense ratio has been trending a little bit higher this year, I know the year ago first quarter had some unusual worker's comp stuff in it, so that was exaggerated, but adjusted for everything it looks like expense ratios are marginally higher and I guess, I would have thought with Quantum and personal lines and maybe the continued integration of Dominion on business and international that that expense ratios might be trending down at this point, so just wondering if there is any thoughts on that?
Brian MacLean:
Larry this is Brian. It is really two different stories, but whilst [ph] Alan do the BI piece and then – that segment and Doreen can touch on professional lines.
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure, let me start with that in the quarter expenses did tick up a little bit and I would caution you that every quarter there is going to be things that sort of come and go. In the expense line this quarter we had a little bit of expenses, I mean technology expenses running through, but I think what I would really point you to is the expense ratio for the first half of the year, if you are looking for what we would consider broadly speaking is sort of a reasonable run rate number, but again I’d put a quarter around that because there is always going to be things that come and go.
Doreen Spadorcia:
And I will move to PI for a minute. So you know that we set out to take $140 million of expense out, so that we could price Quantum 2.0 at a competitive level and that was made up of separate pieces, so you won't see everything in the expense line. We had about a third of that from ULAE [ph] a third from commissions and then the third other third was our own operating expense. And I think what we're seeing with some of that not reducing is that we had a higher level of growth in a good way then we had planned, so your acquisition expenses in terms of report ordering and inspections all of that really are upfront cost and we also are having such a good property here that we contributed to our contingent commission. So, I think they are all explainable and I will just say that the things that we've done have allowed us to compete from a new product perspective. So, and just to reiterate, I think we did a reconciliation for you at the end of – for the fourth quarter and we did achieve the $140 million in savings. It’s just those others…
Jay Fishman:
Shows up in the loss.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Right.
Jay Fishman:
In the loss ratio, not the expense ratio.
Doreen Spadorcia:
A big part of it and some was in property and some was in auto.
Larry Greenberg:
Okay, great. Thanks. Thank you.
Operator:
The next question comes from the line of Brian Meredith with UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Yes, thanks. So one question here. In looking at your kind of underlying combined ratios, business insurance area, they're pretty profitable, loss cost pretty benign right now, rate activity pretty consistent. I am just curious, why aren't we seeing market share gains out of the Travelers at this point, and what are you doing potentially to pick up some market share? I think that this would be a perfect time to do that, and maybe not so much with price, but maybe with risk appetite as well?
Jay Fishman:
Yeah. It’s Jay Fishman. I will turn it over to Alan in a second. But your last line there, I think is right on. We just don’t think that on the margin you can grow market share by trying to fine tune a modest reduction in price. You don’t have a price lift and its individual underwriters with individual agents and individual accounts. And they bring with them every day a philosophy of perspective and we can’t say to them want you to cut price by a 0.5. They wouldn’t understand a 0.5 from what? It wouldn’t make sense. And so the notion of fine tuning pricing to achieve market share gains is an illusion. It just – we don’t know how to do and I’m not sure anybody else does either. Now if someone is willing to accept materially lower returns, not only on new benign renewal because it will bleed over. You will begin getting exceptionally aggressive on new business and what you find is that agents will get exceptionally anxious about their old renewal books. And so you can do that, but it will have a really meaningful impact on profitability and we’ve seen plenty of companies do that, grow revenues with meaningfully declining profitability, not a – we don’t think a successful strategy. So we focus on product, we focus on people, we focus on technology, we focus on doing making it easier to do business with agents, as growing our market share. So if you look at our middle market business over the last and I’m really going from memory here – over the last I think 10 years, middle market went from $2.2 billion in premium to $3.2 billion in premium. That’s a substantial growth in that segment as we did that. Now, we’ve had other segments that have shrunk and they’ve shrunk to some extent intentionally. When we hit the financial crisis, we took a very hard look at our surety business and our management liability businesses and we had some because we didn’t do everything perfect. I think about our attempt to raise rates in Quantum, pre-Quantum 2.0. So it’s a very granular analysis and I’ll actually direct you to the Investor Day presentation that we did I’m going to say two years ago, where we presented an analysis of individual lines of business and how they had grown and others and how they had shrunk. So we are always interested in growing. We are just interested in growing in ways that are intelligent and actually create value overtime and we work at that relentlessly. Alan, if you want to chime in.
Alan Schnitzer:
Not much to add. I guess I would point to things like moving Marc Schmittlein to over to take on the cyber project. That’s an example of something we see as a real potential opportunity and when we find those opportunities and we do spent a lot of time looking for and we will make every effort to try to make hay out of it.
Brian Meredith:
Right. I guess, maybe where I was trying to go with this, Jay, a little bit is, is it at this point where we are in the cycle, and pricing stuff an appropriate time to maybe dip down in the E&S markets, in areas that maybe are on the borderline standard E&S, and try to get a little bit more risk appetite from that perspective, given where loss trend is right now?
Jay Fishman:
So first, Fred is encouraging me to say, I said middle market in numbers I gave you which are actually commercial accounts. So that $2.2 billion to $3.2 billion, so the record is correct in that regard. The notion of the E&S market as a separate distinguished risk pool is just something that we struggle with a little bit. We are always trying to push our risk appetite out. I think about what Marc Schmittlein did in Select as he broadened the profile of the business that we were trying to do. I think about what – I think about what we also did in commercial accounts as we broadened out the programs and products there. E&S market, what Alan speak to that more directly, but it’s always trying to push our risk profile comfortably and when you don’t push it comfortably, you don’t bring knowledge, you get bad results. Right?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yeah, I agree, we will push ourselves on a risk profile, but we will be steadfast on their return focus. So whether it’s E&S or anything else, we are certainly looking for the opportunities.
Brian Meredith:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Okay. And this will be our last question please.
Operator:
Our last question comes from the line of Charles Sebaski with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Charles Sebaski:
Good morning. Thank you. First question is on the personal business and the Quantum 2.0. Can you give us any additional color on how much of the book now has kind of filtered through from Quantum 2.0, and what effect that could have as it kind of expands through going forward?
Doreen Spadorcia:
This is Doreen, and I'll tell you there's certain things we don't normally disclose. But I will tell you, and we've said this in the past, that over 90% of our new business is now coming from Quantum 2.0. Since inception, we've now got a pretty big chunk of premium, and we’ve got enough earned premium that we think there's enough credibility for us to really look at the performance of the business. And I'll tell you that it's right within our expectations of how we thought it was going to perform.
Jay Fishman:
And the only – the reason it’s not a 100% is because there are some states..
Doreen Spadorcia:
Exactly.
Jay Fishman:
That simply don’t allow Quantum 2.0 as a model. So we are…
Charles Sebaski:
What states would those be?
Doreen Spadorcia:
Well, I'll tell you, we just rolled out California and Massachusetts. It's a new product, but it's not Quantum. And we've got a few other states, North Carolina, we have to build something separately for that. But even in California and Massachusetts, which we were happy to bring them a new product because they didn't even get Quantum 1, it's a light version in terms of what the regulators allow us.
Jay Fishman:
And that’s largely because of the inability to use credit.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Credit, that’s right.
Jay Fishman:
As a upfront underwriting evaluator and pricer in those states.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Right.
Charles Sebaski:
Thank you. Sorry, didn’t mean to cut you off. One additional question, I guess final, on the M&A and the consolidation front, and how you guys think of opportunities for growth internationally relative to the U.S.? If I look at your book and the market share, market share position leaders that you have in a lot, and the recent transactions with Dominion or South America, do you feel that the book or your business is more conducive to international opportunities? And how do you weigh that on a longer term perspective, given the need for return profile, and the other things you’ve previously outlined?
Alan Schnitzer:
Charles, it’s Alan, let me start with that and maybe Jay will follow-up. We certainly apply the same standards outside the United States as we do inside the United States. So the question is always, is the transaction going to contribute to our ability to create shareholder value overtime? So, same lens for evaluating all of it. Given our profile in the United States, given the market share of the franchises we have, that same analysis might apply differently outside the United States where there is just more GDP that we are not currently accessing. So we like the opportunity in Brazil long term, we like the transaction in Canada with the Dominion and we will continue as we’ve been on this journey to export our competitive advantages from the U.S. to other markets. We will continue to build on a platform that’s scalable and as we find those opportunities, we will again make every effort to complete those transactions. But – so we are certainly out looking for them and it’s the exact same standard we would apply to transact in the U.S.
Jay Fishman:
And I’d just add one comment because we’d take it for granted, sometimes you all forget. We are not a Fortune 100 or 200 guaranteed cost casualty underwriter. We’re not a liability writer broadly, general liability, to what we would call global companies. So when we talk about outside U.S., we are talking about local business. This is now Brazilian companies or Canadian companies. We’re very focused on the local environment. So, where the local environment has characteristics that would allow for either another competitor to come in and succeed or an acquisition opportunity where that local environment holds promise. We are ambitious for that. No issue at all. But it is a very local evaluation, not an evaluation of kind of the global insurance market.
Charles Sebaski:
And does your product portfolio and how you analyze the business within the U.S. lend itself to being able to do that internationally in the same way, I mean, do you get the same access to information and underwriting ability or are there difference that have, I guess, held you back from expanding more broadly or rapidly internationally?
Jay Fishman:
There are certainly differences between marketplaces, but we think our fundamental approach to the business being disciplined about returns, being strong underwriters, all those cultural attributes do translate. And we think that given the sophistication we have in this marketplace, there’s opportunities for us to deploy that sophistication in other less sophisticated markets and make a difference. But there are definitely differences market to market. I wouldn’t say that necessarily holds us back, but it is one of the things that we assess and evaluate. But I would also observe that there are differences in the United States. Doreen just talked about our Quantum product and how we’ve got to tailor that to different markets in the U.S. and we really take that same skill set of assessing our competitive advantages and figuring out how to deploy them in markets around the world. So that’s what we’ve done in our existing footprint and that’s what we will continue to do whether it’s in that footprint or in new geographies.
Charles Sebaski:
Thank you very much for the answers.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Very good. This concludes our call for today. Thank you very much for joining us and we apologize for the disruption. We apologize for those we didn’t get to in the queue, and we are available in Investor Relations to take your calls for the rest of the day. Thank you and have a good day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask you to please disconnect your lines.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - Senior Vice President, IR Jay Fishman - Chairman and CEO Jay Benet - Vice Chairman and CFO Brian MacLean - President and COO Alan Schnitzer - Vice Chairman and CEO, of Business and International Insurance Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman and CEO of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance Bill Heyman - Vice Chairman and CIO
Analysts:
Randy Binner - FBR Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley Amit Kumar - Macquarie Jay Gelb - Barclays Josh Stirling - Sanford Bernstein Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Jay Cohen - Bank of America
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the First Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 21, 2015. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our first quarter 2015 results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com, under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Jay Fishman, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer; Alan Schnitzer, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Business and International Insurance; and Doreen Spadorcia, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn it over to Jay, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. And now, Jay Fishman.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you, Gabi and good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. We are very pleased to start 2015 by reporting another strong quarter with operating income of $827 million or $2.53 per share and an operating return on equity of 14.5%. Our underwriting results remained very strong across all of our business units as evidenced by our combined ratio of 88.9%. Additionally, we achieved a record level of retention in domestic business insurance while simultaneously posting positive renewal rate change. With Quantum Auto 2.0 in full rollout, in Agency Auto, we achieved policy in force growth of 1.8%. The first-time that metric has been positive since 2011. We posted these results notwithstanding another severe winter and the reduction in net investment income from last year’s first quarter. Jay will speak about our investment income in just a moment but for now suffice it to say that nothing happened that we had not contemplated or considered a possibility. The operating and production results for this quarter were being very encouraging and consistent with our belief that the amplitude of the historical cycle has narrowed. Importantly, this stability contributes to our confidence and our ability to continue to deliver superior returns on equity. The confidence that we have is in part evidenced by our capital management strategies. Today our Board of Directors announced an 11% increase in our quarterly dividend to $0.61 per share, marking the 11th consecutive year of dividend increases and bringing the compound annual growth rate on the dividend to nearly 10% over this time. In addition, we returned $850 million from capital to shareholders, bringing our total since 2006 to $31.6 billion. And we’ve done all of that while continuing to make significant investments in our business and our people. Canada, Brazil and the data center in Omaha just to name a few. Rightsizing capital and reinvesting in the business are not mutually exclusive, both are fundamental to the way we think about the business for the long-term. We intend to continue with these strategies and in that regard, our Board also authorized an additional $5 billion of share repurchases. We’ve made substantial progress in improving our product returns over the past five years through a thoughtful, focused and highly analytical approach to our business that has been well executed in the marketplace. We intend to continue on this path. In that regard, fixed income returns remain at historical lows and as a consequence, we must continue to be mindful that this challenging environment has already lasted far longer than most would have assumed and we will continue to factor that environment into our pricing strategies. In addition, we note that weather patterns do seem to be different. This change when combined with increased real-estate development, causes us to be very attentive to incorporating the real cost of weather uncertainty in our business. Part of the answer to this challenge above and beyond price and policy terms is helping our customers consider their risks and protect their assets in the most thoughtful ways possible. And we know that we and our independent agents are committed to helping customers do just that. As the world gets riskier, the value of thoughtful insurance advice goes up. And with that, let me turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks Jay. We are pleased with our first quarter results. Operating income of $827 million and operating return on equity of 14.5%, despite operating income being down $225 million from the very strong first quarter we had in 2014. Importantly, this decrease in operating income was not driven by deteriorating the underwriting results. As Jay just said, we reported a consolidated combined ratio of 88.9% this quarter. Rather the decrease in operating income primarily resulted from three items
Brian MacLean:
Thank you, Jay. Alan and Doreen will go over the individual segment results in a moment, but before they do I want to make a few comments on the impact of weather and the operating environment in the domestic commercial market price. Regarding the weather, patterns continue to be unpredictable and that was clearly evidenced by another challenging quarter. Weather losses in the first quarter of 2015 were slightly higher than the first quarter of 2014, but more importantly in both years we experienced losses above our expectations, driven by the polar vortex last year and the extreme snowing cold in the northeast in 2015. Much has been written about the snowfall in Boston this year, which at over 110 inches was a record for the season. But the real story is that nearly 95 inches of this snowfall came in just a 30-day period. To show just how unusual that was the Washington Post cited a meteorologist who calculated that Boston should not expect to see another 30 days with that much snow for another “approximately 26,315 years.” Now, I’m not sure what they meant by approximately but suffice it to say was an extremely unusual event. As we think about the continuing unpredictability of weather patterns and our exposure to catastrophic weather losses, our expectations for cat losses are significantly higher today than they were just six or seven years ago. And importantly, historically we would have expected to have been below budget absent a fairly significant Atlantic storm. Unfortunately it has now become all too common for us to have significant cat losses from what we traditionally thought were the lower severity frequency events like tornado, hail and winter storms. So weather patterns are changing and accordingly we’re continuing to reassess and manage our property exposure and pricing in a thoughtful way. Regarding the domestic commercial pricing environment, we feel very good about the returns we are seeing in this business and we are encouraged by the continued stability of the market. In the fourth quarter of 2010, we embarked on a strategy to improve the returns and profitability of our commercial business by increasing rate, improving terms and conditions, and focusing risk selection. We said that we would execute on this strategy thoughtfully and in a manner that would not be disruptive to the marketplace. Accordingly, our initial goal was to achieve gradual rate increases, eventually reaching a level that would drive significant improvement on the returns of our products over time. And once our returns had reached the appropriate levels, we hope to see rate moderate at a level that would allow us to sustain reasonable returns. Looking back, this is almost exactly what we have seen over the last four and half years. And we couldn’t be more pleased not just in the results but in how we have achieved them. We couldn’t have scripted it better. And with that, let me turn it over to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Brian. Good morning. I feel very good about our performance in business and international insurance this quarter. Operating results were strong and importantly, we were encouraged by the continued stability in the U.S. marketplace as reflected in the facts that our retention is at a record level and we’re still achieving renewal rate gains. As Brian said, we could not have scripted this better. The underlying combined ratio was 92.7%, an increase of 3.2 points over the prior year quarter. Eliminating the benefit from the state workers’ compensation assessment in last year’s first quarter, the underlying combined ratio increased by about 1 point, reflecting a typical level of quarterly fluctuation. Particularly in light of the severe winter weather that Brian mentioned, we feel great about the underlying profitability. Turning to the top line, net written premiums were up about 1% from the prior year quarter with the timing and structure of a number of reinsurance treaties and changes in foreign exchange rates having an adverse impact. Domestic net written premiums were up about 2% but adjusting for the timing impact of the reinsurance treaties, premiums were almost 3.5%. In our international business, net written premiums were down 7%, driven by the adverse impact of foreign exchange. The production results this quarter in our domestic business continue to be very encouraging. As we’ve said in the last few quarters, more of our business is achieving target returns. And our objective has been to keep more of that business to our very granular account by account and class by class execution. Record retention this quarter, speaks to the success of that strategy. Renewal premium change was down about 1 point from the fourth quarter of last year and within that, pure renewal rate change was also down about 1 point. Notably, renewal rate change across most of our businesses has been steady for each of the three months within the current quarter. Turning to select, retention had a full year high and renewal premium change was strong at 7.3%. Overall, we’re pleased with the returns in this business and we’ll continue to seek high retentions and higher levels of new business. In middle market, retention was a very strong 87% with over 90% retention on our best performing segments. Renewal rate change moderated less than 1 point in the fourth quarter to 1.1%. In terms of new business, we’re very pleased with the results in middle market this quarter. As you’ve heard from us, the impact of rate gains over the past four years has resulted in more new business opportunities that met our return threshold. The amount of new business we wrote in the quarter was impacted by the high volume of new business activity in the marketplace. January is a big month for new business submissions. Also it’s worth noting that prior year quarter was particularly low from a new business standpoint. So that obviously contributes to the quarter-over-quarter increase. Our international business also posted solid production results. Over the past several quarters, renewal premium change has been steady and retention is trended up. In the current quarter, new business levels were lower than we would have liked, largely reflecting our disciplined response to conditions in the Lloyd’s marketplace. I’m pleased to note that as we announced last week, we agree to increase our stake in the P&C business with our Brazilian joint venture to 95%, up from 49.5%. We will maintain our 49.5% stake in the JV surety business. Our P&C business in Brazil is small. We launched it in 2012 and wrote about $20 million of net written premium last year but we continue to see long term growth opportunities. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of this year, subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions. To sum it up, we feel great about the quarter. We’re focused on maintaining attractive returns and we’re well positioned to execute where we find opportunities. And with that, let me turn it over to Doreen.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Thank you, Alan and good morning everybody. Bond and specialty insurance started 2015 with a strong first quarter and we remain exceptionally pleased with the financial returns in this segment. For the quarter, operating income was a $124 million, a reduction from the first quarter of 2014 due primarily to a lower level of net favorable prior year reserve development and lower net investment income. Underlying underwriting results remained very strong and well within our target. As for top-line, net written premium for the quarter was essentially flat to 2014 for both on management liability and surety businesses. Across our management liability businesses, retention and new business premium were both slightly improved from recent quarters while RPC levels remained broadly consistent. In sum, not a lot of movement in the quarter to highlight for you and we continue to feel great about this segment’s result. I’ll turn now to personal insurance, where we also had a terrific first quarter with strong underwriting results in both Agency Auto and Agency Homeowners & Other. Operating income for the quarter was $252 million, down slightly from the first quarter of 2014 due primarily to lower net investment income. The underlying combined ratio was essentially flat to the prior year and had a level that we feel great about for the segment. Looking at Agency Auto, we once again delivered strong top-line and bottom-line results for the quarter and continued to be very pleased with the performance of this business. The 90.2% combined ratio for the quarter benefited from approximately 3 points of favorable prior year reserve development which was driven by better than expected severity in bodily injury. The underlying combined ratio of 93% was a slight improvement from an already strong 2014, and in a range we’re comfortable with. Production results also continued to be strong driven by Quantum Auto 2.0; new business premium was 67% higher than the first quarter of 2014; and we continued to grow our policies in force which increased 21,000 during the quarter. Net written premiums increased 4% from the prior quarter. So by all measures, great results for Auto for the quarter. Turning to Agency Homeowners & Other, we once again delivered strong financial results and we’re making progress in production as we execute local product and pricing strategy. The overall combined ratio of 74.4% was strong and benefited from favorable prior year reserve development. The underlying combined ratio of 79.5% is also well within our return expectations for the quarter. So, financial results remain strong as we continue to execute our disciplined underwriting and pricing strategies. As for Agency Homeowners production, we said earlier that we continue to make progress. New business premium was up almost 40% from the prior year quarter and continues to trend favorably. We feel great about our market leading Homeowners’ capability and know this product is a critical component of the customer package. Brian discussed the continued impact of weather. With these considerations in mind and our strong financial results in this line, we remain focused on improving our offering, both product features and process improvements to be again growing this business again. Based upon the new business trends we’re seeing, we’re encouraged with our path. Lastly on Agency Homeowners & Other, net written premium was down 5%, primarily driven by the impact of changes in the timing and structure of certain of the company’s reinsurance treaties. So to sum up, personal insurance had excellent results and a great start to 2015. And with that, I will turn the call back to Gabi.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Doreen. We are now ready for Q&A. And I would like to remind the participants to please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. And our first question comes from the line of Randy Binner with FBR. Go ahead.
Randy Binner:
Two part question on reserves, especially in the commercial area. I saw the comments that you took some CGL in 2005 and prior and work comp in 2007 and prior but one, was wondering about more recent years in work comp and casualty lines, if those need to season more? And two if you could provide your initial take on the 2012 and 2013 accident years and the question there is given that you are about 36 months out from there and we had a mini hard market in pricing in those years and I think evidence of lost cost trends remaining benign, wondering how the 2012 and 2013 years are looking now that you can have a better view on that?
Jay Benet:
This is Jay Benet. I’ll try to wrap in some comments about all of that and some overview set. So, as it relates to the reserve development, these years do have to season a bit for us to get a good look on what the longer tail liabilities are doing. However, having said that, as you know, we have a very robust and granular process for looking at our reserves. So, we look at them every quarter. And if there are things that are developing either currently or from prior years that would have a rollover effect, which we call base year movement, into the current years will reflect that as appropriate. So looking at the more seasoned years at this point in time, we did take action to reduce reserves, as you pointed out in general liability and workers’ comp for 2007, 2005 and prior, as we disclosed. None of that really had a major impact on the more current years. The current years haven’t developed in any meaningful, way one way or the other at this point in time in the current quarter. There have been actions in previous quarters, some of the more recent accident years where we’ve made some minor adjustments. But at this stage, as I had indicated earlier, there really was no meaningful unfavorable development taking place in any of our products, any of our accident years. And on the favorable side, we’ve pointed out in a press release what that was.
Randy Binner:
And I guess the follow-up would be just kind of honing in on 2012 and 2013 and understanding they are not fully developed, but there is some amount of time that’s passed. I mean given the pricing that was better then, do you have evidence that loss costs trends remained benign in that period of time or was there an elevation in loss cost trends in those years in particular. I guess from what we’re seeing it seems like most loss cost trends for casualty have been incredibly benign, especially in those years.
Jay Benet:
As we’ve said in previous calls, we’re not seeing anything as it relates to loss cost trends that’s surprising to us or different from what our assumptions are. These are of course very long liabilities. So, you are going to react in a prudent way to any changing information that you see. And as it relates to this whole thing, which we’re referring to as benign or whatever, everything is really dependent upon what your reserving assumptions. and as long as your reserving assumptions are based on what’s taking place in the marketplace, you are not making adjustments for things, which is not to say over time, you wouldn’t look further at the data and see things that would cause you to recognize favorable development or God forbid, unfavorable development. But at this stage, our reserves, as we always do are best estimates of what we see today and we’ll just see how they develop going forward.
Jay Fishman:
And it’s Jay Fishman. Just let me add one point. Couple of times in your question, you referenced pricing and its impact on reserve. And we just don’t -- pricing is not a factor as we set up reserves for our business. Our reserves are driven by costs. And the pricing what we sell it for is driven by the marketplace. And so the notion that our reserves are sit differently in a different pricing environment is just wrong; it’s just not correct. So, what Jay I think is -- so far so good. So, far the estimates that we established in the years of which Jay referenced are continuing to stand up to whatever the developing trends are.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Kai Pan:
First question is on the margin and like classify the one point movements in terms of business margin deterioration as a quarterly fluctuation. So, just wonder has that one point impact by some non-cat large weather related losses and also going forward, if you see your pricing continue to accelerate, are we going to expect some continued margin expansion -- margin deterioration?
Alan Schnitzer:
Hi. It’s Alan Schnitzer, let me take that. So, the one point that we characterized is typical fluctuations, maybe be rising from two components, one in the loss side. There is some fungibility of losses and we’re talking about a relatively small numbers. So, it’s hard to sort of necessarily pin point what those dollars were. But as we look at our analytics and our losses, what we really saw in the quarter was a very small, you can count them on one hand, a small number of large fires around the world; they contributed to after tax less than $20 million that maybe where that comes from. The rest of it was on the expense side and there is always going to be some normal fluctuations in expenses from period-to-period. In terms of the margin outlook, you could certainly look what rate is doing and what loss trend is doing and do a very narrow quantitative analysis and say Gee! Margins are going to shrink. We try to look at margins on a broader basis. So, lots of things other than the written rate and estimated loss trend that are going to impact margins going forward. You’ve got things like volume exposure; mix; expenses; claim initiatives; weather large losses, all those things every quarter are going to have an impact on our results. And so, at least the away we look at written rate and loss trend at the moment, hard for us to say necessarily what margins going to do over the near-term. And we take our best shot in giving you some perspective on that in the outlook section of the 10-Q. So, I would suggest that if you haven’t had a chance to look at that.
Jay Fishman:
This is Jay Fishman. One other observation, your question and Alan’s answer is in respect of written rate versus loss trend. Obviously on an earned basis, as we look forward to the rest of this year, looking over to Jay Benet to see from right, we anticipate that earned margin will continue to modestly expand from here, all other things being the same and they never are. So, I’m simply talking about the calculation of earned rate versus loss trend modestly; everybody’s pointing modestly here. So, it’s not a matter of this year. I second the motion on Alan’s comment, which is one is obviously the lower number than four and all other things being the same that would suggest some margin compression. But again, all other things are not the same, exposure, a meaningful portion of exposure; acts like rate; you get volume differences, you get productivity efficiencies. So, it’s close. And I would hesitate on concluding definitively that return margins and therefore some time down the future earned margins at this level will by definition reduce, they may, possible but it’s not -- it just isn’t that clear yet, the numbers are just not -- that point is different.
Kai Pan:
I have follow up on the reserve side. If you look at short tail of line releases over the past two years that account for a majority of the reserve releases, having in two years. I just wonder in hindsight because shorter line, you would imagine probably little bit easier to reserve than the long tail lines and what has helped you guys in the past two years in terms of short line reserve releases and the sustainability of that going forward?
Alan Schnitzer:
We can’t talk about the sustainability of it, because going back to our reserving philosophy, we’re always reserving at best estimate. So, we feel like we talk about some of the things that have caused the reserves to develop favorably. You say that short tail lines are easier to reserve for and it’s an interesting phenomenon that takes place. If you are dealing with short tail and particularly if you’re dealing with property, you have events that take place; in many cases, they’re taking place in a current quarter where you’re coming up with the estimates in that quarter. And even though it’s a short tail business, you’re dealing with not a lot of claim information at that particular time. So, you’re looking at recent activity or historical activity to make judgments as to how those claims are going to develop; how the storms are going to develop. And depending upon the nature of the storm, where the storm hits, you could have situations where you are thinking that a tornado has a lot of hail associated with it; you look at the history of how that’s developed and put up numbers and then as time goes on, we found that we overshot the mark a little bit because that particular storm didn’t follow the pattern of previous storms in terms of the related hail damage. So, it’s like everything else in reserving; you have some data upon which to make assumptions and then you extrapolate from that; you make your best estimate and then you’re always adjusting it. And in the case of short tail, it conveys the higher fluctuations. What I really mean by that is the period of time in which you find, you’re making the adjustments is a relatively short period of time; it’s correcting quickly whereas in lines GL or workers’ company, you can often that you’re seeing long-term trends and you’re evaluating them but the period of time in which you’re making the adjustments can often times be over several quarters or even several years, it’s just data getting more solid. So, it’s an interesting aspect of reserving that I found intriguing when I first got involved in it. But as it relates to the short tail lines, you do see these fluctuations because you’re dealing sometimes with very, very little data.
Operator:
The next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar with Macquarie.
Amit Kumar:
Just two quick questions; the first question is for Doreen. The results in Auto were strong. Can you sort of expand on the loss costs comment? I think previously you’ve mentioned that loss trends have remained at around 3%; is it fairly unchanged in terms of where we are in the quarter?
Doreen Spadorcia:
Yes, it is. We debated about whether to put that in and you’d ask us about it anyway. So, yes, we do see the severity trends for Auto to be about 3% and that’s all in. I guess -- I’m just trying to think; and that includes bodily injury as well. That’s a little bit higher but when you blend everything, it’s about 3%.
Amit Kumar:
And sort of switching gears, this might be for -- this is a question on the surety piece. There have been recent press reports mentioning Malucelli and Petrobras; would it be possible to maybe talk about any go forward potential surety exposure you might have to this piece?
Alan Schnitzer:
It’s way too early for us to really have any assessment on the impact on us from a surety perspective. This is just starting to unfold. What I will say is that we’ve great confidence in our people down there; we’ve got great confidence in our underwriting; we manage our gross and net exposures pretty carefully; and together with our partner and our local team, we continue to watch it. We don’t have any reason at the moment to think that this is an outsized problem for us but I will reiterate that it’s early and we’re watching it.
Doreen Spadorcia:
The only thing I was going to add is that we remain very proud to be committed with J. Malucelli as a partner and they are one of those finest companies in Brazil. So with all of the discipline they bring and we bring, it’s an unfortunate set of events but we feel like we’re in the best position that we can be with that partner.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Go ahead.
Jay Gelb:
Firstly, I just had a question on the buyback. The $5 billion authorization, do you anticipate that taking roughly two years to complete?
Jay Benet:
This is Jay, Jay. We’re not predicting what it is. I mean we talk about our share repurchases as being driven by our earnings. So, depending upon what you and others feel, our earnings look like going forward, you can do the math as to how long you think that share repurchase authorization will be out there for our utilization. And of course that’s in addition to the remainder of the previous authorization which I think was another 80, 84 [ph]. So, I think looking at what your projections are and looking at the utilization in the past, you can come up with pretty good estimate of what you think it will be.
Jay Gelb:
And then my follow-up question is on investment income. Given the drop off in the other investment income and in the first quarter of fixed income, investment income typically being seasonally highest in the first quarter, if I put that together, it looks like you could see at least a 10% decline in investment income after tax in 2015, maybe into the low-teens. Is my math okay?
Jay Benet:
I think there is two pieces to that, one, looking at the fixed investments, we’ve put some disclosure in our Q as to what we thought the period-over-period decrease on a quarterly basis would be for fixed income NII. And of course, the drivers of that are two-fold. One, the lower interest rate environment, as items mature either in the current quarter or really in the previous nine quarters as well, they are getting reinvested at the lower rate. So that will have an impact. And also as we pointed out, we paid the $579 million on the direct action, so those funds are no longer in the investment portfolio. And when you combine those two things, you’re roughly at about a $30 million after-tax decrease on the fixed income NII. As it relates to the non-fixed income portion, we’ve provided you data on what the composition of the portfolio is. You’ve seen the historical yields associated with it. I don’t have a crystal ball to say how the economy is going to perform and whatever. We’ve tried to give information as it relates to the impact of the oil price decline and the feeling like we’ve hopefully gotten to a point whether vast majority of whatever re-pricing or revaluations will take place have been captured. But I think you need to make your own estimates as to what you think that part of the portfolio will be.
Jay Fishman:
It’s Jay Fishman. I will give it to Bill Heyman in a second, just two points. I am not clear what your comment about seasonality in net investment income, is that…?
Jay Gelb:
On the fixed income, investment income for the year, seasonally it is highest in the first quarter?
Jay Fishman:
No, it’s seasonally -- it declines; these are just bond. Don’t interpret that seasonality one there, [ph] it’s just yield; that’s all it is; it’s the same bonds...
Jay Gelb:
If I look at first quarter every year, it seems like the first quarter is the highest and then it shows off and…
Jay Fishman:
There is nothing about the fixed income -- our fixed income portfolio that has any seasonality to it whatsoever. Other than as time progresses and more of the portfolio is reinvested at lower rates, we’ve been saying it for years now, the net investment income will go down over time. No seasonality in that number at all. As it relates to the energy dynamic, I would point out that we put out a schedule in last quarter’s webcast which summarized our private equity investments and what we thought was. And we defined as the energy space; my recollection is that somewhere around $760 million or so, inclusive I think. We have to go back; I am working from memory. But it’s not insignificant but hardly overwhelming. So, those are the two points I’d add on investment income.
Bill Heyman:
Jay, it’s Bill Heyman. What you see as seasonality is really a degradation of book yield that’s gone on now for three years or four years. And we calculate it more or less to the basis points and quarter-by-quarter. And so that slope -- the slope of the slope will change over time. But the direction of the slope will persist for a while. Our basic allocation here which is 93% and 94% to fixed income is designed so that even if investments other than fixed income don’t perform, which we know on occasion they won’t, our interest revenues assuming we collect them even at these levels are enough to give the company a shot at an overall ROE in our target range. And that’s the policy and that’s not really an accident. In terms of the non-fixed income portfolio, I know we’re making the comparison this morning to the first quarter of 2014, but I think it’s instructed to look at this quarter against the fourth quarter of 2014 and then the fourth quarter against the third quarter of 2014. And you can see that for non-fixed income investment as a whole and the webcast and the bottom right of page six, but that includes the entire university. In private equity, the decline over the last two quarters was pronounced. So, this doesn’t come as too much of a surprise. And given the elevated levels of the first three quarters of 2014, you can see comparisons like this again for a couple of quarters yet. What I think we can say is that since we receive results and report them to you on a quarterly lag, we try to go behind them and look at marketing conditions and determine whether there is in the portfolio some embedded but yet unreported loss that means that these marks are less accurate. We don’t see that. Obviously our vision isn’t perfect. But Jay Benet alluded to developments in oil prices and in the publicly held securities of these funds and we looked at equity markets generally, but it is what it is. And for what is worth real estate this quarter performed very well at levels equal to first quarter 2014. Hedge funds performed better; the shortfall was in private equity and 50% of it came from 15% of the portfolio. So, that’s the story.
Operator:
Next question comes from the line of Josh Stirling with Sanford Bernstein. Go ahead.
Josh Stirling:
Jay, I wanted to ask a follow up question on the Kai’s question about where we are on pricing relative to loss trends and how that implies your future margins. So, I guess I’m really curious, where do you think the breakeven point is going to be for future margin compression? If we sort of dial back, I think a year ago, maybe 3% to 4% is what a lot of companies were saying, you’d want to cover loss trend with and now it’s been 1.4% versus maybe the CPI something approaching to. I know there is lots of moving pieces; you mentioned some of them. But where do you think the level is that we think might be margin compression, kind of pricing levels? And if you don’t mind the question; you guys have led us through this pricing cycle so far; will you draw line in the sand to preserve margins before you get to that point?
Jay Fishman:
First, we really don’t perseverate annually as much as perhaps you will do on weather margins or a little bit wider or a little bit smaller. We’ve got -- I don’t know, the last time I looked we have close to 1 million commercial lines accounts each one of them are priced one at a time. And so the notion that we somehow think or manage with that level of granular dynamic is just -- it’s almost we occasionally show you the distribution of rate gains across the entire book and that should impress you with the diversity of it that every account is priced on its own. So, I start off first with philosophical answer to that, not that I won’t try and answer your question; the honest answer to it is that, I just don’t know. What we do believe, what we are currently recording is an aggregate overall loss trend of 4%. That remains across our entire commercial book; our business book unchanged; it’s independent of whatever CPI numbers come out or producer price index. We were pretty granular about our loss trend and feel that we try hard to get right. The reason we try and get it right is a whole lot less about reserving than it is pricing. We price our product to losses and if we don’t have our losses right, we are not going to get right price, so we get very driven and very focused on that. So, if you wanted to do just simple arithmetic, let’s say unless you get four points of written rate, all other things being the same, margins will begin to go down, but all other things are just not the same. Exposure, we’ve talked about this many times in the past, has a fair amount of activity in it that looks like rate, acts like rate, an example would be an increase in property limits on a building. You collect what premium, rent it; there are more limits at risk, but absent the total loss, that number will act in the calculation equivalent to rate. And so when we start trying to analyze it, the best answer that we can give you right now is it closed; it’s closed. But again it’s not as if we perseverate much at all on whether it’s up a little bit or took me not up, down a little bit or flat; it’s just not -- we think about returns over time, not about -- importantly not about margin in any given quarter, returns over time, it’s how we think about it. So that’s sort of our outlook. In terms of lines in the sand, we always enjoy that. It’s nothing different about that. One of the things that’s impressive to me and Alan shared some of this data with your couple of quarters ago
Bill Heyman:
I would just add to that in terms of the line in the sand. As you heard from us, we are return focused and that’s our objective as we underwrite account by account or class by class and that return will take into account interest rates; competitive conditions in the marketplace; everything else. So why we are drawing lines in the sand on account, we’re not going to look at some magical return and going to say that’s it, we’re stopping. That’s going to change and it’s going to take in account all the facts and circumstances over time.
Jay Fishman:
One of the questions that we’ve been asked over a long period of time and our answer has been the same. To us, the leading indicator about lack of stability in the market and the way in which you can best assess the sort of near term is retention. It is really to me personally given my experience is remarkable that we had a record retention in our domestic business insurance business while still getting positive renewal rate. I just think that’s really quite remarkable and speaks to the stability of the business. If you want to get a sense of churn, you look at retention. And I’m getting a little long in the tooth but I go back to the late 60s when retentions in the middle market were in high 60s; 70 was considered a pretty stable month. This quarter in the middle market, we were like in the 87%; it just shows you the magnitude of the difference and really I think just reinforces the way in which we run the business.
Josh Stirling:
Jay, that’s really helpful. As we sort of think about simplifying now this, my guess and one follow up on that, then I’ll let you guys move. If I integrate what you’ve all just said which I think is sort of near your breakeven point on margin compression and you’re happy with rates but in your outlook you said that basically that you expected pricing to be broadly consistent for the rest of the year with level was in the first quarter. Did that mean we should basically be interrupting that as sort of the slowing pricing trend of the past seven or eight quarters, which has been relatively stable, kind of stop here where I see you guys try to keep pricing where it is here for foreseeable future?
Jay Benet:
So again, I’ve got to fall back to the account by account discussion because that’s how we think of pricing, not as a single manifest order to the organization. Some underwrite is sitting with an agent and they’re talking about an account that’s had -- and I use this example all the time, three consecutive years of price increases and that account has been doing just fine. And the agent and the underwriter come to conclusion that it’s appropriate to renew that account flat, we are off for it; we are off for that; no issue at all. If the conversation is that the account absorbs a tremendous amount of cost and risk management and loss experience is kind of marginal and therefore we should be asking for a fourth consecutive increase, we will. It’s by the account. What is true over all is that more of our business has moved into what one would consider return good, return acceptable than it was two, three, four years ago. So, as low as account by account decisions get made, they get made in a different framework of return to the company. We think that’s great, couldn’t be happier about the way our field underwriters execute on that. So, it’s not a matter of us sending out a message that says stop here. We never would say that. Our message is, look at the account; look at the cost; look at the expenses; look at the load; look at the class of business; do you want it part of your portfolio; does the account have stability? Use your best judgment, do the right thing and we leave it to them. And that’s -- so I can’t -- if rate were to go flatten from here and people were pursuing that, it’d be fine in the aggregate. If rate were to go down in another point and they were pursuing in that strategy, it’d define. The rate in the end is the result of tens of thousands of transactions, not a single order that’s given out to the field. And just to that, I would just add that on our most challenged segments of business, we continue to get rate in excess of loss trend.
Jay Fishman:
Yes that actually is so darn important because it speaks to the granularity of the strategy that where accounts are not meeting our return expectations. We already drove in affecting and come back to that; we draw the line and we’re we’re getting rate at that point exceeding loss trend. So, so important for us.
Operator:
Next question comes from the line of Michael Nannizzi with Goldman Sachs. Go ahead.
Michael Nannizzi:
Maybe if we could talk a little bit about the personal agency channel bid. Clearly, Quantum is having a positive impact. It looks you are winning business; getting rate and keeping retentions high and the margins look good. Just trying to understand sort of the competitive environment there and what’s giving you the ability to win consistently post that Quantum 2.0 change? And is it an area of focus, a demographic or a scale advantage possibly, building risk profile of the book, something else that’s giving you an opportunity to continue you to generate positive new business there? Thanks.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Hi, Mike; this is Doreen. Let me just bring it back probably a year or so, so you know what we put in place. But we actually did some back testing and what we needed to do to be more competitive in the customer segment that we wanted. And when we looked at that, we thought that our expenses needed to be adjusted. And so that’s what we did. We took the $140 million out of our operating costs as well as reduced the commission on the new products. And what we told our agents -- so first of all I want to give them great credit because notwithstanding that sort of salary change, they were great partners and supported that. And what we told them was we wanted them to be competitive across channels. We weren’t doing this just so they could switch one company’s business to us. We wanted them to be able to compete with a captive and the direct writers. And while I wouldn’t say that the price points are always what those companies are, it made us and them much more competitive in those customer segments. But I mean the whole thing, you need an organization that’s willing to execute to that; you need strong agency relationships; and at the end of the day, you need a product that people want.
Michael Nannizzi:
And have competitors reacted to kind of post this success or they kind of stuck with their? I am sure you can see from your own win rate, have others tried to replicate this success or are you still able to hold that lead?
Doreen Spadorcia:
We can see it in little pockets Mike but nobody has really taken the approach of adjusting their cost base. So, if they are doing that with pricing, we can see a little bit of that, but nothing where we’ve seen a major restructure, so that the offering would be similar.
Michael Nannizzi:
Got it. And then you mentioned direct really quickly; I am just curious, I mean there is obviously a little bit more increasing certainly led [ph] on some new entrants into the direct channel. Just given and maybe if we talk a little about the direct initiative at Travelers and how you are thinking about investments there and the potential for do any of these new market participants, do they provide an opportunity for Travelers or is it something that you are just kind of wait and see at this point? And thank you so much for all the answers.
Doreen Spadorcia:
On the direct to consumer initiative, I think Jay and Greg have talked about this in the past. And we still feel like there is a very strong value proposition for the customers that we have and the advice that they get from agents. We just haven’t seen sort of a run on the bank that maybe would have been predicted a decade ago. That being said, we also think it’s very prudent to make sure that we have multiple channels of business, because our goal is the customers that we like, we would like to bring in the door anyway they’d want to come in. All that being said, I know there has been some talk about some entrants in the marketplace. And I think I would tell you our view is to just evaluate and wait and see what that might bring. We’ve made no decisions and we’re in observation mode.
Jay Fishman:
It’s, jay Fishman. I’d add a couple of points; Doreen’s got it all right, which is that one of the things that is and we’ve said this before, nothing new in this, but increasingly, it’s in the data. The nature of the customer who chooses to buy directly is a different customer than that which seeks advice. And it’s not just the nature of the customer but it’s the risk management need. So broadly speaking and this comes from our experience with being a GEICO partner from many, many years, the percentage of renters and amongst GEICO customer is a multiple of what the renter population is in our agency business. The percentage of minimum and low limit buyers for Auto who buy direct are a multiple of those low limits or minimum limits that buy directly. Now that’s not a 100% and it’s not an absolute statement, but broadly speaking, you would say that the nature of the risk management needs based upon data, not anecdotal; not television customers but based upon the data is that they are different. Now that’s in effect really good news for us, because the agency business that we direct our attention to has been much more resilient and robust than people 10 years ago might have suggested.
Michael Nannizzi:
Sure.
Jay Fishman:
Maybe that changes in the future; it’s possible and it would be foolish of us to be arrogant enough to say that that customer could never be attracted. And so we’re going to continue to develop the technology, such that if that business dynamic changes, we’re in a position to respond. But several quarters ago, our conclusion was and we shared with you that the nature of the customer that we seek is not yet buying enough through direct channel that the business is a scalable business around that. To make it scalable, you have to be as that different sentiment and that’s just not our sweet spot. So, I’d say Gee! It would have been nice if the direct channel would have developed more robustly. But believe me when I tell you, as I had to pick one versus the other going into this, I’m much happier that the Agency channel has remained more robust than people would have suspected.
Operator:
And the next question comes; the final question comes from the line of Jay Cohen, Bank of America. Go ahead.
Jay Cohen:
Just a couple of clean up questions, the first is can you discuss what the non-cat weather was in the quarter because with all these winter storms, certainly in the northeast, it was hard to tell what was cat and non-cat. So were the non-cat numbers elevated at all?
Jay Benet:
Yes, Jay; this is Jay Benet. We actually had only one storm raise to the level of a cat for us. So, most of the winter storm activity that took place this quarter was non-cat weather, as we described or differentiate between cat versus non-cat. And looking at this year versus last and I think Brain made the comment, the weather in this quarter was heightened from what we would think of as a -- if there is such a thing anymore as a normal quarter was heightened from that. Last year was also a heightened weather quarter. And while the data is -- it’s the voluminous data, but it’s also challenging data to say exactly this is a weather loss; this isn’t a weather loss. The feeling around here is that the weather losses this year were elevated from the weather losses last year, but they weren’t off the charts different, they were just a bit higher than they were last year. That would be the feeling we get from the data. So, higher than normal; whatever normal is these days; a bad winter season last year; bad winter season this year; this year all in a little higher than last year and that would go for both cats as well as non-cat.
Jay Cohen:
And then the second question was, you talked about I guess some of the changes in reinsurance and the impact on premiums. Can you discuss those changes and what drove the premium impact?
Jay Benet:
The primary one is the change in the cat program that we announced last quarter. As you recall, our cat reinsurance was generally done, was always done on July 1, and the new cat aggregate treaty that we put in place was the January 1 deal. So the premium for that is primarily what we’re seeing in this quarter through the seeded line that’s impacting the quarter-over quarter comparisons because last year there was no premium for that.
Jay Fishman:
It shows up in the quarter and which is amortized to be clear.
Jay Benet:
Alright whereas last year in the third quarter of 2014, we would have seen a similar payment taking place; whereas on July 1 on this year, we will not be making that payment because we’ve already made it.
Jay Cohen:
Is easier comparison in July should be up a little bit more than expected?
Jay Benet:
Yes.
Gabriella Nawi:
Very good. Thank you all for joining us today. And as always, we’ll be available, Investor Relations for any follow up questions. Thank you and have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference for today. We thank you for your participation. Have a great rest of the day everyone.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi - Investor Relations Jay Fishman - Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer Jay Benet - Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer Brian MacLean - President, Chief Operating Officer Alan Schnitzer - Chief Legal Officer, Vice Chairman, Financial, Professional & International Insurance and Field Management Doreen Spadorcia - Vice Chairman, Claim Services, Personal Insurance, Operations and Systems, and Risk Control Bill Heyman - Vice Chairman, Chief Investment Officer
Analysts:
Randy Binner - FBR Jay Gelb - Barclays Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Josh Stirling - Bernstein Jay Cohen - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Larry Greenberg - Janney Capital Brian Meredith - UBS
Operator:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded, January 22, 2015. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Tina. Good morning, all, and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our fourth quarter and full year 2014 results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com, under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Jay Fishman, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer; Alan Schnitzer, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Business and International Insurance; and Doreen Spadorcia, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond and Specialty Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. Before I turn it over to Jay, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website, travelers.com. With that, Jay Fishman.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you, Gabi. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. As you have already seen from our release this morning, we closed out this year with record results. We achieved record levels of net income per diluted share for both, the quarter and the full year of $3.11 and $10.70, respectively. Our return on equity and operating return on equity were also very strong quarter, bringing our full year return on equity to 14.6% and operating return on equity to 15.5%. Just as important is what's behind those numbers. Across the organization, we couldn't be more pleased with how we have executed on our business strategies, including our approach to the marketplace in domestic business insurance, the introduction of Quantum 12.0 and moving our personal insurance business to be better positioned, the continuing evolution of our international footprint and our exceptional positioning in Bond & Specialty Insurance. Just as important is our capital management strategy. In 2014, we returned over $4 billion in capital to our shareholders through dividends and buybacks, while still maintaining our significant balance sheet strength. Reflecting on our performance over the last 10 years, now a decade since the merger, a few things stand out. When we introduced our long-term financial strategy in 2006, that is creating shareholder value by producing superior returns, driven by building meaningful and sustainable competitive advantages, generating top-tier earnings and capital substantially in excess of our growth needs and maintaining a balanced approach to rightsizing capital and growing book value per share over time, we were confident that it has been successful in the broadest sense beyond our expectations. Over these 10 years, our cumulative operating income has been approximately $31.6 billion and we have reduced our share count by more than 61%, returning $30.7 billion to shareholders through repurchases and dividends and amount exceeding the then market capitalization of the company, and we did this while still making investments that were important for our business and acquisitions that were opportunistic for us along the way. Consequently, we have produced a very strong average annual operating return on equity of 13.3% over that time. Our shareholders have benefited from superior total returns as shown on Page 4 of the webcast, where you can see the 1, 5 and 10-year performance of travelers compared to other U.S. financial companies. Obviously, we posted top-tier returns, but even looking globally we have identified only a small handful of large financial service companies, whose 10-year performance exceeds ours. We remain optimistic about our ability to successfully execute these strategies. Our own observation is that the markets in which we do business remained fairly stable. For the last several years, we have shared with you that while we recognize that we could be wrong, we were skeptical of the concept of the old-fashioned severe insurance pricing cycle, where a bell to go off and it would be a few years of very high price increases and then another bell would go off and there would be significant price declines. Our view was and remains that there are no substantive differences in the way business is conducted that have and we believe will continue to change the characteristics of our markets. We have talked about the stability of the market as evidenced by the high levels of retention, the fact that we are not the only company returning significant amounts of capital as well as the focus of the industry on returns on capital. Advanced analytics and a more demanding regulatory and oversight environment have also meaningfully contributed. While there will always be changes in pricing both, increases and decreases in response to changes in loss costs, expense , interest rates or changes in real or perceived risk, as there are in many industries, we continue to believe that the amplitude of the cycle has narrowed substantially. Beyond the insurance market dynamics, we have real confidence that our organizations is well positioned to successfully navigate whatever set of challenges the external environment may throw our way. With our relentless focus on execution, deep and talented management team, highly analytical approach to underwriting and investment risk and a very high respect for our shareholders' capital, we remain well-positioned to continue to deliver meaningful shareholder value. With that let me turn it over to Jay Benet.
Jay Benet:
Thank you, Jay. By any measure, our fourth quarter results, record net income per diluted share of $3.11, record operating income per diluted share of $3.07, operating ROE of 17.7% and a combined ratio of 85%, were very strong. As has been the case all year, these strong results were built on very solid investment and underwriting performance. Within underwriting, we continue to earn rate increases in excess of loss cost trends, which was the driver of 100-basis point improvement in our underlying combined ratio this quarter versus the prior year quarter, while experiencing only a modest level of cap losses and very strong net favorable prior-year reserve development. Pre-tax cap losses were $41 million in the quarter, down $12 million from last year's fourth quarter and pre-tax net favorable PYD was $351 million, up $92 million. While each of our business segments contributed to the favorable reserve development, it was primarily driven by Bond & Specialty Insurance's as contract surety business for accident years 2012 and prior. By business and international insurances, general liability product line for accident years 2008 through 2012. As I have been doing in recent period, I would like to provide you with a preliminary view of what our combined 2014 Schedule P is expected to look like when filed on May 1st. On a combined stat basis, for all of our U.S. subs all accident years developed favorably. Looking at the data on a product line, rather than on an accident year basis, all of our major product lines developed favorably in the aggregate across all accident years, except for relatively small amounts of unfavorable development in CMP and in personal auto liability. CMP developed unfavorably by approximately $68 million pre-tax on a reserve base of approximately $3.5 billion, spread out over several recent accident years. Our personal auto liability developed unfavorably by only $20 million pre-tax on a reserve base of approximately $2 billion, driven by development on a small number of large PIP claims from accident years 2005 and prior. I should also point out that the personal auto in total; combining liability and [ph] reserved development was essentially a wash as physical damage developed favorably by $18 million pre-tax. We have taken advantage of the recent evolution in aggregate CAT reinsurance products to restructure our CAT cover, further focusing on severe events that on a single or cumulative basis could impact capital. Effective January 1, we replaced our previous GEN CAT treaties, our $400 million CAT, aggregate excess of lost treaty which expires as scheduled on December 31, and our $400 million GEN CAT treaty, which our reinsurers agreed to terminate early as of that date, with a new aggregate ex-OL treaty that provides coverage for both, single events and accumulation of losses for multiple events. It is a simpler structure that provides $1.5 billion of coverage part of $2 million excess of $3 billion after a $100 million deductible per occurrence. It has a same broad pharaoh and geographic coverage of the former GEN CAT and ex-OL treaties and it positions the coverage layer to provide a significant buffer between earnings and capital. As an aggregate cover, there is a single limit with no reinstatement provisions, the cost is essentially the same as the previous program, but it provides greater potential recovery after the higher retention. Our Northeast GEN CAT treaty, or CAT bonds, earthquake and international covers remain unchanged and I refer you to Page 21 of the webcast for a brief description of the new treaty. Another subject I would like to touch upon relates to the recent drop in the price of oil. While this is not the first time that oil is trading at $45 a barrel, it was at today's levels as recently as 2009, we thought it would be helpful to provide you with the information appearing on Page 22 of the webcast, showing how much of our investment portfolio is invested in the low investment grade energy bonds and energy-related equities. As you can see, the sum of these investments is relatively small and we believe the exposure to be quite manageable. We continue to generate capital well in excess of what is needed to support our businesses and consistent with our strategy, we continue to return very significant amounts of capital to our shareholders. Operating cash flows were in excess of $500 million this quarter, inclusive of a $200 million discretionary contribution we decided to make to our qualified pension plan, bringing total operating cash flows to almost $3.7 billion for the year. We ended the year with holding company liquidity of almost $1.6 billion after returning almost $1.2 billion of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter alone through dividends of $182 million and common share repurchases of a little over $1 billion. For the full-year, we returned almost $4.1 billion of excess capital to our shareholders through dividends of $735 million and common share repurchases over $3.3 billion. One final note about share repurchases, since we began in 2006, the average price we paid for our shares was $57.56, approximately 60% of our current stock price. Once again, all of our capital ratios remain at or better than their target levels. Our debt to total capital ratio 21.7% was well within its target range. During the , book value per share increased 1% and adjusted book value per share, which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses was also up slightly. For the full-year book value per share increased 10% and adjusted book value per share increased 7%, while net unrealized investment gains were almost $2 million after tax at the end of the year as compared to $1.3 billion at the beginning of the year. Now, let me turn things over to Brian MacLean
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. Alan and Doreen are going to go over the individual segment results. Before they do, I want to make a few comments about our business and I will start with a significant progress we have made in personal lines. Three years ago, we discussed with you that we would be aggressively pursuing improvements in our financial returns in both, auto and homeowners primarily due to weather and auto severity trends. As we close out 2014, we couldn't be more pleased with the progress that we have made. We have taken necessary rate in both, our home and auto products while maintaining strong retention levels and we have tightened underwriting guidelines and made changes to terms and conditions in our homeowners' book. We also discussed that the increased utilization comparative raters by independent agent had resulted in a need to improve our competitive position in the auto market. To that end, we announced our production initiatives that would support the rollout of our new more competitive auto product Quantum Auto 2.0. We have now achieved our expense reduction goal and Quantum 2.0 is live in virtually all Quantum states. The impact from these bold actions on our results has been significant. Our homeowners' returns are in line with our target range and our top-line trends are improving. In auto, our returns are operating in a range that is acceptable to us given current market conditions. Importantly, our auto business is growing again and the higher new businesses creating long-term value, so overall, great progress in the independent agent channel. In the direct-to-consumer business, our decision to enter that channel reflected our belief that a large segment of the personal insurance market empowered by increased transparency of product and pricing information, would choose to buy insurance via the direct channel. While certain customer segments of this market have quickly embraced the direct channel, the customer demographic that Travelers target has moved more slowly. With that said we remain committed to the strategic channel and expect that over time it will become a more significant portion of our personal business. It is important to note that as we have invested in this channel, we have consciously targeted that investment to help strengthen our independent agent channel, which we believe, will continue to be a significant channel for our customer demographic, so we feel very good about this investment. The final point I would make in personal lines is the growing importance of the home product. Our industry is built around protecting consumers against risk, the greater the risk, the greater responsibility and opportunity we have. In that vein, the extreme weather volatility has added risk to the home exposure, making our industry-leading capabilities in the homeowners' line and even more significant competitive advantage and critical with the customer segment we target. Accordingly, we are continuing to invest to make sure that we maintain and leverage our industry-leading product as a part of a total customer portfolio solution. All-in, we feel great about the progress we have made in this business, we are proud of the many employees that have had a hand in executing these initiatives and we are grateful to our agents who have supported us throughout. In our commercial businesses, we are equally pleased with our progress, specifically seen in the steady improvement of our product returns which have been the driven by our consistent execution. As Jay Fishman, mentioned in his comments, we are encouraged by the continued stability of the market as evidenced by the strong retention levels we continue to see both, in our book and across the market. When we analyze our results at a very granular level, we see that we continue to be successful executing our basic pricing strategy which is to retain a high percentage of our business that is meeting target returns, improve profitability where needed, and quote on and write new business that meets our target returns. You will see in our results that we have had a bit more success last quarter in new business, but I would emphasize that that is a function of the improved returns on accounts we are seeing, and not a change in our appetite for new business. Alan will comment on this further, so overall, great results in 2014 with stable market conditions, very strong underwriting results. With that I will turn it over to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Brian, and good morning. For business in international insurance, our fourth quarter performance capped off a very good year, with operating income of $630 million in the quarter and more than $2.3 billion for the full-year. In terms of production results, in the U.S. retention rates increased throughout the year, stable renewal premium change reflecting gradual declines in renewal rate regain and improving exposure. We are very pleased with our execution in the field and I will comment more on that in a minute. For the full-year, the underlying combined ratio was strong 92.8%, a half-point improvement from the prior year. While earned pricing in excess of loss trend contributed favorably to year 2014 results, there was also negative impact of about 1.5 for non-catastrophe weather and large losses relative to the prior year. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter was 93.9%, up 40 basis points from the prior year. The underlying loss ratio improved 40 basis points driven by the earned impact of price increases exceeding loss trend, partially offset by large losses in non cat weather. Impact of large losses was about a 0.1 in the quarter, arising out of our international business. We see this as a normal level of large loss volatility. Expense ratio was a little higher year-over-year, due to the effects of some favorable expense items in the prior year quarter. Turning to production, we had a very strong quarter in PII with net written premiums up over 6% from the prior quarter, driven by our middle market business and inclusion of Dominion for the full quarter. In domestic BI retention increased to 83%, while renewal premium change increased somewhat from recent quarters and new business was up about 6%. These production results reflect what you have been hearing from us for the last year or so. That is, given the rate gains we have achieved over the past four years more of our business is achieving adequate return, and for those accounts or classes, our primary objective is retention. Importantly, in our domestic BI business, we are on average still achieving flat to slightly positive written rate gains on our better performing business segment. For the lesser performing segments of our business, we are on average achieving written renewal rate gains in excess of estimated loss trends. Let me comment on the growth on new business in middle market, both Jay and Brian commented on the stability in the marketplace. As a consequence of that stability, the number of requests for quotes on new business has also been relatively stable. However, given the cumulative impact of rate gains in the market broadly over the past four years, a modestly increasing percentage of the new business request that we did see in the quarter, where return levels that met our threshold. As a result, in the quarter we were able to quote successfully on more accounts. The new business growth in the quarter does not reflect any changes of our return thresholds or more aggressive new business pricing. Looking at the production statistics, I would like to highlights some further detail. In select, retention was over 80% for the second consecutive quarter, with total renewal premium change of a little over 8%. In middle-market, retention was above 84% for the second consecutive quarter and renewal premium change was strong and increased slightly from the third quarter, a great result. In our other domestic BI business, we were pleased that both rate and exposure increased from the third quarter, resulting in 100-basis point increase, sequentially, in renewal premium change. Also, our retention increased to 81%, the highest level in more than two years. Looking at our production results for international, retention was strong at 82%, slightly higher than recent quarters. Renewal premium change was higher than the third quarter as exposures improved. New business was down year-over-year, primarily because the new business we saw did not meet our return threshold. In December, we were pleased to announce that our joint venture with J. Malucelli in Brazil, agreed to acquire a majority interest in Cardinal, a start-up surety provider in Columbia. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2015, subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions. To sum it up, we are very pleased with our strong operating income and production results for the fourth quarter and the momentum we feel going into 2015. In terms of execution going forward, we intend to pursue more of the same. With that, let me turn it over to Doreen.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Thank you, Alan. Good morning to all. Bond & Specialty Insurance had a great quarter, rounding out a strong 2014. Both, the fourth quarter and full-year results, are record earnings for the business and we are very pleased with the financial returns in this segment. For the fourth quarter, operating income was $216 million, 24% higher than the fourth quarter of 2013, while full-year income of $727 million was 27% higher than 2013. The increases from prior year were predominantly driven by the higher levels of favorable prior year reserve development that Jay Benet referenced earlier. The underlying combined ratio for both, the quarter and full year were strong at 84.1% and 82.2%, respectively. The quarter was slightly higher than 2013, due to a modest re-estimation of prior quarter losses. The full-year result was 2.5 points better than 2013, due primarily to benefits from existing our management liability excess of loss treaty. While there will always be some ups and downs in the year-over-year variances. I cannot emphasize enough how terrifically feel about the results, in particular the underlying fundamentals of how we achieved them. As with all of our businesses at Travelers, we remain committed to superior underwriting performance of our portfolios through aggressive management of risk and limits, including enhanced segmentation, underwriting analytics and claims management. Turning to production, net written premium for the quarter was $525 million, a decrease of 5% compared to the prior year, due to the exit of our management liability excess of loss treaty in the fourth quarter of 2013, which increased that period in net written premium. The non-renewal of this treaty in 2014, together with higher surety volume, drove 4% increase in net written premium for the full-year. Across our management liability businesses, retention of 84% was consistent with recent period in the prior year, while new business premium of $36 million was generally consistent with recent period. Renewal premium change, which can be somewhat lumpy due to variations in things like limits, written liability, attachment point and policy duration, was 5% for the quarter. In sum, I would like to reiterate one more time just how great we feel about the business and our ability to continue to produce superior financial results. I will turn now to personal insurance, where I would first like to reiterate Brian's comments about the progress made in the business and how great we feel about our ability to have a vibrant consumer business that generates appropriate returns. We had a great fourth quarter rounding out a strong 2014. Operating income for the quarter was $242 million, up slightly from the fourth quarter of 2013, while underlying income of $254 million was up 18% for the quarter from the prior year, driven by strong underwriting results. The underlying combined ratio of 84.3% in the quarter was an improvement of 4.5 points from 2013, while the full-year underlying combined ratio was 86.4%, an improvement of about two points from 2013. The improvement in underlying results from '13 for both, the quarter and full year, reflect continued benefits from earned pricing exceeding loss trends and our expense reduction initiatives. Before addressing the specific results for auto and homeowners, I wanted to give some detail on our expense reduction initiative. You will recall that our plan was to achieve pre-tax savings of $140 million on a run rate basis by 01/01/2015, and we are pleased to tell you that we have achieved that goal. As we have discussed in the past, about half of these reductions relate to claim management expenses, the impact of which shows up in the loss ratio. Since we started the program in the third quarter of 2013, there is about $100 million in cumulative pre-tax savings already in our earnings through the end of 2014. For the remaining $40 million, initiatives have already been executed and they will earn through in 2015. With this specific initiative met and now behind us, please rest assured that we will continue to manage expenses diligently as we always have. Looking at agency auto, retention remained strong and consistent at 83%, while renewal premium change was about 5%. Quantum Auto 2.0 continues to drive improvements in production, with new business premium of $161 million in the quarter, 87% higher than the fourth quarter of 2013 and overall net written premiums increased 4% for the quarter. We have also seen increases in policies enforced on a sequential basis for two consecutive quarters now. Turning to agency auto profitability, the underlying combined ratio for the quarter was 97.9%, an improvement of about four points and was 95.9 % for the full-year, an improvement of just over 0.5 for their comparable 2013 period. These improvements were driven by benefits from the expense initiatives and earned pricing exceeding loss trend, partially offset by the higher impact of new business volumes. In addition, the quarter included approximately 2.5 points of favorable prior quarter re-estimation. Lastly, on auto, our current view of the overall auto loss trend remains at about 3%, with no meaningful change in the underlying texture. Looking at agency, homeowners and other, production was strong in the quarter, with retention stable at 84% and renewal premium change of about 6%. New business premium of $83 million was up almost 40% from the prior year quarter and we remained focused on maximizing our market leadership position in the homeowners' line to provide broad consumer solution. From a profitability perspective, the underlying combined ratio of 69% was an improvement of more than 5 points over the fourth quarter of 2013, driven by earned pricing exceeding loss trend and favorable losses including non-cat weather. Overall in personal insurance, a terrific finish to 2014, and we feel great about our momentum heading into 2015. Finally I would like to echo one of Brian's earlier comments, and this applies to all of our employees, in all of the businesses. We are very proud of the hard work of all of our employees and grateful for the partnership with our agents in achieving these results. With that I will turn the call back to Gabi.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Tina, we are now ready for Q&A. I would ask you all to please limit yourselves to one question and one follow. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. Our first question is from Randy Binner of FBR. Please go ahead.
Randy Binner - FBR:
Great. Good morning. Thank you. I wanted to touch on the commentary around rate increases now moving below the increase in exposures. I appreciate the commentary that, I think you think you feel like you are getting rate ahead of loss cost and you are more focused on retention there, but a couple of questions. One, I assume there is going to be competitive profits to keep retention, so any new initiatives there or any more color on how you plan to keep retention higher. Then, as far as the absolute rate increase number we all watch so closely, I guess, I mean, is by definition we have to see that continue to moderate if you are achieving the rate adequacy.
Jay Fishman:
Hi. This is Jay. Alan and I, I think, we will tag team this. First, just to be clear about rate gains, first, I assume you are speaking about our business insurance segment. I think, what Alan said was in our best-performing segments of that business, talking really about the middle-market predominantly, but it goes even beyond that. In our best-performing business, we continue to experience, let's call it, flat to upper point in terms of rate. Now, relative obviously an overall loss trend for that segment, it is not keeping pace with it. I would tell you that we are not attempting to. That is not our principal focus. Alan also said that in the poorer performing classes that rate gains there continue to exceed loss trends, so that's where we are. The reason I said we are not uniquely focused on that is that we are a return-driven organization and we ask of folks who have managed this just excellently to remember its agency relationships, its customer relationships and it is how you manage your business over time that matters. We start off with returns over time, that translates to account management over time, so if an account has had, and I am speaking very, very broadly here, but if account has had three years of increases and they have been a good account and we value them, we tell our people that there's nothing wrong with renewing that flat. It doesn't mean that if there's an opportunity to do a little better because circumstances suggest it, claim activity rising or otherwise, but they should attempt to do it, but that we manage our relationships and returns on accounts over time, so I suspect report, I part that if we are right about the cycle dynamics that you will see more of a stair step in rate gains more than sort of a constant trend line and ultimately I suspect with it the granularity of our discussion our best-performing accounts versus our poorer performing accounts will become more relevant in perhaps the way you see the world. Now, that's first part. The second, you spoke about retentions. We are not doing anything differently with respect to retain business than we ever have done and I am sure Alan can give you more color and will, but the way generally business is renewed, if the agent is satisfied, the customer is satisfied, if the market is satisfied, the discussions take place pretty early, well in advance of the renewal date, the account gets resolved at whatever it is and it gets renewed whether it is down a point zero, up a point or differently, so it is [ph] the retention discussions have become as you described more competitive. That simply isn't how the business is done. Those conversations take place given the data and the analytic we have in the context of long-term account management and doing right thing for the customer the agent for the long-term. I let Alan give some more color on that, but there wasn't anything in the world of retention that we are doing differently.
Alan Schnitzer:
Randy, it is Alan Schnitzer. Let me also address both of those quickly. Industry observers tend to focus very narrowly on rate change and the long-term estimated loss trend we give you, and I would remind of comments during the quarter, which is there is a component of price change, which includes exposure that from a return perspective and from margins acts like rate, so we don't look at the narrow GAAP between rate and loss trend may be quite as precisely as industry observers do, and there is always variations quarter-to-quarter in weather and large losses and all those sorts of things that create volatility plus or minus within an expected range, so we are really in a pretty tight band. In terms of retention, I would have given you the same comments Jay did about our efforts, and I would highlight a real competitive advantage that we have. This is not us needing to do anything else. We have got an extraordinary deal capability, we have got great presence in the field, great tenure in the field, we have got great relationships, we have got great related services like our risk control and it is those sorts of things not developed this month or this quarter, but over many years that give us the ability to manage retention in a way that we think is most productive from a profitability perspective.
Jay Fishman:
I would add. Again, that is exactly right. It is not uniquely a price discussion. It is important; it is only one element of long-term relationships and management. Lastly, at least through the third quarter, obviously with the first one out in the PC business this quarter retention is what I would consider all the quality companies they are all high. It is not that we are describing a set of circumstances that are unique for us. We think we manage it better than anybody else and maybe that is sort of our own pride in it, but the fact is that it is not our business that has been stable. It is broadly speaking, the industry's that has been stable and that is what so important.
Randy Binner - FBR:
Very helpful. Just one quick follow-up and that is for Jay Fishman on stair step comment on rate. I didn't quite follow how that fit in a conversation, but I think you are saying is the good part of the book becomes more rate adequate. The places where you are trying to seek rate increases may have kind of a bigger impact on a quarterly basis on what we see for rate change. Is that what you meant by the stair step versus the trend?
Jay Fishman:
Yes. I did, but the second part of that is that at the account level you may see a year, two years where in an account renew is flat, and then there is an attempt to recover, if you will, some of that loss margin relative to loss trend on that account. We are not a company. We have not issued an edict to the field that says get trend on every account. That would be a dumb thing to do. We say to them manage the long-term return given everything you know about the agent, the account, profile of that account and manage it thoughtfully and if that means that account is going to renew flat for a year or two, that is okay, so that is really the comment about stair step that I was speaking to.
Randy Binner - FBR:
All right. Very good. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question please?
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jay Gelb of Barclays. Please go ahead.
Jay Gelb:
Thank you and good morning. Jay, I know this is somewhat of a sensitive topic and I hope you are feeling well, most importantly. If you could update us on the health condition that was disclosed several months ago, along with any update in succession plans, that would be helpful initially. Thank you.
Jay Gelb:
Sure. I appreciate the question. I have no sensitivity about it by the way, none at all, so first, thank you. I do continue to feel okay. I am here, I am on the job, I am still mobile. It's a little clunkier than it was and everybody here is helpful above and the call of duty and making sure that not only I can continue to do my job, but everybody here can continue to do theirs. As I disclosed, and someone asked me why did I disclose it, and the answer is because I needed to, to continue to do the job effectively. It was becoming apparent for those who were around me a lot that something was amiss and it was prior leave people in confusion and doubt or provide some clarity with respect to my circumstance. I have chosen not to be specific about the ailment really in respect of my privacy and my family's privacy and just do not think that it really matters a whole lot. Its relevance is I am 62, there isn't anything about my circumstance that causes me to change my view of my ability to continue work here as I did, I have something else to say, so the horizon is unchanged in that regard. We have been an active succession planning company for a long time and pretty transparently. If you look and see what we have done and what we have announced, it doesn't take a real genius to see what we are doing and what the next generation of leadership here is. I chuckled where 62 is kind of a magic number here Brian 62, I am 62, Jay Benet,62 Bill Heyman is 60-plus, so it is just that responsibility falls on us to make sure that we do this seamlessly, seamlessly. I would tell you that a board knows virtually everything. I have been completely transparent to them, and to the extent anyone really is interested, I have already begun to cut back fairly meaningfully on my non-travelers commitments and I will continue to do that, so that I can focus exclusively maybe, but there [ph] things are not going to give up, but to focus relentlessly on what matters here, so that's the news of the day.
Jay Gelb:
I appreciate that. Thank you. Switching gears for Jay Benet, the capital return in 2014 for Travelers was 112% operating income, including dividends and buybacks. How should we think about that for the years going forward?
Jay Benet:
There is really no change in the philosophy, there is no change in what we have said in the 10-Ks and Qs, earnings are going to drive what we are able to return subject to the number of items that we list and contributions being one of them. When you look at a particular quarter, you are going to see the ebbs and flows of what has taken place in terms of earnings from prior quarters, making the determination as to how much in particular in that quarter we will be able to return to shareholders, so there is no change in philosophy, no change in the kind of basis upon which it is done, all we were seeing is some excess capital actually that we ended the prior year with, working its way into the share repurchases in 2014.
Jay Gelb:
Okay. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question please?
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Nannizzi of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Michael Nannizzi:
Thanks. Jay Benet, I was wondering if you could follow-up a little bit on the development, maybe give us a little bit more color, maybe the breakdown between surety and GL. I am more interested in GL but on the surety piece how much is the non-renewal of that management liability treaty. How much of the impact of that has already come through. Then on GL, just trying to some idea on that '08 to '12 accident years, where are the most recent alternates on those books of business as compared to where you are looking in that business today. Thanks.
Jay Benet:
I think some of that is a level of granularity. You will probably see when we file the Schedule P. You know we are in the process of summarizing all that data, so to give a very detailed information at this point in time, I think, would be a bit of a mistake. What we are trying to do is, give the overall picture as to how things have developed and in terms of the individual products, the individual accident years, so what we are trying to communicate was yes there was major shift in anything that affected PYD. As far as your specific question on the surety reinsurance, that has no effect on development. That's a contract that was in place that was looked at in terms of its cost benefit and we decided that it was not really something that was achieving the objectives and from a profitability standpoint and a risk standpoint, we would be better off not having it, but that really had nothing to do with PYD.
Michael Nannizzi:
Okay. Thanks. Then just on expenses, the ratio in BI kind of dropped in the back half of last year and kind of stayed at that level first part of this year and now we have risen now to 32.5-ish range. Where should we expect to see that? I mean, is that where, you know, I am thinking about whether it is Dominion or something else? I mean, is there an opportunity to kind of bring that back down to what we were seeing over the trailing 12 months in the second quarter or is that where you expect to efficiently run? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
It is Alan again. If you look at the full year expense ratio, I think it was 30, 31.5 and that had a benefit in it from the first quarter that we disclosed then. That was on the year worth about half a point. If you adjust that first quarter event and have that half point again, round numbers that sort of what we feel like would be a fair run rate.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Sorry. The benefit, remind you also workers' compensation state assessment liability that we talked about…
Alan Schnitzer:
We had a reduction in estimated liability that we announced in the first quarter and we quantified it, so you will see it in our press release and 10-Q for the first quarter, so that really was the anomaly this year, so if you add that back in and look at the full year, round numbers I would say, it is always going to be up or down a little bit for one thing or another, but that will give you sort of a ballpark.
Michael Nannizzi:
Got it. Great. Then last one for Jay Fishman. Is there anything that you think could happen in the reinsurance market as far as evolution or innovation that would allow you or how you to consider pursuing more growth in catastrophe exposed areas utilizing reinsurance or is that something at this point that is still not something that you foresee. Thanks again.
Jay Fishman:
Sure. It is irrelevant question of course. First, we are engaged, involved and looking at lots of different things. The specific question you asked is, are you prepared to build primarily exposure and rely on a reinsurance profile that may or may not be permanent to produce an effective loss profile and there is the potential of mismatches there are substantial. Meaning, on the primary side very difficult to non-renew. Reinsurance, obviously, to be non-renewed instantly, when that happens, even if you pursue a primary non-renewable strategy, that 12 months where you had to think where the primary exposure sits and the reinsurance is simply not there anymore, so that is an arbitrage that I think as a potential mismatch to it that's concerning. Now, if reinsurance pricing were to drift low enough, in my judgment it is not there yet, you might sit there and contemplate doing that, but I would say that the mismatch risk there has real shareholder value attachment to it as well as regulatory. I mean, imagine trying to non-renew a significant enough book of business, where you would actually do this as a strategy as opposed to an operate tactic. It would be very disruptive, so I think not in that regard, but it doesn't mean that there might not be other opportunities and we are sure pushing it around. It is not obvious to us yet. Pluses and minuses, these things will have certain complexities to them, but it is not obvious to us yet that there is some magic, a dynamic there that has happened, the changes, the fundamental underlying economics of being the primary business. Now, maybe it keep going in that direction, but - not yet.
Michael Nannizzi:
Great. Thank you so much, Jay.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question please.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Josh Stirling of Bernstein. Please go ahead.
Josh Stirling:
Good morning, Jay. Glad you brought up the St. Paul Travelers' deal. I think it is really interesting topic for us to talk about today. Going back 10 years, people were not sure about the deal, but it has obviously been a fantastic success. As we are seeing a new wave of consolidation, I am curious to hear your perspective on the M&A we are seeing in the market today? When you think about the opportunities you guys are presenting, I am sure you have had a lot of opportunities to consider and debate this, and I am wondering more specifically, you have made a couple of smaller investments in the past couple of years. Should we expect you to do more of these as stock buybacks become more expensive in your multiple runs or alternatively should we expect you potentially to be more of a material consolidator in the small and mid-cap consolidation rate that seems to be starting? Just would love to get a sense how you think about capital priorities here.
Jay Fishman:
It is a really good question, so let us break it into a couple of component parts. First, on the international horizon, to the extent and the Columbia situation was a pretty good one, I think, Dominion even though it was a $1 billion trade, to the extent there are opportunities to do things of that nature, where a business is either relatively new or underperforming and we think that collectively locally and what we bring ourselves, we can improve it, we will continue to look for those opportunities. It is they are increasingly harder to find, driven in some measure by the economics. Much of the economic environment outside the U.S., as well as the general competitive environment that exists outside the U.S. There are lot of areas where you would say kind of the last thing you want to do is, be competing there, and that was just not been in significant list, but nonetheless to the extent that opportunities present themselves in international front, we will we will most certainly look at them. I would not contemplate, by the way I could be completely wrong here. Meaning, you are asking me for an outlook, I am giving it to you today, that doesn't mean that we could change, but I would not contemplate that those would be large transactions. I do not know how one would look at Dominion. I do not think of it as a large transaction, meaningful, but I would not contemplate that international front, what would be that. We really have no interest in the reinsurance business in the broadest sense, so to the extent that there are the things happening in the arena Bermuda or otherwise, we largely do not pay attention to it and I do not really have a view on the value that has created there. I am not knowledgeable I am not close enough to it to have a thoughtful view. We have always said about acquisitions and this hasn't changed. It is very, very much the same. We are a return-driven organization, the principal view that we would take for looking at anything is what would it do to our return profile over time. Would it potentially improve our return dynamics and that could be either in magnitude or in volatility. To the extent there is diversification, geographic expansion and providing lower volatility returns that could meet the threshold also. The challenge for us in that regard is that, when you do something small in our business, you take all the risks of whatever it was, whatever undisclosed liability, whatever policy was written 20, 30, 40 years ago, you have got it. In many cases, the controls and procedures and knowledge base that exists in small companies just did not [ph] to warrant the risk they could take to getting into it. They just don't have the database that gives you a sense of comfort, when you are spending your shareholders' money that it is wise. In the larger transactions, given that we are such a high return organization, relative to the industry, it is hard to find at a price that can be achieved, a transaction that would meet that return threshold. They would [ph] for sure, but that is interesting, but not highly relevant. We are big enough, we do not need to be any bigger, but we are driven about returns, driven by them. If something significant were ever to be available, we would look and we would look hard. I do think that we are really good. By the way, at the front end at the back-end meaning - that goes on, when we look at something. Then, once we decide to proceed the execution side and a complex and complicated transaction, I think we are pretty good at that and I am speaking out for what is what people know in the marketplace, but also what you don't know. The things that we have looked at, the things that we have walked away from, because our own due diligence suggested no, that is not for us, so it's good. I think the challenge will be meeting all those standards. That doesn't mean we do not roll up our sleeves and dig in and we will continue to try, so but again that's my answers [ph] I can give you.
Josh Stirling:
That is helpful, Jay. Thank You. If I could sneak in a quick one on pricing, so look I get that it used to be very cyclical industry and you have become much more data-driven and the company is more disciplined. If you are in the trenches in you are an actuary and underwriter, should we be expecting that generally a good - be able to cover their cost over the next couple of years, raising pricing you know 2%, 3%, whenever that entails or is that just kind of unrealistic, but it is still competition and capacity still matters and basically the market price is going to be driven by the more aggressive guys who probably do not do as good a job managing their business and they cut the market price to reduce margins, and sales and shift top-line growth?
Jay Fishman:
I am always hesitant to speak for any other company, because I can only from the outside in proceed how you are manage their business, but I can speak to what we do and how we run our business. Underwriters will do, good ones, will do with precision what you ask them to do, so you better be really good at knowing what you are asking of them. We have taken the view, when I might - from the outside looking in is that we are not unique in this regard others too. If you tell an underwriter grow, they will. We don't tell them that, we tell them to find thoughtful ways to deploy capital. If they cannot, it is okay. It's okay. No one will ever be asking you why they did not meet their volume budget, because first time you asked them that they will meet at the next quarter and all of us understand that you would never speak to loan officer that way at the back. You would not say to a loan officer here is your volume goal and the torpedo is full speed ahead. If we do not perceive that there is a lot of difference between that risk profile and speaking to field underwriter, so we value their judgment and their insight and the data and analytics that we have in front of them to make thoughtful decisions to own the account, to think about do I want that account in my portfolio for the long-term, and what will it do to the return of my portfolio in a collaborative environment of the type that we have here. Really I cannot underestimate, I cannot overstate rather, I am sorry. I can't overstate how different that is than it was 20 years ago. It is just quite different. I think most importantly is that the feedback loop between what goes on in the field and what is really - knowledge at the home office to ways going on is stunningly shorter than it was 20 years ago, so the ability to act and react to changes not just cyclical big time changes, but local changes on offices, on market, on company in a local place is just that much better. I believe, again, I could be dead wrong. I think that the cyclicality of our business is and will be meaningfully reduced. Anybody who has tried prices are up now let's grow, I can't think of one company that has successfully executed that strategy in any meaningful way. If you look at history, it becomes difficult to say, boy that is a smart thing to do. I think the people who manage our businesses understand what it means to manage your risk profile and as a consequence they will do so. Now, on a given year, where we seek a - we will receive if long-term, if loss trend is 4%, we would be stupid to tell underwriters they got to get 4% on every account. That means we are losing accounts that don't need 4% in their returns and we will get 4% on those accounts that we - so we say to them be return-driven with that account, be smart, be thoughtful and be return-driven and it has worked for us. I think if there is anything about our results over these particularly last five years, I think that many industry observers have not appreciated how productive that approach can be to profitability improvement. Getting the right rate on the right account is really what it is all about. I think more and more people are beginning to understand that.
Josh Stirling:
Thank you, Jay.
Gabriella Nawi:
Tina, next question, please?
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jay Cohen of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.
Jay Cohen:
Yes. Two quick questions. Maybe the other one a little bit last, quick. Since we have had a notable drop in interest rates, if you can give us a sense of what the new money yields look like for your portfolio versus the portfolio yield today?
Bill Heyman:
Well, Jay Benet has given you an idea of what our expectations would be over the next two or three years due to the drop in interest rates. We did that in the back of the envelope last night that is already, but last night the new money rates were about 50 basis points lower than the rates Jay was using in making his calculation which would equate to about $20 million after taxes of lower earnings, $20 million a year, the delta. This morning the tenure rate is up a little bit, but that $20 million is $15 million or $16 million, but there is no question that these rates are lower. Last year, as we look at our investment results, which including 2013 much to our surprise, they did so notwithstanding the fact that their rates were lower than our projections at the beginning of the year. We made for this year a new set of projections, which already looks 22 days in, but we are not [ph] in yet, but nonetheless about $20 million a year different.
Jay Fishman:
That’s was Bill Heyman speaking.
Jay Cohen:
Right. The tenure is actually down a little bit today, but at the end of the call - who knows. Second question, if we could get more color on international price change. We saw the premium change, but obviously I think exposure, but what's happening from a pricing standpoint in your major international markets?
Jay Benet:
I do not have this slide in front of me right now, but I think it is in the webcast. You are talking about rate internationals?
Jay Cohen:
Yes.
Alan Schnitzer:
I would say what is there in RPC is split probably pretty evenly between rate and exposure.
Jay Cohen:
Okay. You are still getting overall increased internationally?
Alan Schnitzer:
We still have an overall positive renewal rate change in international, yes. The other thing I would tell you about our international relative to U.S. is our outlook for loss trend in outside the U.S. it is lower in the U.S., because we do not have the same level of exposure to the medical inflation.
Jay Cohen:
Got it. Is that being helped by Canada, the rate change?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. I would say the rate in Canada is a higher end of the spectrum.
Jay Cohen:
Got it. Thanks Alan.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. Tina next question please?
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Larry Greenberg of Janney Capital. Please go ahead.
Larry Greenbergs:
Good morning. Thank you. I am just wondering if you can characterize how non-cat weather and large losses came in for the full year 2014, relative to what would be viewed as normal?
Alan Schnitzer:
It's Alan Schnitzer. I do not know if you are talking about business insurance, but I will started in and turn it over to Jay maybe for a - if we grew cats, did you say cats…
Jay Fishman:
Non-cat
Larry Greenbergs:
The stuff that would flow into underlying...
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Certainly above expectation and above the prior year.
Jay Fishman:
Yes. I think when you look at the entire company, because this is going to be yes, it is like what you are asking if that large losses non-cat weather, they are going to be episodic, there are going to be dependent upon geography and things of that sort. When you look at the entire company, I do not think that this year 2014 was all that unusual a year as it relates to weather. I am talking non-cat weather now. When you look at BI, when you look at, I am talking non-cat weather now. You know when you look at PI and BI combined, it was probably pretty normal although BI was a little higher and PI was probably a little lower in terms of what they might consider to be normal. I think when you make the contrast to last year, which gets you away from an expectation and gets you into the weather and large loss activity of last year, meaning 2013 versus 2014, now there are I think 2014 was a little worse than 2013, but still a good year. Hopefully that is helpful.
Larry Greenbergs:
Yes.
Jay Fishman:
What we tried to do in the press release was to provide you not with the data, because it is difficult to measure these things but to adopt the phrase of normal variability in loss activity from quarter-to-quarter try to accommodate the sort of thought process and get away from the - Now, is it good is it bad, it is going to vary. Hopefully, when you get to a full year, some of the variances is less pronounced.
Jay Benet:
It's a challenge for us to estimate normal non-cat weather. It is easier for us to speak about non-cat weather this year compared to last, this quarter compared to last year's quarter, but it has been exceptionally difficult for us to come to what would be a normal non-cat weather numbers, so we have a hard time speaking to it that way.
Jay Fishman:
If I could just add, an example of what makes it difficult, you have times when given the granularity of what we look at, you will be looking an information and say well large losses activities is up somewhere. Then you get into and why is it up, well because slips and walls [ph] are taken, but the slips and walls, because of the weather. Yes. It is a very difficult bucketing process to end up summarizing all of this data and what we try to do is give you the concepts of what taking place.
Larry Greenbergs:
Great. Now, that is helpful. Then on direct, I listened to what you had said earlier about continuing to invest in that business. The last couple of years, you have generated statutory underwriting losses of about $100 million from the businesses growing top-line a bit, you are getting a little bit of scale economics probably. I mean, when we think about that over the next few years, is that sort of the normal run rate of what expectations should be? I mean, is there going to be a drop in investment spending somewhere out there?
Jay Fishman:
Well, this is Jay Fishman. I do not have a better number if I were looking out and one we are experiencing now and. To the extent markets change, certainly have not changed, obviously our strategy will, but if we start off with the premise that - when we started this investment, we said it. We said we were less concerned than some industry observers if a typical Travelers customer would go to buying direct, but we were not ready to bet the trumpet [ph] and therefore ignore the trends, so the development has been important. It is not apparent to us yet that there are enough Travelers-type customers who choose to buy direct or a direct business is scalable on it owned. It is not that we don't know how to get people to respond or how to quote and had issue, we would become really, really good at that that. It is that the number of people that we would think of as the customer that we seek are not choosing to respond that way, now that may change three or four or five years from now. It is a trend. I don't think it is appropriate to ignore it, so we will continue to develop the expertise and the skill, so that if in fact things change and there is a market opportunity for us, we are in a position to respond and we are not… The other point I would make and I do not know how to quantify it for you, but I would tell you that the benefit to the agency business, the investment, the technology and the underlying customer reach attributes, the ways customer connects to us, our ability to respond as and as a, I will call it an electronic company, for lack of a better term that has just been invaluable. I don’t know how any dollars it meant in the agency business, but I do know it is important. As I would remind everyone, I am not so unhappy that, that the Travelers' customer has not turned away from the agency channel as quickly as some people though. That is good for us. We have got a very big agency based business that is very profitable. If that change continues to occur more slowly, that is just fine with us, so this is a kind of a hedge your position investment that is necessary, because it is just not clear that it will continue this way, but I would say, yes. That is what I would certainly included if was..
Larry Greenbergs:
Great. Thanks for your comments.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. Thank you. Tina, this will be our last and final question please.
Operator:
Thank you. Our question comes from Brian Meredith of UBS. Please go ahead.
Brian Meredith:
Yes. Thanks. Just two quick ones here. First, one for Alan and Jay, if I look at the business insurance business right now, and we look at the returns that are generating, they are pretty attractive right now. Is there any consideration or thought about having underwriters expand their risk profile right now kind of looking maybe into the E&S market a little bit, I know there are kind of ebbs and flows with the cycles. Also loss trend continues to be pretty favorable, so I think that is an area for growth?
Alan Schnitzer:
Yes. Brain it is Alan. I guess the way we would think about that is, we are always challenging ourselves to think about whether there are new marketplace opportunities, but I would distinguish that from changing our risk profile to do it. If we could find opportunities whether it is in energy or whether it is in E&S or any other market, we would certainly look at it, but that would not involve any change in our return thresholds or our risk appetite.
Brian Meredith:
Got you. Okay. Then the second one is for Doreen. Just looking at the homeowners, continued to see the declines in PIF, any thoughts on when that could start to stabilize or maybe start to trend upwards and what impact do you think the decline in PIF in the homeowners business is having on your auto insurance growth here?
Doreen Spadorcia:
Brian. Good morning. I will answer that with a couple of different comments. We put some, as Brian referenced in his comments, due to some of the weather that we were seeing coming through the book and just where the levels of deductibles were and roof issues, we took some pretty strong actions in the homeowners' book. Some of our declines there were deliberate, whether it might be some concentration in some areas, so it was not unexpected to us that we would see some shrinkage. That being said, we feel really great of that we have come through the other side of that where our deductibles are, where the PIF is. The rest of the market probably was not as aggressive as we were in addressing property, but from where we are today and launching forward, we are very excited about that. We feel like we have got just a great launch point on that, because we look at account underwriting, there is no question that when there is pressure on one product, there might be some impact to the other product around either new business or retention. We have seen with QA 2 as we have become more competitive there, that we think that has allowed us to start growing the home line again. We are still in a negative position, but I can tell you that for 2015 and beyond that is going to be a very strong focus of ours, whether it is going to be how we do digital marketing, leading with some of our home capabilities, because we think they are industry-leading, whether it is to look at some different kind of practices in the quote process or an overall customer view, so we can utilize the strength in the property line to actually get not just more homeowners business, but more customer business for the Travelers. We knew that homeowners was going to be, the recovery was going to follow auto, so we are in the spot that we thought we would be and there is a lot of focus on that.
Brian Meredith:
Great. Thanks for answers.
Operator:
Thank you. At this time, I would like to turn the call back over to our speakers for any closing remarks.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. Thank you all for joining us today. As always, I will be available for further follow-up. Thank you and have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect all lines. Thank you and have a good day.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi – SVP, IR Jay Fishman – Chairman and CEO Jay Benet – Vice Chairman and CFO Brian MacLean – President and COO Alan Schnitzer – Vice Chairman; CEO of Business and International Insurance Doreen Spadorcia – Vice Chairman; CEO of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Financial Products
Analysts:
Jay Gelb – Barclays Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley Vinay Misquith – Evercore Jay Cohen – Merrill Lynch Larry Greenberg – Janney Capital Al Copersino – Columbia Management Meyer Shields – KBW Paul Newsome – Sandler O’Neill & Partners Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein
Operator:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the third quarter results teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder this conference is being recorded on October the 21st, 2014. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, Julian. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our third quarter 2014 results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and our webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Jay Fishman, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer; as well as Alan Schnitzer, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Business and International Insurance; and Doreen Spadorcia, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond and Specialty Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks, and then we will take questions. Before I turn it over to Jay, I’d like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. And now, Jay Fishman.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you, Gabi. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. As I’m sure you’ve read the results this quarter were just terrific, as demonstrated by our operating returning on equity of 15.2%. In addition to posting very strong financial results, the underlying dynamics in our businesses are showing very solid performance and give us continued optimism about our future financial results. Starting with Personal Insurance, Quantum 2.0 is proving to be a real success. New auto business is a clean double from last year’s third quarter and loss experience well still early is very much consistent with our original plans. Retention on our entire auto book remains high, on a sequential quarter basis total auto policies enforce increased for the first time since the second quarter of 2011 and we expect to see sequential policy growth again in the fourth quarter. Lastly and positively, we believe our homeowners business is actually showing some lift from Quantum auto. In our Business Insurance segment its business as usual. We continue to achieve rate gains were needed and we see no fundamental change in the competitive environment that is trends remain generally the same. Retention is actually up in almost all of the business units and we remain optimistic about our ability to continue to successfully execute our granular pricing strategy and achieve improving returns. In our Bond and Specialty Insurance business, we couldn’t be more pleased we’ve navigated through the financial crisis in the great recession as successfully as we have as evidenced by consistently strong results. This performance demonstrates the underwriting thoughtfulness and skill that are such a part of the fabric of our organization. And we’re particularly proud of our investment department performance in a challenging environment they’ve maintained their investment criteria and done the right things, another example of our discipline. Well it’s always nice to post a strong quarter; I think it’s important to remember that we’re committed to running this organization successfully over the long-term. This results that we posted this morning were driven by decisions made years ago that have been translated to successful marketplace strategies. Our long-term performance is really the result of [indiscernible] analysis, our commitment to analytics, insightful discipline applied to a risk taking business and to be candid a little bit of good fortune. Our energy is going to be committed to two things, first more of the same, first rate execution of thoughtful data drive strategies; second notwithstanding the more of the same approach, we are also committed to challenging our own conventional wisdoms to identify opportunities and making the decisions today that are necessary perhaps even critical to making sure that our financial performance remains top tier. In addition to hearing from Jay and Brian this morning, Alan and Doreen will provide the commentary on the performance of their business segments. And with that, let me turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks Jay. We were very pleased with our results this quarter with operating income per diluted share of $2.61 and an operating ROE of 15.2% driven by very strong underwriting and investment results. Underwriting results benefited from a slightly lower level of catastrophe losses this quarter, $83 million pretax is compared to $99 million pretax in the prior year quarter. In contrast to the lower level of cats, we incurred higher non-cat weather related losses this quarter, as compared to the prior year quarter, which more than offset the benefit of earned pricing increases that exceeded loss cost trends in each of our business segments and drove a slight 0.5 point uptick in our underlying combined ratio. Underwriting results also benefited from net favorable prior year reserve development of a $113 million pretax down from a $158 million pretax in the prior year quarter. Current quarter net favorable prior year reserve development included a $250 million pretax increase to our [indiscernible] reserves driven mostly by increases in the company’s estimate of projected settlement and defense cost related to a broad number of policyholders due to a higher level of litigation activities surrounding mesothelioma claims than we’ve previously anticipated. As well as a $77 million pretax increase in our ULAE reserves that the accrual of interest resulting from a recent court decision relating to the asbestos direct action litigation. On the positive side current quarter reserve development included a $64 million pretax benefit resulting from better than expected loss experience related to an old workers compensation reinsurance pool that we participated in along with another pretax benefit of $98 million that resulted from the final commutation of assumed and ceded reinsurance treaties associated with that pool. Current quarter reserve development also benefited from better than expected loss experience in GL, property and fidelity and surety in recent accident years. And year-to-date on a combined stat basis for all of our subs and excluding A&E, all accident years developed favorably. Overtime, we’ve generated much more capital than what is needed to support our business. This has allowed us to return over $900 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter, we pay dividend of a $186 million and repurchase $751 million of our common shares consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy. And year-to-date, we returned almost $2.9 billion of excess capital to our shareholders, with dividends of $553 million and common share repurchases of $2.3 billion. Shifting from the current year; let me provide a historical view of how our capital management strategy is performed over time. The Board of Directors initiated the current share repurchase program on May 2nd, 2006 a little over 8 years ago. On May 1st, 2006 the day before the board authorization Travelers market capital was $30.2 billion and we had approximately 696 million shares outstanding. Since that time, we’ve repurchased over 416 million shares at an average price of $56.50 per share issued a net amount of approximately 51 million shares mostly in connection with share-based incentive comp awards, and now have 331 million shares outstanding at the end of the current quarter, a 52% reduction in our common shares. And if you add in the dividends that we paid during this time period, we’ve returned approximately 98% of our May 1, 2006 market cap to our shareholders. We accomplish this all throughout this period while maintaining capital and support of strategic business opportunities such as those in Brazil and Canada, very strong holding company liquidity and modest debt levels. Notably our ratings increased during this time period from already very high levels to industry leading levels. And even after returning all of this capital to our shareholders, our market cap stands at $31.6 billion today. Operating cash flows of over a $1.8 billion we’re extremely strong this quarter bringing total operating cash flows almost $3.2 billion year-to-date. We ended the quarter with holding company liquidity of almost $1.9 billion and all of our capital ratios were at or better than their target levels. Our debt-to-total capital ratio of 21.3% was lower than its target range and during the quarter book value per share increased 1% and adjusted book value per share which excludes net unrealized investment gains and losses increased 2%, while year-to-date book value per share increased 9% and adjusted book value per share increased 6%. Finally net unrealized investment gains were approximately $2.9 billion at the end of the third quarter as compared to $2 billion at the beginning of the year. With that, let me turn things over to Brian.
Brian MacLean:
Thanks, Jay. Before Alan and Doreen go over the segment results, I would like to give some perspective on how we view the overall market. And to do that, I will start with returns. We are a return-focused company and, as such, we are pleased with our reported ROE for the quarter and year-to-date. We are especially pleased that we were able to deliver these results and what continues to be a very challenging investment environment, one where 10-year Treasury yields continue to hover between 2% and 2.5%. When we look at our returns below this aggregate level, we are also encouraged. To understand our product profitability, we look at accident year returns at the line level; and at this more detailed level, we are very pleased both with the improvement that we have seen over the last several years and with the absolute level that those returns are at today. There are obviously differences line by line, but overall we continue to see signs of a rational marketplace. Doreen and Alan will go through the segment production statistics, but as we analyze our results at a very granular level, we see that we continue to be successful in executing our pricing strategy, which is to retain a high percentage of our best business, improve profitability where needed, and write new business that meets our target returns. I don’t have a crystal ball and I am not predicting the future, but based on what we see today there is nothing in the market that would cause our ability to continue to execute on this pricing strategy to be meaningfully changed. We are also encouraged that as overall returns have become more consistent with our long-term objective, we have begun to see improving top line trends. We have said many times that volume is never our goal, but that we always seek opportunities to add business that meets our target returns. We have seen improved retention across most of the businesses and higher new business volume in many of them, and we believe that these trends are the result of our strategic focus on delivering meaningful and sustainable competitive advantages in the markets we serve. So overall through the first 9 months of 2014, fairly stable market conditions and very strong underwriting results. And with that, I will turn it over to Alan.
Alan Schnitzer:
Thank you, Brian, and good morning. In Business and International Insurance, third quarter operating income was $552 million. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of cats and prior-year reserve development, was 94.9 for the quarter, up 1.7 points over the prior year. The 1.7-point change resulted from an increase of 2 points, largely from non-cat weather in both our domestic and international businesses, as well as the impact of the inclusion of The Dominion, partially offset by the favorable impact of about 1 point from earned price exceeding lost trend. We also saw a modest uptick in our expense ratio, mostly attributable to a favorable item in 2013. Turning to production trends for domestic BI, compared to the second quarter, overall retention was up about 1 point and total renewal premium change was up slightly as the increasing exposure more than offset a lower level of positive rate change. Year-over-year, new business was about flat. In Select, we were pleased to see an improvement in retention to just over 80%, with total renewal premium change of nearly 9%. We wrote $92 million of new business, representing a 5% increase over the same period last year. In middle market, as a greater percentage of the business has achieved attractive returns, we have increased our focus on keeping the better -performing accounts. Accordingly, we were pleased to have achieved a 2-point increase in retention to a very strong 85% with positive rate change declining less than 0.5 point, and each case is compared to the most recent quarter. Lastly, new business of $236 million for the quarter grew by nearly 10% as compared to the same period last year. Overall, we feel very good about the production results; but as you’ve heard from us many times in recent quarters, the aggregate numbers don’t tell the entire story. The detail of where we are getting rate and which accounts we are retaining is key to evaluating the success of our production strategy. In our middle-market businesses, the data beneath these exhibits shows that on our best-performing business our retention has improved to around 90% and we continue to achieve slightly positive rate increases. On our poorest-performing accounts we are achieving low double-digit rate increases with meaningfully lower retention. These results are consistent with our marketplace strategy. Looking at production results for our International business, retention remains strong. Renewal premium change was down somewhat from recent quarters due primarily to lower rate and exposures in Lloyd’s; and new business was up from the prior year due to the acquisition of The Dominion. Before I turn it over to Doreen, I would like to make an observation about margins. Many industry observers seem to focus overly so, in our view on the relationship between written rate change and lost trend. Particularly with rate change for the quarter of 3.3 points, dipping just below our current estimate of loss trend, which is about 4 points in the aggregate, I would like to point out that underwriting margins are impacted by a number of other factors including changes in exposure, underwriting actions, business mix, the impact of new business, weather, and so on. So particularly with written rate and loss trend in such a narrow band, we’d caution you against drawing conclusions about the outlook for underwriting margins based solely on those measures. To wrap it up, I am pleased with our strong results for the quarter. And in terms of execution going forward, we intend to pursue more of the same. And with that, let me turn it over to Doreen.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Thank you, Alan. I would like to begin by saying how excited I am to again work with Tom Kunkel and his leadership team in managing our market-leading Bond & Specialty Insurance business. Also, I am really proud of the progress we’ve made in Personal Insurance and look forward to continuing to work with Greg Toczydlowski and his team. Now for the results. In the Bond & Specialty Insurance segment, operating income of $165 million was 38% higher than the prior-year quarter. The increase was driven by higher levels of favorable prior-year reserve development, along with improved underlying underwriting margin. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter was a very strong 81.7%, a 4-point improvement from the prior year, primarily due to exiting our management liability excess-of-loss reinsurance treaty as well as earned pricing in excess of loss cost trend across the segment. Net written premium for the quarter was $556 million, an increase of 1% compared to the prior year. Across our management liability businesses, retention of 84% was consistent with recent periods in the prior year, while new business of $34 million was down slightly from recent periods. Renewal premium change, which can be somewhat lumpy due to variations in things like limits written, liability attachment points, and policy duration, was 4.6% for the quarter, up somewhat from the second quarter. In sum, strong profitability through Bond & Specialty’s continued underwriting discipline and market leadership. Turning to Personal Insurance, operating income of $239 million for the quarter was down 9% compared to the third quarter of 2013, driven by lower favorable prior-year reserve development in Homeowners. The underlying combined ratio was 84% in the quarter, an improvement from 2013 of more than 1 point, primarily due to the benefits of earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trends, our previously announced expense-reduction initiative, and lower Homeowners commissions, partially offset by a higher mix of new business. As it relates to our expense reduction, to-date we have executed on initiatives responsible for about 90% of the $140 million run-rate savings target. As we have mentioned in the past, about half of these reductions relate to claim management expenses, the impact of which shows up in the loss ratio. We remain on track to achieve the full run-rate savings by the end of this year, in line with our original expectation. Looking at agency Auto, retention remained strong at 82%, while renewal premium change was about 6%. We also are extremely pleased with the progress we have made on new business production, driven by the impact that Quantum Auto 2.0 is having. New business premium of $166 million is more than double the third quarter of 2013, with 90% of the $166 million coming from Quantum 2.0. This increase in new business drove a year-over-year increase in net written premium of 3%. And, as Jay noted, policies in force increased from the most recent quarter for the first time since the second quarter of 2011. As for the rollout, Quantum 2.0 is now live in all but a handful of prior Quantum states; and our expectation is that these remaining states will go live over the next quarter or two. Turning to agency Auto profitability, the underlying combined ratio of 96.1% for the quarter was an improvement of 1.5 points over the prior year, driven primarily by the expense initiatives and earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trends, partially offset by the impact from higher new business volume. Our current view of overall Auto loss cost trend is about 3%, a slight improvement from what we communicated in recent quarters driven by some moderation in bodily injury severity and looking at the improvements in revenue and profitability, we believe our fundamental changes have made our auto product more competitive. Looking at agency homeowners and others production was strong in the quarter with renewal premium change of about 6%, while retention remained at 84%. New business volume of $95 million was up about 30% from the prior year quarter, due to some lift from higher volumes in Quantum 2.0 overall home production is in line with our expectation. From the profitability perspective, the underlying combined ratio of 70.1% was an improvement of 1.5 over the third quarter of 2013, driven by earned pricing that exceeded loss cost trend as well as lower expenses. So overall in personal insurance a great quarter with both strong financial results and production metrics and we remain pleased with the results of the Quantum 2.0 overall so far. And with that, I’ll turn the call back to Gabi.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Julian, we’re now ready for the Q&A portion. I would ask participants to please limit yourself to one question and one follow up.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Jay Gelb from Barclays. Your line is now open; please proceed with your question.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Thank you. I want to touch base on exposure growth in business insurance. It appears to be accelerating in the middle market, commercial business and select is showing more stable growth. Can you talk about the differences that are driving that?
Jay Fishman:
Yes, the difference in middle market versus select?
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Yes, in terms of – the rate of change in exposure growth being stronger in middle market than select?
Jay Fishman:
Yes, the exposure in fact really isn’t from sales and payroll, its – and if you look at, look at the starting and ending point, you’re probably looking at the webcast. If you look at the starting and ending points, it’s actually a pretty straight line from those two end points. The way we calculate the number, the impact of audit premium creates a different quarter to after we report exposures in particularly in the middle market. And so, we would expect that to develop over time into more of a straight line.
Brian MacLean:
I think – this is Brian; the other point on select, lot of that exposure growth is values on the property component of C&P.
Jay Fishman:
And that’s been an affirmative effort on our part to try to improve the values.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Okay. So any other underlying difference in terms of exposure growth on the small business versus middle market?
Jay Fishman:
No there isn’t really, other than on the small side we’ve really been working on the – the insurance to values and in middle market it really is a function of how we account for the audit premium in the exposures.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Okay. And then I had a separate question on capital return, so year-to-date if my math is right, share buybacks plus dividends are $2.9 billion, operating income $2.6 billion, so clearly capital return running well ahead of operating income on the order around 110%. Can you give and you had a prior comment also saying that there is a continued level of excess capital being generated. I don’t know if you would care to update us on the capital management strategy in terms of could that that gap between capital return on operating income continue to grow over time similar to what we’ve seen this year?
Jay Benet:
Hi Jay, this is Jay Benet. Thanks for asking that question. What you’re really seeing is a timing difference in the generation of the excess capital versus the timeframe in what is purchased, its repurchased. So and we look at, particularly year like 2014, one of the things you have to take into account is, how did the end of 2013 come out and it was a very strong fourth quarter and we did our year end capital calculations, we found that we had some excess capital that we carried into this year. So, we’re playing a little bit of catch up now, but there is no change in strategy, there is no change in execution. It really goes back to the words that we used to describe, the program which is, we’re generating it over time primarily through income and maintaining the capital we need to support our businesses. So that the ratings are maintained and the posture of the balance sheet doesn’t change. And then to the extent, we have the excess capital that’s getting generating we’re buying that over time. But it’s really, it’s really driven by earnings. And you have to look at it, more broadly than just a nine month period.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Okay, so based on that we should still generally think about buybacks and dividends being roughly equal to annual operating earnings?
Jay Benet:
I’m not saying that’s roughly equal, in our 10-Q and 10-K we talk about having enough capital to support the growth in the business, occasionally we make pension contributions to a qualified pension plan, so there are other things that will utilize capital in the place. But, the creation of capital is from the earnings.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, next question please.
Operator:
Our next comes from the line of Michael Nannizzi from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open, please proceed with your question.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Great thanks, just a couple of question, in terms of the auto business. We’re trying to figure out, you talked about 6% rate increases and we’re trying to square that with the rate declines that you’ve taken and talked about taking on the Quantum business that you’ve repriced. Can you help sort of square those two things?
Doreen Spadorcia:
Michael, this is Doreen. Are you looking at the webcast with renewal premiums change?
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Yes.
Doreen Spadorcia:
It would be and also our existing book on the renewal book of business.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Okay. So, for a business that you are Quantum is for new business only, is that so that’s your, okay.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Quantum 2.0 is for new business only.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Got it, okay that makes sense. And then, one question on just on business insurance, kind of looking at the margins there and what is, how much of an impact the year-over-year comparison does Dominion having if at all? And how should we think about, I trying to – I know you mentioned some non-cat weather but, just trying to parse out sort of rate versus loss trend in underlying margin? Thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Hi its Alan Schnitzer. On the Dominion as we get – as we get sort of year end post close we’re going to try to resist the temptation to breakout the impact of that in particular. I will tell you that at least in the current period it’s, leaving out the unusual weather that we’ve had in Canada, the hailstorm in Alberta and floods in Toronto. But leaving that out the Dominion was probably about a half a point on the loss ratio a couple tens on the expense ratio. But, we’d really like to move away from quantifying the impacts of that transaction, just gets harder and harder to do as we enter there.
Gabriella Nawi:
Sorry and its Gabi, just to be clear that’s because it wasn’t in the prior quarter, he is not setting a level of Dominion.
Alan Schnitzer:
That’s right.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Got it, okay. Okay, thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great, next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Kai Pan from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open, please proceed with your question.
Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley:
Good morning and thanks for taking my call. Just on the margin, just to follow on that, is that you mentioned some non-cat largely like a weather related losses. Is that how much, if you can quantify that in terms of how much that to track on the 50 basis point deterioration year-over-year and also is that a pattern where I have seen in the past few quarters, because I guess your peers reported some sort of non-cat large losses in past few quarters as well?
Jay Fishman:
We’ve been observing for a couple of years with that the weather seems to be getting more extreme and so this is – is, consistent with what we’ve been seeing over couple of years in quarter weather was worth something like a point and a half on the delta.
Jay Benet:
Its Jay Benet, I would add to that, when you’re asking are there trends involved, we are always going to have quarter-over-quarter differences associated with things like non-cat weather or large losses, what we’re trying to do is point that out to give you some insight into what’s taking place. But, I wouldn’t say that in all cases when we say the weather is higher it means the weather was terrible, I mean it’s just higher than it was last year. So, I wouldn’t call this a really bad weather quarter, but last year’s third quarter was actually a little on the favorable side.
Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley:
That’s great. My second question is on the reinsurance side. Just given what’s happening in the marketplace in reinsurance, basic pricing coming down, various alternative solutions, and just wonder what is your overall reinsurance strategy. Are you thinking about setting up some alternative structure, including internal or captive reinsurers?
Jay Fishman:
Hi, it’s Jay Fishman. We are certainly looking at everything. There’s obviously a lot of activity in that space. We are not a big utilizer of reinsurance, broadly speaking. When you look at the amount of ceded premium that we put out to the marketplace, it really isn’t enough to jump through a lot of hoops and incur a lot of cost to create something that looks snappy but doesn’t really accomplish much financially. So that doesn’t mean we are giving up. I am mindful of the fact that it is getting a tremendous amount of attention, so I have actually been spending some of my own time in making sure I can actually understand it and make sense of it. So far, without a lot of effect, to be completely blunt with you; but we will obviously keep looking. I don’t anticipate for us – not to say that somebody else. I don’t anticipate that the change in reinsurance pricing in any broad measure will have a meaningful impact on us. Again, not because – for example, our property cat treaty wasn’t less expensive; it was. But it is just not enough on a premium base of our size to make a substantial difference. I have also been asked whether we would be interested in building a book of business and in effect arbitraging it against the reinsurance opportunity. And I am always mindful that when you take on a risk on the right side of your balance sheet, there is some permanence to it; and the reinsurance profile on the left may or may not be permanent. And you’ve got to be very cautious and careful about not finding yourself in an unreinsured position or in a mismatch, which can happen and has happened. I think back to September 11 and what a bunch of reinsurers did shortly in the days thereafter; and lots of us found ourselves with primary exposure without underlying reinsurance to cover. So there is a lot of moving parts here, and we are sure looking at it pretty hard. But so far I would say nothing that really excites me at least a great deal.
Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley:
Thank you so much for the answers.
Alan Schnitzer:
Michael, let me just clarify, just so we pull these two questions together and don’t leave any confusion here. What we said was there was about a 2-point increase in the combined ratio due to both weather and The Dominion. That was 2 points all in; about 1.5 point of that is weather and about 0.5 point of it is Dominion.
Jay Fishman:
And again, just speak to direction, please.
Alan Schnitzer:
Increase.
Jay Fishman:
An increase of 1.5 point due to weather and an increase of 0.5 point due to Dominion.
Alan Schnitzer:
That’s right.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Vinay Misquith from Evercore. Your line is now open. Please proceed with your question.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
Hi. Good morning. The first question is on pricing and loss cost trends. I believe you said not to focus too much on pricing being up at about 3.3% and loss cost trend at about 4%. But just thinking about it at a 50,000-foot level, should we expect a small amount of margin compression next year and also, looking at the loss cost trends, if you could help us understand. I mean peers are looking at loss cost trend in the 2% to 3% range; your 4% number seems a little bit high. Just wondering if there is some amount of conservatism in that.
Jay Fishman:
Well, I think perhaps we will split the question between myself and Alan. First, the reason that we are just cautioning against evaluating 3.3% versus 4% is that that arithmetic is pretty easy to do, but doesn’t take into account all of the factors that affect the profitability of our business. We have reminded people frequently that a not insignificant amount of exposure base – particularly, for example, in our small commercial business, will act as an increase in rate absent a change in loss profile. As an example, to the extent we collect more premium due to inflation adjustments on property, unless the loss exceeds what would have been the previous total insured value level, that increase in exposure functions exactly the same as rate. And so it is easy to talk about a widening margin and I am going to make up numbers here. It’s easy to talk about it when you’ve got, to make up a number, 7% rate and 4% loss trend. And I suspect it would be easy if we were talking about 1% rate and 3% loss trend. But in and around the number, it is just not that precise to conclude that within 7/10 of a point that margins will necessarily contract or not contract. Candidly, I am not – our 10-Q is going to say in Business Insurance or does; I don’t know if we filed it this morning; we did file it – says that we anticipate margins to be flat, equivalent, in Business Insurance into 2015. And that is our best judgment at the moment. It’s what’s funny, people seem to think that there is a stunning amount of difference between talking about plus 0.2 versus minus 0.2, but they understand that there is no big difference between plus 2.2 and plus 1.8. It is the same 4/10; it just happens to be around a different baseline number. So our caution is simply to let you know that notwithstanding all of our analytical skill and insight into the numbers, this is getting pretty precise to make arithmetic calculations based on these numbers. We just caution against it.
Alan Schnitzer:
On the second question on loss trend, hard for us to comment on anybody else’s loss trend. But I would suggest you might want to look at mix.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
Okay. That’s helpful. Just as a follow-up, the Homeowners commission expense ratio was low. I was just curious to why that was. Thanks.
Jay Fishman:
Can you repeat the question please?
Doreen Spadorcia:
I couldn’t hear it. I’m sorry.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
Sorry. On the Homeowners, I believe the commission expense ratio was lower this year versus last year. I was just curious why.
Doreen Spadorcia:
We did reduce the Homeowners commission rates. Yes; we implemented those in probably the middle of 2013, maybe a little bit earlier than that.
Brian MacLean:
And some of the expense initiatives we had from – relative to Quantum was also impacting Homeowners.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Well the – yes, exactly. So about 25% of our expense reductions fell to the Homeowners line.
Jay Fishman:
But the Homeowners commission expense number fell because of a change in the rate that we pay on Homeowners business. We implemented that, again, in the middle of 2013. That is the driving factor there.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
Okay. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Cohen from Merrill Lynch. Your line is now open. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Cohen – Merrill Lynch:
Yes, just a couple of questions. I guess maybe the first quick one for Doreen. You had mentioned, I think it was the Specialty and professional liability business that you had changed your reinsurance session there, and that helped earnings. Can you talk a little bit more about that? And then separately, asbestos. Surprised no one has asked you yet about it, but another very sizable charge. Can you talk about really what you are seeing there now? It just feels as if this is an annual sizable charge, and you’re almost going on a pay-as-you-go basis, and we should almost expect this kind of charge going forward. I am wondering if you can give more insight into the asbestos.
Doreen Spadorcia:
This is Doreen. I will talk first about the Bond & Specialty Insurance reinsurance treaty, and then I will turn it over to Jay Benet for asbestos. But as I think we reported in the past, the decision was made to exit from our management liability excess-of-loss reinsurance treaty; and that decision was made at the end of 2013. And essentially what you are seeing is that, as we looked at our book of business both from a limit standpoint, the quality of the underwriting, we just felt like the ceded premium didn’t make sense given the performance of the book. And so if you were to look at the underlying combined ratio being up about 4 points, it is about 3 of that underlying improvement. And it is really just looking at what premium you wanted to pay for your loss content. So a great decision was made, and we see it in the results.
Jay Cohen – Merrill Lynch:
That’s helpful. Thanks, Doreen.
Jay Benet:
Hi, Jay; it’s Jay. As it relates to asbestos, as you know we follow this very closely every quarter and we supplement the quarterly procedures with, what we refer to is the, very in-depth claim study that gets done annually and we’ve completing it in the third quarter. So what’s going on with the data, first of all every time we, put an asbestos reserve it’s our best asbestos of what the totality of losses will be and as you know there are pages and pages in our 10-K and 10-Q describing all the uncertainties associated with asbestos and what’s taking place, we’re not taking place in the environment. So in terms of the overall environment, I’d remind everybody that, we’ve had the asbestos exclusion in our policies for decades at this point, the product is in use the way it, its formally used decades ago. And the assumptions that we’ve build in to the reserves are that there will be tailing off claims over time based on the ageing population and all the other dynamics to go along with that. So, we are making these estimates and then, periodically looking to see are the estimates holding up in terms of the data that’s emerging. And what’s been happening in the last couple of years and we can come up with anecdotes to perhaps why it’s happening, but what keeps happening over time is that our estimates which are the best estimates of the point in time are proving to a little short as new information emerges. And in talking to our claim people who deal at this and, asking the ageing question, why doesn’t this stuff drop off at the rate that we had expected, some of the anecdotal answers tend to be and I underscore anecdotal that well perhaps we have a situation where, years ago given where, general medicine was at that point, people were dying of different things like heart attacks or forms of cancers and with medical advances, perhaps living longer and by living longer and not buying of those particular diseases, mesothelioma might develop and, suddenly now you have an asbestos claim. So, part of this is, the estimation process, part of this is just, trying to understand the trends that are going on, but I welcome the day when we can all watch a sporting event and not to see a point of certainty, adds you know saying if you ever heard the word mesothelioma call this number. But that’s the environment, but I will say that there isn’t a fundamental change in the environment that it’s not new theories or anything like that its more matter of trying to estimate, what’s actually out there. I hope that was helpful.
Jay Cohen – Merrill Lynch:
Yes that was helpful Jay, thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg of Janney Capital. Your line is now open, please proceed with your question.
Larry Greenberg – Janney Capital:
Good morning and thanks for taking the question. I respect that you don’t want to get into too much detail on Dominion, but given the fourth quarter will be the first where we’re on an apples-to-apples basis it would be helpful to just know what Dominion is growing at organically and I think when you did the deal, you expected it to be modestly accretive to 2014 and I’m wondering if that’s coming to fruition?
Alan Schnitzer:
Larry it Alan, I’m just trying to process the questions here. In terms of, on Dominion I should just take a step back and say that we’re very pleased with the transaction the integration is going very well, they are very pleased with the local team in Canada and the way the two teams are integrating and very pleased with the way that the both teams in Canada and our U.S. businesses are integrating. So, I should really start off and I think this is the important message about the Dominion its going very well, there is no surprises and we’re enthusiastic about the deal today as we were and we signed.
Jay Benet:
And let me just add in, because it’s a great time to do it. I’m not insignificant a portion of the rationale here was to export and make available in the Canadian marketplace, product and expertise that we had here in the U.S. that had not been developed up in Canada that is still very much the plan. So we are at the early days here, we’re very much at the early days, I’m sorry but that was helpful.
Jay Fishman:
Larry in terms of your specific questions, I think we’d really prefer on a business’s size probably not to go down to that level of detail other than to say it’s on track there is, whenever you do a deal of this size there is always some surprises that are a little bit good and a little bit bad that all of those are within the range of expectations and we’re very, very pleased with the transaction.
Larry Greenberg – Janney Capital:
Okay, fair enough.
Gabriella Nawi:
Okay, next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Al Copersino from Columbia Management. Your line is now open, please proceed with your question.
Al Copersino – Columbia Management:
Thanks very much. I was wondering if you all had available or were willing to share for the bond and specialty segment and for the personal segment. We have the renewal premium change in the slide deck, I was curious if you are able to give us the rate changes specifically?
Jay Benet:
It operates on – Brian and I will chat here, but those businesses in particular, it’s really quite difficult to parse the rate change and renewal premium change, because they operate so much together. For example the policy limits right so, if you got an inflation element in the underlying property for example that’s going to well shift premium, but that happens in many cases in effect automatically. So we don’t – we don’t track rate and renewal premium change at the granular level that we can in other businesses to provide that breakout. It’s not that it’s not an appropriate question, it’s with the business dynamics under it operate differently. And therefore really can’t be parsed with quite as much precision.
Doreen Spadorcia:
And this is Doreen. We do look at it to Jay’s point, but we find the combination of them with renewal premium change to be the more meaningful way to look at the business. And we’d never really disclose that level. So we can look at it, but we just don’t want to make sure…
Jay Benet:
In most, yes in most cases in our personal lines of business, the fundamental exposure is not changing and it is the total price change that is really reflective. And Doreen you could talk about the Bond.
Brian MacLean:
You can get, you get changes, but we just don’t parse at that level.
Jay Benet:
Bond?
Doreen Spadorcia:
On the Bond side, I would say and we’ve talked a little bit about the in management liability in particular on RPC and rate such as again the Jay’s point of combined concept of what the limits are the attachment point, the term of the policy so we look at them blended together. It’s not that we don’t look at them or we just its more meaningful to combine them for us for the business performance.
Al Copersino – Columbia Management:
Okay, well thank you all. I appreciate it.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great, next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields of KBW. Your line is now open, please proceed with your question.
Meyer Shields – KBW:
Okay great, thanks. Good morning. Doreen, as there been any change in the competitive environment for personal lines specifically auto over the course of the year?
Doreen Spadorcia:
What we’ve seen and we’ve watched this pretty closely to see particularly with our commission changes and Quantum 2.0, what’s going on out there. And I would say in the independent agency channel, we’ve seen some very targeted but, not broad follows in terms of a little bit of people changing commission, a little bit of targeting specifically on price reductions. What we haven’t seen in that channel is anybody really address broadly the cost structure. And so, no it’s not a major change, we just continue to watch it.
Meyer Shields – KBW:
Okay, that good news. Jay you talked earlier about the other factors that can drive margin improvement aside from the gap between rate increases and lost cost trends. I was wondering are those other issues is that expected trends changes it all?
Jay Fishman:
Meyer I don’t, is that – is that expected trend changing it all, help me, I don’t understand quite the question.
Meyer Shields – KBW:
I’m asking it for the, if the impact of other factors besides the rate loss trend gap and its impact on margin expansion, is that given the improvements you’ve had so far for example in the granularity of pricing and so on should we expect less margin expansion from those other factors going forward that we have for the last couple of years?
Jay Fishman:
I got it. The answer is, I sure don’t think so. The reason for the caution is simply because it would be, I think, inappropriate to leap to a conclusion that 4% versus 3.3% will, in effect by definition, result in a narrowing margin. It may; I am not saying it’s not. But there are other factors that go into whether the margin gets bigger or smaller, and you are in the range now of the gap between these two numbers that is, loss trend and rate to be such that these other factors, which always operate, they always operate, could actually produce a different outcome than the simple arithmetic would demonstrate. And again, the example I used before, with a rate of 7% and loss trend of 4%, this is just a loss treat of only [indiscernible]. It is an easy call. And with loss trend of 4% and rate of 1%, it would also be an easy call. But you are at a range now where it is not an easy call. I am not saying from the outside looking in, by the way; I am saying even from the inside it is not an easy call to absolutely say it is going to expand or it is going to contract. It is on the line, in effect, right now, and we don’t know how to be any more precise than we are being with you. This is as good as we have to offer.
Meyer Shields – KBW:
Okay. I understand. Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Paul Newsome from Sandler O’Neill & Partners. Your line is now open. Please proceed with your question.
Paul Newsome – Sandler O’Neill & Partners:
Good morning. Thank you and congratulations on the quarter. Just recently I was doing an agent tour, and they were talking about a little bit more aggressiveness in the spread between new business and old – and renewal business on the commercial business. I wanted to see if you perceived any change there in that, either in Travelers or in the marketplace.
Alan Schnitzer:
Hey, Paul, it’s Alan. Let me comment on us; and I am not sure we are going to comment more broadly on the market. But it’s always dangerous, I think, to take one conversation with an agent and extrapolate from that. I would say from our data we see that over the last couple of years, seven or eight quarters, there has been a pretty consistent gap between new and renewal. But if you look back over a longer period of time, I would say that gap is reasonably tight at the moment on a longer-term view.
Paul Newsome – Sandler O’Neill & Partners:
Then as a separate question, it has been a long time since we have talked about some of the direct channels and other experimentation that you have been working on over several years. I would like to know if Quantum 2 is sort of where we are at with respect to what we are looking at for the future of Travelers for the next couple years, or if there are some ongoing efforts still to build out other channels.
Doreen Spadorcia:
This is Doreen; I will just speak to that. So I will tell you that Quantum 2 is definitely a positive for direct-to-consumer as well as the agency channel. It was a product that we thought would be attractive across channels. So as we look at our metrics around conversion and sales, we believe that Quantum 2 has definitely had a positive in that. In addition to that, we always look for process improvements. We have also been very focused on looking at digital marketing and how to use our dollars in a very targeted way for direct. We also have plans, and I think we have talked to all of you in the past. This is not just direct, but we will continue to look at where we can enhance the property products as well as looking at how we bring accounts together; and that will be both a benefit for the agency channel as well as direct.
Paul Newsome – Sandler O’Neill & Partners:
Great. Thanks for the answers.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. And this is our last question. Thank you.
Operator:
Our last question comes from the line of Josh Stirling from Sanford Bernstein. Your line is now open. Please proceed with your question.
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein:
Hi, good morning, and thank you. Congratulations on a great quarter and thanks for fitting me in. So Jay, pricing has been slowing. It’s come off, what, 3% in the past year; and if you simplistically project forward another year, at last year’s pace pricing probably would be zero or maybe even a slight decline. And so I think big picture, we are all just trying to figure out whether the industry’s pricing decline is going to stop at something like inflation. Does it go to zero, or does it go negative? I recognize you guys don’t want to talk about other companies. But to keep it focused on Travelers, if I understand all the back and forth around the margin outlook and Alan’s comments, I think you’re basically saying that you will keep pricing more or less in line with inflation over the next year or so. Is that right?
Jay Fishman:
Well, I can certainly tell you what our strategy is. I have no problem sharing that. And obviously, the ability to execute in a business environment – we may succeed; we may not. We haven’t changed anything about the way we are approaching individual accounts. I remind everybody of this all the time. Right now there is an underwriter in Kansas City, right now, who is sitting with an agent having a conversation about one account. And they are not thinking about the overall market; they are not thinking about inflation. They are thinking about the return on that account and how do I improve it. So you’ve got to start with the premise that this really does start at the bottom and work its way up. As accounts have become – as increasing number of accounts have now had several years of increases and are now producing profitability, returns, however, you like to look at it, that really fall into the boy, we are glad we have that account category, we ask our people to be thoughtful, to be judicious about the way they approach every individual account. It doesn’t have to be a straight line. It can be a stair step. It can be driven by the local market. It can be driven by the relationship with an agent. It can be driven by the size of the book that we have with the agent. It can be driven by whether there has been claim problems or not on that account. All of those things go into the pricing of an individual account. Now, what we are trying to get to is a point where over time – we come back to over time all the time that we manage to offset the impact of loss cost by either rising prices or self-help through efficiency or expense reduction. And I point to the kinds of things that Greg Toczydlowski and the group have done in Personal Insurance. That dollar saved in expense is as good as a dollar raised at the point-of-sale in rate, in fact, arguably even better. And now I will speak really just personally, because I am not sure I am speaking for the whole place. I am hopeful, maybe even cautiously optimistic, that we will not – and I said this by the way 10 years ago – maybe not 10, maybe 8 years ago. I personally believe that the property and casualty business will have a meaningfully lower level of cyclicality. Never said zero, but always said a less, lower amplitude of that cyclicality. There are a host of reasons why I believe that. Analytics and data are just one, but a very important one. And I think it has proven on the way down before we entered into this cycle. I think it has been proven here on the way up. I am hopeful, maybe even optimistic, that that will turn out to be true on the way down. We don’t see anything in the way in which business is done at the point of sale in the market that would suggest that we are at a precipice, that would suggest that something fundamentally is going to change next month, next quarter, or frankly even next year. Now, we could be dead wrong about all this; it’s possible we could be dead wrong. But we are focused on over time maintaining our margins. It doesn’t mean that an individual account has to have a price increase every year. It doesn’t mean that in a quarter the rate won’t come under loss trend. I would like to know where the mix of business is that is coming up for renewal. The answer to success for us is in the granular analysis more than the headline numbers. So that’s honestly how – we’re never anything but honest – but that is how we see the marketplace environment. That is how we intend to operate. We will see if it sustainable. Again, I am hopeful and maybe even optimistic. There is a thoughtfulness. We understand – but we are not unique in this – we certainly understand the world of risk-taking. I have a lot of respect for a lot of other companies out there because I see how they operate, and they also have a great respect for risk-taking. And that I think is kind of different than it was perhaps 15 years ago. There is a different level I think of understanding and perception of what it means to commit your shareholders’ capital to a risk or a series of risks and turn out to be dead wrong. And I think there is a healthy regard for that, and that has resulted in a set of industry-wide better analytics, better risk-taking profile that I think, by the way, is good for the customer; I think it is good for the agent; and I think it is good for the markets. Wild cyclicality up or down is actually bad for everybody. And better insight, better data, better analytics is actually better for everybody. You get better analysis, you get better, more thoughtful pricing related to risk. So that is a somewhat fulsome answer, but that is how I feel about it.
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein:
That’s really helpful, Jay. I guess just one other question. Related to the personal lines business, you guys have made big inroads with Quantum 2, sort of stabilizing your volumes there, getting a more competitive product to market. I am wondering what your plans are for Homeowners. It’s been – a decade ago probably wasn’t a very good business, but it sure seems like a very profitable one now. But it has been shrinking for many years. I am wondering what – when maybe we see you guys turn the corner there and start to use it as a growth engine. Thank you.
Jay Fishman:
I’m going to ask Doreen to answer. But just because I am allowed to be so proud of what the organization has done. So as far back as we see the data having, I will say, integrity, and that is at least 10 years and maybe more on a comparable basis, we have had 1 year in our Homeowners business with a combined ratio over 100 and that was 2011. That was the Joplin storms and the Tuscaloosa storms. So whether it was Ike, Gustav, and Dolly or Rita, Katrina, Wilma, it didn’t matter. The way that business – actually I will come back to my previous comment about risk-taking. I am just so proud, candidly, of the way that whole organization has operated and thought about risk-taking. So we love the business, and it has been a terrific performer for us. And actually I personally think in the future as the potentials shift between Auto and Homeowners, I think it could very well do some shifting over the next 10 years. I love where we are; but with that, Doreen, you can take the rest.
Doreen Spadorcia:
Oh, thank you. And obviously, following on what Jay said, I will tell you that we spent and it goes back to I think one of the earlier questions, just about looking at weather. You probably recall we looked at pricing, we looked at underwriting, we looked at concentration, and we feel really that we are operating now from a position of really great returns. And we see that when we have a competitive Auto product that also helps drive Home, and we are going to look for those opportunities where we can tune the product, so that in those areas that we think it makes sense to grow, that we will. So again, we weren’t planning just, we talked about Auto where we thought we were going to be flat to comparing ourselves fourth quarter to last year. We knew Home was going to lag a little bit behind that. So everything we are looking at with production is really according to what our expectations were. But as Jay said, we really were a property underwriter; we like the product; and we’re going to look for the opportunities going forward.
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein:
Great, Doreen, Jay. Thank you so much.
Gabriella Nawi:
This will conclude our call. As always, I am available in Investor Relations for any follow-up questions. Thank you for joining and have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines.
Executives:
Gabriella Nawi – SVP and IR Jay Fishman – Chairman and CEO Jay Benet – Vice Chairman and CFO Brian McLean – President and CFO Alan Schnitzer – VP and CEO, Business and International Insurance
Analysts:
Brian Meredith – UBS Paul Newsome – Sandler O’Neill Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley Amit Kumar – Macquarie Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs Jay Gelb – Barclays Vinay Misquith – Evercore Randy Binner – FBR Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein
Operator:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Quarter Results teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question and answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on July 22, 2014. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President and Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our second quarter 2014 results. Hopefully you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Jay Fishman, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; and Brian McLean, President and Chief Operating Officer. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks, and then we will take questions. Other members of senior management are also available for the question and answer period, including Alan Schnitzer, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Business and International Insurance. Doreen Spadorcia, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Personal Insurance and Bond and Financial Products. Before I turn it over to Jay, I’d like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials available in the Investors section on our website. And now, Jay Fishman.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you, Gabi. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. We’re quite pleased with the strong results we posted this quarter, particularly given the magnitude of our catastrophe and non-catastrophe weather losses. Operating income was $673 million or $1.93 per share. Operating return on equity was 11.04% and we continue to make great progress on lifting our returns, largely in response to continuing very low interest rates and continuing volatile weather. Who would have thought that we’d be talking about a polar vortex in July and at 2.5% ten year treasury in 2014? As demonstrated on slide four of the webcast, comparing this quarter’s earnings to last year is more than accounted for by the tax and legal settlement gains of $122 million, recognized in last year’s second quarter as well as the difference in catastrophe losses quarter-to-quarter. The short story for each of our business segments is good. In Personal Insurance we are really pleased with the marketplace response and production trends. The manual personal auto program Quantum 2.0. While we need more talent, more time and data, the very early on loss indications are encouraging and consistent with our expectations. Our financial, professional and international insurance segment produced record results, with good results from both the bond and financial products business and the international business. In Business Insurance, we continue to generate strong returns as underlying, underwriting margins on an earned basis, continued to expand and written rate gains in the quarter approximated loss trend. Because there was so much interest in our assessment of the rate environment in Business Insurance, we are going to spend a few minutes on that this morning, before I turn it over to Jay. At our recent Investor Day, we were struck by the fact that one analyst asked a question about rate, but started off by saying that he knew we didn’t like talking about aggregate rate indicators. That’s just not so, but the critical caveats in discussing the headline rate, are that first we do not manage rate in the aggregate. We manage it account-by-account or class-by-class, and the actions that we take ultimately add up to a single number. This granularity is evidenced on slide 15 of the webcast, which we’ve shared with you before. The slide is the distribution by rate gain of our commercial accounts business for the second quarter of 2014. And Brian will talk more about this analysis later. Second, we believe that there can be an incorrect assessment of the competitive environment, based upon the direction of the headline number. Let me say again what I’ve said many times before, we are a return driven organization. We have talked with you before and have shared with you data, which demonstrates that the success we are having in improving returns, is based upon achieving rate gains on our poor performing business and maximizing retention on our best performing business. And we’ve also said before, if we are successful, the headline rate gain will inevitably decline over time. There is a conventional reaction amongst many industry observers that this decline reflects as many we put it, a more competitive environment. We just don’t see it that way, given our ability to continue to achieve strong levels of retention at increasing returns approaching our targets. If we have an account where we’ve been successful at increasing returns over time and that account has now reached an appropriate level of profitability, it would be unwise of us to attempt to continue to increase rate significantly on that account and risk the relationship with the agent and customer. Consequently, we just caution everyone from reacting to the decline in the headline number as an indication that the environment generally has become meaningfully and broadly more competitive. At least for us the environment has become more rate adequate and we are executing account-by-account and class-by-class. So now after three plus years of actions resulting in improved returns and profitability the question is where from here. We’ve been reluctant to use the phrase soft landing because we believe that the phrase is often mischaracterized to mean that somehow we have finished attempting to improve the performance of our portfolio. Nothing can be further from the truth, we remain concerned that weather volatility remains problematic and we are not convinced that each of our catastrophe exposed property accounts is priced to reflect that volatility. In addition not every line or every class of business is performing at the same level. For example we are not satisfied with the returns on our commercial auto book particularly in select and we will continue to analyze that portfolio and take the actions necessary to improve it. So we have more work to do, but there are lots of accounts that after years of successful rate and underwriting actions are now at return levels that are consistent with our return threshold and our expression of the soft landing relates to that portion of the book what we have achieved so much. We don’t see anything in the marketplace that suggests that we are at a precipice whether the increased churning of accounts were significant across the board, the rate of declines are imminent. Of course we could be wrong about this, we know we operate in a fragmented marketplace with lots of competition. But we can only share with you our strategy. From our view it is more or the same and as we share with you at Investor Day we are going to relentlessly leverage competitive advantages. It should allow us to out select and out price our competition. We expect to produce earnings and capital substantially in excess of what we need to support our business and we will continue to return that excess capital to shareholders. In short, nothing new and no shift, we feel very well positioned to continue our mission to creating superior shareholder value. And with that let me turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks Jay. Let me start by saying that we are very pleased with our results this quarter particularly taking weather into account. Our investment results continue to be very solid driven by private equity returns as were our underlined underwriting results. Within underwriting earned rate increases continue to exceed loss cost trends in each of our business segments. Al though the benefit to earnings into loss ratio was partially offset by higher non-CAT weather related losses this quarter versus the prior year quarter. Underwriting also benefited from net favorable prior year reserve development of $183 million pre-tax down slightly from the prior year quarter and was negatively impacted by CAT losses of $436 million pre-tax up $96 million from the prior year quarter. We provided two analyses in the webcast this quarter to help you better understand the relationship of operating income to both the prior year quarter and to analyst estimates. Jay already discussed the first analysis shown on page four of the webcast which provides insight as to why operating income decreased from the prior year quarter. The second analysis shown on page five of the webcast provides insight as to why operating income was less than the consensus estimate. The CAT loss estimates contained within the consensus estimates where significantly lower than our actual CAT losses. We hope this type of analysis is helpful to you. Each of our business segments once again experienced net favorable prior year reserve development and BI net favorable development of $25 million was driven by better than expected loss experience in general liability excess coverages for accident years 2008-2012 resulting from a more favorable legal and judicial environment than we had expected. This was partially offset by an $87 million increase to our environment reserves. Net favorable reserve development of a $146 million in FP&II primarily resulted from better than expected results in contract surety within bond and financial products. While in PI net favorable development of $12 million was primarily driven by better than expected loss experience in home owners and other were non-CAT weather related losses in the 2013 accident year. Year-to-date on a combined stat basis for all of our US subs only accident year 2004 and prior developed unfavorably by a very modest amount $73 million due to the strengthening of environmental reserves. All other accident years 2005-2013 developed favorably. We’ve included an overview of CAT reinsurance coverage on page 22 of the webcast which has been structured in a way that is generally consistent with the prior year. Effective July 1, we renewed our Gen CAT treaty keeping both the attachment point and the dollar amount of recovered loss as the same as last year. Recovered losses of up to $400 million within the $1.5 billion to $2.25 billion layer, also effective July 1, we renewed our North East Gen CAT treaty with the same $2.25 billion attachment point as last year with an increased dollar amount of recovered losses up to $850 million this year as compared to $600 million last year. Given the current reinsurance marketplace both renewals were accomplished at lower rates online and with improved terms and conditions, including amending the loss accounts definition so that all win losses have a duration of a 168 hours rather than 96 hours. A more complete description of our CAT reinsurance coverage including a description of our two long point PRE-CAT bonds our Gen-CAT aggregate excess of loss treaty that covers an accumulation of certain property losses arising from multiple occurrences, our earthquake coverage and our international coverage is included in our second quarter 10-Q which we filed earlier today as well as in our 10-K. We continue to generate much more capital than is needed to support our businesses allowing us to return $1.065 billion of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter. We paid dividends of $190 million and repurchased $875 million of our common shares under our publicly announced share repurchase program consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy. Operating cash flows remain strong a little over $600 million. And we ended the quarter with over $1.8 million of holding company liquidity. All of our capital ratios exceeded our target levels and we ended the quarter with a debt to a capital ratio of 21.3% well within our target range. Net unrealized investment gains rose to approximately $3.1 billion pre-tax or $2 billion after tax up from $2 billion and $1.3 billion respectively at the beginning of the year due to lower interest rates. And book value per share of $75.32 was 30% higher than a year ago and over a 7% higher than the beginning of the year. One final note as you know we are revising our business segments and related disclosures to reflect the management changes that were announced on June of 10th and became effect on July 1. Accordingly we report third quarter results using the new segment structure. We are currently in the process of restating our 2013 Form 10-K and our second quarter 2014 Form 10-Q and our financial supplements for the periods contained therein to reflect the new segment structure. And we expect to make these restated documents available to you in early September. So with that let me turn things over to Brain.
Brian McLean:
Thanks Jay, in business insurance second quarter operating income was $409 million and the combined ratio was 99%. The underlying combined ratio which excludes the impact of CAT’s and prior year reserve development was 92.1% for the quarter, an improvement of a 4 percentage point year-over-year. And 90.1% for the first half of 2014, an improvement of 2.5 points over the first half of 2013, the point of improvement in the quarter was driven by about 2 points of earned rate in excess of loss trends partially offset by about a point of non-CAT weather losses. So despite the significant impact of weather solid profitability in the quarter. Turning to production trends beginning on page 11, retention of 81% was strong and slightly higher than recent periods. New business volume of $486 million was 8% was higher quarter-over-quarter while renewal premium change was down somewhat from recent periods at about 6%. The 6% included pure rate increases of about 4% which was about a point lower than the last quarter. As has been the case for last 13 quarters all major lines of business had positive rate change with the largest change this quarter coming in commercial auto. Not surprisingly auto was the line of business with the lowest return and accordingly the greatest rate need. Loss trend for the segment continued to run at about 4% so on an aggregate written basis, rate gains approximated our current view of loss trends. We believe the production results both in the aggregate and by line of business are appropriate given our view of product returns. But as Jay mentioned in his comments we don’t manage the business in an aggregate or total line level. We execute it account-by-account or class-by-class and this is demonstrated on slide 15 which displays the distribution of renewal rate changes for commercial accounts in the second quarter. As you can see from the slide most accounts received a single digit rate increase. But there were numerous accounts that got a rate increase greater than 10% or got some level of rate decrease. There were also some general trends in the portfolio, recently larger accounts have lower average rate changes. And has been the case for several quarters commercial auto accounts have higher average rate changes and there’s always individual account loss experience matters. But the real take away from this slide is that the aggregate rate number is simply an average of thousands of individual account actions. And accordingly success in this business is not about achieving a higher aggregate rate number, it’s about doing the right things for the right account and generating an appropriate return over time. So in this context our fundamental approach is unchanged and the results continue to be encouraging. Simply put, we are retaining a very high percentage of our best performing accounts at relatively modest rate increases. While on our poor performing business, we continue to get rate increases significantly above loss trend, with lower retentions. We are comfortable moving away from business where returns remain well below target levels and as always we actively look for new business opportunities with appropriate returns. We continue to be very comfortable with how our organization is executing at the granular level and accordingly feel very good about the results. In the financial, professional and international segment we had record operating income of $254 million, which was 65% higher than the prior year quarter. The increase was driven by higher levels of favorable prior year reserve development, improved underlined, underwriting margins, lower catastrophe losses and the inclusion of the Dominion. The underlined combined ratio for the quarter was a very strong 89 two, a slight improvement from the prior year. The improvement was due to the 2014 exit from a management liability excessive loss reinsurance treaty, along with earned rate increases in excess of loss cost trend across the segment largely offset by the impact of the Dominion. Net written premium was up 38% in the quarter compared to the prior year, due to the inclusion of Dominion. In the management liability business within bond of financial products, retention of 84% and new business of $37 million were both consistent with recent periods in prior year, while renewal premium changed of about 4% was down somewhat from recent periods. In the international, retention remains strong at 80% while renewal premium change improved to 3% and new business was up year-over-year due to the impact of Dominion, so overall a great quarter for the segment. In our personal insurance business, operating income of $75 million for the quarter was down 47% compared to the second quarter of 2013, driven by lower net favorable prior year reserve development and home owners, along with higher levels of catastrophe related losses in both auto and home. The underlined combined ratio for the quarter was 89.8 a slight improvement over the second quarter of 2013 with lower underwriting expenses and rate increases in excess of loss trends, largely offset by higher non-cap weather related losses. Looking specifically at auto on the production side, retention remains strong at 82%, renewal premium change was about 6%, while new business volume of 139 million was once again up significantly versus recent periods due to the rollout of Quantum Auto 2.0. We continue to be very pleased with the early results for Quantum Auto 2.0, the product is now live in 31 states and those states represent about 85% of our countrywide auto new business production. In the states where we’ve launched the product, we’ve seen quoted policies increase more than 10%, while the number of policies issued has more than doubled from pre-launch levels. In addition, we continue to make progress on the expense initiatives announced a year-ago that are fundamental to our ability to make our auto product more price competitive. To date we’ve executed on initiatives responsible for about 75% of the $140 million run rate savings target and we remain on track to achieve the full run rate sales by the end of the year in line with our original expectations. Turning to auto profitability, the underlying combined ratio of 96.2 for the quarter, was a slight improvement compared to the second quarter of 2013 with earned rate increases more than offsetting loss trend, and the impact of higher mix of new business versus renewal business volumes. Our current view of auto loss cost trend remains at about 4% with no significant change in the underlying texture from previous quarters. Looking at homeowners, production was strong in the quarter with renewal premium change of about 8% while retention remained at 84%, new business volume of $85 million was up from the prior year quarter and recent periods due in part to account rounding on our auto new business. From a profitability perspective, the underlying combined ratio of 81.5 was in line with the second quarter of 2013, with earned rate increases in excess of loss trend and lower expenses, offset by non-CAT weather-related losses. So overall in personal insurance, we saw strong profitability and an improving production picture. With that let me turn it back over to Gabi.
Gabriella Nawi:
I’m sorry there is an addition from Jay Benet.
Jay Benet:
Yes thanks Gabi, before we open for questions I did want to mention one additional item. We’d be remiss if we did not say how pleased we were to have been recognized as a A++ company by AMBEST [ph] this past May so we just thought we’d end with that and we’d be happy to take your questions now.
Gabriella Nawi:
Kelly we are ready for the question and answer portion. May I ask that you all limit yourself to one question and one follow-up please? Thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. And our first question comes from Brian Meredith with UBS. Please proceed with your question.
Brian Meredith – UBS:
Yes, thanks couple of quick questions here for you. First of all Jay, just curious, if I look at the business insurance, and you kind of strip out the reserve releases and you can normalize for CAT losses. I kind of come up with about a 12% underlying return equity for the business, I guess my first question is that right, and is that about where you’re kind of targeting given the current interest rate environment?
Brian McLean:
I’ll answer the second part of it; I’ll let Jay Benet – if he does the math in his head. We’ve been saying for some time that our stated target of achieving the mid-teens return on equity overtime was simply really not achievable in this interest rate environment, but we were willing to keep it as a statement, an aspiration goal but also because so much, so many of our systems and our culture are geared around it. Having said that, we’ve chosen to avoid the notion of an artificial ceiling on what rate adequacy or return adequacy is on an individual line or an individual business. Some of that is driven by competitive dynamics, what is the rest of the marketplace doing, some of it is based upon capacity. So I – it feels obviously at 2.5% tenure treasury, a 12% number feels pretty good, but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to not pick the actions on an account-by-account or class-by-class basis, that would continue to lift it if it’s possible. So that’s really our honest assessment of it, it feels pretty good to us, but maybe there’s more and we’re certainly going to try, but that again is a specific comment more than it is an aggregate rate number. It’s so important that we always keep that in mind, we price individual accounts, we don’t price the portfolio.
Brian Meredith – UBS:
But if you’re pricing right now in line with trend, isn’t that kind of mean you’re assuming that return to adequate?
Jay Fishman:
I’m sorry Brian try me again.
Brian Meredith – UBS:
You said you’re pricing, you’re pricing your business insurance in line with loss trend right?
Jay Fishman:
Oh no, no what Brian said was that our best accounts are getting modest loss trend. I believe I’m trying to go back to his comments and that our poorer performing accounts, whatever that means in that framework if the three years of rate increases, but there are always poorer performing accounts, if the poor performing accounts are getting significantly more rate increase at lower retention.
Jay Benet:
So another way to say that Brian is this quarter, the way the arithmetic worked out, is rate that we got on the entire portfolio approximated the aggregate loss trend, but that could be very different and we could be thrilled with the result or unhappy with the result either direction depending on how we get there.
Jay Fishman:
And I think the other part of that, that really is important, is that we wouldn’t contemplate that we can improve our profitability by getting meaningful rate increase on our best performing business. Our focus there is to do our best to offset trend and to maximize retention. Our improvement in profitability is going to come from identifying those segments that under perform. And continuing to make real progress there, I recall in the last quarter, we actually put up a slide which showed the rate gain in our fifth bucket in commercial accounts I think. I can’t remember whether it was commercial or middle market, but compared to the number of accounts in the rate gain to the previous year’s quarter, and the rate gain in that fifth bucket, was 21% I think last year and 20% this year was the rate gain. That’s where the improvement and profitability is going to come from, not just from that shift class, but that’s the example here. It’s going to be identifying those segments that continue to underperform and continuing to drive one.
Brian Meredith – UBS:
Great, thanks.
Jay Fishman:
The other thing I would add before I’ll address your first question is that we have this internal discussion about margin improvement. And you have to look at it in terms of what you’re talking about. Are you talking about combined ratio or you are talking about dollars. And when you talk about combined ratio, now if you do the arithmetic, if you’re covering loss trend let’s make up some numbers, let’s say you have a 60% loss ratio, obviously premiums were at the 100%. If you’re covering loss trend that’s 4% with rate increases, you’re multiplying the denominator and the numerator by the same number. And you come up with the same combined ratio at the end of it 60%, loss ratio, 60% in this case, which you lose track of in that of the dollars because you’re applying a 4% increase to a 100 and another 4% increase to 60% of that. So you’re actually increasing the dollars of margin and increasing profitability, therefore, even when you’re loss trend. So I just say that for all of you to keep in my mind that you’ve got to look at it as to what question you’re really asking. Is combined ratio changing or dollars of margin changing. Getting back to the first question about the overall returns, we do an analysis of our quarters, our year-to-dates. And if I look at the year-to-date operating return on equity, which was 14.6%, there is prior year development in there. Prior year development to our accounts, because a lot of it relates to recent periods where we’ve seen trends different than what we expected and they’ve been favorable. So in any given period, you can adjust for, but if you look at the 14.6% and back out the amount of PYD and divide by the average equity, you’ll come up with something that looks like a proxy for an accident year, this year. So that’s a way of looking at it, but as Jay said, we look at these returns over time, and we try to manage as close as we can to that mid-teen’s goal.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Paul Newsome with Sandler O’Neill. Please proceed with your question.
Paul Newsome – Sandler O’Neill:
Hi, good morning. I was hoping you could maybe review the topical issue the connections between the insurance market and primary market, particularly in the large account basis and just giving the fact that we’ve seen a lot of rate decline and of reinsurance and how should we think about that affecting your businesses as the competitive environment changes a bit?
Jay Fishman:
Hi Paul, it’s Jay Fishman. We think a lot of pitching a little on that, first I just observed that broadly speaking, we are really not a large account writer. I suspect in the context of the question that you’re asking, we are a small commercial and middle market account company. We do large accounts on a fee for service basis that are largely independent of the reinsurance decisions. And we obviously do some national property business; we certainly do that for large accounts. Anecdotally, although some evidence I think exists, the layered national property business, and my recollection, we did this last quarter. I think it’s less than 5% of our premium business overall but the layered large account property business is a much more a price sensitive price driven marketplace, more challenging than it was before. Now there are returns in that segment that are awfully attractive, and so you’ve got to balance up the notion of competitive dynamics within the overall returns. But nonetheless, I think you’re seeing, we think you’re seeing some of the changes in the new capital formation. Whether it’s reinsurance by the way, or excess in surplus, bumping into that layered national property account business. And I would say on a primary side, for us, that’s probably where the impact is most significant. I’m trying to see if anybody else here has a different view? We’re really not – our treaty reinsurance is, for a company of our size, relatively modest. And so we’ve got either savings opportunities, they’re nice but they’re not going to move the needle very much, or we can change the way in which we purchase. We can but more for the same dollars or less for even fewer dollars, but on the margin, it doesn’t change anything. I’ve been asked a few times whether in this, is an opportunity for us, and I suspect that what people are thinking is, does the calculus behind primary exposure change? Would you be willing to do either different classes of business or more business, particularly in catastrophe exposed areas and rely more on reinsurance to produce an acceptable return. So far the answer for us is no, that we worry a lot about the mismatch of business, we worry a lot about relying on reinsurance as a strategic solution rather than as a risk balancing factor, if you like. And the notion of expanding our liability base and relying on a reinsurance contract to bail us out. We were not quite sure of that reinsurance capacity really sticks, is it permanent, is it really there for the long haul? It’s just not clear to us yet. So for us, the answer is that the impact of all of this is not yet very much. We spend, not an insignificant amount, talking about it and thinking about ways in which it could impact us, but so far, I think you’re hard pressed other than that layered national property business to find an area where it’s really having an impact.
Paul Newsome – Sandler O’Neill:
Maybe another fundamental question here, you’d obviously talked a lot about how focusing on that renewal rate number and commercial insurance is not necessarily the best measure of what your assessment of the competitive environment. What’s the alternative for us to look at and also illustrate?
Jay Fishman:
That’s actually a great question and I think you asked it actually in exactly the right way. It’s not that the number doesn’t have arithmetic meaning, we acknowledge it does, but the tendency to perceive it as a competitive indicator, we just don’t see that. We’ve always said, and have for many years, that retention is going to be the leading indicator of a changing competitive environment. And I’ll go back to the last really difficult pricing environment that we had, which was back into the ‘90s, you’ll see retention rates in middle market drop down into the high 60s. And that really defined what was going on, there was tremendous churn in the marketplace. It didn’t happen overnight, but retention rates declined and that followed, that led, if you will, the overall rate dynamic. Now we haven’t seen that yet, we haven’t seen it on the way up, we haven’t seen it – we’re still on the way up, although we’re at slower rates. We just haven’t seen a drop in retention, and we said for a long time, that we think that’s the principle indicator. Now we also, to provide whatever anecdotal observation we can, we often have provided you with commentary about what we’re hearing from the field. They had to take that with a bit of a grain of salt because it doesn’t mean it’s right, but there are observations from people in the field dealing with individual accounts every day. And our comments remain, that there’s nothing that we’re hearing from our folks that would cause us to think that we’re at a precipice or broadly a more meaningfully competitive environment, but I watch retention. And that’s what I look at, and when I see a drop in that, that’s when it’s time to begin to understand what’s going on in that local environment.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.
Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley:
Good morning. Thank you so much for taking my call, my question is regarding to the segmentation changes and management change recently. Could you comment a little bit more on that?
Brian McLean:
We have much more to say, we put out a press release its part of management’s responsibility, our responsibility here is to make sure that the younger talent in the organization gets additional exposure internally, exposure externally and position the company for continuity and just felt to us like a very ordinary and inappropriate thing to do. The real alignment was to a great extent, driven by reporting relationships within those changes, so much more about the people than about any particular realignment about the business.
Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley:
Great just follow-on that and Jay has done a wonderful job for the company and the shareholders and is this the recent management change is part of evolution about how the boards think about the succession plan?
Jay Fishman:
Well I would never speak for the board and so – we think we have a responsibility to develop talent and present to the board as solid a management team as we’re capable of doing. And we’re going to be a management team that’s going to step up to that responsibility and not side step it. The depth of the folks in this place around here it never fails to amaze me. The talent here is just remarkable. And my job particularly, is to make sure that those people get additional responsibility and additional exposure. And that when that time comes that it’s very natural, there’s nothing upsetting to the organization internally. There’s nothing upsetting to the constituents externally, it’s as it should be and that’s really my goal. For I mean – I’ll be 62 in November Brian I think is going to be 62 later this year. I think Jay Benet will be 62 in August, so we all – we’re not Methuselah here, we’re mere mortals and our time will come. And our job is to develop that next generation and present them and just have it not be a big deal.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you, next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Amit Kumar with Macquarie; please proceed with your question.
Amit Kumar – Macquarie:
Thanks, and I’m not 62 yet so. Just two quick follow-up questions. The first is, I guess it was Brian’s question and you answered that. Jay you said retentions, you haven’t seen it on its way up. And I’m trying to sort of think about those and you’re right, we should focus on retentions and rate adequacy if so many lines are at rate adequacy shouldn’t that eventually start class stating [ph] into better retentions and eventual growth in premiums?
Jay Fishman:
Complicated question. I think that retention, something [indiscernible] taught me many years ago, that the real emotional content behind retention is agent comfortable, market comfortable, customer comfortable, a terrific set of circumstances where everybody feels good and fair and equitable in the relationship. And that will encourage accounts to stay where they are. And that’s a really good thing, it’s good for the accounts by the way. We think tenure matters; we think it’s a advantage, it’s good for the agents. They can attend to things that they need to attend to and obviously it’s good for the carriers that have the business. So the retention dynamic is, I think, really a reflection of the level of comfort of all of the parties to the transaction. And that’s really good, that’s a good thing. Dynamic of growth is a more challenging one. There’s no green light that goes on that says, now we’re interested in growing. Always interested in doing more business, always and when we can bring on new accounts and we have – we’ve demonstrated this in slides in years gone by. Recognizing that there is a, the internal expression is a new business penalty, but recognizing that there’s a new business penalty associated with it, if we can see a pathway to bringing on new accounts, and over time managing them to acceptable returns, we’re going to go ahead and do that, there’s nothing different about that this month than there was last month. And it’s not as if we weren’t booking new business a year-ago when rates weren’t as attractive as they are now. We were, we were as aggressive as we could be. And if anything, I would say that – if we had any disappoint, is that we weren’t actually doing more notwithstanding our encouragement. The thing to recognize is that, and again I’ve said this before, I apologize for saying that so many times I don’t want it to sound it as though we believe this because of this quarter and this is what we’ve said. You’re not going to grow your book by marginally changing your price attitude at the point of sale. First of all we don’t have a price list. We don’t have a price list; it’s an individual underwriter sitting down with an agent talking about an individual account. So it’s not as if we can say lower prices by 3% or 4%, it just isn’t that precise. And so the way you, the way you grow is by perceiving opportunity, typically by risk selection, either categories of risk, lines of business geographies that you weren’t in before that amount for any number of reasons, you perceive opportunity for us Canada, terrific opportunity, Brazil a terrific opportunity. We showed at Investor Day we’ve grown our middle markets business. My recollection is like by 50% over eight or nine years from $2.1 billion to $3.2 billion in premiums. Now at the same time our construction surety business has shrunk pretty dramatically as a result of the environment we’re in. And so you have to be – we’re not in one market, we’re 50 markets. And you have to be nimble enough to see the opportunities where they are and pursue them aggressively, but also be cautious enough to understand the risk presented in a changing set of circumstances and dial it back. So we’ve been growing in the lines of business here significantly, and either because circumstances change or we made mistakes in some markets than we did, we, we shrunk others, so it’s all in net but it is in that granular dynamic.
Amit Kumar – Macquarie:
My apologies for the fire alarm, just very quickly is there a portion of your book which can be potentially structured into a sidecar or an alternative capital provider, thanks. Jay Fishman – I’m reluctant to give a quick answer on something that, we haven’t really thought about it, we haven’t spent time contemplating it. I actually thought where you were heading was a portfolio transfer transaction, which we always think about, but I haven’t thought about the sidecar dynamic and I’d be reluctant to answer on the slide.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Nannizzi with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Thank you. I had a question about Dominion actually, if I remember right, that was a business where you guys bought it was operating around a 100 combined, and it looks like you’ve really turned that around very quickly,, just curious kind of where’s that business running now. And maybe you can just talk a little bit about what actions you’ve taken in order to kind of to get yourself to that place, thanks.
Alan Schnitzer:
Sure Michael its Alan Schnitzer I’ll handle that. I guess I would say, I would caution you from thinking that we’ve turned it around that quickly there’s certainly a lot integration work going on and we’re still; we’re still hard at work on that. So the improvement you’re seeing I guess is your, you’re looking at the results and seeing the combined ratio relative to what we guided you to and treating that to Dominion, that’s actually not correct its mostly a reinsurance transaction and some large losses that were better than what we had in the ‘92. So it’s actually not coming from the Dominion, but to get to your, to get to your question what are we doing? We’re doing all the sorts of things you’d think that, that a company like us would be doing. We’re working hard with Greg Toczydlowski in personal insurance and the whole business insurance team to bring all the know-how and sophistication in data and analytics, some scale and synergy advantage, but really just taking the know-how we have resident here at Travelers’ and exporting it to that platform. And we feel very good about the opportunity, as good as we did when we signed up the deal, but I can’t tell you that it’s all been reflected in this quarter.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
So then so the expense ratio benefit that we saw is primarily a result of the reinsurance, can you mention them?
Alan Schnitzer:
No, no the expense benefit you saw does primarily come from the Dominion, but there is, there is a more than offsetting loss ratio deterioration from the Dominion. So on a net basis and an all win basis, loss and expense ratio, the Dominion is actually hurting, but it is helping on the expense ratio pretty significantly. And it’s a loss ratio piece we think over that time, we’ll be able to work through and bring to hurtle levels.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
That makes sense.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Thanks very much. First I’ve been covering the company and industry for a long time. I think we all understand the spring storms tend to be a heavy seasonal CAT quarter. I think it will be helpful for folks to get a perspective on what you would normalize annual CAT load to be. If I look back over say the past dozen years, I think the average is between 4 and 5 combined ratio points. Is that a good starting point?
Jay Fishman:
And Jay, just for clarification you were talking about in the second quarter.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Correct, I was talking about – say for the full year I think that gives a better perspective.
Jay Benet:
Actually, this is Jay Benet, Jay, actually if you go to the proxy, there’s a discussion about results and in it we do talk about what the expectation was for the CATs in the year versus where we ended up. And my recollection is the numbers about $550 after tax dollars. In dollars yes, so we’re just having somebody open up the proxy and make sure we’re right about that.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Okay thank you, I can generally take a look at that. On the next issue it would be in terms of capital return, I’m wondering if we were to think about out years, could Travelers ultimately be in a position where dividends plus share buy backs could exceed in your operating earnings?
Jay Benet:
Not permanently, it can obviously year-to-year. And that’s really a function of timing, but the only way that it could actually exceed earnings permanently would be if we look today at the company. That’s the only way to do it, so you know not permanently, no.
Brian McLean:
Jay let me just jump back, it’s Brian McLean, you started with we all kind of know spring storms and volatility and clearly we do, but when we look at our data of particularly what’s happened with spring weather over the course of the last – well since 2008, it’s dramatically higher than what you would have seen in the previous 20 years. To the extent of you know a 3X kind of number and in fact that’s not even counting the 2011 off the charts number that we had. So we’ve always known that we would have near term, short term volatility in our CAT numbers and everybody follows the industry, it’s used to looking at that, but particularly for the second quarter tornado, hail activity and how our product is used to deal with that, we really have done a lot of thinking about what’s the long term move to and whether we see continuing volatility in that number?
Jay Fishman:
A good example anecdotal actually of the magnitude of the volatility, there was not two on the go, we didn’t think about catastrophe loading auto, in personal auto. We do now and that’s just the function of experience. So we’re reacting to the changing weather patterns kind of almost on a real time basis. It’s hard to answer the question at this point, of what a normal level is, that’s why we talked about it so much over the last few years. There’s been a driver of not only weight, but underwriting in terms of conditions; it’s just proving to be a challenge.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Vinay Misquith with Evercore. Please proceed with your question.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
Hi, good Morning. First question on the competitive environment, I think you’ve done a good job explaining that it’s largely unchanged. Jay, you mentioned that you think there is likely going to be a soft landing. Just curious sort of looking at the cycle versus the past, what’s different and what gives you confidence that there is going to be a softer landing this time around?
Jay Fishman:
Just because it’s my opinion doesn’t mean it’s so; I need to start off with that. It’s just one persons point of view right, we’ve been talking for years now about the fact that our view was that the magnitude of this cyclicality in our business, we thought would be lower than an historical experience. And it was driven by everything from much better data across the industry. I’ll exclude myself, but I think much better management in the industry than wasn’t the case 20 years ago. You look at capital deployment philosophies; it’s different than it was 20 years ago. I think Sarbanes Oxley and the attention of audit committees and boards to adequacy of reserves to the level, the procedures and policies around reserve setting has made them much more accurate. It’s not that people were abusing it before, it’s that there’s a whole different level of attention and focus on those initial picks, what’s driving them, what are the factors for transparency that exists to what the governance committee, external auditors, internal auditors, boards, those are all things that will make the accounting and reserving process better. Never guarantee, we’re all talking about the future but it will make it better and I think it has. And I think as a consequence of that, the feedback move between clean performance and underwriters and pricing decisions is stunningly faster than it was 20 years ago. We actually are at a point now where we’re booking weather dynamics virtually month-to-month. When I first started here, you were lucky if you had it in the quarter, that’s the level of feedback there was. So the delay in understanding what’s trans-factoring it back into reserving and changing pricing, was much more attenuated than it is today, its crisp. And I’ve listened to other companies and how they report, I don’t think we’re unique in that regard, I think – I listen to other companies and I’m impressed by what I hear and the nature of controls and procedures and the thoughtfulness and I think is a consequence the magnitude – there’ll always be some cyclicality here and there’s cyclicality in every business. But I said, coming close to probably 8 or 9 years ago, I thought that the amplitude on the way up as well as the amplitude on the way down were going to be much more narrow. I think that was true obviously on the way up we will now see it on the way down. So that’s what I think, and we’ll find out, I think the leadership in this industry has come to understand that attempting to grow market share by marginally changing price, and actually creating share holder value from it is impossible. I think about it all the time, and I don’t know how to do it and I’m not sure anybody else does. And so we’ve all learned within our own cultures and our own environment and our own strategies, how to manage our businesses to create shareholder value, that’s what we’re supposed to do.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
Thank you and just a quick follow-up on the Quantum 2.0, I think you said that the results weren’t what the expectations, just a little bit more color on that. You’ve had 6 months, and so what do you think in terms of loss and what’s your expectations thanks.
Jay Fishman:
I’m going to turn it over to Greg in a second to talk about loss trend, but it would be remiss if I didn’t observe, because I think he takes it for granted on this. We mentioned that the number of quoted policies is actually up 10%. That’s one of the really wonderful surprises here, we thought going into this, that we were being quoted everywhere because of the comparative rating process. And it was not our going in expectation that by putting in a different model, that we would actually increase the number of quotes. And so what’s been – that 10% is a big number and what’s impressive about that, is the agent understanding and reaction of the Travelers product of Quantum 2 as a legitimate competitive product and they’re embracing it in their quoting process. So that’s where we loss trend, but we’ve to some extent, taken for granted internally the increase in quotes but it’s a substantive plus.
Brian McLean:
Absolutely and I think that echoes about how we feel about loss performance, we’re very encouraged when we saw that increase in quote flow that Jay talked about. Obviously our focus then shifts right to the margin about how we’re feeling about the profitability in that business given that we’ve just launched our three largest states last month. We’re not up on our 1 year anniversary, obviously we don’t have a credible set of earned premium yet to really declare a victory, but our focus is really looking at long-term surrogates of profit right now, including the mix of business, short-tail coverage’s like the frequency on physical damage coverage and all of those things that we’re looking at, they’re right within expectation. So we’ll continue to aggressively measure the ultimate combined ratio, but all those proxies that we look at are within expectations. So we’re feeling as good about the quote flow that Jay talked about that we are with the early loss indicators.
Gabriella Nawi:
Before we go to the next question, Jay Benet has a correction.
Jay Benet:
It’s a comment more than a correction. We said we would give you the number from the proxy as it relates to the quote, unquote normal CAT losses. And what we’re remembering was actually from two years ago, the proxy from 2013 had $645 million as the after tax cost associated with CAT. So we had $550 before, and as I’m reflecting on that, the thing I’d want to share with you is really the fragility of these kinds of estimates, because looking at the $550 going to $650; it’s not a reflection of increased exposure. It’s really a reflection of trying to refine year-over-year what these CAT estimates are. And it’s not all that long ago that if you ask the same question, we would have said something like $350 million after tax. And thinking back to those times, it’s our exposure base was actually quite a lot larger than that. So this notion of – so while we’re saying this is quote, unquote normal, I just want to highlight the fragility of the estimates.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great, next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Randy Binner with FBR Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.
Randy Binner – FBR:
Hi. Thank you. I have a couple on reserves and it’s in the commercial area, you commented that asbestos environment led to kind of 08 to 12 releases. Can we infer just kind of from a normal claim closing pattern on general liability, that anything you’d get 08 and prior in that area is kind of – you would have seen it by now?
Jay Benet:
This is Jay Benet, when we’re doing; we’re dealing with reserves, by definition we’re dealing with incomplete information. So we’re looking at new information that’s coming in every quarter and evaluating that with regard to whatever the assumptions have been. So I wouldn’t look at any one of our reserves as being at finality. We’re always looking at the flow of information and adjusting. There are times when you see some things; you’re not sure whether you’re going to react in full or in part to it. So I think it’s the best I can do to answer your question.
Randy Binner – FBR:
Okay. Yeah I mean I’m just trying to get a sense of – because there’s some PL and GL but it’s not, it’s not as long as like asbestos environmental, so I’m just trying to get a sense of, if there really even is the potential for a lot more to come from 08 and prior?
Jay Benet:
I mean our reserves are always a best estimate, so we don’t really comment on whether they’re going to change, we’ll see what the data says going forward, there’s always new information coming.
Jay Fishman:
I’d just make an observation, asbestos and environmental is a general liability exposure. The difference there is that particularly in the asbestos arena, much of it came from a time when there were no policy aggregates, there were per occurrence aggregates that we started on a mid basis. I think we ended up with policy aggregate starting in the early 80s. So that was pre dated that, but liability is a policy that lasts forever, you can always have things – you just never know.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great, next question please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please proceed with your question.
Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. I guess question I had was on loss trend, you talk about a loss trend in business insurance of roughly around 4%. And I’m wondering is that the number you’ve priced for or is that what you are observing, because seemingly what you’ve been pricing before for the past, you know five years. You’ve seen something less than that given the reserve releases. So when you talk about that number what exactly are you referring to?
Brian McLean:
Our actuaries, our finance, our business folks are always looking at what they think frequency and severities going to be and you know, building in you know various assumptions they take into account, what recent trends have been. There’s always the question of gee, if you’d seen – and make up an example, if you’ve seen recent inflation running at 1% or whatever, what does that mean going forward? Is it going to continue at 1% or is it going to get better, is it going to get worse? So at a very granular level, we’re making assumption everyday and pricing and reserving as to what the future has in store based on current events and past trends. And when you look at the kind of environment that we’re faced with today, looking at very tame inflation, but some of the factors at work as to creating uncertainty as to what those inflation rates are going to be going forward. You have to take that into account and ultimately, that along with every other assumption comes down to a series of numbers for frequency and severity. And things have been running pretty moderately, but when we say there’s a 4% trend factor and you go back in time, I think you’re absolutely right in saying well maybe it was actually a little less severe than we had expected. So we had favorable development, but going forward, you have to make a determination as to whether that’s going to continue or whether the world is going to change.
Jay Fishman:
Right so specifically Jay, when we say this quarter 4% loss trend, we’re talking about both what we’re seeing is trend in the current year, and what we’re pricing for. And obviously that’s an aggregate number so it’s all over the place by different lines. As we have prior year development, we’re looking at why we had that development and does that change our outlook of what the current year should be? So an example of one which usually wouldn’t would be if we had favorable development on prior year CAT, we’d probably say that doesn’t – unless they were dramatic, wouldn’t fundamentally change our view of CAT’s this year. There are other things that you could obviously say would change it. So the base year does move but, its –
Jay Benet:
Yeah and the most volatile part of it is non-CAT weather. Our loss trend numbers make an assumption about non-CAT weather and that’s obviously, at least I think, the most unpredictable part of that loss trend dynamic, it is one of the reasons why you’re hearing us relentlessly talk about upset by favorable non-CAT weather or upset by adverse non-CAT weather, it’s just who knows.
Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
On that topic you talked about non-CAT weather relative to a year-ago being worse. Can you speak to non-CAT weather relative to a normal second quarter, was this worse than you might have expected normally, instead of just compared to last year versus the normal expectation.
Jay Benet:
I’ll take that and it’s a little different BI to PI so in, in personal insurance we would say this quarter was the non-CAT weather was about normal. It was a couple of points worse than last year, which was abnormally low. In BI this quarter non-CAT weather was a little bit high, so about a point unfavorable to both last year, which was kind of normal and what we would have expected this year. And the difference there is especially when you get into tornado, hail the, the impacts in the commercial business can be really random and volatile. Personal lines you have a storm and it hits the neighborhood and we can kind of see the claims. In business insurance you can hit our risk or not hit our risk and it could dramatically change the number. So that’s the perspective relative to kind of normal. PI about normal this quarter BI a little bit worse than normal.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great. And this will be our last and final question.
Operator:
And the last question comes from Josh Stirling with Bernstein. Please proceed with your question.
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein:
So we talked a lot about reserves. I was wondering if you could give us some color, I know it’s the best estimate, but there’s a range of different approaches across the industry. Some companies consistently target something like a zero favorable development targets on consistently target a much larger number. You guys, just from observation, seem to be sort of in the middle of the range, but everybody is thinking about earnings over the next few years, pricing slowing you think you’re guiding in your – in your outlooks actually talk about how underwriting margins and the underlying basis seem to be slowing and stabilizing. I’m wondering what we should be expecting you guys truly would like to be sort of a normal level of favorable development, when you think about sort of what’s your real philosophy really. And through the cycle or look like, it’d be really helpful for us?
Brian McLean:
Looking at each other, Jay and I my own view is that our goal is to get it right. If we could pick the right number, and first of all, that’s our responsibility, our obligation is to record a best estimate. So that’s what we do, we attempt to record best estimate. And the accounting rules are critical, they’re a really big deal, but it’s also how you price and how you think about the returns in your business. And where you perceive risk versus rewards. So the importance of making it our best estimate is just critical. We struggle to figure out how to manage the business if we were recording something other than that, because we priced to that loss ratio, we priced to that trend, we priced to that yield curve, it’s just critical for us. So I’m sure Jay and I would say this but – give you the same answer, which is our expectation sitting here today, is that there won’t be any development. We think we’ve got it right, it doesn’t mean that we don’t have issues that we’re watching and aware of and you’ll ask us often about emerging trends and claims. We keep track of all that, but our goal is to get it right and so the notion of a question about a normal level of reserved development, just doesn’t resonate with us. We don’t think of it that way, we don’t think there is a normal level of reserve development.
Jay Benet:
And I fully agree with that. It’s always about best estimates; it’s always about getting it right. I just echo what Jay says.
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein:
That’s fine. And thank you but again, I just asked the question. This quarter seemed to slow a little bit, the competition was – I think you talked about some good guys and bad guys, I was very, was obviously a good news and then there were some environmental. Is there anything that we can infer from the lower PI favorable development and the lower personal lines favorable development that we should look at as a forward leading indicator or is the process still the same and should we look back over the average and make our own conclusions?
Jay Benet:
Well we try to give you as much information as we can with regard to what the drivers of favorable development are. So in the case of PI, do you think about the first quarter, a lot of it dealt with weather related losses both CAT and non-CAT and we had some additional non-CAT weather related losses that turned out to be more favorable. And business insurance, you just mentioned of the level of favorable development was 25, but that was after the environmental. So if you just look at the numbers, you’ve got a storyline that over the last many years has provided insight as to what are the drivers of it and we’ll see just how those drivers, or others, manifest themselves moving forward, but I don’t think there’s more that we have to offer that relates to that. We try to be pretty transparent, very transparent.
Gabriella Nawi:
Very good, that will conclude our calls today. Thank you very much for joining us and as always, Andrew Hersom and I and in Investor Relations will be available for any follow-up questions. Thank you.
Executives:
Jay Fishman – Chairman, Chief Executive Officer Brian McLean – President, Chief Operating Officer Jay Benet – Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer Alan Schnitzer – Head of Financial, Professional & International Gabriella Nawi – Senior Vice President, Investor Relations
Analysts:
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs
:
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein Vinay Misquith – Evercore Amit Kumar – Macquarie Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch Randy Binner – FBR Adam Klauber – William Blair Larry Greenberg – Janney Capital
Operator:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first quarter results teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question and answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on April 22, 2014. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Travelers’ discussion of our first quarter 2014 results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Jay Fishman, Chairman and CEO; Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; and Brian McLean, President and Chief Operating Officer. Other members of senior management are also available for the question and answer period. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks, and then we will open it up for your questions. Before I turn it over to Jay, I’d like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risk and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. Now, Jay Fishman.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you, Gabi. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. We couldn’t be more pleased to report an outstanding start to 2014 with net and operating income of over a billion dollars and record net and operating income per diluted share of $2.95. Our operating return on equity of nearly 18% in the quarter is the highest since the fourth quarter of 2009 when we posted just over 18%. These results keep us very much on track to meet our financial objective of achieving a mid-teens return on equity over time, and this is the case even if one were to exclude our favorable prior year reserve development in the quarter given that our accident year operating return on equity was 14.7%. In the fourth quarter of last year, I shared with you that we believe we were firing on all cylinders, and that continues today. We had terrific first quarter results in business insurance where profitability improved once again. We couldn’t be more pleased with our efforts to improve returns through the continued execution of our granular pricing strategy. Given our segmentation approach of seeking appropriate returns on an account-by-account and class-by-class basis, we have shared with you that the headline aggregate rate gain which is the result of our active pricing strategy will come down as we continue to execute this strategy. Some industry observers perceive this as an indication of increasing price competitiveness. We reject that notion because we are managing our pricing actions very thoughtfully and in that regard for our individually underwritten accounts we have the ability to consider each individual account’s contribution before engaging in renewal negotiations. This is where analytical competitive advantage based on data really matters. Our strategy is very much proactive and much less reactive than it seems many industry observers believe. That said, our assessment of the competitive environment as it relates to rate is that it is for the most part unchanged. This is supported by the fact that we continued to achieve historically high levels of account retention. Another point of support is the data we are providing on Slide 4 of the webcast which for our middle market business compares the renewal rate gain and number of accounts in the poorest performing segment of this business in the first quarter of 2014 to the first quarter of 2013. You can see that the renewal rate gain was virtually the same in these quarters but that the number of accounts qualifying as poorest performing and renewed in the quarter declined from 289 to 216. As our overall portfolio improves and the number of accounts in our poorest performance band has declined, the change in the aggregate headline rate gain to the extent that this band contributes to that headline number reflects the decline in accounts in this band rather than a change in the competitive environment within the band. In summary, given that our goal is to achieve improved returns consistent with our financial objectives, there’s nothing that we see happening in the competitive environment today that causes us to be less optimistic about our ability to achieve our goal. In financial, professional and international insurance, we achieved 20% growth in operating income and a 47% increase in net written premiums, both from the impact of the Dominion acquisition and strong performance in our management liability and surety businesses. Our integration efforts in Canada are very much on track and we are really pleased with the progress we’ve made. Turning to personal insurance, in homeowners we produced a combined ratio of 72.4% or 86.5% excluding favorable prior year development, even considering the meaningful winter weather we experienced in the quarter. This performance, taken in the context of our results over the last decade, continues to demonstrate industry-leading performance. In personal auto, we experienced 1.1 points of improvement in the underlying combined ratio. More importantly, we are very excited about the deployment of our new personal auto product, Quantum Auto 2.0. We’ve now rolled the product out in 28 states and the District of Columbia. It was our expectation that this product would dramatically improve our comparative rate or quoting position, and that’s what we’re experiencing so far. While we’ve achieved this improvement largely through reductions in price, it is critical to note that this lower price structure is based upon the expense actions we have committed to and meaningfully achieved, as well as a lower commission for Quantum Auto 2.0. Consequently, once fully rolled out, we believe the product is priced to produce returns that are consistent with our long-term goal. While we are reasonably confident in our estimates of loss content, particularly because the product was built largely on the foundation of Quantum Auto 1.0, it will take a few more quarters for us to know more. We will continue to roll this product out across the country and we are pleased that we now have a product that can successfully compete in this rapidly changing marketplace. Brian will speak more about Quantum 2.0, and we look forward to talking to you more about our strategy in personal insurance during our investor day on June 6. Finally, this morning we announced an increase in our quarterly dividend per share of 10% to $0.55 per share, which is the tenth consecutive year we’ve increased our quarterly dividend. We note that the compound annual growth rate for our dividend over that time is 9.6%. With that, let me turn it over to Jay.
Jay Benet:
Thanks Jay. By any measure, our first quarter results – record net and operating income per diluted share of $2.95, operating ROE of 17.8%, and a GAAP combined ratio of 85.7% - were exceptional. As was the case in recent quarters, these strong results were built upon very solid investment results primarily driven by private equity and real estate returns along with very strong underwriting performance. Within underwriting, earned rate increases continued to exceed loss cost trends in each of our business segments, although this benefit to our loss ratio was mostly offset by the severe CAT and non-CAT winter weather that gripped the country this quarter. Our loss ratio also benefited from net favorable prior year reserve development of $294 million pre-tax, which was up $63 million from the prior year quarter, and was adversely impacted by catastrophe losses of $149 million pre-tax which were up $50 million. In addition, our expense ratio benefited from a $76 million pre-tax reduction in an estimated liability for state assessment that we were required to pay in relation to our workers’ compensation premiums. This reduction in our estimated liability resulted from a change in state law that took effect in the first quarter of 2014 that clarified our payment obligations. Each of our business segments once again produced net favorable prior year reserve development. In BI, net favorable development of $93 million was driven by better than expected loss experience for general liability excess coverages that resulted from a more favorable legal and judicial environment than we had expected, as well as favorable CAT and non-CAT property loss development partially offset by higher than expected loss experience for liability coverages within CMP. Net favorable development of $69 million in FP&II primarily resulted from better than expected results in contact surety and bond and financial products, while in PI net favorable reserve development of $132 million was primarily driven by better than expected loss experience in homeowners and other for CAT and non-CAT weather-related losses. On a combined stat basis for all of our U.S. subsidiaries’ accident year 2004 and prior developed unfavorably by a de minimis amount, approximately $11 million, while each accident year in the period 2005 through 2013 developed favorably in this quarter. Operating cash flows were very strong, a little over $700 million, and up from $530 million in the prior year quarter. We ended the quarter with over $1.6 billion of holding company liquidity and all of our capital ratios were at or better than their target levels. Net unrealized investment gains were approximately $2.6 billion pre-tax or $1.7 billion after tax, up from $2 billion and $1.3 billion respectively at the beginning of the year mostly due to reductions in spreads. Book value per share was $73.06 or 7% higher than a year ago and 4% higher than at the beginning of this year. Turning to capital management, we continue to generate much more capital than we need to support our businesses, allowing us to return $882 million of excess capital to our shareholders this quarter. We paid dividends of $177 million and repurchased $705 million of our common shares, including $650 million under our publicly announced share repurchase program consistent with our ongoing capital management strategy, and $55 million to partially offset shares issued under employee incentive plans, mostly to cover employee withholding taxes due upon the vesting and payout of performance and restricted stock awards. Finally, we announced an increase in our quarterly dividend from $0.50 per share to $0.55, a 10% increase on top of last year’s 9% increase. So with that, let me turn the microphone over to Brian.
Brian McLean:
Thanks Jay. In business insurance, we had a very strong quarter with operating income of $653 million and a combined ratio of 87.7. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of CATs in prior year development, was 88.1 for the quarter, an improvement of four points year-over-year. As always, there were some moving pieces in the combined ratio this quarter, including a favorable non-recurring expense item and unfavorable non-CAT weather losses. Excluding these items, margin expansion driven by the impact of earned rate in excess of loss trends was about two points. Turning to production trends, beginning on Page 10, retention was up in the quarter to 81% while renewal premium change was down somewhat from recent periods at about 7%. The 7% included pure rate increases of about 5%, down about a point from last quarter. The rate increases continued to be broad-based and were led by commercial auto. New business volume in the quarter of $443 million was similar to recent periods. Loss trend continued to run at about 4% for the segment, so on a written basis rate gains continued to be above our current view of loss trend. The production results for the quarter within the segment tell somewhat different stories this quarter, so I’d like to spend a moment discussing each of them individually. Beginning on Page 11 with select accounts, our small commercial business, the production metrics reflect the impact of our active strategy to improve the profitability on portions of this business. For some time, we have been taking the necessary actions to improve our returns, and those actions have been successful; consequently, we are shifting focus and rate expectations to retaining more of our business and are pleased with the four point improvement in retention this quarter. We also feel very good about the 9.2% renewal premium change we achieved for the quarter. Turning to commercial accounts on Slide 12, both the aggregate rate and retention were unchanged from the fourth quarter of 2013, but as we’ve commented before, it’s not the aggregate number that we focus on. As we have successfully executed our strategy of improving the returns of this business over time, the headline aggregate rate increase number has moderated while retention has improved. We continue to execute a very granular strategy to retain our best performing accounts and to get significant rate increases on our poor performing business. As we enter the fourth year of implementing this strategy, our ability to execute is largely unchanged. So in summary, we continue to see a pretty stable commercial accounts market with rate and retention dynamics consistent with improving product margins. Looking at other business insurance on Slide 13, the environment is largely the same as for commercial accounts with the exception of the larger end of our national property business, specifically large layered property risks where we have seen rate pressure intensify. For perspective, our entire national property book represents about 5% of our total business insurance net written premiums, and the large layered programs are a subset of this. In the financial, professional and international segment, operating income of $195 million was very strong and up 20% over the prior year quarter. The increase was driven by the inclusion of the Dominion, higher levels of underlying underwriting margins, and our decision to exit a management liability excess of loss reinsurance treaty in 2014. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter was 90%, a slight improvement from the prior year. The improvement was due to earned rate in excess of loss trend across the segment along with the exit from the management liability reinsurance treaty I just mentioned, largely offset by the impact of the Dominion. The Dominion had a negative impact of 2.2 points on the segment underlying combined ratio. This is the first quarter that reflects the full impact of the Dominion acquisition and I’m pleased to say that the integration is proceeding in line with our expectations. Of course, we expect that the Dominion results will improve over time; however, given its relative size, we don’t intend to spike it out going forward. Turning to production results, surety gross written premium of $216 million was up from $195 million in the prior year quarter, reflecting gains in contract surety. In management liability, retention and renewal premium change remain strong at 85% and 8% respectively while new business was down a little bit from recent periods. In international, retention continued to improve and came in at 83% for the quarter, renewal premium change rose to nearly 3%, and new business was up significantly year-over-year due to the impact of Dominion. So overall, a great quarter for the segment. In our personal insurance business, operating income of $268 million for the quarter was up 36% versus the first quarter of 2013, driven by higher net favorable reserve development in homeowners along with improved underlying underwriting results in both auto and home. The underlying combined ratio for the quarter was 87.4, and improvement of about two points versus the first quarter of 2013 due to lower expenses, along with rate increases in excess of loss trend, partially offset by higher non-CAT weather-related losses. Looking specifically at auto production, retention remains strong at 81%, renewal premium change was about 6%, while new business volume was up significantly versus recent periods due to the rollout of our new product, Quantum Auto 2.0. Jay spoke about how pleased we are with the early production results for Quantum 2.0, and I’d like to take a moment to give you some additional color on our progress on the expense initiatives that are fundamental to our ability to make our auto product more price competitive. As you recall, in addition to a two-point commission reduction for the new product, we’re taking actions on our operating expenses which will result in savings of about $140 million pre-tax. To date, we’ve executed on initiatives responsible for about two-thirds of the $140 million run rate savings and we remain on target to achieve the full run rate saves by the end of this year, in line with our original expectations. As we mentioned last year, the operating expense reductions are primarily intended to benefit auto but will also benefit the homeowners results. In terms of impact on the combined ratio, the benefit from the operating expense reductions will be split roughly equally between the loss ratio due to claim expense reductions and the expense ratio due to other insurance expense reductions. We believe that the initial success of Quantum 2.0 is due not only to the delivery of a product with competitive price and a structure that better responds to consumer buying preferences, but also to the strength of our long-term relationships to the independent agent channel and the fact that we are a recognized brand in the marketplace. Turning to auto profitability, the underlying combined ratio was 92.3 for the quarter, an improvement of over a point versus the first quarter of 2013, and was driven by earned rate increases in excess of loss trend. Our current view of auto loss trend remains at about 4% with no significant change in the underlying texture from previous quarters. Looking at homeowners, production was strong in the quarter with renewal premium change of about 8.5% while retention remained at 84% and new business volume was up from the prior year quarter due in part to a lift from the improved auto new business. From a profitability perspective, the underlying combined ratio was approximately 80%, an improvement of close to 1.5 points versus the first quarter of 2013 and was driven by lower expenses, earned rate increases in excess of loss trend, partially offset by non-CAT weather-related losses. With that, let me turn it over to Gabi.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Before we open it up for questions and answers, may I ask you to please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up, please. Thank you. We can now open it up for the question and answer period.
Operator:
Thank you very much. [Operator instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Michael Nannizzi with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Thank you. I had a question, actually – Jay, has anything changed in terms of your philosophy around CAT or non-CAT weather reserving philosophy, just because it looks like this year and we’ve seen a little bit recently non-CAT weather creates difficult comps on the underlying but provides for favorable reserve development for prior year. So is that coincidence that those—I’m just curious, has that changed in the last year or two? Thanks.
Jay Benet:
This is Jay Benet. There’s no change in the way we go about reserving. Reserving is based on the actual storms that take place and then the assumptions that surround that, and one of the things that we’ve had some difficulty with has been the weather patterns of the last several years. If you recall, not so much last year but the couple of years before that, when there was a lot of tornado experience that was creating both non-CAT as well as CAT weather, there was oftentimes a lot of hail with that and when the hail manifested itself, usually it was several months later and some cases even longer periods of time than that, and particularly last year what we saw when we had storm activity was first of all, an expectation on our part that the hail development would continue as we had been seeing it, and in fact what turned out to be the case was there was very little hail emersion, if you will, that came about. So there’s nothing really different about the way we’re reserving, but it’s just using the facts and circumstances that emerge over time to come up with the best estimates and then revise those when new information comes up.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Got you. Great, thanks. I guess the other question I’m talking about, really focusing on the lowest performing cohort and taking as much rate as you can there. Brian, it seems that that’s also been a philosophy that’s been in place for a little while. How much more do you think opportunity there is in that cohort to continue to push for right-sized rate? How long will it take to push that cohort into the good bucket? Thanks.
Brian McLean:
Yeah, so a couple points in there. When you look at that cohort, we will continue to move stuff up—we don’t have the crystal ball to know exactly when and what we’ll be able to do going forward. When we look at the results that we’ve seen in recent quarters, we are encouraged that we don’t see any change, so we continue to work it account-by-account. You know, one of the things—you started with we kind of get as much as we can. The philosophy is a little different than that. We’re looking at these—in every cohort, there’s always a distribution of accounts. We’re looking account by account within that cohort. We’re trying to work with the customer and with the agent to come up with what’s the appropriate number for that account. In aggregate, we’ve been able to maintain at about that 20% rate increase level, but there’s a distribution of accounts within there, so we’ll continue to work at it. There will always be new business that we’ll write that will—you know, we don’t write new business planning for it to be in cohort five, but there will be some that will end up there. There will be other accounts that will have loss experience that will have them deterioriate and they’ll go down into cohort five; but as you can see from the data we showed, it is continuing to shrink so it will never get to zero. But right now, we feel pretty good that we are still able to take the actions we need to take on the accounts in that cohort, and where we can we’re happy to retain the business, and where we can’t we lose some of it.
Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs:
Okay, great. That helps. Thank you very much.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Gelb with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Thank you. The first question I had is on the merger and acquisition environment, and clearly we’ve seen a more hostile environment emerge in Bermuda. I know that’s not at all a focus area for Travelers, but Jay, I was wondering if you’d focus on the M&A environment currently and whether you might be interested in more bolt-on deals like the Dominion opportunity, or perhaps even something more transformational.
Jay Fishman:
Sure, Jay. We don’t compete in the reinsurance arena at all, actually, so I don’t have any particular insight into that segment or the dynamics around it. You all understand that, have a different view of that than I ever could, so I’ll leave that to your commentary. Our own situation is really unchanged, which is that we’ll look at anything because you always learn by whatever you look at, but our interest is very selective. We’ve achieved a level of performance and returns and profitability that we at least domestically don’t need to be any bigger to be successful. If we can be and continue to be successful, that’s fine. Being bigger and being less successful is a bad trade-off, so we’re always evaluating whatever we look at in the context of return on invested capital – on invested capital, importantly. It’s margins, profitability, all that, so I’d say that our interest domestically remains unchanged but relatively highly selective. We’ve always said that there were a few environments outside the United States that from a long-term perspective we were quite interested in. Brazil was one of them and we had the opportunity to partner with the Malucelli firm, and that transaction has gone just really well. In the context of a joint venture where so many things can go wrong, so many things in this one have gone right, and it’s really been a terrific experience. It’s actually reinvigorated my belief that you can actually do a joint venture and have both parties feel good about it and be successful and do good business. Canada was opportunistic in that there were very few acquisition candidates that were really available. This was a decision by the owner of Dominion to exit the business strategically. We were approached with a very small number of other people, and it moved us, as I commented before, I think the numbers were from 21st largest in Canada to now the 10th largest, but at 21st you’re not sustainable. It really becomes difficult to hire talented people, to invest in systems and infrastructure. I don’t mean to say that the people who worked for Travelers of Canada were not talented – they obviously were. It just puts a stress on the organization, so having the opportunity to acquire Dominion, and then most importantly – most importantly – there were two elements of it that were intriguing to us. First, we thought they were on the right path to doing the right things to make their own business more profitable. We thought we could accelerate the time frame, that our skills, size and scale, and our experience that we’ve had could accelerate that. And then, the more intermediate and longer term aspect of taking our commercial products, exporting them up into Canada and using Dominion’s remarkable distribution organization to leverage, that remains just right clear in focus. It’s just so important for us to do. I’ve expressed before, although I’m less optimistic that it will happen—you know, I’d love to find us in India in some way. The challenge there is that it takes a tremendous amount of time and investment – not dollars, because it’s a relatively small market, time and investment in people and infrastructure, management attention for a 26% ownership, and it’s difficult to make sense of that. If we had a higher degree of confidence that that regulatory prohibition would be lifted and it would become 49%, we’d be more aggressive. There are certainly plenty of partners in India who have raised their hand and have expressed interest in partnering with us, so the identification of a partner is not the issue. The issue is making real sense of an investment longer term. You know, we’re a P&C company – that’s what we’re going to be. There may be other environments that will pop up and we’ll take a look at. Continental Europe broadly is over-insured and under-returned, and doesn’t hold a lot of excitement for us, so it’s going to be case-by-case. We hope to use the venture in Brazil to look at other South American opportunities, so we’ll continue to find those spots where we think that our skills, the attributes, the partner’s ability to bring value to the transaction makes sense, and we’ll invest in it. So that’s as comprehensive an answer as I can give you.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
It’s very comprehensive – thank you. And then just on capital management, with the increase in the dividend and the strong level of retained earnings, any thoughts as to whether Travelers could increase the combined share buyback and dividend to be more than an annual level of operating income going forward?
Jay Benet:
Well, the basis upon which the capital management starts is with the operating company capital, so to the extent that you’re making—your earnings are creating capital that you don’t need, that is the basis for the share buybacks and the dividends. We’re always looking at other things that will free up capital. You might recall from a couple of years ago, we mentioned that we had reductions in the amount of reinsurance recoverables we had, or there was a sale of a runoff business, that both freed up capital. So we look for those kinds of opportunities, but those are things that may or not happen. The real juice, the real underlying current that gives rise to the ability to return capital, that’s the earnings.
Jay Gelb – Barclays:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Great, next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Josh Stirling with Sanford Bernstein. Please go ahead.
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein:
Good morning and congratulations on a great quarter. So first, just a question of the numbers and how we should think about them. Last year you guys ran, I think, over a 15% ROE; this quarter was nearly 18%, and the accident year ROE that you mentioned earlier, I think rounds up to 15. I know we all need to normalize for many things, as I think you guys do internally; but when you think about where you are, what should we think of as sort of where you are in your core run rate ROE, and how far really are you from the mid-teens ROE target that you have over time? I mean, are we there, and if not, how much—if you sort of bring this back to the point, how much more rate momentum do you think you would need to get us to that target?
Jay Fishman:
Josh, it’s Jay Fishman. We’re not there – most definitively, we’re not there. In order to achieve our goal, and it’s not vague by intention, it’s vague because our business is simply not as precise as some people tend to think. This mid-teens ROE over time, to achieve that, you’re going to have to achieve periods of time where you exceed mid-teens, because there will be good weather, there will be bad weather, and that’s going to move back and forth. So we still have to make progress, so there’s no particular change in our approach, our philosophy, what we’re trying to achieve. Jay will tell you that if you take out the workers’ comp assessment change, that impacts ROE by – was it 90 basis points or something? By something like 90 basis points, so you can take the 14.6 and you can make it—you know, there are so many moving parts and so many unusual—unusual? Every quarter has unusual pluses and unusual minuses, and they just keep washing out over time. We have more to do if we’re going to get back on track. At this level of interest rate, I’m still not 100% convinced that it is achievable in today’s environment. We said several quarters ago – I’ll reiterate it today – it remains an aspirational goal. I think that it’s critical in an organization to express a strategic goal, and absent something fundamentally changing that’s permanent, sticking with it. It’s not just words that we use here in a webcast; it’s embedded in the systems by which we price product, it’s embedded in the systems by which we evaluate risk selection. It’s what people in the field, underwriters, understand their mission to be, so we don’t mess with it lightly. We leave it as is because it takes so long to get the DNA of an organization to reflect these strategic initiatives. We’ve got two things going on
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein:
That’s helpful. This is going to seem like a non sequitur in a way because you’re still raising pricing, but if we’re all sort of looking forward and trying to look maybe six months out again, so what we’ll be talking about in six months and things like that. The question if I ask you sort of a bigger question, Jay, this used to be a boom and bust sector, and I think you called—you know, among the first to sort of get the post-cycle idea out into the discussion three or four years ago, and no one believed you. But with improvements in data analytics and more responsible behavior across the board, we’ve seen three years of pricing firming, so everybody is starting to dust off questions as pricing slows, look back at history and sort of what does history tell us. Last time we saw pricing start to slow, there was seven years of price cutting and a 40% decline in commercial lines. It was obviously a different story – you know, the backdrop was very different; but I’m wondering as you guys sort of put your strategic planning hats on and you think about the market, can you help us think about what here has been structurally changed? If we were to put on a three to five-year view, what do you think we’ll see if we move decisively past the firming part of the cycle?
Jay Fishman:
Sure, and I’ll start off by saying we could be wrong. Just because we believe it and manage our business that way, doesn’t by definition mean it will be right. It’s entirely possible that we just don’t see it right, and it’s important because otherwise you always have to consider the prospect of what if you’re wrong. We’ve been talking about much less amplitude in the cyclicality of our business for a lot more than three to five years. I think you can go back almost 10, certainly 8 where it began to get increasingly clear to us that the factors that we thought had contributed to that remarkable cyclicality were being moderated. They were much better data. I know that we led that effort because of our history, but we’re not unique in the sense of one and only in that regard – better data, better analytics broadly across the business and the industry, particularly amongst the best competitors. I think that Sarbanes Oxley actually had a meaningful impact on our business. It brought boards of directors into the discussions of reserve setting and the controls and procedures behind it. Those were really good things not because they changed bad behavior, because you can presume that in my comment – I don’t mean it that way – but it improved the processes. It’s fundamentally improved the processes by which managements are held accountable, which boards embrace. That’s a big deal. That was a meaningful change in our industry that I don’t think a lot of people really understood, and I believe that now. So now, I’ll tell you—at least this is a Travelers’ view. I’m not speaking for anybody else, but I will tell you for us, the question that we get asked probably more than any other, which we just scratch our heads about, is now that returns are where you want them to be, why don’t you grow? And talk about a non sequitur question – it’s one that we so struggle to understand. There is a presumption in that question that we can moderate our rate gains on the margin and somehow grow our business and change behavior. First of all, I don’t how to moderate thousands of transactions in any given quarter one at a time and move it on the margin. We give our folks tools, we give them processes, we give them goals, and we let them manage it; and the numbers in the end, end up the way they end up. We also don’t believe that you can on the margin grow your business by cutting price marginally. I think – we think that’s just a fool’s approach to the business. If you really want to use price as that type of a competitive approach, you’ve got to cut it to the point where you’ll accept materially lower returns than anybody else. That will change it, and my guess is it will be at a level of profit that is simply unsupportable for the long term. So we at least, we reject the notion that you can moderate pricing to grow your business. Now, that doesn’t mean that we are free from that obligation. We try really hard to grow our businesses, and in many cases we’ve been extremely successful. It’s not been based on price; it’s been based on risk selection – importantly, identifying the competitive advantages that you have in your business and applying them more broadly to business opportunities that arise. We had the best national accounts workers’ comp business there was, and lots of you have been exposed to that and you understand the competitive dynamics that exist and the advantages we bring. Once we decided that we could apply that expertise to the small commercial business, we were able to grow that segment in small commercial meaningfully – really meaningfully, and it mattered. In our middle market business when we decided to get much more specific and program-driven, less generalist, we’ve actually been able to grow the premiums from going back to ’05 a little over $2 billion to now a little over $3 billion in that business – real growth not by price, because in that period of time largely price has either been flat or its increased, but by identifying segments of risk – risk return where the return trade-off was worthwhile and it made sense for us to apply those competitive advantages. So we’re not—we may get dragged into it. Maybe there will be other competitors that will be willing to accept sub-par returns at a level that at some point force everybody to respond – that was the old days. I think the industry is smarter than that – I may be wrong, but I think it is. We’re running our business with that in mind, and I’m hopeful – hopeful – that that will convert into a financial services business, an industry in P&C that looks more like so many others – greater consistency, less volatility. That level of volatility is in no one’s interest. It’s not even in the customers’ interest. It’s in nobody’s interest. Consistency of risk management and its costs are important economically, and I’m hopeful that we will get there. But ultimately, every company makes its own decision, every company pursues its own strategy, so all I’m expressing to you is ours, recognizing that we could be wrong. But that’s my view of why things are different, our view of why things are different today than they were perhaps 20 years ago.
Josh Stirling – Sanford Bernstein:
That’s really helpful, Jay, thank you. Thanks, and good luck.
Jay Fishman:
Thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. Next question, please.
Operator:
The next question comes from the line of Vinay Misquith with Evercore. Please go ahead.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
:
Brian McLean:
I lost track of the numbers you were doing, so you were looking at ex-CAT accident year—
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
Loss ratio, so that’s about 60.2 points this quarter versus 60.4 points last year’s first quarter, so that’s a small improvement. Most of the improvement on the accident year combined ratio came from the expense ratio – I believe 150 basis points after the workers’ comp. So since you’re setting pricing in excess of loss cost, I would have thought that the loss ratio would have had more significant improvement.
Brian McLean:
Yeah, okay. Jay’s got the numbers, so—
Jay Benet:
Yeah, without getting into the specifics of it, yes is how we react to it. I mean, the way we react is we obviously have some very specific views as to what the components of the changes are, so in blowing apart that 20 basis points, we look at what is the impact of rate earned in versus loss trend, right, and how does that compare to prior quarters and are the trends that we had been seeing inherent in this number that we’re seeing here. The answer to that is yes. We continue to earn in rate in excess of loss trends, and then the next obvious question is well, okay, if that’s the case, how come it’s not showing up? As you had said, this is a quarter where the weather has on a non-CAT basis as well as a CAT basis in an area like business insurance been much more of an impact than it was in the first quarter of last year. When you think about the weather this particular quarter with the winter storms, one of the questions that we had been mulling over here was if you look at the relationship of weather-related losses in BI versus PI, personal insurance, while it had weather events this quarter, they really kind of looked not all that dissimilar from where they had been in the prior year, and in the case of BI they were much higher both in terms of CAT and non-CAT. In looking further at that, we find that in business insurance, you’re dealing with insureds that have many more flat roofs that when there are ice storms and snowstorms sustain more damage than sloped roofs and homes that people own, and then secondarily you have a lot of sprinkler systems in businesses and when sprinkler systems freeze and then water damage results, the damage is extensive, much more so than the homeowners business. So in pulling all these things apart, we look at the data, we look at the relationships, we look at the causality and see that it all makes sense to us, and in this particular case what you are seeing are the 20 basis points of improvement, but it is really the rate in excess of loss trend benefit being offset in large measure by the weather.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
That’s helpful. Just as a follow-up to that, we’ve seen the expense ratio improve meaningfully. In this segment, that’s the business insurance segment and the other segments. Curious as to whether this is repeatable and whether this is a function of management action because you feel the pace of rate increases are now starting to moderate. Thanks.
Jay Benet:
Yeah, there’s a combination of stories here. First of all, in business insurance, business insurance is where the benefit that we called out in the press release relating to the workers’ comp assessments is coming through, so that’s the lion’s share of what’s taking place here. We continue to manage expenses very, very carefully in business insurance, and we are getting some benefit of expense leverage here that is also contributing to the reduction that you’re seeing. But the primary driver in business insurance was the reevaluation of the estimated liability that we called out. In other areas, we have changes in commission rates that we’ve talked about that have come through, also the expense saves that we talked about in PI. So there’s lots of different stories, but it all goes back in most cases to a very diligent view as to how to manage expenses in those plays.
Vinay Misquith – Evercore:
Helpful, thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar from Macquarie. Please go ahead.
Amit Kumar – Macquarie :
Thanks. Good morning and congrats on the quarter. Two quick questions. The first question is on loss cost trends in business insurance. Maybe using California comp as a backdrop, has anything changed in terms of loss cost trends when you look at Q1 versus Q4?
Brian McLean:
This is Brian. The short answer is no. Your comment of taking California comp as a backdrop, I don’t think I’d ever use California comp as a standard for things broadly across the book of business. So in our comp business and the other lines, really no significant movements at all this quarter from what we have been seeing historically.
Amit Kumar – Macquarie:
I can see now I was unclear. I was alluding to SB863 and its impact.
Brian McLean:
Yeah, specifically in California?
Amit Kumar – Macquarie:
Yes.
Brian McLean:
You know—yeah, I don’t think we want to go that granular in talking about specific trends. I mean, we’ve got a decent-sized book in California and continue to manage it on a granular basis and feel good about it, but—yeah. Everything, all those changes are reflected in the results that we’ve got in our book, so we would prefer not to delve that deeply into one state’s specific actions.
Amit Kumar – Macquarie:
Okay. I guess sort of switching gears and going back to the discussion on Quantum 2.0, it’s in 28 states right now. What I was trying to get at was how should we sort of think about the impact it might be having on premiums right now, i.e. is there some way to sort of segregate the impact when we look at the numbers?
Jay Fishman:
It’s Jay Fishman. In the aggregate, no. Were we to dive into the individual states where the product has been rolled out, what you would see – I’m trying to recall – almost universally, maybe that’s not exactly so, but you would see a meaningful increase in new business in each of those states. Because it’s only been out for a few months and it’s only still out in 28 states and the DofC, there is still some time to go before it evidences itself in our numbers. I think the best that I could provide to you—this is not a budget, I want to make it clear. It’s not a budget; it is to some extent a guess on our part, and of course competitive reaction can change all of this. Our guess is that if we keep going at the pace and things remain as unchanged as they are now, that by the time we get to the fourth quarter of this year, we will achieve break-even status, meaning that in the fourth quarter the book will no longer be shrinking. So it will shrink again in the second quarter, it will shrink again in the third. By the time we get to the fourth, we should be able to hit break-even, and that gives you, I think, a sense of its intermediate term impact on a book of our size. Remember that it’s all new is coming out on 2.0. Dual is at the agent’s discretion based upon the individual customer’s need, and I’m being reminded her by everybody that in my comment about the fourth quarter is that that’s policies in force, not premium dollars. Policies in force should, we hope given everything we see, we’d project to flatten out in the fourth quarter.
Amit Kumar – Macquarie:
Got it. That is extremely helpful.
Gabriella Nawi:
Sorry – this is Gabi. Just to remind you that you can also see on Page 18 of the webcast that new business in auto has picked up pretty meaningfully, and that’s obviously largely driven by Quantum 2.0.
Jay Fishman:
Totally driven.
Gabriella Nawi:
Totally driven.
Amit Kumar – Macquarie:
Yes, that’s very helpful. That’s all I have. Thanks for the answer.
Gabriella Nawi:
Okay. Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.
Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. Two questions. The first is in the management liability business, we see an increase—an acceleration, I should say, of the price increase. I guess I’m a little surprised by that. I’m wondering what’s happening in that business. And then secondly related to Canada and Dominion, are you able to take capital out of that business now, and if not, when will you be able to?
Alan Schnitzer:
Jay, it’s Alan Schnitzer. Let me start with the first one and then I’ll turn the second one over to Jay. In management liability, what you’re seeing there is our peak seasonal price change. That’s got two components – one is rate and one is exposure, so the rate underlying that sequentially in quarters would be pretty consistent, up slightly but I would call it consistent with the prior quarter. What you see in addition to that, though, is exposure, and that’s us being able to improve our position in some accounts that have been performing well, and in some cases from an excess position to a primary layer, and then just an improvement in ratable. So it’s really those two pieces that you’re seeing there.
Gabriella Nawi:
Sorry – it’s Gabi. Just to clarify, it’s renewal premium change on the page in the webcast, not renewal price change.
Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Got it.
Jay Benet:
As it relates to your question about the capital position and taking capital out of Canada, the first and foremost is looking at the opportunity that we have with Dominion to both integrate it, get it into the Travelers in as seamless a fashion as we can, and then take advantage of the business opportunities up in Canada. So we will maintain a capital base in Canada that will support those business activities, and your question is a good one but it’s complicated by both profitability and growth, and we’ll just manage it very carefully up there.
Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay, thank you.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Randy Binner with FBR. Please go ahead.
Randy Binner – FBR:
Great, thanks. On the change in the SMA liability for workers’ comp state assessments, could you clarify what states that applies to and what exactly changed in the nature of that assessment?
Jay Benet:
Yeah, this is Jay Benet again. The state is New York State, and New York has been going through some rethinking of how they manage things associated with workers’ comp. You might recall from last year, I think it was in the first quarter, maybe the second—the first? We had had a change in the way certain reopened workers’ comp claims were funded, and that actually had a cost to us last year that went through prior year development. What New York State has done recently is change the way they fund the workers’ comp bureaus in New York, and effective 1/1 of this year instead of doing something that they had done historically – and without getting into all the complications associated with it – we had, along with others, charged policyholders surcharges in particular years and then collected those. That was the basis upon which we were supposed to be funding at a later time what the costs were that we were being assessed by New York State for operating their various bureaus. There was a disjoint, frankly, between what our surcharges were and what we were actually assessed by the State of New York, and at times we saw that assessment being higher than what we had collected and that caused us to look at our obligations for that and build up an estimated liability associated with that. When New York State changed the law effective 1/1, it didn’t change the surcharges we had collected; in fact, there was a true-up period where you looked back four years from that date, you looked at what you assessed in that time frame—I’m sorry, what the surcharges were in the time frame, what you had paid, and then settled up with New York. And we paid that, but what it did was it eliminated going forward this uncertainty as to a breakage, if you will, between the surcharges and the assessment. So this estimated liability for that breakage in effect was what we no longer required, and going forward the matching of the surcharges and the payments to New York State will be something that will be very definable, so there’s really no need for this estimated liability anymore. It’s a one-time thing. It’s a true-up, and it’s not something that will recur.
Randy Binner – FBR:
And it transfers to the expense ratio rather than the loss ratio because it’s more of a pay-as-you-go?
Jay Benet:
No, it’s goes through taxes, licenses and fees. It’s just the way statutory accounting works.
Randy Binner – FBR:
Okay. Understood. I guess the follow-up there is that everything you described is more procedural, but has there been any other kind of reform or structural change to the way New York approaches that second injury fund?
Jay Benet:
Nothing this year. Like I said, last year there was a change—
Randy Binner – FBR:
Nothing like an SB863 in California? Nothing to fix the real problem – this is more just procedural on how it operates?
Jay Benet:
This is procedural as to how the funding of this particular element operates, yes.
Randy Binner – FBR:
Okay, that’s perfect. Thanks.
Gabriella Nawi:
Next question, please.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Adam Klauber with William Blair. Please go ahead.
Adam Klauber – William Blair:
Thanks. Good morning everyone. My question is around workers’ comp. Clearly you’ve been working on that line pretty hard, and the accident year in 2013 came down by several hundred basis points. For this year and next year, can we expect more of a gradual change, or is it possible you could see some more significant improvement also?
Brian McLean:
You’re talking about in the combined ratio in the—
Adam Klauber – William Blair:
Yeah, in the workers’ comp.
Brian McLean:
It’s tough to forecast what we’re going to see. I mean, I think we feel great about our comp experience and the capabilities we have and the risk selection we’ve gone through, and feel confident that we’re appropriately recording the things as we see them today.
Jay Fishman:
And our pricing strategies, it’s similar to what we described earlier. Where there are accounts that have been poor performing or under-returned, we’ve been seeking rate gains to improve the profitability, and ultimately that will evidence itself in the numbers. So I’m not—yeah, other than that, do loss costs develop as we contemplate they will, that’s always the variable.
Adam Klauber – William Blair:
Okay. And how are medical loss cost trends running?
Brian McLean:
Consistent with what our expectations have been. We’re not going to disclose specific numbers there – I don’t think we have in the past, but we—you know, you can read what’s going on in medical loss cost inflation broadly in society and in the economy, and it’s higher than normal inflation but something that’s consistent. I think for us, one of the things that is really fundamental to our success in this line is literally 20 years ago, we decided we were going to invest heavily in our abilities to manage the medical component of the comp claims, and I think we’ve got clearly industry-leading capabilities there and that really matters for us. So we’re obviously looking at what the trend is on our book, and I don’t know if that’s different than what other companies are seeing, but it’s clearly been within our expectations and something we watch very, very closely but right now feel good about.
Adam Klauber – William Blair:
Okay, thanks a lot.
Gabriella Nawi:
Thank you. This will be our last question. Thank you.
Operator:
Our last question comes from the line of Larry Greenberg with Janney Capital. Please proceed with your question.
Larry Greenberg – Janney Capital:
Thanks. I’ll make it a quick one. I think last quarter, Alan kind of suggested that for SBI to think in terms of 92 underlying combined ratio for this year. The first quarter came in a couple of points better than that, and you guys referenced the management liability treaty as being partly a factor. Does that change that suggested guidance for the year?
Alan Schnitzer:
Hi Larry, it’s Alan. No, it doesn’t. So we certainly took that into account when we gave the outlook a quarter ago, so if you look in our 10-Q and you look in the outlook, we really say the same thing about the balance of the year, meaning the next three quarters we expect to be broadly consistent with full-year ’13. So obviously, we did come in under that in the first quarter, so if you just do the math, that would suggest a slight improvement on the full year. But again, I’d just point you back to the words broadly consistent and tell you that we continue to expect the same.
Larry Greenberg – Janney Capital:
Okay, great. Thanks.
Operator:
Ms. Nawi, I will now turn the call back over to you. Please continue with your presentation or closing remarks.
Gabriella Nawi:
Very good. Thank you all for joining us today. As always, Andrew Hersom and myself are available in Investor Relations for additional questions. Thank you all, and have a good day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask you to please disconnect your lines.