I think we are ready to get started. First, I would like to thank Laura Cockrill for being with us, CFO, RGA, and Ron Herrmann, Chief Commercial Officer. Thank you all for being here. Maybe we will start with a broad one to kick it off. I wanted to ask about what you see as the biggest priorities over the next 12 months, and what are the things we should look for to judge whether you are executing on those priorities?
Sure. I will start. Feel free to jump in. I think as I come into this role, there is a few priorities that I think about over the next year. First is really just continuing to deliver on our strategy. I think we have been doing extremely well and hitting our financial targets of the 8%-10% EPS growth and the 13%-15% ROE. As I think about going forward and leveraging our competitive advantages and how we want to continue to benefit from our local presence, our ability to reinsure both sides of the balance sheet, our biometric expertise, continuing to use those to ensure we are going after that balanced, disciplined growth. Second would be investor communications. I think one of the things that I really want to focus on is just how we tell our story externally.
I think there is a little bit of a gap between just the understanding of how RGA creates value, really our biometric focus and expertise, the mix of earnings of our business. Really want to enhance how we do the investor communications, whether through things like this or our disclosures or different metrics. Lastly, I would probably say third-party capital. That is a focus for us right now.
Okay.
A great tool for us as we think about our broader capital management and just different things we can benefit from that. That is something as we finish deploying Ruby this year, we will look to kind of what makes sense going forward.
Next, one of the questions I get frequently is on the competitive environment. Was interested if you could talk about it and just how is the price discipline, the competition different when you are looking at bigger in-force blocks versus, I think some of the recurring flow reinsurance through relationships that you have talked about?
Sure. You want to start with this?
Yeah, I can start this one. One of the benefits we have is a global footprint. When you think about the local support we have across the globe and the way we interact with the regions, it enables us really to think about competition in a different light. In Asia, for example, we do an awful lot of flow business, and a lot of that is origination with the clients and then work with the regulators as we build the products. What we have found in our exclusive approach to many of those situations is we do not have competition, per se, in those. Take the U.S., we do the same thing across the Americas, including Canada, where we focus on an underwriting approach, and a lot of those transactions end up also being exclusive.
On the larger blocks, which happen more in the U.S., we have become highly selective of the types of business that we want and where we think our biometric expertise can play a role. As Laura mentioned, having the ability to do both sides of the balance sheet really do help us in terms of focus on transactions that we are capable of doing just about anything across the board. In EMEA, primarily in the U.K., we are very big in the longevity space. We are well-represented there. We have got a long-standing history there. Although that marketplace has been a little bit slow in 2026, the pipelines are picking up significantly. There just have not been as many large transactions. We are capable of handling the small transactions. We are capable of handling the larger transactions. We have seen an increase, as I just mentioned.
We are very selective where we compete, and I think that helps us in terms of the competitive environment overall.
Got it. Next topic on mortality. It has been running pretty favorable recently, and I was interested if you all could comment on how transitory you think it is. Is it more viewed as there was some pull forward around COVID-19 and so forth, and we are getting the benefit of being on the other side of that now? Does any of it have to do with some of the medications that are out there or potentially longer term, some of the tech improvements that could benefit medical care?
Yeah, I will take that. I think from a mortality experience perspective, it has been favorable to date the last few years, actually, and we are quite pleased with that. I think it really does show our expertise in the risk selection as we think about just broader mortality. The mortality trends have been really positive across a lot of our key markets in the U.K., the U.S., and Canada, so that certainly provides some potential tailwinds. If it is pull forward from COVID, I think that is a possibility. It is hard to say exactly if that is the case. It is certainly something that we monitor and we look at as we see the trends, but it is hard to tell. The medical advancements for sure. GLP-1 is the one that absolutely comes up the most as we are talking and looking at a lot of our research.
There's been a lot this year as far as advancements specifically in that as far as kind of the oral GLP-1. Medicare is going to start covering it, so that should allow broader access and hopefully make it cheaper. Then just the generic versions of it. I think all of that will be beneficial. When we think about that and we think about our assumptions, we generally bake in some sort of medical advancements into our assumptions. So what's happening with GLP-1 and some of the other drugs certainly helps give us confidence in those assumptions.
Right.
We'll continue to monitor and see what happens, but between just the advancements and some of the technology, it certainly suggests potential tailwinds.
I guess mortality improvement assumptions over time, because this isn't something that's a new assumption for you all.
Right.
Has it changed your approach to that, or is it sort of things that are happening just give you more confidence in what you were already assuming?
Yeah, I would say more the latter. Again, over I guess just 50+ years of us, there's been medical advancements, so we assume that in our general assumptions.
Yeah.
This does give you confidence. Whether with things like AI and technology, there's going to be more, we'll have to see. But that's something as part of just our. We have a huge global research and development team that's constantly doing research on all the different things that are going on, and then there's a lot of discussions back and forth across the different markets and regions and different products on what makes sense.
Got it. Okay.
I was just going to add, if you think about, we have over 50 years of-
Yeah.
biometric experience in pricing. Although, as Laura mentions, we've got a lot of people looking at the improvements over time, we react slower. We don't build those things into pricing immediately.
Yeah.
We look to see some of those improvements which support some of the assumptions that we've built in. I think part of what you're seeing is just that experience.
Got it. The next one, I'm going to apologize ahead of time, that it has an accounting kind of angle to it, but I do think-
Capped cohorts.
I think it's important, and I think it's important for people to hear the explanation of what it is and why it's important, but you have these capped cohorts, as they're called, and you reduce that meaningfully by 25%. I think you've suggested you could take it down further. What are these capped cohorts? Maybe you can kind of give us that in plain English, and why is it impactful for volatility of earnings and improvement of earnings to take these actions?
I guess that one's mine.
Yeah, go ahead.
Sure. I'll try to keep it plain English, and feel free to tell me if it's not. The capped cohorts, it's a concept that just came out of the new long-duration targeted improvement accounting. Really what it is when we think about sometimes we refer to an NPR or a net premium ratio, and when that, which is basically an indicator of profitability. When we have an NPR, when a cohort is capped, it's because that net premium ratio is over 100%. All that means is that all future premiums are needed to pay future benefits. There's no profitability going forward that we can smooth it over when we talk about smoothing. That's basically what the capped cohort is. It's just that it's over 100%, and there's no more to smooth it over.
When that happens, any experience in earnings, whether good or bad, just goes straight to the bottom line. That can cause some volatility, so a lot of the in-force management actions that we've talked about have been to address those capped cohorts so that we can try to limit or minimize that volatility. When we do those in-force actions, we can do things like rate increases. If we do get rate increases, that then improves the profitability and can change that. A cohort can go from capped to uncapped. We might recapture the business, or the client may recapture the business. We'll negotiate a recapture, and then the business just comes off our books. We have been intentional about trying to go after some of those capped cohorts just to help limit that volatility, and it can be underperforming business.
Got it. Very helpful. Pivoting to Asia Pacific, it's been an important source of growth recently. Sometimes on the outside, it's a little hard to see exactly where and how you're growing. I wanted to see if you could give a little more detail on what kind of transactions those are, what kind of geographies, the products that you're engaged in, and are these bigger in-force blocks? Are they more asset-heavy, or are they more these relationship deals that you talk about?
Yeah, I can take that one. Primarily, most of our business in Asia is coming from Japan and Hong Kong. We've had a local presence there for a long time. In fact, our CEO, Tony, is who really established our footprint there and built that out over a number of years, and so that team has been with RGA for a long time. They're very connected with clients. They're also very connected with regulators, and a lot of what we're doing is flow transactions, that the ability to do exclusives because we're helping design them and helping them get through the regulatory environment has been a very big part of what we do. It's a lot of single premium whole life and products along those lines. There have been some recent announcement about competition within those markets.
That's primarily your asset plays, companies that are looking more for the asset transactions only, and that's not where we play. We play primarily where there are biometric and asset mixes coming together.
Yeah, maybe I'll just, excuse me, add to that. One of the big successes we've had in Asia too is just product development. We are working with the clients to actually create the products that we think can make sense in the market, and then we can get reinsurance from that. That's been a huge part of our success there as well.
Got it. Just while we're still on Asia Pacific, I wanted to ask about the potential increased scrutiny from China on some of the brokerage accounts in Hong Kong, and if there's any update that you can provide on how you're seeing that impact, if at all, the sales, particularly the mainland China visitors in Hong Kong?
Sure.
Yeah. I'll start with that one. Yeah. I think the bottom line is we expect it to have pretty limited impact on our business. What has come out in the news, the tax law is actually not new. It's just more discussions on if they're going to enforce it and how. But as we look across the business and we talk to the clients, taxes are not the main motivation for why some of the mainland Chinese visitors are coming over and buying the different products. It's access to USD or to a broader global investment strategy, some of the protection benefits that come with it, so it's not taxes. Still relatively new, but we expect it to be pretty limited.
Got it. As Ruby Re has become pretty fully deployed, can you provide an update on that? What are you looking at in terms of potential next vehicles and could that fund a larger part of the set of liabilities that you all look at?
Yeah, sure. So maybe just taking a step back from a sidecar perspective in general, like I mentioned, it is one of our priorities. I think it is a pretty advantageous tool to have in our toolkit as far as a few things, really. It does obviously provide additional capital as we see some of these opportunities that we have been seeing. The fee income, just the reoccurring stream of capital-light fee income is always a benefit. We also like it because it helps us think about public versus private company balance sheets. As we think about some of the different risks that we want to reinsure, when we have the sidecars in place, we can see where they might make the most sense.
Lastly, I would say, it gives an opportunity for third-party investors to really benefit from some of our biometric expertise and our understanding of the liabilities, and then really does help validate the price as other investors are happy to take the business. Ruby Re will be fully deployed this year, so we are very excited about that. We are looking to see what makes sense next. It is part of our broader strategy. Right now, nothing to specifically say, but look forward to talking about it when we have it.
Okay, great. Next on the Equitable transaction. It has been a little while now. I would be interested in just an update on how has that performed doing a larger deal. Is that something that you view as repeatable? Is that a unique transaction that could offer more opportunities with other large primaries?
Sure. I will take that. Number one, I think some know, but not all, I ran the life insurance business and the group employee benefits business at Equitable for years before joining RGA. It is a very unique transaction. The one that everybody looks at is the block, which we will certainly talk about. But it was more of a partnering arrangement where we ultimately gained exclusivity because of the different areas to which we were able to partner with them in. They contributed to Ruby Re. We have talked to AllianceBernstein. We actually have taken over a significant part of their underwriting, where we are actually doing the underwriting through our own organization, which we obviously always like doing and have built out over quite a bit over the last few years. We have also built them product, and that relationship continues.
In terms of the deal itself, it has certainly met all of our expectations, and it is well within where we expected it to be, both from a mortality claims standpoint as well as earnings standpoint. The numbers that we've disclosed, it's still tracking pretty much right in line with what we would expect it to be. I think there's really four reasons for that. One is we have 50+ years of underwriting mortality, but we were able to look at that block and the experience that they had over that time and apply both our knowledge and experience with their knowledge and experience. I think the net-net of that is what you saw in the ceding commissions and what that was published.
The other side of it is we were able to reposition the assets, and that enabled us to get better returns than they had traditionally been able to get. That was all a big part of how we evolved and how we looked at that entire process going through it. Then, in terms of capital, we're able to do it at a lower cost of capital, and that's just really due to our expertise and the teams that Laura has overall. We have done other transactions like Equitable, but they have been much smaller. Equitable, there's not a lot of $32 billion statutory reserve business out there, but it showed the capabilities that we have as an organization to be able to deliver it.
We have repeated that type of business, and it's actually part of what we're looking for as we go forward, where I mentioned earlier about driving to exclusives. It's hard to tell somebody, hey, you have a block. We want to look at it. Give us exclusivity. It's much easier when we say, well, we can help you with this, this, and this, and we can think about this as a holistic partnership, and how do we move forward? We have repeated it, smaller transactions that aren't as public. In terms of the underwriting capabilities, we've actually taken over three organizations now, either in total or a large sum of it, and those have led to additional blocks as we've moved forward.
Yeah, that's a big piece for us when we can help play across different pieces of the value chain, whether it's the product development in Asia or the underwriting in the U.S. All of that just contributes then as we kind of work with the clients and work towards that exclusive business.
Got it. Next on capital. Could you talk about the capital position in the company, how you're thinking about it, and how much capacity that gives you for growth opportunities, as well as maybe how you balance that with other forms of capital deployment, like buybacks?
Sure. When I think about capital, we have numerous sources of capital. We obviously have our organic growth that can help fund our capital, the third-party capital that I talked about. There's runoff of our existing block of business. We leverage capacity to the extent that that's available, and then our excess capital. We do have about $2 billion of excess capital that we disclosed at the end of Q2. We really think about looking at our pipeline, which right now is very attractive across all the different regions, and looking at both the mix of transaction and flow business and see what we see coming over the next, say, 12- 18 months. Some of these deals, especially larger transactions, can take quite some time to play out with the clients. We have to balance that timing when we look at the capital.
We also are very committed to the 20%-30% payout ratio that we put out there as far as a shareholder return perspective. We'll look at that and we'll look at the pipeline and think about where we can be opportunistic, if it makes sense from a buyback perspective or if there's just a large amount of transactions. I think when we think about funding the business overall and the total capacity, it is a mix of flow and transactions. That's where it's nice when we think about hitting the 8%-10% EPS, we have multiple different levers other than just deployment into the transaction. That is the flow business, that is as we think about balance sheet optimization efforts across our asset portfolio, the in-force management that I talked about and the buyback.
It's all a balance, and we look across all those different pieces as we think about our broader capital and capacity.
Got it.
Maybe one quick thing to add. Laura and I have worked together now for quite a few years, but one of the things that we're really trying to focus on is the planning process to think about the transactions we want to be involved in. We've become very highly selective in the types of transactions that we want to be in, more planning around the whole capital framework that Laura was just talking about because of the length of some of the processes that we have. It's helped because in my role, we're shifting across regions, we're doing and looking at different things, some move quicker than others, and that balance has really tied into the selection, the governance, and the oversight of the deals that we really want to partake in.
Yeah. We add another one to that, but I think that is critical just because we've always talked about going after balanced discipline growth and then really being selective. As we double down more on some of this exclusive business, and we're able to reinsure both sides of the balance sheet and see the value and the benefit that provides to clients, it's critical then as we look at the capital and we think about the allocation as we go into each planning season.
Got it. Okay. One of the things I think you guys changed recently was how you're talking about growth, and you're looking at total premium growth, excluding PRT, pension risk transfers, is a better metric for measuring RGA's growth. Maybe you could just explain why that is.
Yes, for sure. Thank you. We talked about this first on the Q2 call, but more and more of the transactions that we are writing in the financial solutions segment specifically do have a biometric risk component to it. I think there seems to be a misconception that anything in financial solutions is really just pure spread business. I actually had someone say that the other day. That is not the case. Again, going back to this, we are seeing a huge advantage in really being able to reinsure both sides of the balance sheet. When we do that, we are taking both the asset and the liability risk, and at that time, then it tends to go in our financial solutions segment. It is a little gray now between traditional and financial solutions.
As we talk about measuring our growth, we do not think it makes sense anymore that the focus is just on traditional because of that both sides of the balance sheet and seeing more and more biometric risk in the financial solutions segment. We believe a better indicator is to look all in excluding the PRT, just because that can add lumpiness given the mix of business that we are seeing right now.
Got it. Okay. On the pension risk transfer market specifically, is that somewhere you still look for to growth? I think that is probably a little asset heavier in some cases. How does the pipeline look for that business? Is that something you still view as attractive?
It still is a key focus for us. In I would say the first half of 2026, it has been a bit slow. The projections are that it is going to be an off year, certainly comparing to 2025 and 2024. Some are saying about half. I am not good at predicting that, but I would say, somewhere less than what we have expected. We are well-positioned, both in the U.S. and the U.K., to capitalize on that market. We have the ability to do the small transactions in a very complementary way to those sorts of opportunities, as well as the large opportunities that we could see come to market. One of the big things that has happened thus far in 2026 is that there have not been any real large opportunities. The pipeline is building.
There has been strong momentum over the last several months looking into the year-end, and it is looking like the second half of the year will meet our expectations, but to be determined at this point.
Yep. Okay. I wanted to circle back on one of the comments from the prior question. When a lot of investors are looking at RGA and they are seeing the investment portfolio growing, and yeah, I think it is growing a bit faster than equity, for example. I think a lot of times the perception is that investment leverage is being added to the business. You commented a bit about it, but maybe you could talk about that dynamic. There are asset classes where you are increasing allocations and what areas are you pulling back on?
Yeah. Maybe I will take that in a few pieces. One, kind of hitting at asset leverage there and how people are looking at, and that has been increased. I think asset leverage is really more of an output than an input for us. When I think about that, as I talk about reinsuring both sides of the balance sheet and some of the opportunities that we have when we do that, and we bring in some of these larger transactions, asset leverage is going to go up inherently just based on the calculation. But it is a bit of a blunt metric, I would say, in that it does not really take into consideration then the underlying risk. Our mix of business does have a significant biometric expertise focus. It is longer duration.
It has a large mix of assets across private, public space, different currencies, and it is not that kind of shorter duration spread only business that I think is generally thought of when you think about asset leverage and it going up and some of those concerns. That is one space whereas I go back to my first comment on investor communication or just external communication, being clear about how we tell that story. Because I think there really is a difference in the mix of business that we have and that longer duration and our pretty balanced, disciplined investment portfolio makes a big difference there. But again, it goes back to that is the mix of business that we are seeing and the biometric expertise piece of it is always there, but when we do it on the co-insurance basis, we take the assets. And you see that happening.
From an investment portfolio perspective, I think, right now there's been a lot of opportunities in the market in both the public and the private space. Yields are up. We look to have a really good balance of that. Certainly we are heavier on the public investment grade side as we think about liquidity, portfolio construction, ALM, et cetera, but we have been taking opportunities as it makes sense for some of the higher yielding private asset classes as well.
Got it. Okay. That's helpful. What do you think investors misunderstand about RGA today? I think there was a time where you traded at a much higher multiple and we went through a pandemic, so that changed things, but at the same time, I also kind of felt like it was a proof point a little bit, that you're able to manage through without taking too much hit to book value. What do you think they're missing?
Yeah. I think it's a great question, and one of the reasons that it is a priority over the next year as I come into this role. I think one is the asset leverage that we just talked about. We certainly own wanting to provide more details there to help it to provide clarity on that piece. I think two is the mix of business. I've said probably biometric a number of times since we started this, but that mix of how much is truly kind of underwriting margin biometric business and what is just spread only versus then the fee business.
I think that's another piece where the assumption that anything in financial solutions is spread only is very far from accurate, and so that's something that we have to work towards and do better from a communication perspective, just to be clear about the types and the mix of business that we are taking and that there is We don't even focus on the spread only business anymore. We certainly have some. We did more in the past before it became more of a commodity, certainly in the U.S. But that focus on our biometric expertise and the underwriting margin is something we need to be clear about for sure. Probably those two things are the biggest.
Okay. Another topic that I wanted to touch on is just some of the more complex liabilities out there. In certain cases, it can be biometric type risk. Things like STOLI or long-term care and some of the, I'd say, products have been harder to underwrite over time, but maybe the data is becoming a little more fruitful. Are those things that you're interested in? I know they've been sort of parts of deals, but is that something that you engage more in?
Yeah. I was going to pile on to the last question. I'm glad I didn't because it would be this answer. I know we have disclosed our interest many times, in those types of liabilities, but we're highly selective of the things that we'll get involved. We're very comfortable with the complex liabilities that we currently have, and they have performed to meet our expectations. But we're not interested in the broad markets of every product out there. You heard a lot of transactions come to market in 2025 and early 2026. We really didn't have much interest in those because they didn't fit the profile that meets our risk tolerance, that meets our governance standards, that meets our accounting, being in the U.S. We never say never, but we've been fully disclosed about where we would look at those.
What are the criteria that we would look at? If you take long-term care, which is obviously a big one in that marketplace, there've been a number of transactions that have occurred over the past year and a half, and we haven't been involved since the one with Manulife. The one with Manulife was a very specific selective criteria around that with no premium guarantees, no lifetime benefits, stuff that we feel that we can manage appropriately to the portfolio that we have. When you look at it overall, it's less than 10% of our total liability and we have no interest in going anything above that.
Got it. Recently, RGA's produced, I'd call it a lot of strong quarters, even adjusting for things like variable investment income and some of the favorable mortality, et cetera. I would be interested in your views on how sustainable is the earnings power that you all have been printing. What's your level of confidence in how things are running right now?
Yeah, sure. I'll start. Jump in. A couple of things, I think there. One, the confidence in what we've been printing and going forward, very strong. I have strong confidence in being able to hit our targets and continuing to deliver on that generally due to a lot of the things that I've mentioned as we've been talking. We have such a strong global platform. We've really seen the benefit of the local presence we have, of the biometric expertise, the both sides of the balance sheet. There's just been a number of opportunities, and we have such a large space to play in across the different markets. We continue to see that happening.
From the sustainability of earnings or how you look at it quarter-to-quarter, we did start to provide that key consideration slide in the earnings presentations that we do each quarter, just to give a better sense of what might be, I guess, noise, I might refer to it in any given quarter. There's always going to be something.
We wanted to provide that to be able to pull that out and really show just the strength of the core earnings quarter- to- quarter, which again, between not only the opportunities we have for new business, whether in flow or transactions, but some of the other things I mentioned that can contribute, the asset portfolio, being able to reposition, take advantage of the market, the in-force actions that we do, those can be a little bit volatile as far as quarter-to-quarter, but certainly provide a benefit. Just even the earnings that we're seeing come in from the transactions that we wrote over the last few years. We've talked about the pattern of earnings and how it can take a little bit for some of that to come in. We're seeing the benefit of that come into the earnings.
Really a lot of confidence that all of that will continue.
Great. Next, I wanted to ask about the value of in-force. I think sometimes it is a tricky metric, particularly for a lot of U.S. investors to get their head around. Many companies do not really go into as much detail on it. I think the last time you gave it, $44 billion, I think, was the number. It is a very large amount of in-force embedded value. How should we interpret that? How should an external investor consider that in the context of investing in RGA and what does it mean about the emergence of capital over time?
Yeah, sure. $44 billion, definitely a big number. I agree. It is really meant to just show, like you said, the embedded value that we have in our business. It is specifically the present value of the underwriting investment in fee margins, excluding expenses, taxes, cost of capital, that are on the balance sheet and expected to come in over time. We expect, on average, probably that to come in over a 10-15-year period. It is a long period of time, but we have a long duration business. Again, it is those different margins and how they will come into income. They should generally come in as expected.
I mean, we might see some volatility, obviously quarter-to-quarter as it relates to some of the mortality, but otherwise, it is the present value of those different margins and how we expect them to then influence our earnings and organic capital generation, et cetera, over time.
Got it. One of the other things you talked about is just some of the RGA strategic underwriting programs, and how they are on track to, I think, double from last year. How large can that business become over time, and what do the economics look like?
It's a really good example to actually support some of the things that Laura was just talking about. Prior to my current role, I ran the Americas, and one of the things that we wanted to do that we learned from Asia is increase the flow business. How do we get that sort of modernization? U.S. is a very different market than Asia. But we developed that, and literally over the last four years, the application counts to the way we measure it is going to double this year. We're just scratching the surface of it, and it is a very unique opportunity for us because most of our competitors cannot scale to accommodate what we're doing in that marketplace in any short order.
We took something that we were doing to help our clients handle capacity, the ups and downs of running an insurance company, and we determined that underwriting isn't necessarily going to be a core element of the process going forward, that it's becoming expensive. Training underwriters is very difficult. Developing them to be full supporting underwriters is even more difficult, and then keeping them after that process, even if you're trying to do it, they end up going to competitors because you just can't keep the compensation up. We're known as an underwriter. Underwriters enjoy being part of our team, and we've scaled that team very effectively because of some things like AI and some of the tools that we've used to build out that model. But we're just scratching the surface.
As I mentioned earlier, there are three companies that we do either all or a significant amount of their underwriting. There are about 30 that we do some elements of it with. As we move that forward and we continue to demonstrate that capability, it's the U.S. market in particular, and then a little bit in Canada, we've got an opportunity, I think, to remove that as a core, turn it into a variable expense, and make it a much more productive outcome when you look at the P&L of that company in particular.
That's really interesting. Next, I wanted to ask about just broad regulatory environment. I think over time, it's been highlighted as something that can be an opportunity for RGA when things are changing, whether it's either accounting, regulatory, et cetera. How is that landscape broadly right now, and are there any opportunities that are rising out of it?
Eric, want to start?
Go ahead. You can start.
I think generally, yes. It can be an opportunity for us. The regulations are changing all the time. We have business across multiple different regions, multiple different countries, so there's constantly different changes going on that we can benefit from or we can help our clients understand and benefit from. I think it really depends on where it is and what it is, quite honestly, the change. From our perspective, having a local presence, being a super strong counterparty, being around for the last 50+ years, that generally benefits us as some of these different regulatory changes are coming forward. Most have limited impact on us. We'll see more impacts on the clients, and that's where we try to help, but certainly generally positive, I would say.
Yeah, obviously, it's a key focal point for us, so we have very strong relationships with our regulators. In fact, I was meeting with one yesterday. Our goal is to sort of educate them along the way of how reinsurance works and the types of transactions we would do. I would say, where you see Japan, where they're doing a lot of product development, they're very tight with their regulators. I think Europe spends a considerable amount of time, given all the regulation is very different throughout the European area. In the U.S., obviously, where we're domiciled, but we've spent quite a bit of time with all the regulators to where we do business. A lot of it's just an education process on both sides. What do they expect? What do they know? If you met with one reinsurer, you've met with one reinsurer.
We are not all the same. We try to show the differentiation that we have in the markets of where we think we can be quite competitive.
I think the education is a really critical piece there, because as we think about expanding the business from different market to different market and being able to use some of the solutions that we did in the U.S. maybe 10 years ago that now might make sense in Asia, like that education is critical. We can do that because we have the experience across multiple different products in multiple different regions.
Got it. Okay. Well, look, we are just about of time, so I will stop it there. Thanks, everybody, for being here.
Thank you.
Thank you, Laura.
Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Thank you.