Good morning. My name is Ashley, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the RenaissanceRe Second Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. After the prepared remarks, we will open the call for questions. Instruction will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I will now turn the call over to Keith McCue, Senior Vice President of Finance and Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Ashley. Good morning, and welcome to RenaissanceRe's second quarter earnings conference call. Joining me today to discuss our results are Kevin O'Donnell, President and Chief Executive Officer; Bob Qutub, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and David Marra, Executive Vice President Group Chief Underwriting Officer. First, some housekeeping matters. Our discussion today will include forward-looking statements, including new and updated expectations for our business and results of operations. 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 release. 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 renre.com. And now I'd like to turn the call over to Kevin. Kevin?

Thanks, Keith. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining today's call. Before I begin my comments, I want to welcome our Chief Underwriting Officer, David Marra, to the call. Going forward, he will provide the more detailed commentary on segment performance that I previously covered, and I look forward to his increased participation. Welcome, David. Turning to the quarter. I am pleased to report that RenaissanceRe once again delivered excellent results. We reported an annualized operating return on average common equity of 28%. Notably, the operating return on equity this quarter is almost identical to Q2 last year, but average common equity has increased by two-thirds. We have changed the scale of the company over the last several years, most significantly by acquiring Validus Re, and are proud that this greater scale and diversification continues to reward our shareholders with superior returns. Looking forward, over the remainder of this year and into 2025, I believe these superior returns can persist. It is an exciting time to be a reinsurer and we are confident in our strategy and we trust our execution. As you will hear us discuss today, we are delivering results across each of our three drivers of profit, and believe that we can continue to do so for several reasons. First, property reinsurance rates remain attractive. We led the market pricing reset in 2023 and are confident that the rate strength we are currently experiencing will continue. The market is becoming increasingly stable. Primary companies are adjusting to the new reinsurance market by increasing property rates. This allows them to continue to add limits to their reinsurance protections. Over the preceding year, we estimate that demand for property catastrophe reinsurance limits in the US excluding cat bonds has increased by about $20 billion. This new demand was…

Thanks, Kevin and good morning, everyone. This quarter we delivered excellent results across all aspects of our business. Operating income was $651 million and our annualized operating return on average common equity was 28%. All three drivers of profit are producing strong sustainable sources of income. Underwriting income was $479 million up 37% from the second quarter of 2023. These were $84 million up 48% and retained net investment income was $283 million up 50%. These increasing earnings across all three drivers of profit are reflected in our operating EPS which was $12.41 per share this quarter up 40% from a year ago. As Kevin explained, we believe that the momentum behind our three drivers of profit will persist and we will continue to generate superior returns for our shareholders. I will discuss our earnings in more detail in a moment. But first, I want to touch on capital management. Over the last several quarters we have been consistently generating profits in excess of what we require to grow the business. We are now at a point in the balances integration where we are starting to free up more of this excess capital. We find our shares very attractive to current multiples. Since the end of the first quarter we repurchased $170 million of our common shares. As we look forward, we are keeping an eye on hurricane season. However, as Kevin mentioned we believe that we will deliver consistent strong returns over the long term. This combined with our leading ability to match desirable risk with efficient capital means that we can capture attractive underwriting opportunities while continuing to repurchase shares at attractive valuations. Turning now to our second quarter results and starting with our first driver of profit underwriting where gross premiums written were up 29% or 36%…

Thanks, Bob, and good morning, everyone. As Kevin discussed, our underwriting team has been focused on retaining the combined RenaissanceRe and Validus business at the persistently attractive rates in terms and conditions we have seen over the last two years. With the majority of renewals now complete, we have achieved this goal delivering over $3 billion of well-diversified incremental in-force premium from the Validus portfolio while deepening our partnerships with brokers and clients. This larger diversified portfolio puts us in an excellent position to help our clients manage their biggest risks, while continuing to produce superior returns on the underwriting side. Importantly, portfolio construction is a constant process. Even at our larger size, we remain nimble with a focus on capturing attractive opportunities as they arise and exercising discipline as needed to preserve superior returns for our shareholders. This morning, I will provide more context on market conditions and quarterly performance within our Property and Casualty segments. Starting with Property, where we had a successful midyear renewal. As Kevin discussed, there was significant new demand supply match demand, but did not exceed it. We retained the combined RenaissanceRe and Validus portfolio and have grown Property Catastrophe gross premiums written by 35% year-to-date. This reflects high success renewing the Validus portfolio, which is the largest contributor to our growth and is the most efficient way for us to grow into this market. We also achieved some incremental growth from new business in our US cat book. Our success in retaining the Validus portfolio is consistent between Q1 and Q2. Reported gross premium written growth in Q2 is lower than Q1 because the Validus portfolio was more heavily skewed to 1/1 inception than the RenaissanceRe book. The year-to-date figure is indicative of the overall growth we achieved. We maintained the strong level…

Thanks David. We delivered another excellent quarter financially driven by strong underwriting fee and net investment income. We had solid midyear renewals and successfully retained the combined RenaissanceRe and Validus portfolio while deepening our partnerships with customers. We optimally shaped our underwriting portfolios balance of risk and return objectives. We repurchased our shares at attractive multiples. And lastly, we are confident the current favorable environment will persist into 2025, which will allow us to continue to grow shareholder value at an industry leading -- at an industry-leading pace. And with that, we'll open it up for questions. Thanks.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Hi thanks. Good morning. My first question is a question on premium growth. You guys emphasized that you're seeing good growth in the legacy Ren as well as in the Validus book of business. From outside the company, when you look at what you guys reported last year, some of the information that we have on Validus from disclosures that are out there I think some of us struggle a little bit to understand the growth in both businesses. Could you just provide some more color to help us understand like the growth that you are seeing in both businesses so far this year?

Yes, I'll start and then I'll ask Dave to give some commentary as well. We're proud of the growth that we've achieved. If you go back to 1/1 we increased the expectations for growth from $2.7 billion to $3 billion with upside we have written more than $3 billion. A lot of that as Dave highlighted comes from the Validus acquisition. I think the simplest way that we look at growth is from a year-to-date basis rather than a quarter. So, if you're looking at the year-to-date numbers they're very strong growth percentages, which reflect that $3-plus billion of additional premium. I think the quarterly number is a little bit misleading just because the Validus portfolio was much more weighted to a 1/1 book compared to a second quarter book. And with that the portfolio came on a little quicker than what our own portfolio does. I don't know Dave if you want to touch a little bit more?

Yes exactly. We got pretty much every line that we wanted to out of the Vales portfolio. And then as the demand grew we were able to add some incremental lines beyond that. So, we're very happy with the results. The market is very supportive of the larger RenaissanceRe partnership of their business. And that's showing up in fully incorporating the Validus portfolio and also some additional growth.

Thanks. And then my follow-up is on the Specialty Casualty segment. If I adjust for the 3.4 points that Bob called out, it seems like your accident year combined ratio ex-VOBA didn't really move much year-over-year in that Casualty Specialty book, right? Yet there is a lot of uncertainty right now with economic and social inflation and we're seeing a lot of reserve charges stemming from primary companies. How are you -- I'm just trying to understand, how that's being factored into your loss picks and we just look at that the numbers haven't moved much year-over-year ex the noise that you highlighted on the VOBA.

Yeah. Elyse, this is David. I'll kick off on that one. The couple of claims that Bob mentioned that are elevating the current accident year loss ratio are claims and subsets of our major classes which came in this quarter and it led to some volatility. And its normal volatility we might expect in the business. It's nothing that we see as a trend. Overall we are monitoring casualty trend. Like we talked about we -- our current years are reported developing according to expectations and we're confident in our numbers there. We're watching increasing trend in some areas of general liability. Those are localized still driven by the same type of trends that we've observed for several years driven by auto losses some auto losses coming into the umbrella layers. And we're pricing those into our future renewals to make sure we stay ahead of them.

And then one really quick one, the $94 million of professional lines business you guys called out as a return of premium of some sort. Did that have any impact on the Casualty Specialty margin in the quarter?

No. It's not. It's negligible. I mean these are normal adjustments based off of estimates that we have. And what we think the client will actually underwrite for risk attaching. The adjustments tend to happen across all lines of businesses, except when you have large swings or large changes in trend which is what you saw in professional liabilities it was a negative adjustment but the impact on underwriting margin is nominal. It's very minimal. The risk one question Elyse, I'd like to go back on growth. Your comment on year-over-year comparability and the gross written premium with the under Validus' control last year and is under our control this year. There was a difference in how they recognize the quota share on a gross written basis. It was recognized all in the quarter that it was written, whereas we'll recognize it over the course of the year. Is -- the difference it doesn't change the risk and it doesn't change the underwriting margin. It just affects the top line optics and you'll see this year over last year until you get into the fourth quarter of this year.

Thank you.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Josh Shanker with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

I'd like to dig in a little bit to David's comments a little bit more and talk about the loss ratio or the current year loss ratio in the Casualty segment, obviously deteriorated in 1Q you had the George Lock, then the Baltimore Bridge Disaster, but we didn't have many items in that this quarter. What's going on the margins there? And is there just conservatism given what we're hearing at other underwriters about loss trends getting worse for recent accident years?

Let me try and address that one, Josh. In my prepared comments you heard me talk about while we acknowledge it was $28 million in underwriting income and there was $6 million in the first quarter if you go back and you want to refer to the bridge, included in both of those numbers for casualty was amortization of purchase accounting of over $40 million. And that's why we show an adjusted combined ratio in the mid-90s. That's why it's $95.6 million versus $98 million that's really to show the cash on cash differential. So I would look through and you can probably go back and look at the adjusted combined ratio against the $1.5 billion of net earned premium. That's how you get to that number.

And so given that situation in that purchase accounting goes out one year from now it's going to have a step function difference?

It will continue to step down each quarter. But by the fourth quarter of next year, we'll come off significantly indeed probably less than half of that.

Okay. I'll try and do that math. And then...

Mainly in the acquisition ratio.

So what about the loss ratio, specifically the loss ratio feels elevated relative to expectations given that there were no casualty cats in the quarter and whatnot. Am I mistaken about that impression?

Josh, this is David. You're right, that there were a couple of points like Bob mentioned. It's a couple of one-off claims that are in fall in subsets of our major classes. So there's just inherently more volatility there. Two claims were reported. So we booked those in the current year. It is indicative of the volatility we would expect from time-to-time in the current year loss ratio. And I think one of the important things is there's event-like losses that can happen and then there's shifts in our curve and changes in trend. None of this has changed our curves. These are just single losses in relatively small books of business.

Okay. Thank you. Any more color on that would always be appreciated. And then, on the Property business side I was maybe a bit surprised there was any large event disclosure this quarter. And one of the things that was triggered was a number of aggregate covers I suppose, I thought the market was moving away from aggregate covers over the last couple of years. Can you talk about what your appetite is for writing that business and how well priced it is given where it was a couple of years ago?

Hey, Josh I can comment on that. This is David. There's very little appetite in the market for aggregate covers. There are some that attach at proper catastrophic levels, but aggregate covers that will provide the earnings level protection that will respond to the smaller caps that we're seeing happen in the severe convective storms and the other things that happened in the quarter those are not really existent to the market these days.

But they existed and you have them in your losses in this quarter yes?

No. I think -- we called out the Taiwan earthquake and it was an elevated quarter for PCS events, but it's not coming from what we -- what was written in the market in 2022 and prior those low aggregate deals are not a component -- a significant component of the loss that as Dave mentioned is not really something that comes in from the market.

It seems like in the press release.

No. I know. So some of the Midwest regionals are structured as aggregates, but they're not what would be the traditional aggregate that was exposing reinsurers prior to 2020. They are smallish companies that or -- have an aggregate component to their program but it's not the same low aggregates that were in the market from 2022. These are much more appropriately -- the appropriate level of retentions and narrow -- tend to be more narrow in the geographic footprint.

Great. Thanks for the answers.

Yes.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Ryan Tunis with Anonymous Research. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning guys. Just a question I guess on Specialty. So if I look at the current accident year loss ratio over the past five quarters, we've had kind of two different types of quarters. There's three that have been 67 plus and there's two that have been 63. Is it fair to say that the 63 is more of the favorable scenario where you kind of over earn on the Specialty and the 67 is kind of more like the normal with the type of specialty losses over time that you'd expect?

I think the range you noted -- Ryan, this is David. The range of note is the normal volatility that can happen with the diversification of the portfolio. There will always be losses that come in some ups and some downs in the quarter some current year some prior year and that range is not something that concerns us.

Got it. And then I guess just for Kevin. Maybe just a little bit more texture on the competitive environment right now in terms of like the type of capital you're seeing coming into the market? I mean, there's a lot of cap bond issuance this quarter. I'm not sure what to read it out. But yes, I mean, how has that been evolving? Or is it still pretty much as disciplined as it's been? Or are you seeing some changes in the capital composition.

So the capital is always coming into the industry. We've created a lot of capital that we're happy to deploy into the market. But the -- what I mentioned in my comments we also saw $20 billion of new limit purchased. So what we're seeing is a pretty balanced market between the amount of capital that's looking to be deployed and the demand that's coming to the market. So I think the reset -- and one of the things I think is important to touch on the reset in pricing that happened in is persistent in the market. And like any financial market we're trading around the new level, but we're not on a negative trend back to the 2022 pricing. I think we always watch supply and demand dynamics. And I think particularly in the property cat market it's relatively -- it's in a good state of equilibrium.

And sorry you said in your prepared remarks that terms and conditions were relatively unchanged. If there was any change on the margin what -- I guess, what are you meaning by that? If there was anything that was incremental?

Dave, do you want to touch on that?

Yes, definitely. I mean, the most important thing is that the retention is held. I mean the retentions are the piece that allows us to continue to construct the portfolio and be removed from attritional losses. And that's the most important thing that we're focused on.

Thank you.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Bob Huang with Morgan Stanley. please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning. I'm going to shift gears a little bit to maybe repurchase really -- so first of all thank you for the opening remark on repurchase. But if I can just dig a little bit deeper on that. A lot of folks are expecting a fairly active hurricane season. It feels a little unusual that you would buy this much shares right ahead of the peak of the hurricane season. Just curious on your tactical approach here. Why not wait until after the hurricane season? And just given the continuous repurchase you're doing so far should we kind of interpret this as a level of comfort you have around your balance sheet? Maybe just a little bit more color on the strategy and the tactics around the repurchase.

I’ll point you back -- this is Bob. I'll point you back to my prepared comments. There's a couple of drivers that I tried to highlight is we've had seven quarters of profitable results and that has increased our capital base significantly. So we've had the ability to deploy that capital. So -- and still generate 28% return ROE, which I feel great about. We have been freeing up some liquidity with the integration of Validus and that includes bringing up capital. And so we've seen some attractive opportunities to go back in and buy the capital. As I said in my closing comments in that section was we have the luxury of being able to grow into attractive markets that Kevin and David talked about with also the ability to buy back shares at good value.

Okay. So there's really no...

And nothing's changed in our capital allocation process.

Okay. No, I really appreciate that. Thank you. That's actually all for me.

Thanks.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Yaron Kinar with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. I wanted to go back to growth for a second. And I realize it may be difficult for us as outsiders to figure out what organic growth was like given the maybe different seasonality in the Validus book. But, obvious, I think we are seeing a considerable slowdown in organic and I'm wondering does that tie to your comments about moving maybe to higher tail risk? And if so can you offer us maybe a way to think about more of an apples-to-apples comparison of growth and the opportunity that you're going after in Property?

Yes. Thanks for the question, Yaron. The way we think about building our portfolio is, we look at it on a pro forma basis and then try to design a portfolio that has kind of the best set of returns across the full distribution of outcomes. Growth certainly played a big part in that this year. Capital management the way we structured the risk on our partner balance sheets and the way we used our seated. So I would say, there's not a lot that's changed in our appetite for how we've built the portfolio. Your question between organic and inorganic, I think we've been disappointed to say, the size of the portfolio that we would likely create. There's a very heavy overlap between what Validus wrote and what RenRe wrote prior to the acquisition. That's one of the reasons we like the portfolio so much. So I would say that our ability to land $3-plus billion of premium, we could categorize that as more organic growth, because there's always changes across what Validus legacy wrote and what RenRe legacy wrote. But we think it's a cleaner way to talk about it is largely attributing it to the Validus portfolio.

Okay. And then maybe shifting to Casualty and Specialty. I am curious just given the -- let me reframe this. You did mention that the reserve weighting is for the more favorable more recent accident years. That being said, we are seeing some industry pressure emerge for accident years 2021 through 2023, particularly for anything auto-related and then GL. So can you maybe talk about how you're seeing those accident years develop?

Yes. Hi. This is David. Like I said in my prepared comments, those accident years are developing within our expectations; they are still green and we need to continue to lift in the season but that's the good sign so far. When we construct our overall portfolio and want to ensure that it's resilient to things like inflation, there are several things that we think about. One we have to construct the portfolio to avoid the risks like commercial auto that are really most in the crosshairs of the plaintiff bar. We also then use cycle management like we talked about in order to have the highest weighted portion of our risk when return on risk is the best. We've used adverse development covers in order to manage risk in some areas and depends also the reserving process. We recognize bad news early, we didn't take down our loss picks significantly even though rates were going up and would have pointed to a potentially lower expected loss ratio. That just leads to an overall stronger pool of reserves, which is more resilient in an inflationary environment.

Okay. And maybe just to clarify, when you say you've not really seen the -- the accident years 2021 through 2023 develop much and they are so green. That's true for GL and any auto-related reserves as well?

We don't really write commercial auto. So, it's more liability. Commercial auto would be a subset of general liability but we don't write.

Right. Yes, I was just thinking through excess liability. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. We will take our next question from Brian Meredith with UBS. Please go ahead.

Yes. Thank you. I'd just clarify quickly. So you didn't have any adverse development on 2020 through 2023 this quarter in Casualty and Specialty?

We're going to have puts and takes across the portfolio but nothing significant that was really anything to read into Brian. I mean there's always going to be puts and takes.

Thanks. I just want to clarify that. And then I'm just curious, on the Casualty and Specialty I appreciate you calling out the couple of the losses that happened. I'm just curious, when I think of those types of losses would they typically be kind of in your loss expectations? It's the kind of business that you guys write? Or is the casualty and specialty business you've got something that will have these bud force fairly regularly. I'm just trying to understand that a little bit more as to why these are unusual in the business that you write? Kevin O’Donnell: Yeah. It's a good question. I think there's always an actuarial judgment as to whether when a loss comes in whether it's contemplated in the curve or not. These are kind of weird losses and they're in relatively small portfolios. So when thinking about how we initially built the curves for those the development growth these really were something extraordinary and outside of it. So we decided to book them above the attritional. I don't consider that unusual. And I would say if these were a bigger portfolio and more traditional losses they would have been just absorbed within the attritional.

That makes sense. And one just quick follow-up. David, I think you mentioned that the way the Validus kind of renewals happened impact the second quarter. What's going to happen in the third quarter? Is Validus more heavily weighted toward third quarter less? Will that have an impact on growth in the third quarter?

Yes especially with reference to property cat the book is pretty much 100% renewed. So the written premium that we see in that percentage growth is the closest proxy for annual.

Great. Thank you. Kevin O’Donnell: Thanks, Brian.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Meyer Shields with KBW. Go ahead.

Thank you. Just a follow-up on that. Is there any way of quantifying the difference in gross written premium based on the accounting differences that you have with legacy Validus?

No, we haven't talked about that. The biggest correction that was made on that adjustment was in the purchase accounting when we started that in the fourth quarter and then into the first quarter. But it would reflect in first quarter for example we have shown a lot higher on the Validus side than we would have shown.

Okay. Fair enough.

Intuitive if you think about it is, it slower -- those -- if I think about excess of loss that comes in, in the quarter from a written standpoint that it's written, whereas, quota shares come in over time they use the quota shares similar in excess of loss on the written side. It's all lumped into the renewal period.

Right. We're just getting a lot of questions in terms of different things in premium production compared to expectations and I was looking for a way of ballparking that? But second question, I guess, Kevin you made some comments about moving… Kevin O’Donnell: One thing I'd say we haven't changed our accounting that's the way we've always done it.

No I completely understand. I was hoping to go a little deeper to your comments about maybe moving away from some of the lower layer risks in terms of expected returns that are there and maybe how impactful that is on potential premiums as this new approach is implemented? Kevin O’Donnell: This is the part about the premium?

Yeah. So as you move away from those risks presumably the change in approach I mean some premiums that we had last year are not going to manifest this year? Kevin O’Donnell: Yeah. So there's they'll start kind of at the industry level and then to our execution. As Dave commented on 2023 retentions increased pretty substantially and prices increase. Both of those provide a buffer to the income statement because risk is more remote and we have more premium to cover for when losses emerge. Our portfolio shaping then, which really came in with regard to using different vehicles, so we deployed Upsilon to a greater degree this year. That comes through ceded premium. We upsized our ceded from where we originally had targeted in our first pro forma. And then the balance of risk between us and our partner balance sheets more broadly was optimized to again steepen the risk curve so that if there's smaller events as I highlighted we will have a lower market share compared to larger events. And that's what we mean by steepening. So the income statement will have a lower percentage market share exposure than the balance sheet, but both are down from a percent of equity basis.

Okay. Understood. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We will take our next question from Charlie Lederer with Citigroup. Please go ahead.

Thank you. So one large broker recently noted in the insurance media that reinsurers might be willing to write lower down layer at 1/1 in property and in specialty effectively starting to provide some earnings protection there. Can you talk on whether you're seeing that in the market being discussed and maybe whether your appetite may change as well given the more diversified book of business and third-party capital? Kevin O’Donnell: Yeah. I think buyers would like to have lower retention. So there's always from a brokerage perspective an opportunity to sell something there. I think the market -- if there are lower layers sold the market will be disciplined. So I'm not particularly concerned about an overall shift to the retention levels that were available in 2022. There's buydowns on programs. We're happy to look for them. And we also have different vehicles that might be a better home for it rather than our own balance sheets. I wouldn't say we're seeing that actively at this point but there's always conversations about where the retention is. And I think the brokers seeing that as an opportunity where they potentially have an opportunity for some growth there. Dave, if you would add anything?

No. I agree. I think most of the demand will come as new top layers and we continue to expect that to happen. We're able to play across the spectrum. So we have capital for the top layers and then we're able to optimize our network position throughout the tower as that suits us.

Got it. Thanks. And I guess different question. Just if we look at the operating noncontrolling interest that you disclosed in the sub kind of as a percentage of operating income, it seems like that was at the lowest level I think it's been since you began disclosing this. Can you talk about what's driving that or if there's anything underlying that that's notable?

That's a comp. NCI is always a little tricky. I think this has to do a little bit with our sessions or the risk sharing we're doing with some of our third-party capital partners particularly daVinci. But why don't we come back to you on that. That's kind of a technical question for us to kind of wrestle through.

Okay.

We will take our next question from Mike Zaremski with BMO. Please go ahead.

Hey thanks. Good morning. Back to the commentary you gave on demand in the US for limit. I guess, if we just think about the current inflationary environment on personal lines for example there's still teens increases a lot of labor inflation. So it makes sense you're kind of talking about from an outlook viewpoint that demand remains healthy in '25. Can you -- you said in demand in the US went up by $20 billion I believe. Can you give us what the denominator was? And so like, do you expect the pace of demand to actually increase potentially in '25 when we think about those dynamics or maybe some perspective around the actual demand growth versus historical? Thanks.

Sure. The -- so I think the demand has been a bit of a seesaw coming back where market hasn't been able to -- do they have more desire to purchase cover than they had wallet to purchase it. I think as rates are coming through on the primary market, we're seeing people being executing on their desire to purchase more limit. It's been very constructive for us with particularly top layer and premier. You've also seen elevated cat-bond issuance as well. I would say that the market in the US for property cat limits probably just above -- just right around $160 -- $160 billion. So it's probably what's at a 15% growth rate or something like that.

Got it. Okay. That's helpful. And switching gears to investment income. And I hope this is a fair question, but if I look at the guidance you guys gave on the call last quarter, you talked about retained investment income being relatively flat. It wasn't flat, it went up despite I believe yields going down a bit since you gave that. And maybe something you can -- I know you're giving flattish guidance again for next quarter. But maybe you can just describe what caused it to be up this quarter.

Thanks. I think I tried to cover that in my prepared comments. The asset levels have grown and with the higher rates we were able to achieve $15 million -- $10 million, $15 million more on the retained investment portfolio plus a little bit of mix change, but the duration stayed about the same.

Got it. So it's the asset side that you didn't guide you that we. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll take our next question from Andrew Kligerman with TD Securities. Please go ahead.

Hey thanks for getting me in. Quick follow-up on Brian's question earlier on Casualty. It was an interesting response. You said there were weird losses in relatively small portfolios. Any chance you could give a little texture on the types of planes and the limits that you paid out on those claims?

Yes. I think that's more detail than probably makes sense. What we're trying to give is an understanding of how the business is performing. If you look at our casualty portfolio, there's GL there's some big lines in there that are relatively homogenous and then there's transactions that come up for people who are trying to come up creative products and build portfolios. The -- and one of them was really in that category. It was an emerging business where we were working with them to come up with a way for us to provide some capacity to see if the market would develop more broadly. So a very small portfolio and unique loss and an unfortunate loss in an area that we were looking to see if we can make the pie bigger for the reinsurance market and sell some additional types of coverages.

Okay. Thanks for that. And maybe more broadly in topic. Any way to -- and you have such a broad casualty portfolio, but any way to kind of get a sense of the average limits that you're writing and maybe the range of limits?

Hi. This is David. I'll take that one. So we write a broad spread of casualty across general liability and professional liability. A lot of that business is quota share. So if an insurer puts out a $10 million limit, and we have 10% of that, then we have $1 million on each of their risks. It's a portfolio that had a lot of that in it and then gets aggregated up, like Kevin said, into homogenous groups that all that then can be tracked all as one. When we look at this, when we make those risk decisions, we're seeing the entire market, and then we're building up our view of risk both on the top down and bottom up and then placing our bets or constructing our portfolio in order to have the highest return on risk. So it's less about any one limit, and it's more about how we structure the portfolio within a class and over time.

Okay. Thanks a lot.

Thanks.

We'll take our next question from David Motemaden with Evercore. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks. Good morning. Thanks for squeezing me in. I just was hoping you could elaborate a little bit on the Casualty book and how closely you guys have been working with the cedents just to stay up on loss activity and actual to expected within those portfolios? Any changes you've made just given the distortions in the environment would be interesting to learn.

Definitely. It's a great question, and it's part of what we do in our day-to-day underwriting process, we track actual versus expected. We also are able to benchmark clients' data against the whole market. And that is an advantage we have over, say, an insurance company that may only have access to their own data, we see the entire market and collate that data and then develop our independent view. It is really an essential piece of how we think about scaling our participations over time and then picking between risks. And that's shown up in things like avoiding commercial auto, the recent reductions in -- as the rates have reduced, that's a portfolio shift that we've made and things like that as a constant part of the underwriting process.

Got it. Thank you. And then maybe just lastly, you spoke about having a higher dollar value of Southeast wind risk but lower on a percentage of equity basis. Could you just talk about why you're not willing to take that up on a percentage of equity basis, if returns are so solid? Is that just more active management ahead of a potentially active wind season? Or some color around that would be helpful.

Yeah. I think it was -- what we're trying to do is get the best set of returns across the full distribution of outcomes. We actually had more success than we anticipated in some of the retro purchasing that we had. So in looking at that, we were able to kind of leverage into a steeper curve, which I think a small piece of this would be our thoughts on an active wind season, but it didn't hurt to think that the income statement a little bit more protected going into what's an active season. But it really was about our ability to see transparently how the book we're writing and the things that we're using to hedge it can shift the curve and look at the returns across that distribution. So it's very small pieces, it is the elevated frequency expected and a big piece of it, it was a way to shape the portfolio to enhance returns.

Understood. Thank you.

Actually, I think we can come back to Charlie's question from earlier regarding the NCI.

Yes, Charlie, I think going back to the NCI. Look, nothing's changed in our relationship with any of our vehicles. We still have the same principles in which we match the risk with the capital that, that JV is subscribed to. Actually, like, for example, when you look at DaVinci, they've actually benefited from the profitability that we've seen in the low catastrophe environment. We've seen the NCI that accretes to our joint venture partners has actually increased, like DaVinci's increased from -- by $225 million to $300 million. And you can see in the supplemental, went from $59 million year-over-year to $150 million year-over-year quarter. So the value proposition for our joint ventures has been reflected as well as what you've seen in our results as well.

And there are no further questions at this time. I'll turn the floor back over to Kevin O'Donnell for any additional or closing remarks.

Thank you for joining today's call. Hopefully, what came across is our excitement and enthusiasm for the portfolio that we create and the opportunities for continued strong performance. So thank you for joining the call, and we look forward to speaking to you next quarter.

Thank you and this concludes the RenaissanceRe Second Quarter 2024 Earnings Call and Webcast. Please disconnect your lines at this time, and have a wonderful day.