Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter Results Teleconference for Travelers. We ask that you hold all questions until the completion of formal remarks, at which time you will be given instructions for the question-and-answer session. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded on January 21, 2016. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Gabriella Nawi, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. Nawi, you may begin.

Thank you, Tina. Good morning and welcome to Travelers' discussion of our 2015 fourth quarter and full year results. Hopefully all of you have seen our press release, financial supplement, and webcast presentation released earlier this morning. All of these materials can be found on our website at www.travelers.com, under the Investors section. Speaking today will be Alan Schnitzer, CEO, Jay Benet, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer; Brian MacLean, President and Chief Operating Officer; and Doreen Spadorcia, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Claim, Personal Insurance and Bond & Specialty Insurance. They will discuss the financial results of our business and the current market environment. They will refer to the webcast presentation as they go through prepared remarks and then we will take questions. In addition, Jay Fishman and other members of the Senior Management team are also in the room. Before I turn it over to Alan, I would like to draw your attention to the explanatory note included at the end of the webcast. Our presentation today includes forward-looking statements. The company cautions investors that any forward-looking statement involves risks and uncertainties and is not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors. These factors are described in our earnings press release and in our most recent 10-Q and 10-K filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements. Also in our remarks or responses to questions, we may mention some non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations are included in our recent earnings press release, financial supplement, and other materials that are available in the Investors section on our website. And now, Alan Schnitzer.

Thank you, Gabi. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. We are very pleased to finish 2015 with another strong quarter. As I'm sure you've seen, we reported operating income of $886 million or $2.90 per share and operating return on equity of 15.8%. That caps off another terrific year with operating income of just over $3.4 billion, operating income per diluted share of a record high $10.87 and operating return on equity of 15.2%. Our underwriting results across the board remains strong as you can see from our combined ratio of 86.6% for the quarter and 88.3% for the year. In domestic business insurance consistent with our marketplace objectives, we achieved a record level of retention in the quarter with positive renewal rate change. In Bond & Specialty Insurance, we generated an all time best underlying combined ratio of 80.1% for the year. Broadly speaking, the market dynamics in the commercial insurance marketplace continued to be remarkably stable. In personal lines, Quantum Auto 2.0 continues to meet our expectations. In agency auto, we had year-over-year policy in force growth of 8% in the fourth quarter, and as you can see in the webcast that's the sixth consecutive sequential quarter of increasing discount. Those of you who have been following our agency auto know what a success it has been. We are also pleased to be seeing an impact from the success of Quantum Auto 2.0 in our homeowners business, and you'll hear more about that from Doreen. Jay Benet will have more to say about our current investment results, but I’ll just note that we have delivered pretty exceptional returns on equity for quite some time notwithstanding over the headwinds in the investment arena. Historically, low interest rates, the decline in energy prices, and volatility in…

Thanks Alan. As Alan mentioned, we're very pleased with our results this quarter; net income per diluted share of $2.83, operating income per diluted share $2.90 and an operating ROE of 15.8%. These results were driven by the continuation of our very strong current accident year underwriting performance as evidenced by an underlying combined ratio of 90.7% despite relatively high non-cat weather related losses in the quarter. Net favorable prior year reserve development was very strong at $292 million pretax and cat losses were relatively modest at $46 million pretax. That said, as shown on Page 4 of the webcast, current quarter results were lower than our very strong fourth quarter of 2014 results, mostly due to the impact of low interest rates and private equity returns on net investment income and in even higher amount of net favorable prior year reserve development in the prior year quarter. Underlying underwriting margins were pretty much the same in both quarters. Fixed income NII of $422 million after-tax was down $31 million from the prior year quarter, principally due to what we have been saying for many years. Securities has had higher book yields have gone off during the past 12 months and have been replaced with securities having lower yields due to the current low interest rate environment. Another contributing factor to lower fixed income NII was the modest reduction in average investments that resulted in part from the company's $579 million first quarter 2015 payment to settle the Asbestos Direct Action Litigation. Looking forward based on the current interest rate environment, we would expect to the impact of lower reinvestment yields and a lower level of fixed maturity investments could in 2016 result in approximately $20 million to $25 million of lower after-tax NII on a quarterly basis when compared…

Thanks Jay. Business in international insurance results for both the fourth quarter and the full year was strong. We continue to generate excellent returns with a full year combined ratio of 92.1% and our retention throughout the year was very strong and reached a record level this quarter in our domestic business. Pricing trends remained relatively consistent with renewal rate change still slightly positive at the end of the year, while new business volume in our domestic business saw a modest increase. Turning to the quarter's financial results, operating income was $566 million with a very strong combined ratio of 89.6. The underlying combined ratio, which excludes the impact of cats and prior year reserve development was 94.4%, up a half a point compared to the fourth quarter of 2014 primarily due to a higher level of non- cat weather related losses. Looking at the topline, net written premiums for the quarter were down about 1.5 points compared to the fourth quarter of 2014 with domestic business insurance premiums up about a point. In domestic business insurance we remain pleased with the continued execution of our pricing strategy. As we've been saying for some time, given the attractive returns that we are generating in this business our focus continues to be on retention and accordingly we’re very pleased that retention improved to a record 85% in the quarter. Renewal premium change came in at 2.4 points, while renewal rate change remained positive but down slightly versus the third quarter. New business of $476 million was up compared to both the prior year and the third quarter. Looking at each of our individual domestic businesses beginning with Select, rate in renewal premium change were in line with recent quarters while retention remains strong at 82% demonstrating continued stability in this segment…

Thank you, Brian and good morning everyone. Bond & Specialty Insurance finished 2015 with another quarter of exceptional financial results. Operating income for the quarter was 162 million down from the fourth quarter of 2014 due to lower net favorable prior year reserve development but overall still a great result. The underlying combined ratio of 80.7 was three point, four points better than the prior year quarter due primarily to two factors, a modest increase in a loss ratio in the prior year quarter that resulted from a re-estimation of the first three quarters of 2014, and secondly the impact of certain customer related intangible assets which became fully amortized during the second quarter of 2015. Underlying underwriting results continue to run well within our long term target ranges and as Alan mentioned, the full year underlying combined ratio of 80.1 was an all time best. We obviously don't think these results come by accident. We pride ourselves on maintaining the underwriting discipline, aggressive management of risk and limits, strong accountant and agency relationship, analytics and claims management that drive these results. As we look ahead to 2016 for this segment, we expect underlying underwriting margin to remain broadly consistent with 2015. As for top line net written premiums in the aggregate were down 4% from the fourth quarter of 2014, primarily due to a decline in surety volume driven by lower bonding needs for our accounts particularly as compared to the strong production in the fourth quarter of 2014. Surety production can vary significantly quarter-over-quarter based on the number, size and timing of bonded construction projects awarded to our customers. We have a strong portfolio of surety clients and believe we remain well positioned to capitalize on increased bonding needs that might result from an improved economy. Across our…

Thank you, Doreen. Tina, we are now ready for the Q&A portion of the call. If I can ask you all to please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Thank you very much. Tina, go ahead please.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Jay Gelb of Barclays. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning. The first question I had was on the potential for share buyback. Alan, any change in view in terms of deploying loan excess annual earnings and share buybacks - got buybacks is – just slightly annually over the past - thinking we might put that trend in place for 2016, 2017 as well.

Jay, good morning. Thanks for the question. No change in strategy or approach to share buybacks or capital management overall and there is no intent to this, it's never been an effort to deploy more than earnings right. We had excess capital in past years and we made that very clear that we were sort of adding that to our annual income to buy back stock but, we said I don't know, a year or two ago that our level of buybacks would be tied to our level of income. And so we’ll have a level of earnings, we’ll do what we need to do with it whether that’s making pension contributions or investments in the business and we’ll take what’s left in and return that to shareholders and there won’t be a perfect correlation between earnings in a year and share buybacks in a year. There is some timing differences but I think as we said pretty consistently recently, share buybacks going forward will be tied to earnings.

Okay. And then on the investment income from the non-fixed income investments, it was clearly impacted by lower energy prices in 4Q and given the collapse in energy prices so far this year, I’m just trying to get a base on what you might expect for 2016, is that $25 million results, taking ahead lower on a quarterly basis from what we saw in 4Q.

Let me just clarify one thing, $25 million that relates to fixed income portfolio not the non-fixed income portfolio.

Jay, its Bill Heyman. Obviously this week is a hard week from which to extrapolate for the rest of the year. The marks as of year-end reflected a price which was an oil price higher than the price which obtained today but not by as much as one might think. During the year most funds wrote down their holdings and in some cases after the write-downs the price of petroleum rose but nothing was written up again. So we think a lot of these portfolios have been marked pretty hard. That said, if we had to predict either way, there is probably a little downside left in the portfolio but the portfolio isn’t that big that the amount are to be material then the aggregate.

Okay, that's helpful for a starting point. And Jay just to clarify, so as talking about the $25 million of income in 4Q from the non-fixed income investment portfolio in terms of the – fixed income, I understand what you were saying in terms of lower -

I apologize for the confusion there.

That's okay, no problem so, but Bill you’re saying that $25 million after tax we saw in 4Q shouldn't be that impacted by lower energy prices even so far.

No, I couldn’t put a number on this especially after the first part of this month but I’m simply saying that everyone assumes that there is a lot of downside based on prices as they are today and there might be less downside than it appears simply because of the way in which funds mark their holdings in 2015.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tina. Next question please?

Thank you. Our next question comes from Randy Binner of FBR & Co. Please go ahead.

I think you touched on this in the opening commentary but from my perspective the pricing - the headline pricing number you provided in the slide-deck the plus 0.6% was better than expected and I guess I’m interested in your perspective and if you think Travelers is unique here, a lot of the headlines surveys that we will get in the industry for commercial lines are moving significantly negative across the board. So I just want to get your perspective on it if you think Travelers is unique here and how kind of much discipline I guess you think - your competitors are holding against the software market?

Randy, good morning it’s Alan. You said it was a surprise, it wasn't a so a surprise to us, it may've been a surprise to you or others but relatively to the surveys what we can tell you is, we’re showing a real data and I think what we’ve always seen is surveys tend to be anecdotally based and tend to maybe over emphasize some volatility either up or down because maybe the people respond to the surveys or thinking about the last transaction or the transactions in their mind. So there is really nothing about this that surprises us and you know we've been saying for a while that we expect the amplitude of the market to moderate. This appears to have moderated and I think you know the fact that we can achieve what we did is, I think a function of two things, one our data and analytics, our expertise, our ability to execute at a very, very granular level and a marketplace that is, we would describe as remarkably stable and at the moment rational.

Just a quick follow up, are there any lines that are really helping that figure, meaning is workers’ comp still kind of the best from a pricing perspective where some other casually lines might be moving negative?

No, this is Brian. It's still a pretty tight band to be honest with you across all the lines. So nothing is dramatically out of pattern up or down. As we commented and Alan touched on in his comments and I in mine, it’s a more larger accounts feeling more pressure than medium and smaller accounts as we said national property is the space where we’re seeing you know more significant rate declines than others. So I think it’s more an account size than a line of business volatility or variability.

That's great. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Michael Nannizzi of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

I guess Doreen maybe a little bit more on the auto side, have you seen any impact from the rise in miles driven in your auto book just given the fact that your growth is sort of come alongside that rise in miles driven?

So let me just talk a little bit about miles driven. The data shows that probably year-to-date the miles driven are up about 2.5% per capita and there is still a lot of debate about whether that makes a difference if it's a long trip, a short trip, whether there is unemployment, whether you have safety features in your vehicles, and so you know we watch that closely but our long term trend of 3% anticipate that and we really haven't seen anything that that particular item is causing us to view frequency differently today.

And just to be crystal clear, the 3% is total trend where the frequency being a small fraction of it.

And then I guess in middle market, I mean with retention up in the high 80s, is that something that you could see that maybe coming down or would you be comfortable with that at a lower level if you saw an opportunity to find some more rate increase opportunities. Just seems like high 80s if pricing is flat and the result are pretty good, I mean is that an area where you could look to push for some more rate at some point?

This is Brian again. That is a constant balancing act in our organization every day. I will tell you that overall our core middle market business from a return perspective is in a very healthy spot and as I said in the comments when we look at our better performing business which is not a tiny part of the portfolio, our very well performing business, we are at retentions north of 90 with pretty modest price increases. We’d obviously love to renew it in the 90s with different price increases but retaining that business is a real priority because it is returning very, very well. With that said, we’re always looking for opportunities to see where we can balance the rate and retention trade off.

Yes, I'd add to that that, even though that’s not the headline number, that continues to be a headline number and the execution below that number is very, very granular. So we’re not managing that headline number, we’re managing every single account.

And just real quick. Alan or Bill, did you guys disclose - definitely appreciate your scores on the energy portfolio. Do you guys disclose anywhere you have the BBB minus category of energy exposure as well just that sort of next rating level up?

Well, I can say that the investment grade portfolio has an average rating of single A and the high-yield portfolio, which is 23 credits with book value of $162 million has an average rating of BB minus, which given the size or to give you what you need.

Got it. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Josh Stirling of Sanford Bernstein. Please go ahead.

I was just thinking may you live an interesting times. You've had good fortune here to become CEO at the time the industry structure is changing very rapidly. I mean obviously over the past six months, we've seen ACE and Chubb merge. It creates a very large and powerful competitor. And on the other hand over at AIG there is presumably going to be lots of opportunities for everyone in the industry. As you thought from Travelers perspective, how the environment is evolving, how are you guys going to sort of tackle these new challenges and opportunities and what should we do to seek Travelers take advantage of all these change in the market?

So I guess what I would share with you is that we are very aware and deeply engaged in all of those things. So whether that's - what's going on with any of our competitors or what's going on with technology or big data or driverless cars, consolidation among distribution, you could go on and on. I think what I would share with you is we're very aware and deeply engaged. As we see all of those things and others, those by the way weren't meant to be necessarily in order what's top in my mind, just what came to my mind but as we think of everything that's got the potential to change in this marketplace, nothing is going to change overnight. These are things that are all going to evolve and develop overtime. And what we've got great confidence in is our positioning to manage all of them. So we think we can understand and manage. We've got the talent, we've got the resources, we've got a deep understanding of risk and reward. And the quality of our underlying business, the results you see this quarter and this year, we've got no distractions. So we are starting from a really good point as we think about and engage on all of those issues. And without taking one by one, for the most part and maybe all in, we see more opportunities than we do risk. But we're certainly examining them from both sides making sure that where there is opportunity, we're positioning ourselves to be able to leverage it and where there is risk that we're making sure we do everything we need to do to mitigate it.

I wonder if we could maybe just switch gears a little bit. You've mentioned risk. Could you give us a little bit of - either Alan or Brian or whoever is appropriate, a little bit of help of understanding what the liability side exposures maybe not Travelers per say, but generally for the industry from a meltdown and the commodities and energy patch would be. I mean presumably, we might see a bunch of bankruptcies, use a lot of different product lines that everybody in the industry sells under companies. And I remember a decade or so ago, Chubb really surprised people when they had got hurt and energy surety deal with Enron. And obviously both D&O and E&O exposures and maybe work comps severity. So I'm sure you guys are playing defense here. I'm wondering if you can help us sort of things through how you and your underwriters are thinking about potential exposures if they've had part of the role keeps getting hurt.

I'll start and I'll look at either Brian or Doreen, and invite them to jump in. I'll say you sort of hit it. We think about the loss side of that equation all the time and whether it's going to our measure and liability book or surety book making sure that we understand what our exposures are. And I'll say that we look at these things - we don't wait for there to be something significant in the marketplace to look at it, we're looking at it all the time and as far out as we can. So we're managing our nets, we're looking on the surety side what kind of collateral we have for instance on some of these accounts. We exit accounts when we need to exit accounts. But we've got a really good track record I think in all of those businesses. So just on manageable liability side, for example, we're much more heavily waited on the private non-profit side as opposed to the large public D&O. And so it's - this is what we do every day is manage risk and think about risk and reward.

The only thing I'd add to that is that when we see any potential issue, we run that through our entire book of business not just what that class of business is. So we look at all the consequential effects that they may have on related industries. And so for example in writing bank we look at the level of their portfolios that are exposed not just to oil and gas, but any one thing in particular. So obviously, surety watching credit and looking at collateral, other management liability areas looking at concentration, but this is unique to us. We always take an issue and run it through the entire book and look at any consequences that might come from that.

Next question please.

Our next question comes from Ryan Tunis of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

I think my first question is for Brian. And I think he mentioned in his prepared remarks that in middle market I think the better accounts you were - renewing I think with the modest rate decline. The decline, but it's kind of like it was only modest. I guess I'm just curious how is the conversation changing with those better accounts, now versus maybe a year ago. Right now like I said, something maybe a modest decline, I mean is that kind of where - whatever one is kind of looking for is still just modest or - how's that conversation evolving?

It's pretty much as you're saying and as you would expect based on the data. A couple of years ago, almost every conversation was starting with some form of price increase even for the best accounts, because everybody saw where the trends were and that is gradually mitigated overtime. But even with those better accounts, the conversation start somewhere with trying to renew it at a modest decline or flat. Obviously, if the average is less than 2% there is still some that are positive. The thing that we're doing probably a little different than we were a year or two ago is we're really trying to get out as early as possible frequently at least three if not six months ahead of time, have conversations with the broker and the account. I think we do have a strong franchise with a valued product and valued services. And fortunately most of those company start by wanting to stay with us. And then I think the other key point is really being able to have the data and analytics where our frontline people can see and really segment their portfolio and in the middle market account by account. Look at how they're performing. And when there are issues either in that account, in that line or in that class of business being able to have an informed conversation with the broker about what those are and why we're trying to do what we're doing on the account really, really makes a difference. So I'd say the big change is getting out early and having a kind of granular conversation on the performance of that line and that business.

My follow up was actually follow-up to Jay's question on capital return and excessive operating income. I guess since the start of 2014, we see like your premiums surplus ratio has drifted up from about 1% to 1.2%. Leverage has been relatively flat. You've said over the past couple of years you've had access. You've been able to deploy. How do we think about that level of access? Just because on those metrics it does seem like whatever access you did have, you have sort of used to at certain extend. Are those metrics even relevant?

The premium to surplus ratio, I would view as not being relevant at all. I mean that was a ratio that was used at a time when rating agencies and regulators didn't have the sophisticated models they have today. So I've said on previous calls, we deal with each one of the models whether it's our internal models, regulatory models or the rating agency models to come to a place where given the profile of our business as it relates to each quarter what is the capital that we think we need in the operating entities that we manage to support AA rating and support a solid AA rating, not one with the wind blows we're worried about our ratings going down. So that's always the starting point. Given the size of our book, it doesn't change very much from quarter to quarter, but what does change is the profitability in each quarter. So there are some quarters where the profitability whether it's for favorable development or some other things to take place, it's higher than our expectations keeping in mind that we have a flow of monies out of the operating companies up to the holding company each quarter based on expectation. So to the extend we earn more. We bring some more up probably a little later than that. I think if you go back over time and you go pass two years ago to an earlier period and start adding up, the earning versus the share repurchase that you see that there is a very, very strong correlation to that. So I wouldn't read into anything that says one year we've done a little more than earnings, in other year we did less. It's really just as Alan said earlier the timing. The premium to surplus ratio goes up a little bit, I've kind of ignored that and what I would look at is in our supplement, we talk about specifically on a quarterly basis what the stat surplus is. And I think you can see that, that moves around probably in a pretty narrow band.

Next question please.

Our next question comes from Vinay Misquith of Sterne Agee. Please go ahead.

Just a question on loss cost trend and the pricing roughly flat. Curious how you’re managing to leave margins flat in '16 versus '15?

So this is Brian. And speaking for the BII segment, you start with the kind of simple arithmetic of the earned premium. And again it's not just rate, its price, which includes exposure change and does offset some of trends. So when we look at the arithmetic of earned rate versus loss trend, we come up with a very modest about a 0.5% of loss ratio compression into 2016. And that of course is based on our assumption of loss trend, which is as we've said running right now at about 4% and looking at a relatively stable orderly marketplace. And then that's offset by a variety of other factors you can think of whether large losses mix change underwriting actions, et cetera. But the real starting point is that compression from the rate loss trend dynamic, price loss trends dynamic is a pretty modest number in how we're looking at it.

And I think that distinction between price and rate is important, because as we said in the past there is a meaningful component of exposure that from a profitability perspective behaves like rate. And so what we really see in that true margin deterioration, is we see going forward as Brian said it's very small and probably within the margin of error of all the other things that impact margin.

The second question is on the pace of future rate increases you mentioned that on a best counts you have, rate decreases of less than 2%. So curious to what proportion of the accounts now are well performing. So should we see sort for the pressure on pricing this year, because more of the accounts are better performing?

I think there is a level of granularity and precision here that's for competitive reasons. I'm not going to overly segment the portfolio. I think the backdrop to this is really the view of, do we think the industry is going to continue to fundamentally be focused on the returns on the products. And we think that's the right way to be thinking about the business and we're optimistic that the majority of the marketplace is actually looking at that. So the healthier the business, the more pressure there should be on pricing, but in the aggregate we're pretty comfortable that we should be able to generate appropriate with pricing to maintain reasonable returns. And then you can come up with any variation on the theme you want off of that and be as bullish or as bearish as you want.

Our next question comes from Charles Sebaski with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

I have couple of question I guess on the personal lines business. I guess the first on the personal auto growth and the success you had from Quantum. Is that coming from standalone auto policies? I guess I'm trying to just understand that you kind of sweet spot seems to be on package, multi policy programs. You have auto growth while homeowners' is flat. Just kind of, wondering how you're working in the auto growth relative to your, kind of, packaged program?

Good morning, this is Doreen. We've actually seen success in force. I think this was some of what Alan and I referred to in our earlier comments. Clearly our auto product was competitive in agent's office and also in the direct channel. And in many cases, what that did, because we are an account focused company, that allowed us then to bring the home with it. So we've seen standalone auto come in, we've seen more opportunities for cross-selling. And I don't think it's anything small, given Quantum Auto 2.0 that we've been able to actually increase and stop the shrinkage in homeowners. We've also put some processes in place that have been very helpful where it prefills certain information so that if someone is looking at an auto quote, it will prefill for home. So we like the account business, we continue to look for that. But given where the returns are and where we're going with auto, we are pleased with that as well.

Just a follow up to a comment that you guys made in the business insurance regarding the exposure drag and the oil and gas exposure, I think you said that oil and gas accounted for one point exposure drag but that oil and gas only accounted for 3% of the book, or is that 3% of the exposure? I guess I was trying to understand how 3% could account for a one point drag.

The 3% is a premium number but the exposure, as you can imagine, was down pretty significantly. So when you've combined the 3% against a pretty big exposure delta in oil and gas, that drove the 1%.

And the 3% is the total domestic business insurance, not to middle market in that written premium.

So that's a good point and maybe we shouldn't mix those two numbers. The 1% drag was on the middle market exposure change. The 3% was on total domestic BI. So we did that arithmetic quickly.

The 3% is the premium, the book. The 1% is on the charge and the exposure. The 1% exposure drag is middle market exposure, the 3% is quantifying a percentage of the premiums of our oil and gas business on the total business insurance.

Right. The premium on just middle market would be a higher number.

The math just didn't seem to work, I appreciate the clarity.

Great. And this will be our last and final question please.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Kai Pan of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

First question is on reserve releases. Looks like workers comp have releases in 2014 accident year, just curious while it is already release rather than for this - normally a long tail line of basis, can you talk also in general, what's loss cost trend by major lines and how that compare with your 4% assumption in overall loss cost trends?

This is Jay Benet. Just in terms of the reserve release, when you're dealing with a long tail line, you've two components to how you're going to look to results. One is, what has developed in terms of loss activity, and you're absolutely right. In a short period of time, you're not going to really see a great deal of activity. On the other hand, what you've done is, you established the starting point for what you think the loss activity is going to be and we refer to that as the loss pick. So just imagine on January 1, trying to predict what the losses are going to be for the entire period of time as those workers comp policies will be out there. And we come up with a loss pick, and the example I'm going to use, I'm just making up a number, let's say it's 60%, based on what you've seen historically. And looking at the historical data then for earlier accident years and evaluating that against that initial loss pick that you had for a current year and there were times when you see loss activity in prior years that you say, that really has no barring whatsoever on how I thought about the starting point for the current year and then there are times, when you look at it and say, no actually this really does change the bar for the starting point. So usually on a long tail line of business when you see us do what we’ve done here, it's based on what we refer to is base here moment. Looking at the history and just saying that, the initial loss pick was a little on the high side. A – Brian MacLean: This is Brian. Just to respond to your - trend by line in business is actually a pretty tight band with ranging from the high 3s to the high 4s but an average trend of right around 4%. So nothing is really out of pattern by line.

My follow up question is for Alan. Now you have 7 weeks on the new role, so I just wonder what’s your top priority these days and what you think - you have the right strategy in place now, but what are you focusing on?

Sure. Thanks for the question Kai. So I had experienced managing essentially all of our commercial business and our businesses outside the U.S. what I haven't had experienced with is, the personalized business on a relative basis not as much, personalized business in some of our functions like claim and IT and ops and things like that, risk control, so, I’m trying to spend a lot of time in those businesses and areas that I haven't had the experience with, trying to spend a lot of time on the road out in the field with distribution and our employees in the field which has always been a priority of mine. And I guess beyond that in my comments I said one of the things that we’re going to do is continue to evolve and innovate and reassessing is something that we’ve always done and Jay Fishman has always led that initiative. And so I have taken that over from Jay and just like Jay didn’t do it alone, Jay did it with the group, I’ll continue to leave the group in making sure that we’re accessing what’s going on in the marketplace and we’re evolving and innovating. So I would say that makes up so the way I'm allocating my turn.

Thank you very much for all the answers.

Great. Thank you very much for joining us today. As always, the Investors Relation team is available for any follow up questions you might have. Thank you and have a good day.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect all lines. Thank you and have a good day.