Skyward Specialty (SKWD) Earnings Transcript

Image source: The Motley Fool.

DATE

Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. ET

CALL PARTICIPANTS

• Chairman & Chief Executive Officer — Andrew Scott Robinson
• Chief Financial Officer — Mark William Haushill
• Head of Investor Relations — Kevin Reed

Need a quote from a Motley Fool analyst? Email pr@fool.com

TAKEAWAYS

• Adjusted Operating Income -- $49 million for the quarter, a 47% increase, reaching a record high.
• Underwriting Income -- $41 million for the quarter, representing the fourth consecutive record quarter.
• Gross Written Premiums -- Up 13% for the quarter and 24% for the year, with primary growth from Accident & Health (A&H), surety, and specialty programs divisions.
• Net Written Premiums -- Increased by 25% for the year, with retention at 64.9%, stable year over year.
• Combined Ratio -- Improved by 7.3 points year over year to 88.5% due to net favorable reserve development and modest catastrophe activity.
• Loss Ratio -- 59.6% for the quarter, reflecting $7.5 million in net favorable prior-year development (2.1 points), primarily in surety and property.
• Expense Ratio -- 28.9% for the quarter, aligning with the sub-30% target, with higher acquisition costs offsetting expense efficiencies.
• Investment Portfolio Performance -- Net investment income increased by $3 million over the prior year, driven by a larger asset base and higher yields; $52 million deployed at 5.6% in the quarter, embedded yield rose to 5.3% from 5.1%.
• Alternative Asset Portfolio -- Represented 3.8% of the investment portfolio at year-end, down from 6% the previous year; $44 million was shifted from alternatives to fixed income.
• Book Value Growth -- Fully diluted book value per share rose to $23.87, up 5% sequentially and 26% year over year.
• Return Metrics -- Return on equity reached 18.9%, and return on tangible equity was 20.9% for the year.
• Reserve Position -- 74% of reserves in IBNR, company’s highest-ever level; paid-to-incurred ratio at 65%.
• Leverage and Capital Management -- Debt-to-capital ratio was under 11% at year-end, with an expected increase to 28%-29% following the Apollo transaction; 3.7 million new shares issued at $50 per share for Apollo acquisition.
• Apollo Transaction Impact -- Fully diluted book value per share projected at $26.00 to $26.10 after closing on January 1 and Apollo’s 2025 results included 20% premium growth, an 89% combined ratio, and a 4-5 point higher expense ratio versus the company.
• Share Repurchase Intentions -- Management stated intention to "opportunistically deploy excess capital" toward share buybacks.
• Strategic Commentary -- CEO Robinson stated, "We will never do that while I am the CEO," in reference to externally underwritten diversified facilities, indicating commitment to a niche-focused underwriting strategy.
• Material Weakness Disclosure -- "the material weakness in IT controls has been remediated," and there are "no material weaknesses" as per public filings.
• Guidance Affirmed -- 2026 guidance issued on December 3 remains unchanged according to management.
• Commercial Auto Exposure -- Exposure reduced by over 62% in twelve quarters as part of risk discipline, with continued intentional contraction in construction and commercial auto lines.
• Uber Partnership -- Apollo branded as "the sole carrier partner to Uber" for the Autonomous Vehicle Insurance Policy (AVIP), a combined liability product embedded into Uber’s AV platform, covering multiple participant types.
• Business Mix Diversification -- 58% of business now in short-tail lines; 48% of business in lines less exposed to P&C cycles; largest division represents 16% of premium.
• Reserve Development Details -- Adverse commercial auto development in recent accident years (mainly 2022 and 2024; approximately $25 million), fully offset by favorable developments in short-tail lines.
• Segment Growth Commentary -- A&H and surety both exceeded 20% growth in the quarter; continued strength anticipated in those two segments and in specialty programs, with captives and global property showing modest growth.
• Pricing and Retention -- Achieved mid-single-digit pure rate increases excluding global property; overall retention in the mid-70% range, noting impact from actions in commercial auto.
• Apollo Syndicate Participation -- For 2026, company capital participates at a 25% level in Apollo’s 1971 syndicate, with the remainder provided by third-party reinsurers; fee-based revenue structure retained.
• Loss Ratio Trend Explanation -- Sequential increase in underlying loss ratio attributed to mix change, with higher-loss-ratio A&H and Ag lines expanding faster than low-loss-ratio credit and surety.
• Stop Loss Portfolio -- In A&H, loss ratio outperformed peers by 15-30 points based on publicly available 2024 data, according to management commentary.

SUMMARY

Strategic clarity was displayed as management emphasized continued focus on niche underwriting, technological leadership, and conservative risk management, while affirming 2026 guidance despite rising market competition. Segment diversification accelerated, with intentional exposure reductions in commercial auto and expanding short-tail and less cyclical lines providing insulation from market volatility. The Apollo transaction further strengthens multi-year growth prospects, injects expertise in digital-risk segments, and brings a unique partnership with Uber, establishing the company as a leading provider in autonomous vehicle insurance solutions. Reserve strength, conservatism in liability durations, and proactive capital management, including opportunistic share repurchases, contribute to preparedness for changing market conditions.

• Management confirmed the company’s remediated IT controls and absence of any material weaknesses in current regulatory filings.
• Underwriting standards were reinforced by a stated refusal, per Robinson, to engage in externally underwritten diversified facilities, differentiating the company's strategy from some peers.
• The Apollo team was described as maintaining "balance sheet was every bit as conservative as ours," supporting confidence in 2026 integration.
• Integration with Apollo’s 1971 syndicate utilizes a fee-based model with the company retaining a 25% capital allocation for 2026, as part of a broader risk-sharing approach.
• Net written premium retention is positioned on an upward long-term trend, with steady year-over-year improvement and continued selective ceding to enhance fee income and risk management.
• Company cited high confidence in reserve adequacy, with Robinson noting, "I frankly feel better about our reserve than I ever have."
• A&H segment’s consistent outperformance on loss ratios compared to the market was highlighted as a driver of sustainable, profitable growth.
• Uber partnership AVIP insurance is designed as an embedded solution rather than a traditional commercial auto policy, leveraging proprietary data and differentiated risk assessment.
• Management reported minimal exposure and immaterial loss from California wildfire litigation involving PG&E, with favorable recoveries already reflected.

INDUSTRY GLOSSARY

• IBNR (Incurred But Not Reported): Insurance reserves set aside for claims that have occurred but have not yet been reported to the insurer.
• AVIP (Autonomous Vehicle Insurance Policy): A comprehensive liability package embedded within Uber’s autonomous rideshare platform, covering multiple parties involved in AV operations.
• FAC Pricing: Facultative reinsurance pricing, which refers to risk assumed individually for particular policies or risks.
• 1971 Syndicate: Apollo’s Lloyd's syndicate focused on digital economy and embedded insurance products, including the Uber AVIP partnership.

Full Conference Call Transcript

Kevin Reed: Thank you, Lisa. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our fourth quarter 2025 earnings conference call. Today, I am joined by our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Scott Robinson, and Chief Financial Officer, Mark William Haushill. We will begin the call today with our prepared remarks, then we will open the lines for questions. Our comments today may include forward-looking statements which by their nature involve a number of risk factors and uncertainties which may affect future financial performance. Such risk factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections and forward-looking statements.

These types of factors are discussed in our press release as well as in our 10-Ks that were previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Financial schedules containing reconciliations of certain non-GAAP measures along with other supplemental financial schedules are included as part of our press release and available on our website under the investors section. With that, I will turn the call over to Andrew.

Andrew Scott Robinson: Thank you, Kevin. Good morning, and thank you for joining us. Our strong fourth quarter caps off another incredible year. Mark will cover the quarter in detail in a moment, but I will start our call today with a few quarter and full-year highlights. Fourth quarter adjusted operating income increased 47% to $49 million and underwriting income reached $41 million, both all-time highs, in the fourth consecutive quarter of record results for those two metrics. Our growth in gross written premiums in the quarter of 13% caps off an outstanding year of 24% growth.

We continue to exceed our objectives of delivering mid-teens return on equity, reporting 18.9% for the year, and a return on tangible equity of 20.9% was simply outstanding. Our fully diluted book value per share grew to $23.87, which is up 5% over the third quarter and an impressive 26% for the year. The market is becoming more competitive and difficult for many to navigate, and yet we simply go from strength to strength in our financial results, our competitive position, our portfolio construction, and our execution.

Whether it be the impressive year-to-date growth in our Ag business, the leadership position we established in the small employer market in A&H, our market-leading innovations such as N-Well that are powering the growth in surety and similarly creative products that are driving profitable growth elsewhere, or now the accretive impact the Apollo combination will bring to growth areas like our life sciences unit, we are demonstrating every day that we are unique amongst the P&C universe in how we are competing, executing, and winning.

While others are struggling to find their footing in a decidedly more challenging property market and endeavoring to stay in front of the escalating loss costs in areas of the casualty market we have successfully navigated in a manner others have not, we have evolved nearly 50% of our business portfolio to less cyclical lines while executing on our strategy to rule our niche by attracting the very best talent, staying in the lead in the technology and AI arms race, and building defensible positions and a competitive moat around our business, all while delivering outstanding financial returns.

It is unlikely that every quarter going forward can be an all-time best for our underwriting and operating income as it was in 2025. Yet relative to the market and the opportunities ahead, we believe Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc. has never been better positioned to deliver sustained top quartile shareholder value. With that, I will turn it over to Mark to provide the financial details for the quarter and the year. Mark?

Mark William Haushill: Thank you, Andrew. We had another great quarter, reporting adjusted operating income of $49,000,000, or $1.17 per diluted share, and net income of $43,000,000, or $1.03 per diluted share. As Andrew mentioned, gross written premiums grew by more than 13% in the quarter, driven by our A&H, surety, and specialty programs divisions. Net written premiums grew 25% for the year, and our retention of 64.9% remained stable year over year and consistent with our guidance. Turning to our underwriting performance, the fourth quarter combined ratio improved 7.3 points compared to the prior-year quarter to 88.5%, reflecting net favorable development and a modest catastrophe quarter. Our loss ratio of 59.6% includes net favorable prior year development.

This was across multiple lines, primarily surety and property, of $7,500,000 or 2.1 points on the loss ratio. Our favorable development more than offset modest adverse development in more recent accident years, which was principally driven by commercial auto and excess auto in areas that have been exited over the past three years. Our 10-K and statutory filings provide additional details. We ended the year with a very strong reserve profile, with 74% of reserves in IBNR, our highest level of IBNR in the history of the company. Our paid-to-incurred is a low 65% for 2025, consistent with 2024. These metrics demonstrate our disciplined and conservative approach to reserving even as our liability durations continue to shorten.

The expense ratio for the quarter was 28.9%, consistent with the prior-year quarter and in line with our expectation of sub-30s. Efficiency gains in controllable expenses were offset by higher acquisition costs driven by business mix shifts and by regular fourth quarter profit share true-ups. Turning to our investment portfolio, net investment income for the fourth quarter 2025 increased $3,000,000 compared to the fourth quarter 2024, driven by a larger asset base and higher yields in our fixed income portfolio. In the fourth quarter, we put $52,000,000 to work at 5.6%. Our embedded yield was 5.3% on December 31, up from 5.1% a year ago.

Underlying marks of $2,000,000 on the private credit holdings in our alternative asset portfolio continued to impact net investment income in the quarter. While the 2025 results in our alternative asset portfolio are disappointing, this portfolio only represents 3.8% of our investment portfolio at December 31, compared to 6% a year ago. For the year, $44,000,000 of the alt capital was returned and reinvested into our fixed income portfolio. Our organic growth in capital arising from our strong 2025 results supports our 2026 business plan. That capital strength positions us well as we consider our balance sheet and our leverage profile going forward. Our financial leverage was modest as we finished the quarter at under 11% debt-to-capital ratio.

However, rolling into 2026, our leverage will be impacted by debt related to the Apollo transaction and we expect it to be in the range of 28% to 29%. Recall, as part of the consideration paid for Apollo, the company issued approximately 3,700,000 shares at an accretive $50 per share. At the closing of the Apollo transaction on January 1, fully diluted book value per share is expected to fall within the range of $26.00 to $26.10 as compared to our $23.87 at December 31. You will recall that on December 3, we provided guidance for 2026 and that guidance is unchanged.

As discussed in prior quarters, the material weakness in IT controls has been remediated, and that will be visible in our 10-K. There are no material weaknesses. We remain focused on our balance sheet strength and prudent capital management as we move into 2026. We will look to opportunistically deploy excess capital to take advantage of our extremely attractive share price via our share repurchase program. Now I will turn the call back over to Andrew.

Andrew Scott Robinson: Thank you, Mark. As Mark just shared, our financial results for the quarter were excellent again. We grew over 20% in surety, A&H, and specialty programs. We expect strong continued growth in A&H and surety given our winning positions. As noted in prior calls, we expect flatter growth in specialty programs as the effects from the two programs added in early 2025 are fully reflected in written premium. We also grew in captives, and modestly in global property, the latter of which simply reflects a small premium quarter, high retention on our in-force, and a couple of account wins. We continue to see considerable competition in property.

We had strong growth in the quarter within the credit unit, part of our Ag and Credit Reporting division. We remain bullish about our profitable growth opportunity in both units. We shrunk in energy and construction solutions, driven by our ongoing intentional actions in commercial auto and construction. We have now reduced our commercial auto exposure by more than 62% over the last twelve quarters, as we signaled to you three years ago that the loss cost inflation backdrop is too unpredictable and too unsustainable, something only in the past few quarters others have started to discuss regularly.

Regarding energy, given the strength of our market position, limited competition in the specific markets we serve, and our broadened offerings in renewables and power, we are bullish in our outlook for this unit. In Q4, as often happens, the market becomes more competitive as many try to make full-year plans. This is most visible in our E&S and professional lines divisions. We defended our books effectively, but wrote less new business given the price and terms on offer. While this continued into the 1/1 renewals, we remain positive about our ability to grow profitably in specific areas in these divisions, including healthcare professional, the specific target classes that make up our management liability book, and general and excess liability.

It is important to note our outstanding portfolio construction diversification. Over 58% of our business is in short-tail lines, and now 48% of our business in lines less exposed to the P&C cycles, and our largest division makes up only 16% of our premium. These are all continued trends that are visible over the past three years. We arrived at this point with clear strategic intentions we have spoken about quarter on quarter since being a public company. Turning to our operational metrics, with a quarter similar to last, on pricing, we achieved mid-single-digit pure rate ex-global property. Retention was in the mid-70s, driven by our intentional actions in commercial auto.

We continue to see strong submission growth which was solidly in the teens again this quarter. I would now like to take a moment to reflect on our progress as a public company over the last three years. On 01/13/2023, we listed as a public company. In February 2023, we reported our 2022 fourth quarter and full year results with operating income of $11,600,000 and $0.36 per fully diluted share, and $12.87 book value per fully diluted share.

In just three years, our adjusted operating income of $49,000,000 is more than 4x greater, our diluted EPS of $1.17 is more than 3x greater, and our fully diluted book value per share is over 2x greater at the close of the Apollo transaction on 1/1. Underlying this is a far stronger balance sheet, both on the asset and liability side of the ledger, a far more durable business portfolio, as I just discussed, market-leading underwriting and claims talent, a leadership position in the use of advanced technology and AI, and every single division executing exceptionally on its rule-our-niche strategy.

None of this begins to contemplate the impact of the Apollo transaction; it further strengthens our talent, our innovation and earnings, and it provides attractive fee income, strengthens and expands our business portfolio into new specialty areas, and importantly, it builds on Apollo's distinct and obvious leadership position in providing solutions to the digital economy. To this end, you likely saw Uber's announcement regarding its launch of the first ever manufacturer-agnostic autonomous rideshare platform. One critical component Uber highlighted is the Autonomous Vehicle Insurance Policy, also known as AVIP. We are proud that Apollo is the sole carrier partner to Uber for this market-leading initiative.

AVIP is a comprehensive liability product that combines general and product liability along with several other coverages for manufacturers, ADS providers, owners, fleet managers, and other supporting participants into one simple policy that is embedded directly within the Uber AV platform. Uber selected Apollo because of our expertise, intellectual property, proprietary data, track record, and leading position in providing insurance to the AV market. I noted autonomy is a large growth area for Apollo when we announced the transaction to acquire Apollo. This is a powerful demonstration that we are the leader in understanding AV risk and providing powerful risk transfer solutions to this market.

Our collaboration with Uber has been central to the unique design of this product, including our proprietary context-specific and usage-based pricing approach. The embedded coverages mean this product is not sold, but rather consumed by AVs offering their services through the Uber platform. We will share more specifics in the coming days and weeks, but when we speak about the impact of Apollo and the strength of the combined company that is now Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc., this partnership with Uber is precisely what we envisaged. It reflects the differentiated capabilities we have brought together and our ability to deliver solutions at the forefront of innovation, technology, and serving markets being disrupted by AI.

To wrap up, as I look back on 2025 and our last three years as a public company, I am immensely proud of the integrity of our company and how we operate, the accomplishments of our Skyward team, and the results we have delivered to you, our shareholders. I am even more excited about the next three years now with the capabilities and talents of our colleagues at Apollo. And despite a more challenging and uncertain market backdrop, at no point during my six years at the company have I viewed us better positioned for success than today. With that, I would now like to turn the call back over to the operator to open it up for Q&A.

Operator: A question, please press star 11 on your telephone. You will hear an automated message as long as your hand is raised. We also ask that you please wait for your name and company to be announced before proceeding with your question. And our first question for the day will be coming from the line of Meyer Shields of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Your line is open.

Meyer Shields: Great. Thank you so much, and good morning. Andrew, was hoping you would go a little bit deeper into the surety growth where it looks very strong in the fourth quarter. You are pretty optimistic about 2026 because we have heard a lot of, I guess, concern from other carriers about delayed construction projects.

Andrew Scott Robinson: Yeah. Look. I mean, I think that we—thanks, Meyer, by the way, for the question. And there is nothing unusual about, you know, this quarter. You could see the growth building. The fourth quarter particularly was a release of a lot of federal funds. So things that were backed up over the course of the year, the money sort of became available. Our view is really simple, which is, you know, we built a really well-diverse portfolio within surety. Right? So it is not just, you know, contract and commercial. It is the fact that we are well across all the trades, that we are not exposed to, you know, homebuilders.

On the surety side, you know, we have, you know, great areas like the SBA. We have, you know, our judiciary and fiduciary, you know, bond capabilities. You know, we have done a great job with N-Well, which we, you know, obviously talked about over the last three quarters. You know, more recently, there has been a failure of a large solar company with over $1,000,000,000 of bonds out in the market, and, you know, probably every top 20 surety, you know, had some piece of that except us. And so we are certainly going to avoid a loss there.

But that will sort of harden the backdrop around solar just the way that, you know, we saw the hardening on oil and gas. And so, you know, I think when I look at it all in, it is just the execution of our business along the lines of the way that we constructed that business—well-diversified, different areas that we can press down, ease up, wait for some market opportunities like we saw in oil and gas, now we will probably see in solar. And so I would expect that we are just going to continue to outperform both on the growth and on the loss side as compared to the market.

Meyer Shields: If I could stay on premium growth prospects just for a second. So wholesale brokers like Ryan are creating these sort of diversified facilities and we have seen some other specialty carriers participate in that. I was wondering about Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc.'s appetite for that sort of business that is externally underwritten.

Andrew Scott Robinson: Yeah. Thanks for the question. We will never do that while I am the CEO of the company. How about that? I think that it may be appropriate for others, but our strategy is about rule your niche. It is about distinct focus. It is about expertise and capabilities that we can look at and say, here is the source of your competitive advantage, your ability to have a competitive moat. And whether people are doing it under—managing other people's money, which some are doing, or just taking a straight quota share, you know, on other people's underwriting, that is just something we will never do as a company while I am the CEO.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. And the next question is coming from the line of Jon Paul Newsome of Piper Sandler. Your line is open. Hello, Paul. Your line is open. One moment for the next question. And the next question will be coming from the line of Charles Gregory Peters of Raymond James. Your line is open.

Charles Gregory Peters: Hey. Good morning, everyone. Hey, Greg. Good morning, Greg. So I think, you know, you spoke about Apollo. You spoke about—you mentioned this autonomous vehicle partnership with Uber. You know, as we are working through our financial forecast, maybe you give us some perspective on how Apollo performed in 2025 and what you think they might be able to do in 2026, you know, as we sort of blend it all together?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Well, I think that we will have—we have some information out on Apollo here over the coming couple of weeks as part of sort of the ordinary reporting at Lloyd's. So there are some things that will be available. But let me just say that just at the macro level, Apollo's financial results are uncannily similar to ours. They grew at about 20%. Their combined ratio was around 89 for the year. And probably the only difference that I would highlight is that their expense ratio is, you know, four or five points higher than ours for this past year, and the loss ratio accordingly four or five points lower.

I also will tell you that Mark and I could not be any more pleased with the great work that David Iveson and James Slaughter and Karen Carr had undertaken to ensure that the balance sheet was every bit as conservative as ours. And so I feel great about our entry into 2026. I think beyond that, you know, Mark just said it best in the script. Right? We gave guidance. Our guidance is unchanged. I believe that, you know, you can judge for yourself how it is that we perform against our guidance over, you know, over the prior three years. We are going to work hard, obviously, to do the best that we can.

But in the end, you know, we can only sort of take what the market will allow us to take and still deliver the kind of returns that we are delivering to our investors. I will highlight that this is really important, that while others have put out, you know, some companies have put out monster growth numbers on casualty and so forth, great for them, not right for us. We are very, very thoughtful about the loss cost inflation backdrop.

And so the fact that we are exiting this year in the Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc. part of the portfolio with 50% of our business in areas that are not exposed to the P&C cycles, where we do not have, you know, the kind of concerns around property and casualty in that half of the portfolio, is unique to us. And that gives us a real advantage as we are coming into 2026. Just sticking on Apollo for a second, and then I do have a follow-up question on a different topic. But when, you know, we hear the rhetoric in the marketplace about pricing competition, obviously, we have come to learn how your book of business has performed.

Can you give us some perspective of how you think Apollo is going to perform under the Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc. banner given the fact that there is a lot more price competition in the marketplace now than there was maybe two or three years ago?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Well, I mean, what I would say to you is that what we think about when we were evaluating the potential combination—and I think it is reinforced today—there is much about the Apollo portfolio that is—first off, it is very complementary. Right? We certainly really appreciate what they are doing in their specialty businesses, areas like product recall, PR and PV, political risk, political violence, contingency. And I think that this point we just spoke about coming out of iBot 1971, the syndicate that is focused on the digital economy, is an example where I have said that they are one of one in that market.

And I believe that this partnership with Uber—I mean, we are talking about embedded product where all of our expertise is really the foundation for the pricing. Our partner with them and the insights that we bring is the foundation for the product. That is a unique place to be. You are not out, you know, sitting at the box competing with, you know, 50 other syndicates for, you know, a piece of business. And I certainly feel really good about their portfolio construction. I would describe it as very analogous to us.

And I see that, you know, pricing pressure is not something that you can ignore, but the portfolio is well-diversified enough like we have at Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc., that I am very confident that we can profitably grow and navigate the market while still delivering, you know, really exceptional returns for our shareholders.

Charles Gregory Peters: Alright. The other question I had was just about the reserve development. And certainly appreciated your comment about how you have managed your commercial auto exposures over the last couple of years. But was hoping that you could give us some commentary about the moving pieces inside the reserve development for the fourth quarter.

Mark William Haushill: Greg, it is Mark. Thanks. I mean, look, in quick summary, commercial auto moved a little bit on us in accident years '22 and '24, maybe circa $25 million-ish, and it was offset by, as I mentioned in my comments, some of the shorter-tail lines. But I am glad you asked the question because I think it is important for me to be very clear. Look. We review our reserves each and every quarter. In the event that we see something that we need to react to, we will, of course, do that. I think maybe the way I have communicated in the past may have led to a little bit of confusion.

I gave you some metrics earlier in terms of just high-level metrics on reserves. And, look, I think it is worth noting to you and to anybody on the call. I feel as good about our reserves as I ever have since we have been public. Look. There are things that we need to—that areas that we are looking at for sure. But coming into 2026, I frankly feel better about our reserve than I ever have.

Andrew Scott Robinson: You know, Greg, I do not think that you can look past the realities that we have dramatically shortened our liability durations, you know, over the course of the last, you know, well, six years since I have been at the company. You know, we are at an incredibly high level of conservatism if you measure it through IBNR. Our paid-to-incurred are as good as they possibly could be, I would say, at this point. And we do look at that, you know, as compared to others in the market.

And I think the last thing that I would just highlight is that the auto and the excess over auto, the parts where, you know, we recognized some adverse development, are all parts of our business that we have exited as part of the, you know, slimming down the exposure that we have to commercial auto.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. And our next question is coming from the line of Alex Scott of Barclays. Your line is open.

Alex Scott: Good morning. First one I had is on accident and health. Some of that I know is stop loss, and I think you guys have had pretty good performance. For the rest of it, the industry has struggled a bit. So, you know, it might be one of the hardest markets we have seen in a while, pretty unique relative to some of the other things you guys do in P&C. Is that a place where you would lean into growth? And could you tell us at all about what you did at 1/1 renewals?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Yeah. Our 1/1s were off the chart. We massively were ahead of where we thought we would be. So that is just a quick answer to your first question. Here is what I think we are seeing. You know, I will just sort of go back here on the history. You know, we are a stop loss writer. And, you know, six years ago, when I joined the company, we focused very heavily on the smaller employer market. So think about 500 employees and less. We got the portfolio working well. About three years ago, we added captives capabilities.

I do think that the couple of players who are really great P&C names, companies that we respect very well, are really kind of the only other folks that we see with really compelling captive offerings. And I think that we are seeing a lot of growth in that market, but we are also taking share in addition to the growth that we are seeing. That powered a lot of our growth over the course of the last twenty-four months. Probably about—starting about twelve months ago, we saw a return to growth in sort of the non-captive part. And as we came through 1/1, you are right in what you are saying, Alex.

It is—I do not know if you want to call it a hard market, but certainly, it is a market where we are seeing a lot of opportunity at really attractive price. And we are staying true to our focus. Our captive capabilities are top notch. Our focus on medical cost management is, I would say, distinct and unique and second to nobody in the market. I think we are recognized as such. Whether it be somebody who wants to come into a group captive, or somebody who is self-insuring on their own and buying the stop loss, we bring a lot of value to those companies.

And I see our strength in 1/1 continuing out through the course of this year. I feel really good about it. And I will highlight something that just reinforces what you said. If you take a look at the 2024 stat data that is out there, our loss ratio is 15 points better than the market, and a full 30 points better than, you know, the big names that sort of have performed really poorly over the course of the last couple of years purely on the loss ratio side. You know, that you cannot hide from. These are short-tail lines of business. Right?

So the numbers do not lie, and I could not feel any better about what our team has done and what the year looks like for us. And I feel great. So you are right to highlight it. So thank you for that.

Alex Scott: That was helpful. Follow-up question I had is on the Uber partnership. Obviously, longer term, potential bigger opportunity. As we think about the next year or two, is that going to cover some of the testing that they are doing? Like, will there be premium dollars that come online more immediately? And, you know, any color you can help us with there.

Andrew Scott Robinson: Well, let me say three things. First is, you know, as we said in the prepared remarks, we are going to come back with more data. You know, I have been cautioned by our colleagues at Apollo not to get out over our ski tips here. You know, Uber has put some information out. They are launching this in 15 cities. And, you know, we will see how the premium builds. It is in our guidance that we gave you. Right? So this is not something that we do not contemplate. It is in the guidance. What I would say is that, look, we are one of one.

We are embedded in the dominant player in this market who has basically created a manufacturer-agnostic platform. And, you know, you just think about the potential. Right? It is just extraordinary. And I will highlight something really important to you, which is that no company in the world is better positioned than Uber to demonstrate the safety and the difference between autonomy and human drivers. Right? They have the data, and they are going to have more data as every day passes. Right?

So when you think about a legal and tort backdrop, I do not know who you would like to be if you had to choose, but I could not imagine being better positioned as being a partner to them on the AV side as compared to being, you know, writing commercial auto, you know, for them in a very difficult tort backdrop that they have done a great job of navigating. But there is no question that, you know, the safety comparison between, you know, autonomous vehicles and human drivers is a marked difference, and no company is better positioned to demonstrate that than Uber. And, you know, we are in the middle of that.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. Our next question is coming from the line of Michael David Zaremski of BMO. Your line is open.

Michael David Zaremski: Great. Good morning. Maybe a question on the loss ratio. Great all-in loss ratio. If we just kind of look at the underlying loss ratio, it ticked up a bit sequentially. Had been previously ticking down a bit. Is this—you mentioned a commercial auto review. Should we kind of expect this new slightly higher level to be the kind of the trend line?

Mark William Haushill: Go ahead. Yeah. So Mike, thanks for the question, and good morning. Mark will provide more details. No change in our picks. This is a mix change. We have two very considerable growth areas in A&H and Ag, which are higher loss ratio businesses, which are earning in faster than the low loss ratio businesses like credit and surety, and effectively on balance, that is what you are seeing. I will tell you that our internal plans are—you know, we gave you the guidance, but I think that it does reflect, you know, a bit of mix change running through, but I would not overread it. Right?

I see those are also lower expense ratio businesses and, you know, so I think on balance what you are going to see is, you know, the performance of our business on a combined ratio consistent with the guidance that we gave you. The geography will be changing a little bit. But nothing in terms of our underlying picks.

Michael David Zaremski: Got it. That is helpful. And then lastly, moving to the comments about the material weaknesses being resolved. Congrats. Just curious on any—are there any kind of material learnings or system changes or anything you would like to kind of highlight that has changed the way you guys do business as a result? Or is it really just kind of small things behind the scenes?

Mark William Haushill: Hey, Mike. It is Mark. This is a sore subject. Look. This whole controls thing is the bane of my existence, but no. We are not making any material changes to our systems as a result of it. Mike, it was IT controls. I think we spoke at length. You know, this is a non-financial matter. Remediated earlier in the year. It did not get recognized until we—you know, until you issue your 10-K. Hey. Listen. We are a public company. Right? This is not unusual. But it is not something that is financial in nature and, you know, these things happen. Right?

It is a company that, you know, we took over a company that was in tough condition six years ago, and we took it public three years ago. And we became, you know, an accelerated filer last year. And the stakes went up. And so I would not overread any of it. We are just executing on all dimensions, including in finance.

Michael David Zaremski: Got it. Yep. I meant to ask it in a positive way if it was taken a different way.

Mark William Haushill: Do not worry about it.

Andrew Scott Robinson: No. That is me, Mike. Yeah. We—you know, listen. Being a public company is an absolute pleasure. Can imagine when it comes to things. Maybe I will sneak one last in since you guys have—you know, you mentioned, you can reduce commercial auto by over almost two thirds now over the last few years. Are we kind of towards the end of that and retention levels might start increasing or impacting growth differently, or is that still kind of a consistent work in process given commercial auto loss inflation remains higher than other lines?

Andrew Scott Robinson: That is a great question. So I do want to be clear that we have parts of our portfolio that are commercial auto-heavy that we have one piece. It is a significant part that has, you know, been consistently delivering unbelievable returns for us over the course of, you know, twelve years, predated me. And so it is not the entire portfolio. To answer your question directly, Mike, in the third quarter of this year, we narrowed our focus in construction, a particular area that had—well, I will just describe it as, you know, Ford F-150 trucks—that had unusually high severity, to be honest. Frequency was improving.

I think that, you know, we had maybe a false confidence on the frequency. The severity, you know, really, it has been a byproduct of a really just an awful tort backdrop. And so we took action on that, and there will still be some development of, you know, sort of—not development—reduction of our written premium over the course of the next couple quarters that works its way through. But there is no additional actions. And we feel very good about our portfolio. I do not think there is anything more that we would change at this point. And so, yeah, there will be some impacts, but it is not anything new.

It is just the nonrenewal business that we took decisions on previously.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. And our next question will be coming from the line of Andrew E. Andersen of Jefferies. Your line is open.

Andrew E. Andersen: Hey. Good morning. As property just becomes more competitive and you kind of manage the writing there, what have you been seeing on kind of binder hit ratios for either liability or just the broader book as probably the rest of the market becomes more competitive?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Thanks, Andrew. That is a good question. I think, just straight up on the bind ratio, submission activity continues to be pretty good. Bind ratios—you know, I think maybe you might be asking the question specifically through maybe our transactional E&S lens. Has been pretty consistent. You know, there is a particular profile of business that we write. Terms and conditions, you know, are still pretty good. And so we have not really seen a backup on the bind ratio. You know, we quote a lot, you know, to get the business we want. Away from E&S, so when you look at something like energy, it is quite different. Right? Because our competition is quite narrow. Our distribution is tight.

You know, we see the business that we want to see. And so, you know, that just continues to perform well for us. And, you know, with the introduction of things that we have done over the course of the last couple or three years on renewables, now more recently on sort of the unique way that we went into power, much of that is targeted towards the same distributors. And that has helped us in terms of kind of the strength of our position on their shelf. And so, yeah, I mean, I feel like, you know, we are doing what we should do, and there is no real change just yet on, you know, on the liability side.

I am sure that it is going to become more competitive. The capital is connected. And, you know, as we are about to lap ourselves on the property side—you know, as it was in the second quarter of last year that property rates really started to move down, and so we are lapping ourselves. And I am sure companies are going to redeploy capital elsewhere in the market. Some of that is going to find its way into the liability side. And it is going to become more competitive. But I feel like we are really well positioned.

Andrew E. Andersen: Thanks. And then maybe one more on the Uber piece. I think you mentioned that was going to be in the 1971 syndicate. I think that business does cede maybe 50% or so of net premiums, but yeah, there is kind of a few layers to the Apollo business with managed and then gross and net. Are you kind of thinking the relationship is maybe more of a fee income vehicle kind of the near to medium term rather than a retained premium?

Andrew Scott Robinson: So first off, 1971 for 2026, with our capital, participates on a 25% basis. So 75% of the capital is provided by third parties, all very notable-name reinsurers. And so, as we have talked about in the past, that itself has a fee-based component. We do have quota share support behind 1971 as well. That quota share support, like anything that we might do on quota share, effectively seeks to take a portion of the underwriting profits and lock that in, you know, via a cede. And so—but that is not unique to the Uber relationship. That is, you know, structurally in place across 1971.

And I think as we get into the specifics of Apollo in future quarters, I think, you know, probably we can do a little bit more, Andrew, to, you know, give you sort of a better sense for that. But at this time, I think, you know, you kind of have the headlines right, and that is just geography of what I described as sort of the macro geography behind that.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. Our next question is coming from the line of Michael Phillips of Oppenheimer. Your line is open.

Michael Phillips: Thank you. Good morning. I want to touch, Andrew, on the captive division and a topic we sort of touched on a little bit last quarter, with maybe demand of captives in the pricing cycle. The slowdown there, any anomalies in the quarter, or is that maybe just a start of continued slowdown given the overall P&C market is seeing softening pricing?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Well, I think that, Michael, thanks for the question. You know, I think that we have talked about in the past that captives have been sort of a structural share gainer in the P&C market. Even during the soft market years, captives were able to, as a share of the market, you know, have more—and we are talking specifically group captives—have more flow into the group captives market. But there is no question that, you know, the backdrop influences kind of the—maybe the value of somebody moving out of the guaranteed market into a captive market at this particular point in time. By and large, folks that do that do it for strategic reasons. Right?

They want to, you know, control their cost of risk. They are making that decision on a long-term basis. But oftentimes, the pricing backdrop, you know, acts as an impetus. And I think that, you know, probably that is what you are seeing here.

Michael Phillips: Okay. Yeah. That is helpful. Thank you, Andrew. And maybe just a quick second question on a topic we have not talked about in a while is California and the wildfires. Yeah. Given the suits on PG&E, any possible updates on any recoveries from that stuff?

Andrew Scott Robinson: I mean, I just will remind you, we had very little loss associated with that. And we are talking about, you know, a handful. And last I checked, it looks like our recoveries were very good. I think that we—yeah. I think we did the right things around that to ensure that we could just put some confidence behind what we could recover there. But, you know, for us, it just is not—it is not even material enough to see through our P&L because our losses just were not that great.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. And our next question is coming from the line of Tracy Benguigui of Wolfe Research. Your line is open.

Tracy Benguigui: Thank you. Good morning. We heard some folks on earning calls talking about reverse flow within small property counts. What are you seeing in terms of any reverse flow at this point in the cycle? And if that is happening, what is the typical cadence? Is it small account then large? Or do you think high-hazard risk will always stay in the E&S market?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Tracy, good morning. Thanks for the question. So, you know, I just will remind you—and I think we are talking specifically about flow from, you know, E&S back into the admitted markets—you know, our average premium per policy in our E&S business is about $40,000, so we are not a small account writer. That said, on the property side, I think I have talked about these statistics in the past—about a little more than 50% of our business we are writing, you know, the full limits, the full TIVs, and, you know, less than 50%, you know, we are writing, you know, the primary and somebody else is writing the excess. We did launch an excess property offering as well.

And so I think that we are really not in the small market. We are certainly not in the binding authority market. We are not in the market that is of the submit business that comes out of the binding authority market. But if I were to highlight one area where I am seeing it is that, you know, the march on property went from, you know, very large accounts visible in our global property to, you know, now we are seeing pressure on premiums that are less than $50,000. Right? It has come to sort of all levels. In general, we write very tough risks.

So, you know, think things like—well, things that really can burn, like, you know, involved in the wood industry as an example. Or things that explode. And those are not the things that tend to flow back into the admitted market. That is intentional on our part. It is the same thing on the liability side. We write really, really tough classes—high severity, low frequency—and, you know, we charge a lot. And we get our terms and conditions. So we are probably not well positioned to address that question as compared to others because of the makeup, and I think that we are a little bit above where that flowback might occur.

Tracy Benguigui: Okay. Appreciate that. And I had a follow-up. I know you guys already discussed commercial auto and Uber. You obviously have a conservative stance on this line of business given all your reductions. But as it relates to this Uber AV insurance policy, to be sure, does coverage include any bodily injury? And if it does, I heard what you had to say about autonomous vehicles being more safe, but I am wondering if you worry about the mix of driver-enabled and driverless cars on the road at the same time, presenting an untested type of risk.

Andrew Scott Robinson: Yeah. So the first thing I would say—so thanks for the question, Tracy. The first thing I would say is for the avoidance of doubt, this is not a commercial auto policy. Any AV on the road has to carry commercial auto to meet their legal requirements. This is not that. This is a coverage for anybody who participates on the platform embedded into the Uber platform for which that coverage applies when an AV is actually doing something in response to, you know, taking instructions on the platform, whether that be—you know, if you read what Uber is doing, it is more than just, you know, rideshare transporting people. It is—it will contemplate other things.

Of course, the question of kind of the mixed environment is a critically important question. I will highlight to you what I said during the prepared remarks. We are not coming into this without really deep knowledge. We have been very active in the AV space. I cannot say any more than that. Leading up to this, our dataset on the insurer side, to our knowledge, is the largest data set available. And so we understand the risk that you are describing incredibly well.

The other thing I would say to you is that every AV is equipped with far more information because of the nature of AV than vehicles that are being driven by people, except in the cases of those vehicles that could operate as AVs but are being driven by people. So the information advantage that accrues to the AVs is quite considerable if you are talking about a vehicle-to-vehicle collision. And so, again, I think that all goes into our calculus.

And as I said, you think about Uber's position—you can take nearly any instruction, any ride, in any city in the world, and the amount of information they have about that ride, the frequency of loss, etcetera, etcetera, the drivers associated with that, as compared to the emerging information on AVs—they are uniquely positioned to demonstrate the safety differences that AVs have over human drivers. So there is no company better positioned in a difficult tort backdrop. That is an immensely valuable thing.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. And our next question is coming from the line of Andrew Scott Kligerman of TD Cowen. Your line is open.

Andrew Scott Kligerman: Thank you. Good morning. Question around retention. It looks like your net written premium as a percent of gross went to 64% from 70%. Could you touch on the dynamics around that shift and what we should expect going into '26 and '27 around retention?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Andrew, this is Andrew. Mark will jump in here as well. I am—we are looking for the numbers. I think that a couple different points I would make. One is that I think our full-year numbers were around 65%, which is, I believe, up a couple ticks over last year. If I remember last year, we were maybe 62%, 63% gross to net. And so we were up a couple of ticks. The quarter was, you know, it was, on a relative basis, a quarter where we ceded more, but there was nothing in that. It is just the ebbs and flows of any given quarter and mix of business.

But I believe that, you know, we have been on this sort of consistent upward trajectory of, you know, eating more of our own cooking, if you will. And by the way, just in this quarter, as one example, Andrew, we, on our excess, went to market with a clear intention to increase our cede, and we were able to do that in—not in a material fashion, but we also made the trade-off that we were going to get the cede that we were aiming at even if it meant that we kept more of our excess writings for ourselves. And so I think that, you know, we kept about 10% more, but we increased our cede quite considerably.

And both those trades are very smart trades for us, obviously. In one case, we are getting, you know, more fee income, you know, offsetting our expenses. In the other case, we feel really good about, you know, our loss picks on the excess side, so we are happy to keep our own cooking.

Andrew Scott Kligerman: Got it. So maybe expect, you know, the annual number to kind of move up a little bit.

Andrew Scott Robinson: Yeah. I think in our guidance, we basically said, you know, consistent with this year. It is going to be mix-related, but I do think it is fair to say that if you looked at, you know, '23, '24, '25, we are on a consistent trajectory of increasing, you know, our net as a percentage of our gross. I think, you know, it has gone from kind of 60% to, this year, about 65% over that horizon. And we can give you—we will give you the exact data. We will follow up and make sure that we are closing the loop.

Andrew Scott Kligerman: No. That makes a lot of sense. And then my follow-up is around the pipeline for potentially other acquisitions, or maybe you could do team lift-outs. Are you seeing much of a pipeline there to kind of move into new areas of insurance?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Yeah. I think that I think that we will certainly see opportunities and I think as a company—I have said this before, and I would absolutely say this is true of Apollo as well—we are strategically led. Right? So there are places that we want to go, but we are not necessarily saying, well, that has to happen this quarter. We are targeting people and teams that we know that we have confidence in. And sometimes, it takes quite some time to get those folks across. Ag was a great example of that. You know, what I can say is that there are things in the works.

But whether those things crystallize in 2026, hard to know, because, you know, we are more patient and strategically minded in targeting, you know, people and teams that, you know, we know are great performers in the categories we want to enter. On the M&A side, you know, I will say what I have said in the past. We have a financial responsibility as a company to make sure that we are being incredibly mindful of the way that we use, you know, the capital that our shareholders give us. And we were never a company that said we are going to acquire to scale.

The Apollo transaction was a unique transaction that matched what we thought would be appropriate for the next turn of our company. We were in London looking at ways to organically grow and develop our presence there. And so I would describe our position as being, you know, not an active acquirer. We have made two small other acquisitions. We made an acquisition in surety, an acquisition in aviation over the sort of five-and-a-half-year tenure that I have been at the company.

But I think it is not something that will be too much of a focus, but we are very active in making sure we stay abreast of what is out there should there be a unique opportunity that is a great match for us.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. And our next question is coming from the line of Mark Douglas Hughes of Truist. Please go ahead.

Mark Douglas Hughes: Yes. Thank you. Good morning. Andrew, you talked about how the pricing pressure has extended from very large accounts down to all levels in property. Pressure on the very large accounts, has it gotten worse, or did it step down and then has been reasonably stable, let us say, the last quarter or two?

Andrew Scott Robinson: The former, not the latter. I think that, as I think I mentioned earlier, Mark, that we are about to lap ourselves. Right? It was 2025 that you really started to see the pressure come in. And so this is the point where, you know, if I am me and I am you, I would be watching that space to see whether at this point the market kind of settles at the point it is at or, you know, whether some of the bad behavior out there continues. And it is really hard to know because we are not quite at the point where we are lapping ourselves. We are just a few months away from it.

But, yeah, I would not say that there is any signs of it improving. And I do think that, you know, at least for our global property business in particular, the most impacted area, we have done a downright extraordinary job given our ability to use larger line sizes to avail ourselves to attractive FAC pricing, to effectively limit the net margin impact for every dollar of premium that we have written, recognizing that, you know, we have written less. Right? But the contribution we feel continues to be not far off where it was over the course of the year prior.

Mark Douglas Hughes: Yeah. Appreciate that. And then final question on the liability side. You said you are concerned about the redeployment of capital. When you think about the competition there, is it from kind of the existing public players—we might know their names—or is it outside MGAs, new capital that is putting the marginal pressure on the liability side?

Andrew Scott Robinson: I would say, by and large, the companies that we hold out as being responsible competitors, I think that they are being responsible. I think they are great companies. We follow and try to mimic organizationally the good things they do. And I think that responsible competitors are responsible, and you see it in their results through the cycle. You know, you should always take pause at companies that do not have a track record in casualty that grow a lot, whether they are public or private. Because the casualty market is a—you know, it is an interesting and challenging market in really simple terms. Right?

All you have to do is, you know, your own analysis, which looks at what has been happening in the general liability market, and occurrence liability broadly should be a concern, and the loss cost backdrop is a challenging backdrop. I am sure some of the guys that are growing—growing in big numbers—are doing it well. But by and large, the people who are chomping up big chunks of this market and growing at, you know, quite considerable levels, are not doing it and beating the better-to-best players out there because they are better underwriters. They are doing it to get share, and they are doing it oftentimes with price and terms.

And that is just the logics of our business. Right? You know, our strategy has been—and you can see it in our results—nobody should take pause by the fact that some of our divisions are flat or even shrinking, because we are being the responsible purveyors of our shareholders' investment in us by redeploying our capital away from places that are overly competitive or where the loss cost inflation is not something that you can have, you know, a high level of confidence in. And so I just think it is like use your common sense, and that common sense in three, four, and five years will prove to be right.

Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question. And our next question is coming from the line of Matt Carletti of Citizens. Your line is open.

Matt Carletti: Hey. Thanks. Good morning. Andrew, I heard your comments on Uber. That is not a commercial auto policy. Can you help me understand, like, what a potential loss would stem from or what it might look like in that—what the coverage you are writing?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Yeah. Matt, thanks. We are pleased that you can join. You just surprised us. Did not think you were going to join. So look, first off, auto—you are required to carry coverage, you know, to have a vehicle on the road. So this is not that. Right? This is an embedded coverage. But functionally, if you think about this, right, and I will just—we will just say an autonomous vehicle, you know, had—causes an accident, strikes something, you know, it is hard to say whether that is, you know, sort of commercial auto in a traditional sense, product liability, general liability, etcetera, etcetera. It is a redefinition.

And the policy, which is not going to be visible to anybody—it is designed and it is proprietary and embedded into the Uber platform. So it is available to the participants to fully understand how it works. You know, it is unique to the specifics of the fact that you are dealing with effectively, you know, a robot, an autonomous vehicle, you know, moving around in an environment where you have, you know, people, other vehicles, physical structures, and everything else.

And so the fundamental exposure is the same, but the definition and the way things respond, and certainly the information that we have available, and, of course, what we believe to be true is both, you know, safety—and so frequency and severity are certainly meaningfully impacted as a result. And so I think that, you know, you can think about exposure has comparability. The product itself is a rather different product, unique to the specifics of an autonomous vehicle.

Matt Carletti: Okay. That is helpful. And then you have referenced a couple times, obviously, the potential of lower frequency severity of AVs versus human drivers. You know, Waymo has published some statistics on this, kind of suggesting, depending how you slice it, like, 80% to 90% lower accident frequency across various categories, kind of in the same cities where they are rolled out. Is it kind of your understanding of the power teams working with Uber that something of that magnitude should be expected in kind of the exposures you have too, or is there something unique to Waymo versus what Uber is doing that make that difference?

Andrew Scott Robinson: Well, one thing I would say, Matt, is, you should go on to the—you should go on to the, you know, the Uber announcement, because you can see all the terrific, you know, autonomous—the manufacturers of the product that are on the platform. And so, you know, the performance of any individual, you know, provider is going to be different based on their technology. So I do not want to comment on any specific company. But here is what I would say to you. What I would say to you is that it is a dramatic difference on both frequency, but I also would say a dramatic difference in severity.

We can say through our own analysis, unequivocally, that we can see that, for example, the way an AV responds in a particular situation that results in, you know, an accident of some sort—that the severity of the accident, and I am talking specifically about bodily injury because, you know, the physical damage, which we would not be involved in covering of the AVs, can be very expensive. Right? Because these are very expensive. It is very expensive equipment. But the way the AV, in the situations that form a good part of our view, the way that they behave is effectively in a way that would reduce severity of a loss event.

And, you know, that is a big part of the calculus as well. And ultimately, you know, when you are sitting, you know, trying to basically, you know, resolve a claim, and God forbid something ends up being litigated, the wealth of information that will be available to prove that out will be considerable, and that is going to be a huge advantage. I like the side that we are on in this instance, and I think over time that is going to become very well understood across the industry, including in the personal auto market.

Operator: Thank you. And that does conclude today's Q&A session. I would like to turn the call over to Kevin for closing remarks. Please go ahead.

Kevin Reed: Thank you, everyone, for participating in our conference call and for your continued interest in and support of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc. I am available after the call to answer any additional questions you may have, and we look forward to speaking with you again on our first quarter 2026 earnings call. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.

Operator: Thank you. Thank you all for joining today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

This article is a transcript of this conference call produced for The Motley Fool. While we strive for our Foolish Best, there may be errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this transcript. Parts of this article were created using Large Language Models (LLMs) based on The Motley Fool's insights and investing approach. It has been reviewed by our AI quality control systems. Since LLMs cannot (currently) own stocks, it has no positions in any of the stocks mentioned. As with all our articles, The Motley Fool does not assume any responsibility for your use of this content, and we strongly encourage you to do your own research, including listening to the call yourself and reading the company's SEC filings. Please see our Terms and Conditions for additional details, including our Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability.

The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Skyward Specialty Insurance Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.