American International Group, Inc.

results or events to differ materially. Except as required by applicable securities laws, AIG is under no obligation to update any forward-looking statements if circumstances or management's estimates or opinions should change. Today's remarks may also refer to non-GAAP financial measures. The reconciliation of such measures to the most comparable GAAP figures is included in our earnings release, financial supplement, and earnings presentation, all of which are available on our website at aig.com. Following the deconsolidation of Corbridge Financial on June 9, 2024, the historical results of Corbridge for all periods presented are reflected in AIG's consolidated financial statements as discontinued operations in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Finally, today's remarks related to net premiums written are presented on a comparable basis, which reflects -over-year comparison on a constant dollar basis and adjusted for the sale of the global personal travel and assistance business as applicable. We believe this presentation provides the most useful view of our results and the go-forward business in light of the substantial changes to the portfolio since 2023. Please refer to page 25 of the earnings presentation for reconciliations of such metrics reported on a comparable basis. With that, I'd now like to turn the call over to our chairman and CEO, Peter Zaffino.

Thank you, Quinton, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us today to review our second quarter 2025 financial results. Following my remarks, Quinton will provide more detail in the quarter, and then we will take questions. John Hancock and Don Bailey will join us for the Q&A portion of our call. AIG had an outstanding second quarter. We continue to make meaningful progress on our strategic, operational, and financial objectives that we outlined at Investor Day. Our momentum continues to build with strong performance across the board. We delivered adjusted after-tax income for a diluted share of $1.81, an increase of 56% year over year. Adjusted after-tax income for the quarter was $1 billion, an increase of 35% from the prior year quarter driven by our general insurance business, which had underwriting income of $626 million, an increase of 46% year over year. Net investment income on an adjusted pre-tax basis was $955 million, an increase of 9% year over year. Accident year combined ratio as adjusted was 88.4%. Calendar year combined ratio was 89.3%, an improvement of 320 basis points from the prior year quarter. We achieved a core operating ROE of 11.7%. We returned $2 billion of capital to shareholders, bringing the -to-date total to $4.5 billion. We sold $430 million, or 13.4 million shares of Corbridge Financial, reducing our stake to approximately 21%. And finally, both S&P Global and Moody's upgraded their financial strength ratings of AIG's insurance subsidiaries during the quarter, which was a major milestone. This is our first upgrade from S&P Global since 2013 and our first upgrade from Moody's since 1990. For our call this morning, I will share a detailed review of our second quarter results, a few observations on the global property market and specifically our portfolio, highlights from our successful completion of AIG Next, which delivered $500 million in savings and significant operational improvements, an overview of Russia aviation-related claims, and an update on our Gen. AI initiatives. Before I review the quarter in more detail, I'd like to take a moment to welcome John to AIG. He'll be joining us as president on December 1st. As many of you know, John is one of the most accomplished executives in our industry. He's very well known to our stakeholders, has significant global operating experience, and an impressive track record leading underwriting organizations, most recently as the CEO of Lloyds London. John will oversee our general insurance organization and will partner with me and the business leaders in driving the strategic direction of the business. John's background, experience, and global expertise add depth to our excellent management team, and we look forward to working closely with him in his new role. Now let me provide a more detailed view of our second quarter financial results. Net premiums written were $6.9 billion, an increase of 1% year over year. This included 3% growth in global commercial. North America commercial insurance net premiums written increased 4% year over year. Excluding property, which I will discuss in more detail, North America commercial insurance net premiums written increased 11%. We had growth in businesses that we believe have strong risk-adjusted margins, and we tempered growth in those businesses that had rate pressure. Retail casualty and Lexington casualty each increased 19%. Western world increased 15%, and our alternative businesses, which consist of glass filter and programs, also increased 19%. These results were offset by retail property and Lexington property where net premiums written declined by 8%. International commercial insurance net premiums increased 1% year over year, driven by modest growth in casualty and global specialty, which was offset by declines in property and financial lines. In the second quarter, global commercial continued to produce strong new business of nearly $1.4 billion, a 7% increase from the prior year quarter. In 2024, North America commercial experienced tremendous new business growth. In 2025, we continue to see incremental growth led by Lexington middle market, Western world, and our alternative businesses. It's worth noting that the submission count in our Lexington business continues to be very strong, increasing 28% year over year. International commercial produced very strong new business and specialty, with a 35% increase from the previous year quarter. In addition, global commercial had very strong renewal retention across North America commercial and international commercial of 88%. Global personal net premiums written decreased 3%. As I discussed on previous earnings call, we entered into a high net worth quota share reinsurance treaty with strategic partners that is driving profitability improvement of the portfolio. However, it had a six point negative impact to global personal net premiums written growth in the quarter. Turning to expenses, Keith will go into more detail in his remarks, but I wanted to make a few points. Our general insurance expense ratio was 31%, a 50 basis point improvement year over year. For the first half of 2025, the general insurance expense ratio was 30.8%, compared to .6% for the prior year period. The general insurance business has continued to absorb expenses that used to reside in other operations. In addition, we've made meaningful investments in cyber security and gen AI, and the costs for both are being absorbed in the businesses. For other operations, general operating expenses were $90 million in the quarter and $175 million for the first half of 2025. This is in line with a $350 million annual run rate for parent expenses for 2025, which is simply an outstanding result. Now, I'd like to take a moment to cover the property insurance market and the competitive nature of the rate environment, particularly in large account property as we enter win season in the United States. This has been one of the most discussed topics in the industry, and I thought it was worth spending a few minutes outlining a technical view of AIG's underwriting approach to our U.S. property portfolio in this environment. My comments will focus on U.S. property because our international property portfolio is experiencing very different market dynamics. It has terrific results and a rate environment that is currently positive. Our U.S. property business has been one of the best stories for AIG during the repositioning of our underwriting portfolio. What used to be a highly unprofitable portfolio with massive limits, combined ratios of 120 or greater, and significant volatility accompanied with outsized catastrophe losses has now become one of the most profitable lines of business for AIG. Even in the current environment, our portfolio has been performing exceptionally well across retail property and Lexington Wholesale Large Account, where on average, pricing decreases have been 11 percent and Lexington Middle Market property was largely flat. Since 2018, retail property and Lexington Wholesale Large Account, cumulative rate increases have been 135 percent and 120 percent respectively, and Lexington Middle Market has had cumulative rate increases of 90 percent. Additionally, over the last several years, accident year combined ratios, as adjusted, have been below 60 percent on average for both retail and wholesale property. Further, and an important distinction, approximately 90 percent of our large account property, retail and wholesale, is placed on a shared and layered basis, which means non-concurrent pricing and non-concurrent terms on that placement. This allows us to establish differentiated pricing and policy wording coverages and exclusions for the limits we deploy for each risk. And when we report out a rate increases or decreases, it is against the pricing that we establish for our layer, not the index of the average pricing of the market for that placement. Also, with shared and layered placements, most of the business is netted commission. This means it has a very low acquisition expenses. In AIG's case, retail property has an acquisition ratio of approximately 1 percent. Inherently, it therefore has a higher loss ratio, as the total premium includes very little expenses to gross up. In contrast, a middle market portfolio, which for AIG is 35 percent of our total property book, has different characteristics. Middle market accounts have higher acquisition expense ratio and total expense ratio that translates to lower loss ratios because the total premium is grossed up through a higher total expense load. When reviewing the quality and profitability of a property portfolio at a high level, in addition to excellent individual risk underwriting, you should also have a technical view of the following components. Let's start with catastrophe. You need a proper analysis of potential cat layers using extensive modeling, along with an accurate view of exposure and appropriate funding for cat risks, including comprehensive reinsurance at all appropriate return periods and tail risk. Then you should review average annual losses, or AAL, which are cat losses that are within your net retention below your property cat reinsurance program. Typically for lower return periods, net retained catastrophe requires an appropriate risk load. Also important are vertical single losses that are typically protected with property per risk reinsurance. And finally, you should consider attritional loss selections with an appropriate risk margin. When you analyze each of these components, I believe our approach has been conservative with respect to each variable. Why do I feel this way? The reason is we have a clear and detailed understanding of our fully loaded reinsurance cat cost. We've been able to purchase reinsurance at low attachment points and have high exhaust limits, and importantly, these costs are embedded into our insurance pricing. This year, our risk-adjusted pricing decreases for reinsurance are at or greater than the pricing decreases on our primary business, limiting the impact of the rate environment on our net loss ratios. This would not be the case if you chose to take these layers net. Even with a significant increase in frequency of cats, our AALs have been roughly equal to or greater than our actual experience over the past three years. On single large losses, we have significant protection on property per risk with reinsurance attaching at $25 million and exhausting in excess of $600 million. This is another strategic choice to reduce volatility. We have fully embedded this cost into our pricing. We've also benefited from risk-adjusted pricing decreases on our property per risk treaties. The outcome of all of these variables is that our attritional loss ratios over the past three years have performed better than our expected accident year loss ratio picks. As I noted, another critical component of the loss projection is how much risk margin you have embedded as part of the ultimate accident year loss ratio. In our case, that margin has continued to expand as a result of our exceptional underwriting and cumulative rate increases. When developing our loss picks, we include a risk margin that ranges from 10 to 20 percent depending on the segment of business. We've structured our portfolio to manage through various cycles. Going forward, we're looking to maintain our U.S. property portfolio, which is evident through our strong retention, growing where it makes sense for us based on a risk-adjusted returns, and when market conditions warrant, we have the ability to pivot quickly. When you take into consideration all of these components of a property portfolio, we expect in the current environment to deliver strong profitability in both retail and wholesale property. Now, I'd like to provide an update on our operational accomplishments. At the end of 2023, we launched AIG Next to create a leaner, more simplified, and more effective organization supported by the right infrastructure and capabilities while achieving at least $500 million in run rate savings. We embarked on this journey by pursuing a number of key initiatives. First, we created a lean parent company with costs aligned to being a public company, representing 1 percent to 1.5 percent of net premiums earned. In 2023, other operations expenses were approximately a billion dollars. In order to achieve our future state parent expenses, we transferred $300 million as part of the Corbridge financial divestiture. We either eliminated or reapportioned the remaining $350 million into our general insurance businesses. Second, we drove global consistency and local relevancy across our -to-end processes, including centralizing our treasury and capital activities to create global enterprise standards. Third, we reduced organizational complexity through the creation of three distinct business segments, North America commercial, international commercial, and global personal, which has led to better and differentiated experiences for our clients and partners. Fourth, we restructured and simplified our underwriting and claims organizations to accelerate and scale our data, digital, and gen AI strategy. And finally, we advanced our technology transformation and modernized our infrastructure, which included among other initiatives, the elimination of 1,200 legacy applications. As we did with AIG 200 and our underwriting turnaround, I'm very pleased to share that we've achieved our objectives ahead of schedule. We actioned over $530 million of annual run rate expense savings with over $500 million realized through the second quarter. I often say that one of the most impressive differentiators of AIG is our colleagues' ability to execute multiple complex strategic initiatives at the we've achieved through AIG Next are a testament to our culture of teamwork and willingness to execute at pace across the company. We thought it would be helpful to provide perspective on the Russia aviation related claims, a complex industry topic in the headline. These aviation insurance exposures are related to aircraft leased to Russian airlines that were in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. As you may recall, airline lessors are seeking compensation under contingent and possessed as well as operator policies covering both all risks and war perils. On June 11, a judgment was issued in a legal proceeding in the UK in which a number of lessors led by air cap brought claims against insurers that issued contingent and possessed policies to them. In that judgment, the UK high court ruled that the lessors suffered a covered war loss as a result of actions that the Russian government took in March of 2022. This decision aligns broadly with several prior rulings in the US. As we said at the outset, this was an unusual event for the industry with complicated issues including whether a covered loss occurred and when, which peril triggered coverage, did the lessors take appropriate steps to mitigate losses, should sanctions apply, and which policy should respond contingent and possessed or operator. The situation was further complicated by the fact that many policyholders were quick to file coverage litigation which significantly delayed the loss adjustment process. Despite these complexities, AIG along with other insurers made a concerted effort early to engage with policyholders in a unified manner to resolve the claims consensually, reflecting the intent of the policies which were written on a subscription basis in the London market. Unfortunately, the market participants were not able to agree on a solution which is often the case in our industry and litigation proceeded in multiple jurisdictions, most notably in the UK. In the UK proceeding, AIG was the lead all risk representative defendant and as such advanced the position that any losses by air cap should fall to the war cover which was eventually adopted by the court. It's worth noting that AIG sought to and successfully settled all claims under contingent and possessed policies in the UK proceeding prior to the air cap ruling and in many instances obtained releases of our exposure under any applicable operator policies. With regard to the operator policies, there is a separate UK proceeding concerning claims that lessors have brought against AIG and several other insurers. We believe these operator claims face significant hurdles given among other factors that the relevant aircraft continue to be used by the Russian operators. Like many in the market, AIG wrote both all risk and war policies. Early on, we conducted a thorough evaluation of the potential net financial impact of these claims on AIG, factoring in the complex coverage issues and all applicable reinsurance and various scenarios. As a result of this analysis, as I have stated previously, we prudently reserved for our expected net loss exposure and the outcome in the air cap case along with the settlements in other cases have been in line with our expected net loss estimates. Now let me take a few minutes to provide an update on our Gen. AI work which continues to accelerate while generating significant interest among our stakeholders. At our investor day, we provided an overview of our Gen. AI approach and how we're deploying Gen. AI end to end across the core business to power our underwriting business. Specifically, we talked about how we're leveraging large language models, our agent ecosystem of capabilities and our partnerships with AWS, Palantir and Anthropic among others. We laid out our framework which is built around data ingestion, augmentation and prioritization powered by our agent AI ecosystem. We first deployed AIG underwriter assistance to our private -for-profit business and financial lines at the end of the first quarter and the early results are very promising. Submission ingestion has increased by four times and the submit to bind ratio has increased by 20% from the baseline. Looking forward, we remain on track to introduce AIG underwriter assistance for our Lexington Middle Market, property and casualty businesses in the third quarter of this year and across all of North America commercial, UK and EMEA commercial lines in 2026 and we continue to explore opportunities to accelerate our rollout. As we scale Gen. AI across underwriting, we've also been building AIG claims assistance. We have successfully configured the core Gen. AI capabilities of ingestion, augmentation and prioritization that we built for AIG underwriter assistance to support claims. With this framework, we can ingest unstructured data to expedite first notice of loss, prioritize claims assignments and augment claims adjusters investigations with relevant external multimodal data from approved sources. For claims, we've been training large language models to extract and organize key insights automatically to enable claims adjusters to make more informed decisions faster than ever in order to fulfill our promise of helping our clients when they need us most. We've conducted preliminary testing on the first notice of loss process, which is the first report made to an insurer about a potential claim. In our sample, the processing time has decreased from days to hours. We've also seen cycle time for coverage endorsement reviews, a key part of a coverage assessment, decrease from hours to minutes. Our objective with these advanced tools is to enable more technical reviews, provide our underwriting and claims experts with more insight and capabilities, reduce cycle time, significantly enhance decision making and meaningfully improve service to our clients and partners. Foundational to this work is ontology. You will hear a lot more on this topic the coming quarters, especially as we make more progress with our rollout. We've been building our AIG ontology since we began our work in AI. It reflects an intent to create a digital twin of our business representing all key data, processes, business logic and a map of relationships across businesses and functions. Ontology is critical for deploying large language models. It brings together the relevant data sets that define the components of our insurance business, integrates and sequences them, and then models how they relate to one another. Our ontology will create a clear record of any actions taken, which will inform business logic and provide the ability to audit agents' activities. We've seen an acceleration since yesterday as large tech companies have made significant capital expenditure commitments to further advance Gen. AI capabilities. I'm very encouraged with the progress that AIG is making. With that overview, I will now turn the call over to Keith.

Thank you,