Good day, and welcome to W. R. Berkley Corporation's Q2 2023 earnings conference call. Today's conference call is being recorded.
Breanna, thank you very much, and good afternoon, all. Again, welcome to our Q2 call. Along with me on this end of the phone, we also have our Executive Chairman, William R. Berkley, as well as our Chief Financial Officer, Rich Baio.
It would seem as though cat losses do not make a difference. Bizarrely, from our perspective, people seem very quick to back out cat losses as though it is not real money. Ironically, they do not seem to back out the premium associated with the exposure that just had the losses.
Of course. Thanks, Rob. Net income doubled from the prior-year quarter, resulting in $356 million, or $1.30 per share. Annualized return on beginning-of-year equity was 21.1%, driven by strong underwriting and record investment income results. Operating return on equity was excellent at 18.4%. The heightened industry-wide catastrophe activity in the quarter enabled us to once again demonstrate our underwriting discipline in challenging environments. Simultaneously, our decision to maintain a short-duration, high-credit-quality investment portfolio has enabled us to benefit from higher interest rates. Net investment income increased almost 43% to a record $245 million.
Rich, thank you very much. Very helpful. Look, I think the market continues to not operate in any type of lockstep where major lines, as we have discussed in the past, continue to somewhat march to the beat of their own drum.
For us, rate adequacy to support a reasonable loss ratio and deliver an acceptable return has been, is, and will remain a priority. I believe that this has been demonstrated over time through our results and, obviously, our continued focus on making sure that we are keeping up with trend comfortably.
Clearly, there has been good margin in the business, but that seems to be whittling away quite quickly. As far as liability lines and perhaps under the umbrella of social inflation, we continue—particularly in the auto space or especially commercial auto—to see great challenge. That is also spilling over into GL and, ultimately, umbrella.
In addition to that, there is growing evidence that the tail associated with some of these product lines may be extending a little bit, particularly on the occurrence front and, to a certain extent, on certain aspects of the claims-made front.
The last comment as it relates to market conditions would be workers' compensation. This is certainly a topic we have discussed in these calls in the past. There was a period of time during COVID-19 where, clearly, there was a break that was caught on the frequency front for the industry.
The last comment on the marketplace is that there continues to be this bifurcation between where the standard market—particularly national carriers—has an appetite. They seem to be very aggressive, but where they do not have an appetite, it is creating a great opportunity for the specialty and, in particular, the E&S space.
I think the loss ratio demonstrates, yet again, our strategy around how we manage exposure, how we have balance in the portfolio, and how we think about risk and return. Certainly, volatility is folded into that and, in our opinion, is a key component in building book value.
Obviously, as we have discussed in the past, we benefited from having less of an adverse impact on our book value as rates moved up. In addition to that, we were able to put money to work at higher rates more quickly than many of our peers.
That having been said, we are paying close attention, as you would expect, for the window of opportunity. When it presents itself, likely you will see that duration start to push out again. All things being equal, I think it was a very solid quarter for us on virtually every front.
Ultimately, when building book value, it is not just about the steps you take forward; it is also about the steps that you avoid taking backwards. With that, Breanna, we would be very pleased to open it up for questions. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to remind everyone that in order to ask a question, you must press * followed by the number 1 on your telephone keypad. Your first question comes from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Your line is open.
Hi, Elyse. Good afternoon.
Hi, thanks. Good afternoon as well. My first question, Rob, is on the underlying combined ratio—the 87.6% in the quarter. I was just curious if there was anything one-off in that number.
That pig is still making its way through the python. I do not have a specific number for how much it contributed, but it is reducing—if you will—but it did play a role. I think the other piece is just general mix as well in the portfolio.
In terms of the mix, your rate ex-comp in the quarter was 8.2%. We can call that stable with the 8.3% in Q1.
Yeah, I think it is a function of mix, and certainly, we are benefiting as much as anyone on the property front. At the same time, there are clearly challenges for workers' compensation, and you can see that in how much we are growing—or not growing—there.
One last one. The PYD you guys said was favorable—$3 million. I know you guys typically wait for the 10-Q to give insurance versus reinsurance, but could you give us a sense of the magnitude in one segment versus the other?
Honestly, relative to the reserve position in both, it was de minimis. I think one, I don't have the number exactly in front of me, but one was a little bit positive, and one was a little, I think modestly negative, if that.
Okay. Thank you.
Your next question comes from Alex Scott with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Hi, first one I had is on the reserve—sort of a follow-up on the PYD question. In your commentary, you mentioned occurrence and the tail potentially getting extended; you mentioned the plaintiff bar, medical inflation, and so forth.
The answer is because a lot of what I was referencing and you just referenced are things that we have been anticipating. When people have been asking us: Why aren't you dropping your current accident year? Why aren't you dropping your loss ratios? It's because there's a lot of uncertainty out there. We feel very comfortable about where we sit at this stage. You know, we revisit and look at our loss ratios by product line at a very granular level, with some regularity, that being every 90 days. We think that we are in a good place to be able to absorb what we are seeing.
Got it. Thank you. My follow-up is perhaps just a high-level question on excess and surplus versus standard lines. I know in the past you have talked about standard lines and a lot of things flowing over.
Our E&S businesses, their submission flow is very robust. Again, there's nothing that leads us to believe that the market, by and large, on the lines that I talked about, is softening in any capacity. There's a lot of momentum out there, not just in the property, but in the liability, including pockets of Professional. That's why I called out D&O in particular, because, you know, that is a particularly challenged line. That's why I called out workers' comp. It has been very competitive for an extended period of time. Much of the rest of what we do, we are seeing very strong submission flow.
Got it. Thank you.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Mike Zaremski with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Hey, Greg, good afternoon. A follow-up on the question from Elyse and your comments about some non-cat property losses. Rob used the metaphor about the pig through the python.
[crosstalk]
No, what I am talking about is that during the quarter, there were some non-cat property losses that contributed to the loss ratio. That is what I am referring to. That is less elevated than what we have seen over the past couple of quarters, but more elevated than what we have seen historically.
Okay. Good, that makes sense. I am just curious; many of your competitors call out specific details—they tell us that non-cat property was two points higher or two points less than expected. Berkley has a smaller property book than some of those competitors.
I am just curious; are non-cat property losses ten points of your loss ratio, or are we talking about a low number of points of loss as a norm?
No, Property is not a huge part of our book, and no, it would not be anything approaching the number that you were referring to.
Okay. A follow-up on your interesting comments regarding growing evidence that the tail is elongating on occurrence, but maybe also on claims-made.
I am curious if you can elaborate, because when we look at your statutory data—the paid-to-incurred loss ratios—we could not see that trend. I also noticed you did not give us an update. I do not know if you want to, but how are paid-to-incurred loss ratios trending for the company?
As far as what we are seeing coming through, it was really more of a comment regarding the tail elongating based on discussions that we are having with our colleagues on the claims front and what they are seeing.
I think the plaintiff bar is as aggressive as ever. Oftentimes, what they are trying to do is wait until the 11th hour and then put forth a demand to try and create a situation that is optimal for them.
Okay. I guess lastly, obviously, we and others value your insights. You have been talking for a while about how medical inflation is brewing. In the CPI data, at least, it looks like it is inching higher, but it still looks a bit tame versus historical levels.
I think the frequency trend is very attractive. I think as far as the medical trend goes, I do not believe that it is a negative, and I believe it is going to be ticking up. That is just based on industry data that is available. I think if people choose to dig in, they will find out.
Thank you.
Yep.
Your next question comes from Josh Shanker with Bank of America. Your line is open.
Yeah, thank you very much.
Hi, Josh. Good afternoon.
How are you doing there?
Okay, thanks.
Good. My first question, I am just going to ask a little bit. Earlier today, one of your competitors—or maybe not completely a competitor—reported a significant acceleration in the renewal price change for business written. They said it was pretty broad in their portfolio.
I think more people are starting to realize that they need to do something about rate. You know, I'm not gonna comment specifically on other market participants, but, you know, whoever it is that you may be referring to, maybe they just recognize that they need more, and that's why they decided to put their foot harder down on the pedal. We had a view as to what we need and what rate adequacy is for some period of time, and we feel comfortable where we were is consistent with where we, what we believe we need today. You know, again, I think that we feel as though that we're in a pretty good place.
Okay. If my model is right, I think the quarter enjoyed the most share repurchases you have done on a dollar-value basis at any time in 15 years. It suggests to me that you probably find the stock attractive at the current value.
Did you say poor results?
Uh
in the investment portfolio?
I mean, the investment funds portfolio.
Okay. Yeah. Okay, yes, understood.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yep, I mean, that's volatile. We know it is, but it, I think it's a pretty good result. All I'm saying, you had a lot of headwinds, and you still had a good result.
Yes.
The repurchases are a choice, but they're also a cost. You could have put that $300 million into more underwriting, but you bought back the stock instead. Can you walk us through, I guess, the capital utilization model and how you think about the trade-off between the value of Berkley stock and the value of putting money to work in the 2023 insurance marketplace?
Yeah, sure, Josh, and thanks for the question, and if I keep it too high level, we're very happy to catch up offline. You know, ultimately, we look at the business today, we look at where things are going tomorrow. We want to make sure that we are well positioned from a capital perspective to have not just what we envision our need are, but plus a cushion. When the day is all done, to the extent that we have a surplus of capital beyond what we have today, plus, beyond what we need today, plus, and see we need tomorrow, plus a cushion, then we're going to think about what's the most efficient way and effective way and thoughtful way to return that to, the people that it belongs to, that being the shareholders.
Obviously, there are different tools that we can use to return that capital. Part of the analysis when we think about the returning of the capital is not just what do we think the value of the business is today, and what is our view on what real book value is? We also think about what the earnings power of the business is for the foreseeable future, and then we make a what I believe is a thoughtful decision with all of that and a few other things, taking into account the best way to return the value to the shareholders. That's sort of a long story short. Do I believe that we are able to continue to grow the business at a pretty healthy pace? Yes, I do.
Do I believe that we're going to be able to continue to generate very healthy returns? Yes, I do. Do I think we'll be able to do that with an eye towards risk-adjusted return and do it in a consistent way? That is certainly the expectation. You know, if you, if you want to get a bit more into the details, we can try and do that offline. You know, we are not going to just try and hold on to capital that we don't need. In addition to that, you know, we're conscious of what the capital needs will be in the future, and we're aware of the fact that certain rating agencies are reexamining potentially what their view is going to be, and, you know, we have a view as to what that may mean for us.
Well, thank you for the fulsome answer. I might try and get back in line. I'll let somebody else on the phone.
Thanks, Josh.
Your next question comes from Mark Hughes with Truist. Your line is open.
Hi, Mark. Good afternoon.
Yeah. Morning, Rob. Appreciate the call. On the reinsurance segment, your loss ratio was pretty low. Hasn't been that low in a while. Is that just good experience in the quarter, or is this maybe the impact of cumulative rate increases over the last few years?
I think it's a combination of both, good underwriting and a job well done by many of our colleagues. Again, we also had a bit of positive development coming through there.
Then, in the GL line, you had a nice acceleration sequentially back up into double-digit growth. You'd mentioned the challenges around the plaintiffs' bar and the inflation, but you seem to be enthusiastic. Any additional commentary about what you're seeing in GL?
Look, places that we're growing, it's because we like the opportunity. I would tell you a meaningful amount of the growth in that product line is coming from our colleagues that are managing E&S businesses.
Finally, the casualty re was down, presumably a judgment on your view on, again, on the plaintiffs' bar, but is that something you'd probably are likely to shy away from here in the foreseeable future?
No, it's not so much the plaintiffs' bar, though, obviously, that's a contributor to how we think about loss costs and trend and rate adequacy. You know, it would seem as though the reinsurance marketplace struggles to have discipline across the board. Just as they're getting more discipline in the property space, it would seem as though the professional and liability space may not have the same discipline it had yesterday.
Appreciate it. Thank you.
Your next question comes from Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Your line is open.
Hey, good evening, Rob. First question, just in reinsurance, the attritional loss ratio improved quite a bit there. Maybe you could just talk a little bit about either the sustainability of that or the drivers this quarter.
Yeah, look, we're pleased with how the business is performing, Ryan. We're not going to get into a whole lot of minutiae around that, but we think that the various businesses that make up that segment have positioned themselves well, and they're reaping the benefits from it. We think that it's likely that for the foreseeable future, that we'll continue to see good performance. That having been said, as I mentioned a few moments ago, there was some positive development, and that came out of one of the operations in that segment, which was helpful.
Got it. Then, I guess in the insurance segment, just thinking about growth. It seems like some of the primary carriers are, you know, growing quite a bit more than, you know, what the level of rate increases are, and some like you, your top-line growth looks more similar to the type of rate that you're reporting. I was wondering if maybe you could talk a little bit about, I guess, why we're not, you know, seeing something a little bit from a growth standpoint on top of the rate. Is it that, you know, is retention, lower than it was a year ago, or are you writing less new business? Just, I guess, give us.
Yeah
We will take a look into that.
When you look at the group, we are a bit of a bouquet. There are certain parts of this group that are growing very rapidly. For example, many of our E&S businesses are growing at a very healthy pace, to say the least. There are other parts of the organization that are growing as well.
Even with the growth in payrolls that we have seen, I would suggest we are in somewhat of a defensive mode. A similar story exists when it comes to professional liability, and we are scratching our heads regarding public D&O. If you want to talk about reinsurance, obviously, the casualty reinsurance is down a little bit, and the monoline excess is up incrementally.
Do I think that there is opportunity for there to be pockets of further momentum? Yeah, absolutely. You know, I think that when push comes to shove, that's just the reality of when you put all the pieces together, this is where it came out.
Got it. Just following up, we've heard, I guess, partially in response to the softer professionalized pricing market, there's been a more diverse set of players that find the cyber line attractive.
Yeah.
Would you count yourself among that? Or has cyber been a big growth area at Berkley?
It is not a big growth area for us these days. There were moments in time where we found it to be very attractive. To your point, we saw a lot of people coming into the space. Again, we have the underwriting discipline to ensure that we are not going to do foolish things.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from David Motemaden with Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
Hi, good afternoon. I had just a question on these fire losses. just had a question, just in terms of how far along we are in fixing that, and specifically, how many more quarters would you expect this to really have a, you know, an impact on results?
I think you're going to see it having a diminishing impact on results between now and the end of the year, and it will be diminishing gradually.
Got it. I guess I'm assuming that the shift in mix, you know, just sort of excluding the fire losses, you know, the shift in mix would mean that, you know, something in the neighborhood of the, of the loss ratio, ex cat, ex reserve development is somewhat of a sustainable level, just given, you know, the mix shift is obviously enduring. Is that the right way to think about it?
I apologize, but I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Could we do that once more, please?
Yeah. Looking at the 59.5 accident year loss ratio, ex cat, you know, you cited mix as a sign as to why, you know, one of the reasons why that was at that level and it deteriorated a bit year-over-year, obviously, in addition to the fire losses. You know, is that something, just given the mix is obviously a more sustainable change, is that something we should expect around that level for the remainder of the year?
I can't answer the question with certainty, but we think that ultimately, the way the portfolio is running and our ability to deliver a 90 combined or better, and an 18% or 21% return, depending on how you look at it, feels like we're in a pretty comfortable spot. Do I think that there's the opportunity for the 59 to potentially improve a little bit? Yeah, I do, but we're not going to push the envelope unnecessarily and set the stage for disappointment in the future, particularly in an environment that's as complicated and volatile as this. You know, we just don't think that's in the best interest of anyone.
We're, in our book at least, achieving very healthy outcomes for stakeholders while still ensuring that we're not putting undue pressure on the situation, and that's a good place to be, in our opinion.
Got it. Thanks. You know, maybe just to follow up, you know, obviously not a big impact on the entire book, with the $3 million of favorable reserve development. You know, you guys have been on top of the 2019 and prior casualty lines. Can you just talk about any changes you may have made to those lines, you know, for those years in the second quarter, and how you feel about your reserving position there going forward?
You will see more detail when the 10-Q comes out. To the extent it leaves you scratching your head, we are happy to catch up offline. I would tell you, we feel very good about where our reserves are, and we think they are well-positioned to endure some of the things that we think are ahead of the industry.
When push comes to shove, if you look at the average duration of our loss reserves, they're give or take three and a half years. If you think about that, and you think about what that probably means as far as how far along that 16th through 19th year is, those years are as far as development, I think that things are. That would suggest things are quieting down. Of course, as far as the more recent years, we are feeling as though that they're in an exceptional place.
Got it. Maybe if I could just sneak one more in, just on that last point regarding the more recent years. I know you had mentioned on the Q1 call that you have been measured in terms of how quickly you recognize the progress from 2020 onwards.
The tail comment has applicability in different ways to different product lines. I think some of the comments that you may be referring to would stem from policies that are written on a claims-made form. When you write on a claims-made form and there is no notice, then that chapter is closed.
Great. Thank you so much.
Thanks for the question.
Your next question comes from Yaron Kinar with Jefferies. Your line is open.
Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. If we could look at the insurance underlying loss ratio, I think you had said that the impact of the non-catastrophe fire losses has diminished a bit quarter-over-quarter.
[crosstalk]
Well, putting aside the property piece to your point, I would say the leading contributor to the question you are raising is mix of business.
Okay.
Different product lines, very, different loss ratio, ticks.
Okay. On that front, it seems like you are growing the short-tail lines faster than most of the other businesses. I would have thought those might have a lower underlying loss ratio, or am I not thinking about that correctly?
Some of them do, you know, some of them are. Hold on, I'm just pulling out a couple of papers. Why don't we, as opposed to me fumbling through our papers, why don't we catch up offline?
Okay, fair enough. I will admit, I am intrigued by your comment—and I think it is not the first time that you have made it—about the "but-for" approach that the industry has with regard to catastrophe losses.
If we backed out... I'm not sure I understand the question, sorry. What would the 87 be without what?
I think in your opening comments, you said, you know, the industry uses this but for approach and removes catastrophes, but doesn't take out the catastrophe-related premiums.
Right.
What would the 87.6 be for Berkley this quarter if we made that adjustment?
Well, we don't really spend a lot of time doing that because we don't fool ourselves that cat losses don't count.
Okay. Thank you.
Thanks for the question.
Your next question comes from Brian Meredith with UBS. Your line is open.
Hi, Brian. Good afternoon, Rob.
Hey, you and Tia. Rob, just curious, the property reinsurance, you know, huge growth in the quarter, is that y'all leaning into the cat reinsurance market, or is there something else going on there?
That is us seeing opportunity in the property, reinsurance marketplace. Certainly, cat is a meaningful component of that, while it's not having an overwhelming impact on the group overall, it's certainly a window of opportunity that we're going from a toe in the water to maybe a foot plus in the water. Yeah. The short answer is yes.
Good. That's helpful. Second question, I'm just curious, Rob, you talked a little about pricing. You know, talked about D&O being challenging and some pressures you're seeing in commercial auto. I wonder if you can kind of bifurcate a little bit in what you're seeing, kind of, large commercial, and as you work your way down middle and small, is it more competitive, kind of, in the excess liability for larger companies, and as you get down less, any differentiation?
As far as the liability lines, the larger the account, by and large, the more competitive it is at this stage. You know, that favors to our benefit, because by and large, we are a small and middle market player compared to many of our peers. Yes, clearly there is growing competition or it's more visible with larger accounts.
Gotcha. If I just throw one more in here, I'm wondering if maybe you can characterize your primary commercial property book. You know, when you write commercial property, is that cat-exposed stuff? Is that, you know, regular homeowners? What exactly are we looking at when you're seeing that growth in your commercial property book?
In the commercial property book, it's a combination of a variety of different things. Certainly, there's a piece of that in there that's associated with Berkley One, 'cause probably we'll be splitting that out as that grows. In addition to that, we certainly write a bit of property that is cat-exposed on the commercial line side, and but much of it is not Tier 1, if you will, cat-exposed property.
Gotcha. Makes sense. Thank you.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Meyer Shields with KBW. Your line is open.
Hi, Meyer, good afternoon.
Hi, how are you?
Good. How are you?
Good, thanks. Sorry. A couple of really quick questions, I think. You talked about medical inflation, but if I understood your comments correctly, that seemed to be mostly emerging in workers' compensation. I was wondering whether you're seeing the same sort of pickup in medical costs in, I don't know, commercial auto or medical malpractice?
It is. As far as medical malpractice, I would separate that as a different issue. As far as medical costs go—regarding what a bandage costs today versus what it cost yesterday for an injured worker—our expectation is that is clearly on the rise.
Okay, perfect. That is helpful. Then early on, I think in Rich’s comments—I do not know if it is his or your commentary, actually—but the expense ratio staying comfortably...
Kinda sound the same, I get it.
...below 30. I am just getting old. Was there anything in the quarter's expense ratio that benefited it? Basically, the premise of the question is that "comfortably below 30" does not even seem to be that high of a hurdle to achieve.
I think we're just trying to give people guidance for the long run. Ultimately, our expense ratio can, at any moment in time, be adversely impacted by investments that we are making, whether that be in technology or whether that be in a new business that we are starting that's early on or in its infancy. I think we're just trying to give people guidance as to what they should be expecting going forward, longer term.
One final question, if I can. I know it is really early in Q3, but there has been a school of thought out there that maybe once we went through a full year of professional liability rate decreases, they would calm down. Based on your comments, it does not seem like you are seeing that.
Are you referring to public D&O?
Absolutely, yes.
There's nothing that we're seeing as of now that would suggest that it's, bottoming out or let alone pivoting.
Okay, I'm sorry to hear that, but thank you very much.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Scott Heleniak with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Good evening.
Yes, good evening. The first question I had was regarding the investment funds. You had a loss there in the quarter, and I am curious if you have changed any allocations or have any update on the strategy for the second half of the year into 2024, and if there is any change in that thinking.
Just to qualify that a little bit, certainly we were not happy with the performance. The loss was about $1 million or so. What is driving that? It was primarily a participation in some alternative investments or private equity, specifically, where there were some marks that they took down on some investments. That then trickled through to us.
Were those marks significant then for the quarter, for the alts?
Is there a number that you had on there?
You can follow up with Karen Horvath for the specifics, but it was enough to, you know, take what's been a reasonably healthy run rate and bring it down to essentially zero.
Yeah. Okay, gotcha. Just one more question. You mentioned, there would be a window of opportunity to deploy capital into higher-yielding securities, and your duration's at 2.33 years now, and I'm just wondering if we might be getting close to that window of opportunity and how you see that playing out as well, and yeah.
Well, it's certainly our hope, and we're waiting for that to occur. Yes, we think it's coming, but, you know, it may take some time. Ultimately, as in everything we do, we're focused not just on risk-adjusted return, but we're not gonna, in an effort to, We're not gonna compromise, if you will, in a foolish way. You know, again, we are eagerly looking for the opportunity to allow us to extend that duration out a little bit, but right now, we are getting reasonably well rewarded for the position that we've taken.
All right. That's helpful. Thanks.
Your next question comes from Josh Shanker with Bank of America. Your line is open.
Thank you for letting me on again. I'll give one more question, but I don't know if I'm going to get a great answer. Can we talk about share repurchases versus special dividends and how you think about the value of doing both those things?
You know, Josh, I think that was a pretty good prediction on your part as to the quality of the answer, at least that you'd get from me. Why don't I hand it over to our Chairman, who also moonlights as our head of repurchase?
Hi, Josh.
Hi, Bill.
I think that it's a constantly changing thing. It's based on the opportunity at any point in time. We will never do either if it precludes us from investing the money in the business opportunistically. We will never do any of those things if they constrain our management of the business. At the moment in time where we think we're generating extra capital, and we look ahead and see that we're going to have extra capital, we'll then make the judgment as to the share values, sort of looking out ahead versus the kinds of returns we think we should get to give our shareholders money. There's not an absolute rule. I think that when the stock gets down to what we would say is an attractive price, we sort of pay that.
It just got to a, relatively speaking, more attractive price until you go back probably, certainly more than 15 years. We were more inclined to do it. It's a judgment we make each time we decide that we think we're gonna have excess capital for a period of time as far ahead as we can see. We try and make the judgment at that point in time, the stock price versus what we view as the intrinsic value of the enterprise. We look ahead. It's not that there's an absolute rule. The rule changes as we look at where we are, where our leverage is a lot more stable now. We have the longer-term debt. We don't have any of those kinds of uncertainties that we had before.
There is not really a single rule that we go by. It is really looking ahead and saying, "How do we think we will best treat the shareholders by using the money effectively?" That obviously has to do with the price of the stock relative to the intrinsic value of the company.
Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the disclosure.
Thanks for the question, Josh.
There are no further questions at this time. Rob, I will turn the call back over to you.
Okay, Breanna, thank you. Thank you all very much for joining the call. Again, I think this was a moment where the company, once again, demonstrated its ability to manage risk and to focus on return and recognize that volatility is an important piece of that. We will look forward to speaking with you all in about 90 days. Thank you.
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.