Jeremy Noble: It is a mix across the various segments of our portfolio where we are growing. So, I had mentioned personal lines. I mentioned property, inland marine, programs business, our binding operations, workers’ comp, surety, a number of lines in our professional space. So, you have got U.S., you have got international, you have got alternative retail and wholesale or admitted and non-admitted business, it’s a mix. But in the spaces like, for example, property, marine, personal lines, those will be more weighted towards E&S binding, more weighted towards E&S.
Scott Heleniak: Yes. Okay. And then just one for Tom here, on Markel Ventures, you mentioned acquisition Costa made one in January. So, that’s definitely nice to see. Can you talk about the pipeline there for Markel Ventures and whether you expect to see more deal activity this year?
Tom Gayner: I would guess, since the deal activity last year was zero, the odds have been more than that are pretty good. Our phone is starting to ring. I mean there have been some disruptions in financial markets from time-to-time. The fact that interest rates exist, changes the financing market for other folks out there. So, we are getting more inbound phone calls than we did any time in the last 12 months or 18 months.
Scott Heleniak: Okay. Thanks.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] We will move next to Josh Hill at CapTrust Financial Advisors.
Josh Hill: Good morning. Thank you for taking my call. First off, great job with ventures and investments. Just a quick question on insurance, curious to get your opinion on whether or not the target laid out in the 2020 shareholder letter of 1051, so that $10 billion target for premiums, if any of that target is kind of what’s coming back to causing some of these issues. Thanks.
Jeremy Noble: Yes. Thanks for the question. I don’t believe that that’s the case. The – when we talked about 1051 is an idea within our global insurance operations. It’s roughly to suggest what would need to be true if we were to aspire to double the size of our insurance platform at that time across all facets and do so at a level that was contributing meaningfully to the bottom line profits. The suggested growth rate there really isn’t different than the growth rate that we had experienced over the past several decades as an organization. So, I don’t think that, that put an unhealthy expectation around growth. I do think linked to that, we said what would need to be true with regards to product, talent, technology, to data, to geography, to various offerings, our trading relationships.
So, there are a lot of aspects of what would need to be true to be that sort of insurance organization. And we continue to work very hard at building out the breadth of specialization and diversification across the platform. I think you will have gotten a sense from the call today. There is a lot of things that we have done, and we have done very well. Fortunately, there are some things that have come back over the course of 10 years. I mean a lot of the ‘19 and prior, that portfolio already existed prior to us making reference to 10.51 objective. We could not have contemplated at that time a pandemic and how sort of inflation, what would occur on the inflation side, both social and economic. So, the world moved out a little bit since we had that target.
But our idea is around what we aspire to be and being ambitious as an organization to be better for our customers, to be better for our employees to create winning outcomes for our shareholders, those ideas remain.
Tom Gayner: And let me jump in here. This is Tom. I want to make one factual statement about that. Nobody’s incentive compensation was tied to the 10, nobody, not mine, not Jeremy, it’s not anybody in the organization. Every bit of incentive compensation is tied to profitability over time rather than growth without profitability. So, I know there has been some heartburn in the investment community about that. We hear you, but I do want to – at least state the fact that no incentive compensation was designed to do the 10.
Josh Hill: Very good. I appreciate the candor and look forward to many more years. Keep it going.
Tom Gayner: Thank you.
Operator: We will go next to Drew Estes at Banyan Capital.
Drew Estes: Hi there. Thanks for taking the question. This one is for Tom. A great attribute of Markel is its optionality and capital allocation. So, given the performance in insurance, but the strength in ventures, how are you thinking about investing the incremental dollar? Do you prefer an investment in ventures right now until you can get insurance performing better? Thank you.
Tom Gayner: Drew, I appreciate the question, and I do think that speaks to one of the underlying strengths of Markel. And again, everybody is here working hard and fashion [ph] of teeth going on about some stuff. Economically, it was a pretty good year for Markel for exactly the reasons you speak of. Every incremental dollar is invested with the thought of, where will it best be treated, where will we get the highest return. So, we look at insurance, we look at investments. We look at Markel Ventures, and we start with a blank sheet of paper that would – and we also look at our own shares and say, where will that capital be treated best. And that’s consistently been the case, and we will continue to be that way.
Drew Estes: Thank you.
Tom Gayner: Appreciate it.
Operator: We will take a follow-up from Charlie Lederer at Citi.
Charlie Lederer: Hey. Thanks. Just one follow-up. Since you took the charges on the reinsurance side to reflect your insurance experience, could you talk about your conversations with your CMs? Have they reflected some of these changes, or do you anticipate that being a story for them or maybe the industry near-term?
Jeremy Noble: Yes, that’s a good point, Charlie. So, in the fourth quarter, the increase in reserves that we took, particularly in the general liability space within our Reinsurance segment was not driven by underlying ceding reporting and incurred activity, but more so in part because of the findings and observations that we had within our insurance book and in contemplation of the risk that some of those things could exist within the underlying ceding reporting and incurred loss activity in time. So, again, I would say that was kind of a cautious approach to ensure that we are building an appropriate margin of safety be more likely redundant than deficient within the reinsurance book versus specific claims reporting activity in the period.
Charlie Lederer: Got it. Thank you.
Operator: And we will move next to Andrew Andersen at Jefferies.
