RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.

Good morning and welcome to Renaissance Re's fourth quarter and year-end conference call. Joining me today to discuss our results are Kevin O'Donnell, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Bob Qutub, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. First, some housekeeping matters. Our discussion today will include forward-looking statements. It's important to note that actual results may differ materially from the expectations shared today. Additional information regarding the factors shaping these outcomes can be found in our SEC filings and in our earnings relief. During today's call, we will also present non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations to GAAP metrics and other information concerning non-GAAP measures may be found in our earnings release and financial supplement, which are available on our website at renry.com. And now I'd like to turn the call over to Kevin.

Thanks, Keith. Thanks, everybody, for joining the call. We apologize about the technical difficulties. I'm going to read my comments again to make sure that everybody has the same information. I guess I should feel pleased to report the results, so it's my pleasure to read them a second time. I apologize for those who have had to hear them again. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for joining today's call. We closed 2022 on a strong note with excellent Q4 financial results reflecting solid performance across segments, favorable development, and a rapidly growing contribution from investments. However, I'd like to begin today with a follow-up to my remarks last quarter. I discussed a series of changes we were seeking to ensure an increased margin of safety for investors in the face of mounting catastrophe losses, which exceeded $130 billion in 2022, as well as the continued effects of climate change, inflation, and the increasing occurrence of secondary perils. Importantly, I can now report that we accomplished all of the ambitious goals we set for ourselves in one of the most pivotal January 1 renewals in our history. Most notably, this includes a step change in property reinsurance pricing. These changes have resulted in a fundamental and necessary reset in the relationship between insurers and reinsurers, promising more appropriate risk-adjusted returns to investors while ensuring customers sustainable access to reliable, high-quality capacity. The structural shift that the market has undergone constitutes a stabler, long-term equilibrium that will protect the interests of both investors and customers. The renewal in our casualty business was also successful. We saw rate increases in many specialty classes and made good progress on reducing seating commissions in traditional casualty lines, which on average reduced by about one percentage point. I will discuss the casualty segment in greater detail in part two of my comments. Turning to our 22 results, At the end of each year, I like to review our performance by responding to two questions. The first is, how did we do financially? And the second is, have we executed our strategy effectively? Starting with the first question, we had an excellent fourth quarter from both a gap and operating perspective with an operating ROE of 30%. For the year, we reported a little more than $300 million of operating income, which represents a 6% return on common equity. To be clear, I do not think a 6% return on equity is acceptable. Quite the opposite. I've said multiple times that our business needs to have superior long-term returns to justify the volatility that we take. That said, this 6% return is materially better than our results in 2021 when we roughly broke even despite a similar level of industry catastrophe losses. This improving performance reflects the many accelerating tailwinds our business is benefiting from. including the higher reinsurance rates, increased investment income, and growing capital partners' business. We are also seeing the benefit of higher operating leverage from the investments we made in growing the scale of our business. Bob will address these tailwinds more fulsomely in his comments. This quarter, we also demonstrated the benefit of our increased diversification. As we achieved excellent results despite material net negative impact from large catastrophic events, Given the reset in underwriting at January 1st, we would expect a significantly smaller loss if similar events occur this year. In 2023, we believe that this upward trajectory on financial performance will continue, as we will be paid more for the risk that we take, earn substantially more on the investments that we make, and continue to grow our fee-generating capital partner business. Which leads to my second question, have we executed our strategy effectively? If there's one word to define our strategy in 2022, it was consistent. We remain committed to being a global P&C reinsurance company at scale and a leading underwriter of property catastrophe risk. We have chosen to occupy this position because it is a critical link in the insurance value chain where we have a competitive advantage. Surveying the insurance landscape, We have chosen this position because it is the most effective means for us to deliver superior profitability to shareholders over the long term. Over the past decade, we have emphasized building sustainable platforms that would support long-term profitable growth. We have added scale to our business by growing our top line, bottom line, and capital, and have diversified our business by adding new products, platforms, customers, and capabilities. These actions have diversified our earnings, increased our leverage, and secured us a leading competitive position. It has also provided us the confidence to maintain our strategy and continue being a leading writer for PropertyCat Reinsurance. That said, in 2022, we challenged our underwriters to optimize our property portfolio, and throughout the year, we target improved profitability. This culminated in the most recent January 1 renewal, when our strategic consistency and focus on improving the bottom line enabled us to deploy significant and sustainable capacity to our customers. As a result, we entered 2023 with each of our three drivers of profit poised to outperform. I couldn't be more excited about the current environment and our positioning in it and the potential to create material value for our shareholders. That concludes my initial comments. I'll provide more detailed update on the renewal and our segments at the end of the call. But first, I'll turn it over to Bob to discuss the financial performance for the quarter.

Thanks, Kevin. And good morning again, everyone. We finished 22 with a very strong quarter, reporting operating income of $322 million and an annualized operating return on average common equity of 30%. For the year, we generated operating income of $316 million and an operating return on average common equity of just over 6%. Our performance this year demonstrates that our three drivers of profit, underwriting, fees, and investments, are increasingly benefiting our financial results and making them more resilient to volatility. I will discuss our fourth quarter results in more detail in a moment, but here are a few points from 2022 that I'd like to highlight. First, casualty and specialty performance remains strong. and the segment has been consistently profitable every quarter for the last two years. In 2022, the segment delivered a consistent mid-90s combined ratio and grew net written premiums by 42%. We have been successfully growing the casualty and specialty segment into a profitable market. Kevin will talk more about the renewal, but as we look forward to 2023, we feel great about the positioning of this business and continue to expect a mid-90s combined ratio in 2023. Second, our property segment broke even in 2022, despite a very active year, including a major Florida hurricane. There's a seven percentage point improvement from 2021, which had a similar magnitude of industry losses. The improved performance is a result of the increased rate and tightening terms and conditions we achieved in our property book throughout 2022. But importantly, the additional underwriting actions we took in January 1st should continue to benefit the property book's results. Third, our capital partners business continues to lead the industry in the third-party capital management. In 2022, we raised a total of $1.4 billion in third-party capital with an additional $400 billion effective January 1, 2023. In 2022, management fees contributed a consistent $25 to $30 million per quarter, and we expect this to run around $35 million per quarter in 2023. reflecting an increase in capital managed primarily in DaVinci. We also expect to see performance fees start to recover mid-year absent any significant catastrophe events. And finally, retained net investment income grew considerably in the second half of the year to $144 million in the fourth quarter. Over the past few quarters, we have rotated the book into more current yields. Subject to market changes, we expect retained net investment income to continue to increase, although at a milder pace. Importantly, as part of our strategic positioning as a global P&C insurer, we have scaled these diversifying income streams very efficiently. Over the last five years, common equity is up 15%, while casualty gross premiums written have quadrupled, management fees have doubled, and net investment income is up 2.5 times. As we look towards 2023, we feel we are in an excellent position with all three drivers of profit poised for continued improvement and outperformance. In addition, we organically grew shareholder equity this quarter by $440 million and have over $600 million of unrealized losses on our fixed maturity investments that will accrete to par over time. All of this puts us in an excellent capital position. We are in a very attractive market and are excited about the many capital deployment opportunities in 2023 and beyond that should result in strong financial performance. Moving now to our fourth quarter results and our first driver of profit underwriting. Beginning with casualty and specialty portfolio, the segment results were strong again this quarter, and we reported a combined ratio of 94% for the quarter and 95% for the year. Gross and net premiums written were up 31%, continuing to reflect the growth and underlying rate improvements from prior year renewal periods during the year. Net premiums earned for the casualty and specialty segment were $936 million, up 31%. In the first quarter of 2023, we're expecting net earned premiums to be about $975 million. Turning now to our property segment, where we had a solid quarter. This segment reported a combined ratio of 63%. The current accident year loss ratio of 54% contained 19 percentage points from large CAT events. which had a net negative impact on our financial results of $84 million, about one half of which came from Winter Storm Elliot and Hurricane Nicole, and the remainder coming from aggregates. These events impacted both property cap and other property. And for property cap, the current accident-year loss ratio was 42%, and included 34 percentage points from large CAT events. For other property, the current accident-year loss ratio was 63%, and included 8 percentage points from large CAT events and an additional 5 percentage points from the One Oak natural gas explosion. In the quarter, there was also 19 percentage points of favorable development for the property segment, primarily driven by releases on 2017 through 2021 large CAT events in the property catastrophe class of business. Net premiums earned for other property were $393 million for the quarter. Going forward, we expect premiums in our other property business to decrease as we shift our focus to property catastrophe business where we saw the most attractive opportunities. Moving now to fee income and our capital partners business, where overall fees were $30 million. Management fees were $26 million, continuing to provide a steady source of income in the quarter. Starting in the first quarter of 2023, we expect management fees to increase to around $35 million per quarter, reflecting increased capital managed on our joint venture balance sheets. Performance fees continue to be depressed due to the cumulative impact of CAD events in 21 and 22. We expect these fees to start recovering by the second quarter of 23. Overall, we share $236 million of our net income with partners in our joint ventures as reflected in our redeemable non-controlling interest. $207 million of this amount was operating income and the remainder being mark-to-market gains. Finally, on capital partners, as of January 1st, we reduced our ownership stake in DaVinci from 31% to 25% in order to make room for several long-term oriented investors. Moving now to investments, where net investment income continues to have a growing impact on our financial statements. In the fourth quarter, retained net investment income was $144 million. The higher net investment income was driven by higher coupon yields as we rotate our investment portfolio, higher yields on our floating rate exposure, as well as an increase in invested assets. Over the course of 2022, a retained annualized net investment income return has increased from 1.5% to 4.1%, and our new money yield, which is reflected as retained yield to maturity, has increased from 1.8% to 5.6%. As a result, in the first quarter of 2023, we expect quarterly net investment income to be about $150 million. Overall, duration has declined on a managed basis to 2.5 years, largely driven by capital increases for our joint ventures. On a retained basis, duration remains relatively flat at 3.3 years. In the fourth quarter, rebounding equity markets, tighter credit spreads, and bond accretion led to retained mark-to-market losses of 100, excuse me, retained mark-to-market gains of $129 million. For the year, we reported total retained mark-to-market losses of $1.5 billion, principally in our fixed maturity portfolio. As I discussed last quarter, these are high-quality assets, and we expect to earn these losses back over time in two ways. First, the securities that we hold, they will creep to par over time. And second, through increased net investment income, where we proactively sold the securities and reinvested at higher coupons. Retained unrealized losses in our fixed maturity portfolio are about $13.93 per share. Finally, turning briefly to expenses, our operating expense ratio was up by about 1.4 percentage points in the quarter, and for the year, the operating expense ratio was relatively flat. The increase in absolute operating expenses reflects investments in people, and the increased cost as we return to a more normal operating environment. Going forward, we expect to hold the operating expense ratio relatively flat. In conclusion, we finished the year with a very strong fourth quarter. This demonstrated the growing strength of each of our three drivers of profit. Even with significant catastrophe activity in the year, we generated a 6% operating return on equity. As we look forward to 2023, We expect continued stable underwriting income from our casualty and specialty business, our property segment to benefit from increased rate and tightening terms and conditions, stable and increasing management income with upside from performance fees, and significant retained net investment income. And with that, I'll now turn the call back to Kevin.

Thanks, Bob. As usual, I will divide my comments between our property and casualty segments. And while I touched on the success of our January 1 renewal in my opening remarks, I will primarily focus on adding more detail given our belief this renewal marks an important inflection point for our business. Starting with property, the property renewal was very late with many deals not found until late December or even early January. Going into the new renewal, we expected significant supply and demand imbalance for property cat and reinsurance that would drive material rate increases in the range of 50 to 100 percent. As the renewal progressed, Seedens understood that the market would remain disciplined on rate. They responded by increasing retentions, restricting coverage, and restructuring programs in order to control premium budgets. These changes benefited us in particular, as our underwriting expertise and flexible capital allowed us to execute in a structurally shifted market to increase profit, reduce risk, and better diversify our portfolio. Seedon's reactions also meant that limits, particularly in the U.S., were relatively flat, albeit more remote. The increased demand we anticipated was retained by insurers, as at the time they were unwilling to pay additional rate this marginal demand would require. Over time, we expect this risk to return to the reinsurance market as macroeconomic forces, such as inflation and climate change, continue to drive overall risk in the system. We will always have the most efficient capital to assume property cat risk, so it should ultimately sit with us. I am very pleased with the property portfolio that we wrote on January 1st. As expected, we renewed business at significantly increased rates and tightened terms and conditions. Additionally, we increased allocation to PropertyCat as it became increasingly profitable relative to other properties. Regarding top-line growth, we are seeing good opportunities and expect the reset on rates to persist through 2023. The January 1 renewals is more focused on retro and international business, while the most dislocated part of the property market, U.S. risk, mostly renewals at mid-year. Consequently, we expect many opportunities to deploy additional capacity and property over the next six months. As Bob explained, in addition to the growth we've already achieved, we have ample capital to deploy into a profitable market. As we expected, the retro market was highly dislocated heading into the January 1st renewal, with rates up materially, terms and conditions very tight, and an ongoing shift to occurrence from aggregate structures. This allowed us to build a strong inwards book of business. Against this backdrop, we had several successes on our seeded placements as well. First, we purchased more retro protection than originally anticipated, a testament to our strong relationships and consistent track record. Second, we were able to grow with our longstanding partners on our structured reinsurance products. Finally, in early January, we reissued our Mona Lisa cat bond, albeit for a reduced limit. Given current market conditions, we believe we successfully executed our gross to net strategy and that it materially improved the efficiency of our portfolio. Moving now to our casualty and specialty business. Similar to property, January 1st is an important renewal for our casualty book. At the renewal, Casualty and specialty reinsurance terms and conditions moved in a positive direction across many classes of business. Dislocated markets provided opportunity for us to quote and lead profitable business. We continue to see opportunities across casualty and specialty classes. Rate increases are starting to slow in general liability lines and reducing in D&O. This follows several years of significant rate increases in these lines. In most cases, seating commissions reduced, and we maintained attractive margins. In cases where expected margins did not meet our hurdles, we scaled back our exposure. The market was very dislocated in some specialty classes, and we were able to quote significant lead lines on profitable business. Lines such as marine and energy, terror, cyber, and aviation were particularly attractive. We demonstrated leadership. and achieved increased rates and retentions, as well as tightened terms and conditions in these diversifying classes of business. Our mortgage and credit and political risk business remains profitable. Critically, due to the structure of our portfolio and our focus on risk selection, it is also resilient to any downturn in economic conditions that may occur this year. Overall, we are confident this casualty renewal will drive sustained profitable growth We continue to grow this book and we have written what is likely to be our largest and most attractive portfolio to date. More importantly, as our casualty business matures, it is becoming increasingly consistent at delivering mid-90s combined ratio performance. Shifting now to the capital partners business. We have always taken a differentiated approach to our capital partners business. First and foremost, This is because we are recognized leaders in underwriting property and casualty risk and always approach this business as underwriters would. This means we start with sourcing desirable risk and only then seek to match it with the most efficient capital. Second, we have a long and successful track record of managing third-party capital and are always strongly aligned with our investors. Our partners know that we always stand alongside them sharing any loss that they take. This provides them with the confidence to reinvest with us after large events. Finally, we offer the broadest suite of investment vehicles, with both owned and managed balance sheets for every risk that we take. This includes Fontana, the only rated third-party balance sheet dedicated to casualty and specialty risk. In addition to being innovative, our vehicles are highly flexible from a capital perspective and have features allowing us to call capital when it is needed and return it when it is not. This allows us to navigate difficult markets as we did in 2022 and also to facilitate the liquidity needs our institutional investors demand. This differentiated approach is highly appreciated by our partners. It also explains our success in raising capital in 2022 as both new and existing investors chose to trust us with their capital. That we can continue to scale our capital partners business even under the most difficult circumstances demonstrates that it is a permanent part of our franchise. We have every intention of continuing to grow it in the future in order to bring reliable, sustainable capital to our customers. We fully expect our capital partners' business to increasingly generate low volatility fee income for the benefit of our shareholders. In closing, this quarter brought a strong end to a tumultuous year, which was marked by elevated CAT losses coupled with Fed-driven mark-to-market investment losses. Consequently, the January 1st renewal was one of the strongest in our history, and investment returns should be materially higher in 2023. The ongoing growth in our capital partners business should serve as the third financial tailwind. As a result, we expect to deliver material shareholder value over the course of 2023. As usual, we will now turn the call over to questions. Apologize for those that had difficulty coming on the call at the beginning. Both Bob and myself will stay available after the close of the hour to make sure we answer all your questions. Thank you.

At this time, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. If you wish to remove yourself from the queue, you may do so by pressing star 2. We remind you to please unmute your line when introduced, and if possible, pick up your handset for optimal sound quality. In the interest of time, we ask that you please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. We'll now take our first question from Elise Greenspan from Wells Fargo.

Hi, thanks. Good morning. My first question, you know, assuming 2023 is a normal CAT year, based on the book of business that you guys were able to put together at January 1, and I guess it was to include some expectation for the rest of the year, what are we, do you think your book of business could generate this year?

Thanks, Elise. This was one of the most profound renewals I think Renry has ever had. We went in with very aggressive targets for ourselves, including growing the property cap portfolio, reducing risk at the low end of the risk distribution, holding PMLs relatively flat, increasing our footprint, particularly with the addition of third-party capital. So all of those things will inure to the benefit of shareholders should there be a normal CAT year. One way that might be helpful to think about it is if we just take a couple of losses last year and think of how they could affect us. If we looked at Hurricane Ian occurring in the third quarter of this year, I would expect our loss would be significantly lower for a couple of reasons. Primary companies will need to retain more risk at the low end of their risk distribution. Secondly, we will have more rates, so more reinstatement premium coming in should there be a loss. So I think from that perspective, we would have a smaller loss. If we were to look at winter storm Elliott, between the increased retentions, tighter terms and conditions, and higher rates, I would expect that loss to be almost fully retained within the primary market and not be transferred to the reinsurance market, which is different than what happened last year. So it's difficult to put an exact number on it, but between substantial rate increase, the growth we've achieved, the additional profitability and specialty, higher investment returns, I would expect returns to be substantially higher should we have a repeat of 22 or a normal year in 23.

And then my second question, so you just said your PMLs are flat, I believe, right? So your exposure is probably consistent. You know, we've heard, right, about retentions going higher for primary companies, right? But there's a lot of rate increases in the system. As you put it all together, how do you see the premium growth coming together just within the property cat business in 23? Yeah, so...

About half of our U.S. exposed property cat limit is yet to be renewed. So, just to kind of put it in context, and I anticipate that what we achieved at 1.1 will persist through the rest of 2023. So, in thinking about the portfolio, it was our objective to hold the tail of the distribution relatively flat and increase the probability of high returns by reducing the level of risk at the low end of the distribution. So I feel optimistic from a PropertyCat perspective. The other thing I would say is we allocated increasing capacity to our PropertyCat portfolio within our overall property book by adding capacity from the other property portfolio to the PropertyCat book. So we will achieve substantial growth in the PropertyCat portfolio. A little bit of that growth will come from us creating capacity by reducing a bit on other property.

Thank you.

Sure. Thanks, Elise.

Our next question comes from Josh Shanker from Bank of America.

Yeah, thank you. Can we talk a little about the casualty and specialty seating commissions? How quickly will they roll through the book, and how many hundreds of basis points might we see just on the acquisition cost ratio alone?

So on average, as I mentioned, it's about one percentage point for the casualty portfolio. Let me talk a little bit about casualty specialty first, though. We had substantial growth in several specialty lines, which are within that segment, and that growth is based on the fact that it became dislocated because of the Ukraine war, elevated losses, and there's also a degree of property cat risk, particularly in the marine and energy portfolio. We tend to earn increased seating commissions through directly, so just as we earn the premiums over the next 12 to 18 months, different than what we do from a pricing equation. So it will earn through more quickly. I don't have the number to drop to a GAAP number, though.

And you say 100 basis points. I mean, look, everybody is just a spectator. It does seem like commentary is greater than 100 basis points. for the industry more broadly? Maybe not where you play. Do you think 100 base points is typical, or is that specific to Renry?

I think it's pretty typical. I could be optimistic and point to deals where we had much bigger changes, but there were deals that have been performing better, and seeding commissions were a little stickier. So I use 1% as a good macro benchmark for how the portfolio is, and it is consistent with the way I would discuss the industry.

And where are we in terms of the commentary in that portfolio of understanding your own loss and your own risks and whatnot and using your own data to, A, set new loss picks, and, B, evaluate the loss picks you set in the past?

So if you go back to 2006, That was an important part of the discussion for rate changes, understanding how the models had changed, drove demand, and it also drove the expected loss through the property market. I'll speak about our view of risk is relatively consistent this year to last year. I would say it's the normal tweaks in our model. We did not run through substantial risk changes from inflation and from inflation climate change or other natural phenomenon. We had that reasonably well reflected, so we went through our normal process. So the rate change that we achieved this year is much more similar to the risk-adjusted rate change than we would have experienced in 2006.

Well, I guess maybe I'm sort of talking about the loss picks in the cash and specialty book, where you said you're holding back sort of being more aggressive and being conservative because you just don't have the data yet to be super confident about using your own ability to pick the losses. Are we at the point in time where now you have the full data set and the loss picks we're going to see are based on your experience?

The vast majority of it is based on our experience at this point. We are always looking at industry metrics to test our development of our own portfolio. Your point about being cautious with reserves, I think we've mentioned on previous calls, we generally take bad news before good news, so we wait for substantial, I'll call that a third of the curve to develop before we think about it, recognizing good news. I'd say that's not atypical for the industry, but that's based on our own curves and our own assessment of when it's appropriate to think about making adjustments.

Okay. Given the shorter time, please take some other questions. Thank you for your answers.

Sure.

Our next question comes from Ryan from Ottawa.

Hey, thanks. Good morning. I guess just a relative question, thinking back to 2006. um in in the years following that i think ren had roe 30 to 45 i realized those were no cat years but you know even if those were normal cat years it would have been a 20 plus percent roe business i guess just in comparison um kevin like if you think about uh like the health of the property cat business today relative to where it was in 2006 and i mean maybe linking this back to What happened at the renewal? Concessions that you thought might have fallen a little short of your expectations? I guess, like, what are the primary differences that would make it a different ROE business today versus post-Katrina?

So, I think of this 1.1 as being less similar to 06 and more similar to what happened in 2001, 2002. 2002, I guess. Because it's broader geographically, there are far more attractive lines and far more hardening lines in the market. And so I don't know how to answer your question with regard to comparing it to 06. But when I think about what we've built in our ability to leverage in the market, it's stronger now than it was in 02. The fundamentals of the market are a little different, but the ability for us to harvest profit from the casualty portfolio, I think, is increasing. We've got a much bigger capital partners business, which continues to contribute. Investment returns look stronger. And then the property portfolio at the reset level is at extremely attractive levels.

Got it. And, again, just on the renewal issue, It did seem to kind of come together at the end. Any idea of just, I guess, whether it's terms and conditions or rate, some aspects of that renewal that you wish would have potentially been a little bit more favorable than they were for the industry or for REN?

Late renewals work to our advantage. And renewals, often because it's a renewal where there's been a A dislocation that hasn't been fully absorbed by the market, which means creating options and providing alternatives, is a skill that can reap outsized rewards. We achieved a significant number of private placements by helping companies think about how to structure their programs. The one area where we think it's a delay, not a miss, is the capacity that we thought would come to the market at 1.1. We saw more capacity come to the market in Europe and some other places. The U.S. capacity, I think buyers ultimately made a wallet decision as to how much they wanted to spend. I don't think their appetite for how much they want to buy has diminished. And I believe that what we're experiencing is a bit of a delay in that limit coming to the market, which will add to the sustainability of the price. hardness that we're seeing. So when I look about it, I'd say that that's an area that I'd say was a bit of a surprise to us at 1.1. But again, I'm not concerned about it because I do think the capacity needs to come to the market. And I think if it does come to the market, we've got the capital and the structuring capability to be able to service them.

And then just lastly... With capital going more toward the property cap business away from other property, other property obviously has quite a bit more premium. Any indication of, I guess, what top line could look like next year from the other property perspective?

Yeah, it's quite a deliberate change. We're getting very good rate increase in the other property portfolio, but it comes in more slowly than the losses occurring nature of the property cap portfolio. So leveraging into that, I think we're making a smart trade as to how to put capacity into the market. So I don't particularly worry about one being up or the other. Our footprint in that market is exceptionally strong, and when the opportunity there begins to emerge as accretive again, we will leverage back into it. But right now, property CAD is preferred, and we're going to continue to emphasize the growth there. In the long and short of it, we're going to grow property cap quite a bit and we're going to shrink a bit in other property, which I think is a good trade.

Our next question comes from Meyer Shields from KBW.

Thanks. I guess to begin with, it sounds like the casualty and specialty combined ratio expectation is flat on a year-over-year basis. In other words, thinking in the mid-90s. Am I thinking about that correctly?

Yeah, in my prepared comments. Thanks for the question. In our prepared comments, I did say that we expect that with the growth. We should still continue to maintain mid-90s. And mid-90s is a range. You know, this year, mid-90s was 95.3. And you saw us, you know, kind of move up and down in that range with events like earlier in the year, Ukraine losses. And I'll point out this year, we had the loss on OneOak. So it should move up and down, but We feel very comfortable up mid-90s.

Okay. No, that's fair enough. I guess I was expecting a little bit more improvement, but I understand what you're saying about the range. If you look back at the extended 1-1 renewal season, how do you, I guess, compare the actual capacity deployed to your expectations going in? We –

did extremely well, I would say. Again, the area where I think that's the most relevant question is for the U.S. property CAT limit. And as I mentioned, we have about 50% of that yet to be renewed. So I would say that, yeah, there was less demand that came to the market. That did not change anything with our strategy as to how much to deploy It just meant we needed to be a little bit more nimble on how to get the limit into the customer's hands, and we did that. So from my perspective, I feel really good about where we traded into the market, albeit the dynamics were a little bit different than we expected going back to December 1st.

Okay, that's helpful. And I guess last question, if I can, just to continue with that. You talked about expecting that demand to come back. Is that the higher or lower layers of,

coverage that you expect to come back yeah it's a good question it'll be higher layers I think at this point companies are going to continue to let me company larger companies will continue to make the trade that they'd rather build balance sheet protections rather than have low-end income statement protections and I think that's you know the income statement is going to need to be bolstered by them getting more primary rate the one exception to that is in Florida You know, I think there's sometimes some – the way people think about the Florida market is to whether limits above or below the FHCF. I think there will be still a need for some purchasing of limits below the FHCF, which I consider to be, you know, very low. But more broadly, the new limit purchased will be at the top end of programs.

Okay, fantastic. Thank you so much.

Yeah.

Our next question comes from Yaron Kinnar from Jefferies.

Hi, good morning. Good morning. First question, maybe going back to Elise's question on kind of how the ROE look in a normal CAT year, and realizing you can't really prognosticate the precise ROE, what exactly it would look like in 23, but maybe you can also help us with delineating how much of the improvement you see coming from NII versus underwriting. Would it be more weighted to underwriting, more weighted to NII?

I've tried to point that out. It's a good question. I'll help me try to break that. We're seeing much more improvement. Let's start with net investment income. You know, you started to see that over the course of the year and ending it with 144 and giving you guidance that we'll probably look at $150 million in the first quarter here, give or take, you know, subject to market moves. And we're starting to see, you know, relative performance just on the management fees on coming through from our capital partners going up by, you know, basically 40%, you know, from $25 million a quarter to $35 million, which is reflective of the capital that we've raised. The casualty specialty business will improve based on the net earned premium that we bring through. So those are things that we look at as very stable. And we look at that as something we continue to talk about in the context of our three drivers of profits. Property should do better, as Kevin's pointed out. Property should do better, but you can't control Mother Nature. You can only structure the book to be able to adapt to it as well as you can. So that's the picture that we're trying to portray out there, that there is a core, stable, solid earnings stream that does support a level of return that we feel is above our cost of capital just to begin with.

Got it. That's helpful. And then in the underwriting book, maybe you can help – clarify a little bit or sort some of the noise. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to me like you're saying that maybe more of the underwriting margin improvement would come from property CAT, but maybe more of the growth, top line growth, would be in the casualty and specialty in 23? Is that a fair summary?

I didn't mean to leave that impression. We are growing property CAT substantially. Um, we will, so other property as a whole will grow. Property cat will grow substantially. We're going to reduce a bit on other property. Again, you know, talk a little bit about that as being kind of the trade in how to set up the, the, um, the portfolio. We will grow, uh, the casualty specialty portfolio. A good piece of that growth within the casualty specialty portfolio will come from some dislocated specialty lines. Um, The final thing I would say is just having an underwriting background, I'm focused on net written premium just because we have a lot of changes at the third-party capital level and the managed premium level that are important. So being more specific there, it's Upsilon. We reduced the footprint of Upsilon into the market because The product that Upsilon sold was better sold into Renry and DaVinci. That'll change the gross written premium. But the net economics coming to us are better reflected in net written premium because of that shift.

And does this shift or the, I guess, the parallel growth in casualty, specialty, and property cap at the same time, how does that impact excess sales? Um, capital.

So from a capital position, we are extraordinarily well situated going into the opportunity set that we're seeing, you know, within casualty, within specialty, um, and outside the U S you know, capital is never an issue. We, you know, the peak exposure within the portfolio going into this renewal was Southeast hurricane. It'll remain Southeast hurricane, and we still have significant opportunity to grow the portfolio. and deploy more capital should we choose to.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Brian Meredith from UBS.

Great. Thank you. Hey, just a couple of ones here for you, Kevin. I think I just want to clarify what you just said there. So you should see some pretty substantial growth in CAT premium retained, net written premium growth.

Yes.

Okay, good. I just wanted to clarify that. So it's on your balance sheet. Great. And then the second question, I'm just curious, on Florida, as we look at the 6-1 renewals, does any of the legislative changes make your appetite there any better, or is it purely just what's going to happen with rate and pricing that market?

I'm pleased that they're taking steps to improve the health of the Florida market. At the margin, it's beneficial. Thinking strategically as to how we're going to position the book, it will not change our appetite in Florida specifically because of that rate attachment and other opportunity will be the drivers in how we structure the portfolio.

Got you. Great. And then I guess just my last quick question, I think you kind of referred to it earlier. It sounds like Europe turned out being better than expected with rate increases. Have you increased your allocation of business to Europe?

Yes, capital is still driven by U.S. and capital is still driven by Southeast, but we saw more opportunities in Europe than we expected, and we were able to kind of leverage into it. The Zurich office performed well, seeing the opportunity early and executing.

Great. Thank you.

Yep. Thanks, Brian.

My last question comes from Mike Zermanski from BMO.

Hey, great. Follow-up on the Florida question from Brian. So I'm just curious now that you've had some time, more time to go through the legislation. It sounded like, Kevin, in your answer that maybe these legislative changes might not be that meaningful, or do we just need more time to see them play out? And I guess also reflecting on the past question about this current cycle versus the 2000s, the counterparties are much different than back then. Maybe I'm wrong, you can correct me, but do you expect your counterparties over time to maybe improve from a capital or kind of social inflationary aspect over the coming years, maybe given some of the legislative changes?

Yeah, thanks for the question. I think The profile of the southeast risk that we take is materially different than the early 2000s. In the early 2000s, we had a much bigger footprint with the local Florida companies participating in that market. A much bigger piece of our southeast wind exposure in particular comes from large nationwide companies tend to have much higher retentions. They have their own claim staff. They have a lot of infrastructure that they can bring to bear should there be a loss. I think given a loss and having some of the changes that were made legislatively, it can make a bit of a difference in the uncertainty post-loss. But again, I'm just trying to be transparent that the drivers of our capacity deployment for the Southeast and in particular Florida will be driven much more around attachment point price and macro terms of the deal rather than the legislative environment and the changes that were made.

Okay, and my follow-up would just be kind of on new capital. We're clear on hearing your expectations for mid-year to continue to be favorable. But curious, we're seeing some headlines about new capital coming to the marketplace. Are you seeing and hearing about additional capital providers coming in to kind of swoop in and fill some of the supply-demand dislocation?

I mean, obviously you hear all the rumors, and I know people are looking for capital. We've been successful bringing capital. It's because of the uniqueness of the offering and the expertise of the underwriting. I think that will continue. So should new capital come in, I think the natural place for them to want to have a conversation is here. I think it's getting a little, you know, the class of 23, which we've seen in other big dislocated years, seems as if that's a little bit more than third-party capital coming in. Regardless, I look at third-party capital at this point as if it's going to be something that disrupts the market, it's unlikely to disrupt us because of the flexibility of our platform and our ability to execute into the market. So not that concerned about it at this point, but something we're watching closely.

Thank you.

We have reached our allotted time for Q&A. I will now turn the call back to Kevin O'Donnell.

So thanks, everybody. I appreciate you staying on for a few extra minutes. I appreciate the questions as well. For those that have trouble getting onto the call, I apologize for the difficulties, but happy to take any follow-ups. As far as the renewal, I've been doing this for a long time. I've seen a lot of different types of markets, and this was one of the most successful impressive renewal performances I've ever seen from the Renaissance team to be able to execute into this market. And I couldn't be prouder of the portfolio that they built. So thanks again and look forward to speaking with you next quarter.

This concludes the Renaissance Reef fourth quarter and full year 2022 earnings calling webcast. Please disconnect your line at this time and have a wonderful day.