Gregory Peters: So for the first question, I’m going to pivot back to the TSR target that you guys have rolled out. And I’m just curious if there’s been an updated view on the risks to hitting your TSA target — TSR target, excuse me. And in that regard, I was looking at your slide deck, and I noticed your — you disclosed your [1 in 100] PMLs. I’m wondering how that might look when we get to [71.24]?
Mark Kociancic: So it’s — Greg, it’s Mark talking. Let me kind of split this into 2 pieces of PMLs and TSR ways of getting there. So back in the Investor Day, one of the points that I made during the presentation was that we had lots of different avenues to achieving leading financial returns as measured by total shareholder return. So it doesn’t matter really from our standpoint, if there’s pluses and minuses coming from different underwriting markets, pricing and rate. We have a very well-developed and diversified set of franchises to manage cycle management, portfolio management and really drive growth of the franchise, combined with strong investment income. That’s unchanged in terms of achieving the target that we set out. PMLs, I’ll hand it over to Jim and maybe I’ll add a little bit of color at the end.
Jim Williamson: Yes. Greg, it’s Jim. So referencing your question and the PMLs that you would have seen in the investor presentation. So a couple of things. One, look, the peak zones that are represented there, we certainly have seen a little bit of growth in our net PMLs from July of last year to [1/1] this year. That’s a couple of factors. One, we’ve taken advantage of the market as I’ve talked about on this call, and we’ve grown our portfolio at great economics, which is fantastic. We’ve also optimized our hedging and we’re taking more of our cat risk on a net basis, and that’s contributed to the growth in the net PMLs. Now those particular peak zones that are featured in the investor presentation, we’ll see a little bit more growth, I would expect in Southeast wind through the June renewal, assuming that Florida pricing terms and conditions hold, which we expect.
[Cal-Quake] is pretty much in the bag for the year, where you will see us continue to lean into the market at the 7/1 renewal is outside of our peak zones. And so we have plenty of capacity, both in our PMLs and our capital and really any other way you want to think about risk to continue to grow. And I think that’s best illustrated by the other exhibit on that page, which shows our earnings and capital at risk and our current position. And you see there that we’re — we have plenty of room to maneuver within our stated risk appetite to take advantage of great market conditions and grow where we need to.
Juan Andrade: Greg, this is Juan. And I would just essentially reinforce 2 points that Mark and Jim have made. So number one, we absolutely see no change to the 17% target. And you see where we started the year at the 18.1%. But I think the second point is probably more critical one, which is the one Jim just made that we are well within our cat underwriting appetite. And so that gives us confidence to be able to maneuver and frankly keep growing the property cat book, given the, frankly, the excellent risk-adjusted returns that we’re seeing in that book right now.
Gregory Peters: Thank you for the detailed answer. I guess, my follow-up question, just more specific. Can you talk a little bit about how the facultative market is evolving because sort of hearing mixed messages out of the market and value your perspective on that.
Jim Williamson: Sure, Greg. It’s Jim again. Yes. So in terms of facultative, we had a terrific quarter in our facultative business. We were able to grow that business very nicely, about 14% over prior year. And that’s really on the back of significant demand by our cedents. And in particular, in short tail lines where they had to increase their cat XOL attachment points last year to manage the market cycle. That means that, in some cases, they’re feeling exposed on larger risks. Their per-risk limits might be uncomfortable. And so they’re coming to Everest to try to manage that exposure. And so we’re getting really great results that we’re excited about, and I expect we’ll continue to lean into. That said, like all parts of this business, we need to be very thoughtful in our risk management approach.
And so there are parts of the portfolio, none of this would surprise you, where we’re being very cautious and very prudent. And certainly, commercial auto would be an area where we’re being prudent — we’ve pretty much exited or significantly reduced any exposure to professional or financial lines. We’re being very careful about limit deployment in excess casualty. So we are writing some terrific deals there, but we’re being careful about limits, obviously, ensuring we’re getting paid adequately. So like any business, whether it’s reinsurance or primary insurance, need to manage the cycle carefully, but we continue to see really strong opportunities in fact.
Operator: And our next question is coming from Bob Jian Huang Jangan from Morgan Stanley.
Jian Huang: So first question is on reserving. So looking at the last year’s reserve charge, a large portion of that came from the accident year 2016 to 2019 cohort. I understand that you will probably do more reserve studies later on in the year. But just curious if there are any new developments or update at this particular point regarding the current reserving positions and as well as that 2016 to 2019 cohort as well?
Mark Kociancic: Bob, it’s Mark. So we did do our Q1 quarterly review process. It’s quite comprehensive. You’re right, no real reserve studies to go through in the first quarter, but plenty of anecdotal data that we’re looking at, all kinds of information. And so after we did a review of not only those years, but really across the board, we don’t see anything that’s altered our view of our reserve portfolio. So steady as she goes.
Jian Huang: Got it. That’s very helpful. Second one is more of a modeling question. So I understand that your expense ratio for the Insurance segment was elevated a little bit due to international build-out. How should we think about maybe a near-term run rate on this? Is this something that will persist for next few quarters, next few years? Is there a good way to think about the expense element on the Insurance segment?
Mark Kociancic: Bob, it’s Mark again. So I think it will be elevated for several quarters. So we’re adding talent, technology. The premium, as you can see, is growing meaningfully. The earned is trailing and obviously earns in over time. And so we’re still in a process of scaling. And you can see, just in the Q1 comparatives, we’re coming in for the insurance division of 16.6% expense ratio versus something closer to 15% a year ago. So our North American operations are fairly stable in the expense ratio. The international is what’s got this trailing effect. The good thing on our side is the — I think the growth is quite accretive. We’re seeing very nice technical ratios from the business that we’re writing there, diversifies well, good margins that are embedded.
