Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc.

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Q3 2025 Skyward Specialty Earnings Conference call. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there'll be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press star 11 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your speaker for today, Kevin Reed. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Lisa. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our third quarter 2025 earnings conference call. Today, I am joined by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Andrew Robinson and Chief Financial Officer Mark Housel. We will begin the call today with our prepared remarks, and then we will open the lines for questions. Our comments today may include forward-looking statements, which by their nature involve a number of risk factors and uncertainties which may affect future financial performance. Such risk factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements. These types of factors are discussed in our press release as well as in our 10-K that was previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Financial schedules containing reconciliations of certain non-GAAP measures along with other supplemental financial schedules, are included as part of our press release and available on our website under the Investors section. With that, I turn the call over to Andrew.

Thank you, Kevin. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Our third quarter results were exceptional, extending our outstanding and consistent track record of profitable growth and double-digit returns. We achieved a number of company bests, including $44 million in operating income, $38 million in underwriting income, an 89.2% combined ratio, and 52% growth in gross written premiums. Aside from these company records, we also grew earnings by over 40% and delivered an annualized return on equity of 19.7%. Our results highlight the strength, durability, and execution excellence of our ruler niche strategy. Also, our results again demonstrate our very intentional construction of our diversified portfolio of top-notch underwriting businesses, in particular, the sizable portion of our portfolio that is less exposed to the P&C cycles. In this quarter, five of nine divisions grew by over 25%, with our agriculture unit as the largest contributor, which I will discuss later in this call. This quarter also underscored our prudence to walk away from business where necessary. Market conditions across much of the P&C market are now showing signs of increased competition. As always, our teams are responding with discipline, leaning in where market dynamics support our return thresholds and stepping back where they do not. Lastly, before I turn the call over to Mark, I want to welcome Kevin Reed, our new Vice President of Investor Relations, who opened this call. Kevin is a deeply experienced IR professional, and we're pleased to have him lead this function allowing Natalie, who has been outstanding, taking on double duty since our IPO, to fully focus on her other financial leadership responsibilities. With that, I'll turn the call over to Mark to discuss our financial results in greater detail.

Mark? Thank you, Andrew. We had an exceptional quarter, reporting adjusted operating income of $44 million, or $1.05 per diluted share, and net income of $45.9 million, or $1.10 per diluted share. Gross written premiums grew by 52% in the quarter versus the prior year. One significant driver of our growth was our agricultural unit, and more specifically, the growth of our product in the U.S. dairy and livestock industry. Setting aside agriculture, gross written premiums grew at a strong mid-teens rate in aggregate compared to the prior year, driven by A&H, captives, surety, and specialty programs, with all four of these divisions growing by over 25%. Going forward, we expect quarterly growth to be somewhat uneven, as some of the divisions and units, such as ag, captives, specialty programs, and A&H, have very concentrated renewal cycles, driving meaningful quarterly differences as seen this quarter. There will be quarters where growth is lower than what we have reported in each of the first three quarters this year. Net written premiums grew by 64%, and our net retention through nine months of 65.1% increased over 62.9% in the prior year. Turning to our underwriting results, our combined ratio of 89.2% was driven by strong underlying results and a modest catastrophe quarter. The non-CAT loss ratio of 60.2% improved 0.4 points compared to 2024. We continue to observe specific pockets of increased auto liability severity inflation and to a lesser extent auto exposed excess severity inflation, particularly in our construction unit. More broadly, given the wider loss inflation severity backdrop, we continue to maintain a selective position on growing our exposure in a current liability line. Our shorter tail lines, including property, surety, and ag, continue to emerge favorably, as does our professional, energy, and E&S liability portfolio. Our reserve position continues to be strong as IBNR makes up 73% of our net reserves, while the duration of our liabilities continues to shorten. As a reminder, our ground-up review of our loss reserves will be completed in the fourth quarter. The expense ratio of 28.4% improved 0.5 points over the prior year quarter due to economies of scale and was in line with our expectation of sub-30s. The $2.7 million increase in net investment income over the prior quarter was due to $5.3 million increase in income from our fixed income portfolio resulting from higher yield and a significant increase in the invested asset base. This was partially offset by losses in our alternative and strategic investments. Underlying marks on the private credit holdings in our alternative asset portfolio continued to generate some volatility in net investment income in the quarter. This portfolio now represents approximately 4% of our investment portfolio at September 30th. Through nine months, $32 million of capital was returned and reinvested in our fixed income portfolios. During the quarter, we completed the monetization of our equity portfolio and realized gains of $16.3 million. We redeployed the proceeds into fixed income securities. This repositioning aligns our portfolio with our long-term risk and return objectives, enhances predictability of investment income, and provides further flexibility to support future growth. In the third quarter, we put $62 million to work at 5.6%. Our embedded yield was 5.3% at September 30th, up from 5% a year ago. Our financial leverage is modest as we finish the quarter under 11% debt-to-capital ratio. Finally, we continue to prepare for the Apollo acquisition, which we expect to close in the early first quarter of 2026, subject to regulatory approval. Deal financing is progressing well and remains on track. And post-close, we expect our leverage to be approximately 28%. We recognize that the equity research and investor community are working to model the impact of the Apollo acquisition. Once we are further along in the approval process, likely in early December, we anticipate providing guidance on Apollo's 2026 financial metrics. During our fourth quarter call in February, we will provide additional guidance on the Skyward business. Our teams are engaged in a thoughtful plan of execution once the transaction closes. The combination will expand our specialty capabilities, deepen our bench of underwriting talent, and strengthen our ability to deliver superior long-term returns. Now, I will turn the call back over to Andrew.

Thank you, Mark. The third quarter once again highlights the distinctiveness, strength, and consistency of our business and execution of our strategy. We continue to not only deliver excellent underwriting results and shareholder returns, but our top-line growth and resulting earnings growth continue to stand out. These financial metrics clearly showcase that we are different from the rest of the P&C industry in how we approach the market and the portfolio of businesses we have built. Given the unusually robust growth this quarter, I want to take a moment to discuss how we're managing through this changing market. This quarter, we grew by over 25 percent in five of our nine divisions. That said, we also reduced our writings again in global property and in the construction unit of our construction and energy solutions division, as well as parts of our professional lines division. In these areas, opportunities to write business at price and terms that meet our high return thresholds were simply challenged. Within those divisions, however, we've had excellent success growing specific units, such as healthcare professional liability and professional lines, and the energy unit in our construction and energy solutions division. More broadly, global property, and to a lesser extent, E&S property and Inland Marine, are becoming increasingly competitive. And in casualty, we're being very selective given the loss inflation backdrop, and yet we still see opportunities in E&S liability and captives, both of which are growing steadily, as is our energy unit, which I noted a moment ago. Turning to our ag unit, our success this year is the result of three years of effort to build a product that is unique and to put in place a strategy to manage potential volatility. Demand for reinsurance capacity in dairy and livestock revenue protection has surged as producers and approved insurance providers have sought stable risk transfer solutions amid price volatility in the market. The rewards for our creativity and innovation are now fully materializing. Our success story in ag follows other divisions. In A&H, we have grown by 45% in the quarter and year to date. As we've discussed in the past, we focus on a small employer market and medical cost management. We use AI predictive analytics in risk qualification and selection. Our pursued before pay claims approach has high impact for our customers. And we've built captive capabilities that sit side-by-side with our single-company stop-loss products. And our performance, as per the recent NAIC ANH Policy Experience Report on the 2024 calendar year, highlights we are 15 points better than the industry. In surety this quarter, we resumed a stronger growth trajectory and continued to gain market share as federal funds began to flow. And yet we're not resting on our laurels. we launched an industry-first product called NWEL, which is an amortized, collateralized product for decommissioning obligations for the oil and gas industry. This launch comes amid challenges to find quality surety solutions given the dislocation that has resulted from a handful of high-profile bankruptcy-driven losses over the past few years. Undoubtedly, like our prior launches in surety and in other divisions, we'll build a strong and profitable book around this product. Clearly, our innovation to rule our niche and execution stands out and is showing in both our growth and profitability and allows us to navigate the more challenging P&C market in ways that others cannot. While our profitable growth is certainly externally differentiating, I continue to believe we're leading in how we're using technology to win. Skyview, which is short for Skyward Visual Underwriting Experience, our award-winning underwriting workstation, allows us to multiply with great alacrity the deployment of new capabilities to our underwriters. We continue to make huge leaps forward in using bots to automate submission and gestion through generating high-impact narratives that summarize the key risk vectors of each account. And we're making strides in using GPTs to allow our underwriters and leaders to interrogate and investigate aspects of an account, such as summarizing claims, or more broadly, summarizing performance insights on a book of business. We believe this continues to be a first mover and learning curve advantage that inures to us. As long as we stay ahead of the AI arms race, we'll continue to lead and win. Finally, our operational metrics remain positive. Renewal pricing bounced up a tick from the prior quarter to mid-single digits plus pure rate. And again, we realized mid-digit exposure growth, both excluding global property. New business pricing continued to be in line with our enforce book. Retention remained in the mid-70s for the quarter, driven by business mix and intentional actions on auto within our construction unit. And lastly, submission growth was consistent growing in the mid-teens this quarter. We also remain incredibly excited about closing the Apollo acquisition and beginning to tackle the market together with our new colleagues. While we continue to operate independently until the transaction does close, The combination of our companies represents a significant step forward in our ability to innovate, lead with talent and technology, and build winning positions across the specialty insurance market. In summary, this is another excellent quarter for Skyward Specialty. We continue to drive top quartile underwriting results and leverage the diversity of our portfolio to continue our impressive growth in earnings while the broader P&C market becomes more challenging. With that, I'd now like to turn the call back over to the operator to open up for Q&A. Operator?

Thank you. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone. We also ask that you please wait for your name and company to be announced before proceeding with your question. One moment while we compile the Q&A roster. The first question that I have today will be coming from the line of C. Gregory Peters of Raymond James. Your line is open.

Well, hey, good afternoon, everyone. I guess the logical place to start will be with your top line results. If we can put the agricultural opportunity aside, I'm just curious about some of the numbers we're seeing. You know, accident health has been strong all year, and the captives are doing quite well, too. So maybe you Give us some perspective on where you're having some success in some of those other segments of your business is a good starting point.

Greg, good afternoon. Thanks for the question. Well, look, I think that as I said in the prepared remarks, I think we're just, I'd start by saying, we're being appropriately cautious, thoughtful, describe it how you want in large chunks of what I would describe as the more traditional parts of the PNC market. It's becoming more competitive and certainly more nuanced. I think the places where writing business in those other divisions are done on smart terms and conditions. That said, look, I think that we just simply have connected in other parts of our business. You saw surety has bounced back 26% growth this past quarter. And a lot of that really was we were still maintaining strong growth as compared to the industry on surety for the first half of the year, just because it bounced back to sort of a much more impressive level once the federal funds began to flow. And I highlighted you know, a new product launch where we've had some really good success already. We're very bullish about the outlook on that, and that's sort of in the commercial surety part of our business. On A&H, I think we've talked at length about, I did highlight the loss ratio number, you know, just to provide an external reference point. You know, again, I think it's the small account market, medical cost management focus, and, you know, and the fact that we build an operating model that I think is, you know, is really quite distinctive in And, you know, we're seeing that come through both in sort of traditional single company, you know, stop loss accounts, as well as, you know, on the group captive side. You know, within captives on the PNC side, a lot of that really is just continuing to grow with the captives we have in place. It's been some number of quarters since we launched a new captive, but, you know, the ones that we have seem to be continuing to add members. And, of course, we're were, I think, more insulated to the market in total in terms of the price that we're able to put into the captives. That's really much more sort of like, I would describe it as a stable, you're always keeming price up against the loss trend. Your captive members understand that. And that seems to work really well. And so I think each one is unique, but I think the reasons are a lot about how we basically have built our business and our product. You know, the fact that through nine months this year, you know, nearly 50% of our business is in those categories that are not, you know, P&C cycle exposed. And I think that, you know, it's hard for me to sort of identify any other company who's got a portfolio that looks like ours.

Yeah, thanks for that detail. And, you know, I appreciate, Mark, your comments about, you know, holding back on providing 26 guidance on Apollo, you know, But in the context of, Andrew, what you said about your business being somewhat better positioned for cycle management, maybe you could spend a minute and talk about how the Apollo third quarter results look and how they're positioned in the context of cycle management.

Yeah. I mean, Craig, there's not a lot I can say. To be honest, we do not have regulatory approval, and there's like boundaries where, you know, well, I would be, you know, feel comfortable. I think others, including my general counsel sitting on my left, probably wouldn't. So what I will say to you, Greg, is that no different than when we announced the transaction, we really, really like everything that the Apollo team has done. And I, you know, I would say that on the You know, on the sort of 1969 more specialty-focused syndicate, you know, they're weighted pretty heavily towards, you know, specialty classes. And while they, too, are not immune to the market cycle, in many of their classes, they're definitely not seeing sort of, you know, some of the macro concerns and certainly aren't heavily weighted towards, you know, property CAD and things like that. And as we've talked about, 71 is an entirely different business and is actually tied much more closely to the exposure growth of sort of digital economy, you know, emerging industries. And in that regard, you know, it feels like that that's rather disconnected from the PNC market, largely because that business is not being competed, you know, across the market. There's very, very few and I would dare say one, which is 1971 and the things that they do, real competitors in that category. So I think not unlike ours, there's aspects about their business that are somewhat insulated from some of the macro concerns that you all are asking about on your interactions with other companies.

I understand the boundaries, and thanks for the answers. Thank you.

Thank you. One moment for the next question. The next question comes from the line of Tracy Benji of Wolf Research. Your line is open.

Thank you. Most of the P&C insurers right now are sitting on too much excess capital, so much so that it's too much to deploy for underwriting opportunities, so we've seen more muted growth, and Skyward is definitely more growthy, and we've clearly seen that this quarter. I would argue that maybe you're sitting on lower levels of capital and in a way that might be a good thing because that means you will have a lot of discipline given more is at stake. So my question is, if we see more growth continuing at these more elevated levels going forward, I get it, it might be uneven by quarter, where would this capital be coming from? I mean, it feels like you don't have a lot of debt headroom, so would you access... the equity markets, or do you think the capital growth through retained earnings could sustain your growth ambitions?

Hey, Tracy, good afternoon, and thank you for the question, and I love the positivity relative to our growth outlook. Look, I think the first thing I'd say is through three quarters, and every one of the three quarters, I would argue we were differentiated on growth by a material level compared to maybe the companies you might regularly compare us to. Yeah, I would acknowledge that this quarter is kind of an eye-popping number. 27% growth through the first three quarters this year. I will just say straight up is more growth than we expected. So that's a good thing. That just says that the things that we're doing have sensibly positioned us against the market opportunities. That said, look, I don't think that, I think it's impractical to think that something like a 27% growth you know, is kind of a reference number as we look out into the future. But should we find a situation where, you know, we are capital constrained, I'll highlight to you something that I said when we announced the Apollo transaction, which is one of the really interesting dimensions of Apollo is that they are a capital light business. Their capital stack is effectively made up of 25% of their own capital, and 75% of other people's capital with clear alignment between them and their other capital providers. And we think that that is always an interesting option that potentially could move not our business, but our economic model to have a greater portion that are fee-based. And I'm not saying that in any way we are concerned about our capital. We don't think that Investors give us enough credit for the fact that we are an incredibly capital-efficient organization driven by the fact that we've intentionally constructed our business portfolio the way we have. And we are very capital-efficient. But that said, we don't necessarily see any capital constraints. But that doesn't sort of set aside this potential point that we will be evaluating whether some portion of our underwriting income should be recaptured through fees over time.

Very helpful. And, you know, I appreciate hearing the commentary about A&H, surety, captives, and agriculture growth, but could you touch on the 52% growth in specialty programs? I believe the segment includes property, GL, commercial auto, excess liability, and workers' comp. So among those lines, where were the growth standouts?

Yeah, great question. And I think let me just start with one notable point, which is Through nine months, if you look at our specialty programs premium as a percentage of our premium overall, it's 13.4%, right? And I'd remind you that a meaningful portion of that is through relationships where we have a meaningful ownership position. So I think we're doing this in a very sort of intentional, very thoughtful way. That said, the last few quarters, we've seen a lot of growth in programs. And as I've explained in the past, we added two programs. One was a warranty indemnity program. And that is one where we own a position in that entity. And the other is a longstanding personal relationship that I have. And that program is in Brownwater and Greenwater Marine. And those two programs, we started having some of the business come on to our books in, I believe, around March of this year. And so by the time that we get through the first quarter year, we're going to continue to see growth on a relative basis in programs that's going to be not inconsiderable through this quarter and through the next quarter. But by the time they'll get to the second quarter of next year, we're going to be lapping ourselves. And I don't think you're going to see that kind of growth numbers, as I've mentioned, Like when you add a program, it can be chunky and it can make your numbers look different or unique. But in this case, it's really quite controlled around, you know, two very important relationships for us.

Thank you. Thank you. One moment for the next question. Our next question will be coming from the line of Matt Carletti of Citizens Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hi, thanks. Good morning.

Good afternoon, Matt.

Yeah, Chicago, we've got a lot to go. But a lot of what I had has been asked and answered, but maybe just one if I can. Mark, I think, Mark, it was you that mentioned how there's going to be more volatility quarter to quarter in the growth rates kind of around which kind of lines of business have big renewal periods. Can you help us with that at all? Should we think about certain quarters of the year as being kind of we're going to have our strongest growth in this quarter typically because of the big renewal books, and there's another quarter that will be lighter, or is it a little more you kind of see what you get as the renewals come?

Yeah, thanks, Matt. I mean, look, what we saw this quarter with the ag, that's heavily a Q3 quarter, clearly. In terms of other businesses, A&H is weighted more toward the first quarter. Property toward the first half of the year. What else am I missing, Andrew? Those are the three.

Yeah, those are three that stayed out. And then obviously the specialty programs is lumpy as well, you know, based on when larger programs are new. What I'd say to you, Matt, is that, you know, because as I mentioned, I think in response to Tracy's questions, like, you know, we ourselves are, you know, we're pretty elated, you know, with 27% growth through nine months. It was more than we expected. I think as we come around to our guidance for next year, I think we'll try to be more specific in helping you better understand as we've digested all this and harmonizing. But Mark is right. I think that, look, in general, there's nothing particularly exciting happening in the fourth quarter. Oh, and by the way, there's a bunch of companies that are way behind plan that are, you know, leaning in maybe a little bit even more competitively than otherwise they are. And that's not me sort of saying to you our fourth quarter is not going to be a strong fourth quarter or any of those things, but there's nothing unusual happening in the fourth quarter one way or another, and it is a more competitive quarter always as companies try to fill out their full year. But once we get beyond that and we get to our guidance that we'll provide you in the new year, we'll say something about that to help you make sure that you're accounting for that in your plans on written premium as opposed to earned premium.

Gotcha. That's helpful. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone. One moment for the next question. Our next question is coming from the line of Meyer Schills of Keith Baggett and Woods. Your line is open.

Great. Thanks so much. I'm going to sort of stay on this topic, but I wanted to get a sense as to whether the ag premium that you wrote in this quarter, does that have even earnings patterns over the course of the year, or is it like the crop side of things where a lot of it's earned as written?

Hey, Mayor, it's Mark. Yeah, we'll earn it rateably over the next 12 months for what we wrote this quarter. We don't exposure measure or exposure account for whether it's lumpy premium recognition. You'll see it in the gross, but in terms of earnings, just assume it's flat through the rest of the next 12 months. Does that help?

It helps a tremendous amount. Thank you.

That's true for our entire ag book and other businesses that have kind of unique features like that, like surety and so forth. We apply that same approach consistently.

Okay. That's absolutely perfect. Related question. I just want to make sure I understood the comments about the lumpiness. You're just talking about the fact that these different niches have different renewal techniques calendar dates, not that there's anything non-recurring or fundamentally non-recurring in the third quarter premium.

No, there's no non-recurring. There's no non-recurring items here at all. If something comes up that's non-recurring or we pull a policy forward or push back that's sizable, we would highlight that. But no, there's nothing unusual. Look, I think it's our way of basically just saying that we delivered 27% growth through the first three quarters. I'm sure across the universe of each of the companies that you cover, there's maybe one, if any, companies that look like that. And this quarter at 51%, 52% growth, it kind of stands out. And we are simply just trying to make sure that you, as research analysts and our investors, understand that there is real lumpiness here, and it's evident through the first three quarters.

100%. You were very clear. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't misinterpreting stuff. Last question, I guess. There was a clearly understandable step up in operating and general expenses on a year-over-year basis, and I assume that that relates to the growth in gross written premium. Is this a good... starting point going forward, the $52 million that we saw in the quarter?

Yeah, I mean, Mayor, there's not going to be much movement quarter over quarter. So, yeah, I think that's a pretty good baseline. I missed the first part of the question.

I'm assuming, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the reason you have this huge step up from $41 million to $52 million from the second quarter to the third is just associated with the gross return premiums. Obviously, We see it in acquisition expenses. We just wanted to confirm that it's the right baseline for G&A expense as well.

Bear with me one second.

Yeah, I think, Mayor, to try to make sure we're looking at what you're looking at, I would suggest let's follow up. Can we take that offline and make sure that we understand and give you an explanation? I will just highlight that we're you know, our other underwriting expense is going down period on period. So, you know, on a ratio basis, you know, so we are getting leverage, you know, away from acquisition expense, you know, period on period. So I want to make sure that we're looking at what you're looking at.

Okay. Yeah, absolutely. I'll follow up. Thank you.

Thanks, Merrick. Thank you. One moment, please. Our next question is coming from the mind of Michael Zerinsky of BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hey, great. Good afternoon. Just on the overall retention levels that you all give us, which are helpful, I guess in mid-'70s, I guess just at a high level when we think of E&S business, we think of E&S kind of being the 70s and more traditional being in the mid-80s, maybe higher. So I guess the fact that you guys are mid-70s, I guess I'm just going to make sure it just means that the non-E&S portion of your book, just the specialty portion, just runs at a naturally lower retention level.

Yeah, Mike, this is Andrew. Just to step back on this and remind you of something that we've talked about in the past, you know, there are three big drivers of our growth to net that make us look a little bit different than maybe others. And those three that we've always reminded of are, one, our global property business. Remember, we have a very large line and we have a strong longstanding quota share participation that allows us to have that large line. And that's one big part. A second is captives, which is structurally that way. And then the third is A&H, where we've had historically on the standalone stop-loss business a very sizable quota share support with a very attractive seed that allows us to effectively lock in a portion of our underwriting results. And then similarly on the A&H captives, you have the same dynamic happening. That said, In the other businesses, as things grow like ag and so forth, there's very little reinsurance or, in that case, retrocessional reinsurance used. And so some of this is just straight-up mix. And I wouldn't look at this quarter. I would look at the year-to-date, where I think we're sitting at about 65-ish percent, I believe, year-to-date. And I think as we get to the end of the year, that sort of end-of-year number will be a good proxy for your models for next year.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Pivoting to some of the comments Mark made on just kind of the overall reserve puts and takes. It seemed like nothing new there. Commercial auto construction are kind of called out as continuing to be, as the industry also sees, under pressure. But you also mentioned a 4Q review. So I just want to make sure there's probably nothing there. Are you saying that there might be a deeper dive in 4Q on some of these items?

Mike, hey, it's Mark. It's just part of our process where, and we've talked about this a lot in terms of our philosophy. Look, we do look and review our reserves each and every quarter. Our business doesn't move that quickly where I think it's appropriate to respond every single quarter to what we see. All I'm just trying to foreshadow is that's when we will do the deep dive review, and any adjustments that we see, we'll make them in the fourth quarter. To your point, I feel great about where we are in terms of reserves. Our philosophy has not changed. We continue to be conservative, and that will continue. The industry, and you noted auto liability, yeah, that's something that we've been looking at a lot. But the other part of what I said in my comments is what we've seen in terms of favorable emergence elsewhere. So short story, Mike, I feel great about where we are, but we'll update you in the fourth quarter with what happens.

Okay, got it. And lastly, just a follow-up to Tracy's question on the premium growth versus equity levels. So, you know, glad and clear what you said there. Just want to, you know, just, you know, with the Apollo deal, coming on, there's the financing terms and the timeline that you had given us in the past. Would you all tinker with any of the financing or timeline based on just this much better than expected growth or nothing to sift through there?

No, nothing to sift through that, Mike. There's nothing about this quarter that changes how we're approaching things. Timeline, you know... You know, we still expect very early in the first quarter of next year, very early in the first quarter of next year, you know, and really nothing has changed. The financing has gone really well. We're in a great position. And, yeah, there's nothing about the execution that's noteworthy. We're in a great spot. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. One moment, please. Our next question will be coming from the line of Andrew Anderson of Jefferies. Your line is open.

Hey, good afternoon. Maybe kind of back on reserves and just loss inflation. I think the construction inflation comment was new, and we've heard from some other specialty companies of some construction defect claims, but maybe you could just expand a bit on what you were trying to get across with the construction inflation comment.

Yeah, so, Andrew, this is Andrew, and Mark may add to that. I think more of what we're seeing, to be honest, is, you know, I don't know how to be sort of too vivid about this, but, you know, we basically see the kind of severity that you might see in, you know, in heavy auto now making its way into F-150 accidents. Construction, you know, you know, Some of our book, the trade is basically leaving the site, you know, an accident occurring, you know, and what we're seeing is, you know, severity inflation that, to be honest, is just, listen, I feel like I've been one of the earliest and most consistent protagonists on this because this is not new. And the way I know this isn't new is is through nine months this year, 11% of our book is auto. And when we took the company public, it was 25%. And that 11% has probably got about 80% rate since then. And so we're probably down on an exposure basis well less than the 60% from a premium basis, or 40% from a premium basis. It's just that we keep seeing the loss inflationary dimensions emerge in areas that we're surprised by. And I don't mean like we're surprised, like we're not responsible, prudent professionals about how we're looking at our business. Like you're just simply surprised that, you know, that a claim of this size and an injury of this could result in that kind of loss. And yet I have full confidence in our claims folks, the way that they're executing. And it's really nothing much more complex than that. And I think that it should give everybody pause for even if you believe that you have ring fenced the inflationary areas, I believe that anything that is personal injury exposed occurrence liability is fertile ground for considerable inflation. And, you know, you have to be incredibly thoughtful about how you're constructing your current liability book. And I wouldn't read into anything more than what I just said, because that really is kind of the dimension. And you are right that we've been talking about construction now for a couple of quarters, but it has been, you know, autofocus thing. But that's been a theme that's been consistent for us for some number of quarters.

Okay. Thank you for the color there. And then just on kind of the overall rate commentary, I think I heard mid single digit plus pure rate. and mid-single-digit exposure, both excluding property.

Excluding global property, just global property, Andrew.

Okay. The exposure piece sounds fairly sizable. Could you maybe just help us frame how that stands relative to the first half of the year?

Yeah, great question. I highlighted it in the last quarter as well. We ourselves were – you know, listen, I think we're all sort of trying to figure out what the economy – you know, what's happening in the economy. And, you know, and I think in the second quarter, we similarly had a really surprisingly positive result on exposure growth. You know, if you kind of look out over the past, I don't know, maybe two to three years, you know, we've been bouncing between kind of like two and four on any quarter. And then the last couple of quarters, it's ticked up a bit. That's positive. I don't know if it tells us anything other than, you know, in some of our businesses, we recapture a tiny little bit of rate in exposure. You know, I talked about surety is somewhat unique as it relates to exposure, but we're just reporting out on what we're seeing. So I think that's a positive sign, right? Because, you know, certainly you want to be able to grow premiums and exposure growth is a good way to grow premiums as long as you're priced properly.

Thank you.

Thank you. One moment for the next question. And our next question will be coming from the line of Paul Newsome of Piper Center. Your line is open.

Great. Just a couple of follow-ups. One was just a clarification. The debt-to-cap, 29%, I assume that's a decent amount above where you want it to be long-term. Is it a fair assumption that after the deal, you'd be looking at basically retaining capital until that falls down into your more comfortable range?

Well, actually, Paul, I'm not uncomfortable at 28, 28.5% at all, actually. We intentionally were under-levered, if you will, to provide us with this flexibility. So, yeah, I'm not uncomfortable with it at all. The organic capital growth itself, as you just pointed out, will reduce the leverage, and it will over time. Yeah, A, I'm not uncomfortable with the 28% and the organic capital generation over the next 12 to 18 months will serve to reduce the leverage ratio.

And then an unrelated question, but a little bit of follow-up on reinsurance usage. It's looking like reinsurance is amongst the most competitive places. Can that be an advantage for you folks, given the structure of your company and what you've talked about previously?

Yeah, this is Andrew. Look, I mean, I think if you go from top to bottom, our sort of purchase of reinsurance is pretty – fairly spread. You know, our cat program, as you know, is not a monster cat program. You know, our spend is kind of, you know, mid-single digits plus, you know, kind of millions of dollars on cats. It's like, you know, yeah, the reinsurance markets, you know, becoming obviously more favorable to sedents, but I don't know if that, you know, Listen, I think that it can be helpful, but it's not going to be a big improvement year over year.

Great. Appreciate the help. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Thank you. And our next question will be coming from the line of Michael Phillips of Oppenheimer. Your line is open.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Andrew, maybe more of a theoretical question. How strong do you think the correlation is, if it even exists, between the PNC pricing cycle and demand for captive formation?

That's a really great question. So before we really kind of leaned in on captives, we looked at this and During, and I will, if you allow us, I can follow up and try to dig out some of the information. But during the sort of the soft market period leading up to kind of, you know, let's just call it 2019, 2020 kind of timeframe, captive growth still was quite robust and relative to the PNC market, very robust. There's no question to your point that you know, a hard market environment appropriately should force, in our case, we're talking group captives, so mid-market kinds of risk, a company that really wants to have more direct financial connection to their cost of risk, certainly that becomes an impetus. But on the flip side, you know, the retention in the captives is very sticky because you generally construct them in a way that is quite sort of measured and controlled, you know, renewal cycle to renewal cycle. And, you know, you're not, you're already sort of self-selecting in risks that have an attention towards risk management and have capabilities that the wider market on average doesn't have. And so, you know, we also think that in a softer market, you're more immune. This is the point about sort of it's less cycle-exposed. you're more immune to the PNC cycle than otherwise you would be, even if you're writing PNC lines, which we are in our, in our campus.

And you're saying you're more immune because of the retention piece?

Yeah, because of the retention and because the captive members themselves are directly involved in seeing the experience. And so, you know, in that experience tends to be a much more stable, consistent experience. you know, here's what's happening with exposure growth, here's what's happening with losses, here's what's happening with loss inflation, because they're eating their own cooking, right? I mean, it's like, you know, they're risk managers, and if they're good, they get the benefits, and if they're, you know, they're not good, they see the cost, and if they're just very consistent, which many of them are in our case, then you get a much more stable period over period kind of renewal.

Okay, no, thanks. Perfect, perfect, Doug.

I guess that's one of the reasons why I was asking. It's one of the reasons we love the category. It's just, you know, we don't have the benefits of being travelers or Hartford writing small commercial. This is our version of kind of like stick to your ribs kind of, you know, ballast for the business.

So it sounds like, you know, one of the reasons for the question is, you know, should we get into a softer market? Does that mean any kind of slight headwind to your growth in cap? Because it sounds like that's not something you'd be concerned about.

I, you know, we'll know when the time comes, but it's certainly not my top concerns as compared to other things I'd be concerned about in the soft market.

Okay. All right. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. And our next question will be coming from the line of Mark Hughes of Chewist. Your line is open.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Andrew, the transactional E&S business, that's been a little slower growth. I think you talked about E&S liability being a good area for you. Does that fall under the transactional bucket or heading? Yeah.

As I think we've mentioned in the past, our book there is a small-medium business, average-premium, between 40 to 50K on the property side, 50 to 60% of what we write are primary and full limits and 40 to 50% we're writing usually the primary and somebody else is writing the excess. And then on the liability side, it's a lot of million dollar primaries and some supported and unsupported excess. Very little of what we write there has auto exposure. And that's the book. And so when we talk about it, the property side, I'll just say it straight up, because we've listened to some other companies talk about this. Anybody who is presenting a case, and a few are presenting a case, that property in the E&S market, even on the smaller side of it, you know, is from a rate perspective is going in a positive direction isn't starting from a position of, you know, good prudential pricing. And there's a couple out there with those commentary. And, you know, and on the liability side, you know, I think consistent with what others have said, the, you know, sort of the primary million, primary GL is pretty competitive out there. you know, some silliness from MGAs and so forth. And the excess is, you know, is a better market. And for our part, you know, our excess is either supported over our primary. If we're writing, you know, if we're writing unsupported, you know, the thing that we're generally writing is, you know, business that has very little auto exposure to it. And, you know, we're very thoughtful about sort of the personal injury, how heavy that personal injury is. loss inflation profile of exposure looks, but the market's still pretty good.

Yeah. What's been just a very recent trend in property? Is it kind of stepped down and therefore you've adjusted your appetite or is it just continuing to drift downward?

Yeah. Listen, I think that there's just – I think I think Tracy might have made this point. There's way too much capacity knocking around the property market. If you're writing cat and it doesn't have to be big limit cat, it doesn't have to be shared and layered. It's just if you're writing tier one cat, you're writing against some just crazy stupidity out there. Just stuff that doesn't make any sense and anybody who believes it makes sense is fooling themselves. And what happens is that, you know, good, smart underwriters will say, and I've heard this from, you know, some of the other CEOs in the calls that they're saying, you know, there's just not opportunity there. So then they go to the next thing and they go to the next thing. And so what happens is you get an erosion in the market that just starts to find its way into other areas to the point where, you know, as I've mentioned in the past, for example, in our property book, you know, we write fire as our principal peril. We write really, really, really tough risk. We write the stuff that's in the ENS market for a reason. Um, but when you start to see silly competition come to that part of the market, um, you know, uh, there's a price where we will write the business and there's a price where we won't. And we're one of the best at it. I just, I'll say straight up, we make a lot of money on the property side. We're super smart. Um, we're very sensible. We deliver a good product for, for our customers. Uh, but we charge an appropriate price for the exposure, you know, and when the guys who come in and don't know what they're doing in that, um, you know, that's just problematic. And what's happening is that's happening in more and more categories across the property market.

Understood. Thank you.

And yet I still feel very good about our business and our ability to navigate. So, you know, I wouldn't want to be anybody else other than us.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mark.

Thank you. And we now have a follow-up question coming from the line of Tracy Benjigi of Wolf Research. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks for taking me back in the queue. I'm just curious, given the uneven growth by segment, which should lead to some mix shifts, I'm wondering how we should be thinking about your underlying loss ratio and expense ratio. Like, for instance, surety is a low loss ratio, high expense ratio product, and other products have different profiles.

Yeah, it's an outstanding question because we have it all in the book. We have examples like surety, which is incredibly high acquisition expense, very low loss ratio. We have A&H, which is low acquisition expense and low expense overall and high loss ratio, similar profile on the ag side. And what I'd say is that, again, what we'll do is we'll come back in our guidance, but I think that through the first three quarters, you're seeing the earnings of that mixed change coming through. But obviously, given, for example, the volume of ag, how that sort of manifests itself on acquisition costs versus operating expense versus loss ratio, you know, we'll come back in the guidance when we give our full year guidance early in the new year, Tracy. And until then, I don't think we really want to or are prepared to say much more.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This does conclude today's Q&A session. I would now like to turn the call back over to Kevin for closing remarks. Please go ahead, Kevin.

Thanks, Lisa, and thanks, everyone, for your questions, for participating in our conference call, and for your continued interest in and support of Skyward Specialty. I am available after the call to answer any additional questions you may have. We look forward to speaking with you again on our fourth quarter earnings call. Thank you, and have a wonderful day.

This concludes today's program. You may all disconnect.