Bob Huang : Thank you. The first question regarding the Baltimore Bridge incident. I think the last major event that I can recall for Hamilton would have been the Ukraine conflict, which was noted in S-1. Comparing that to the Baltimore Bridge incident, can you talk about how we should think about the losses? Are there parallels? Are there differences when we think about any potential lingering effect or how any potential future unresolved losses that we could think about?
Pina Albo: Thanks, Bob. I’ll kick off on that. I think you touched on a good point there, and I think what it allows me to do is just to speak generally about our reserve philosophy, which is to post conservative lost reserves at the outset. As I said in the prepared remarks, we decided to take our medicine early. We did the same thing in the case of the Ukraine, where we put up a loss provision that still remains intact has not been increased over the course of the last couple of years and still remains predominantly IB&R. So in this case, similar to what we did there, as we looked at the magnitude of this loss and just all of the potential items that are involved, whether it’s removal of wreck, loss of lives, et cetera, and we decided to peg our loss estimate in this case to the higher end of those published ranges.
Again, I think Craig made the point, we are a specialty insurance company. This is exactly the kind of business that we write and know how to write. We have very well-defined risk tolerances and we monitor our aggregates on a regular basis. The loss estimate, even at this prudent level that we reserved it, is completely in line with our expectations.
Bob Huang : Okay, thank you. That’s very helpful. Maybe a follow-up on just on the reserving side of things a little bit. The two satellite losses that cost the PYD this quarter, is it fair to assume that was the same event that happened in 3Q ‘23 where you booked an attritional loss? And if that’s the case, can you talk about the reserving philosophy there in terms of, it sounds like you booked a loss and then additional information came up and then you had to true up. I’m just trying to figure out, was there something that was unexpected that resulted in the PYD?
Craig Howie : Actually, Bob, this is Craig. These are completely separate losses. There have been a number of satellite losses over the last 18 months to two years with respect to satellites. This is not what I would traditionally call prior year development. These losses from the satellites were failures. The satellites launched in the years 2022 and 2023. And then subsequently, they failed from an operational standpoint. So we took a strict view on this and reported it as a prior period loss, because the loss was actually reported in the first quarter. You may recall earlier this year, there was a large headline where $0.5 billion of satellite losses were going to be coming into the industry. These were new losses, not the same as the old losses. So this is not a reoccurrence of those old losses.
Bob Huang : Okay, thank you very much for clearing that up. Really appreciate it. Although skies are falling, but we’ll talk about that later, so.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Michael Zaremski.
Unidentified Analyst: Hi, this is Dan on for Mike. Good morning. Just quick one on the E&S business, Hamilton Select. How have submission flows been for Hamilton that are given the noise we’ve seen with growth in the staffing data from the major states?
Pina Albo: I’m very happy to take that one. We are seeing some really robust growth in E&S in generally across our three platforms, but in particular for Hamilton Select. We had record submission flow in the first quarter. And I think that April has been our strongest months to date. So we are really happy about the momentum that we have in E&S across the three platforms, but particularly our opportunities with Hamilton Select.
Unidentified Analyst: Great, thanks. And then one follow-up, maybe on the corporate expense guide, I believe there is a guide of about $50 million for the year. I think this quarter probably pacing a little bit below that. If you could just remind us if there’s any seasonality, we should be expecting with the corporate expenses there.
Craig Howie : A little bit of seasonality. One thing, as I mentioned, were bonus accruals from last year that did not get paid out in the first quarter. They reverse in the first quarter, so that’s number one. And then number two, things like professional fees. You don’t have a lot of fees being paid. The guidance that I had given for the $50 million is still the target for the year.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Mike Ward.
Michael Ward: Hey guys, thank you, good morning. I was wondering if you could sort of give us some color, maybe year-to-date just on if or how your risk appetite has sort of shifted across product lines. And then is there any sort of view you could give us on the lost trend across casualty and specialty?
Pina Albo: I start with the latter first. We’re seeing in terms of a trend, and this is across property casualty specialty, we’re seeing trend in the mid to high single digit range in the business that we write. But as we look at it, look at how we’re pricing and rating this business. Rates are either keeping up or in some cases, outpacing that trend. I mean, just take a look at satellites. And we’re looking at rate increases in the mid double digit range for that area of our business. Your first question talks about our appetite. We have appetite across property, casualty, and specialty business, we write. The next opportunity for us to deploy this appetite will be at the upcoming 6-1 and 7-1 renewals. Those are largely property-based renewals, and they include Florida. We have defined tolerances for PMLs, but we will look at where to best deploy our PMLs in this market. Also looking at what other business that we can secure with the clients that we transact with.
Michael Ward: Great, thanks. And then is there anything maybe quantitative or incremental you can share in terms of how the spring and summer renewals are shaping up?
Pina Albo: So we are looking at these renewals and what we’re seeing is we’re definitely going to see increased demand on the property side for more limit in the market. There may be some, as we’ve seen in previous quarters, some additional capital at the top end of the programs, but we think given the increased demand that we’re going to see, and even with this additional capital, we think that there’s going to be — a discipline will remain in the market in terms of rating going into this renewal. And importantly, we all talk about rate, but very importantly is the structural changes that we’ve been able to secure in this market starting in 2023, whether that’s terms and conditions or importantly, attachment points, we see their very strong resolve on the part of the market to keep those intact.
