Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Allstate Third Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder, today's program is being recorded. I would now like to introduce your host for today's program Mr. John Griek, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Jonathan. Good morning, and thanks, everyone, for joining us today for Allstate's third quarter 2016 earnings conference call. After prepared remarks by our Chairman and CEO, Tom Wilson; Chief Financial Officer, Steve Shebik, and myself, we will have a question-and-answer session. Yesterday, following the close of the market, we issued our news release and investor supplement, filed our 10-Q for the third quarter, and posted the results presentation we will discuss this morning. These documents are available on our website at allstateinvestors.com. As noted on the first slide, our discussion today will contain forward-looking statements about Allstate's operations. Allstate's results may differ materially from these statements, so please refer to our 10-K for 2015, the slides, and our most recent news release for information on potential risks. Also, this discussion will contain some non-GAAP measures, for which there are reconciliations in our news release and our investor supplement. We are recording this call, and a replay will be available following its conclusion. And I'll be available to answer any follow-up questions you may have after the call. And now, I'll turn it over to Tom.

Well, good morning. Thank you again for investing your time to keep up on our progress at Allstate. I'll start with an overview of results and John and Steve will provide more detail. Also here with us this morning are Matt Winter, our President; Don Civgin, the President to our Emerging Businesses; Mary Jane Fortin, President to Allstate Life & Retirement; and Sam Pilch, our Corporate Controller. This quarter, we delivered balanced operating results underlying auto margins improved, homeowners' results remain strong, and we generated a good total return on the investment portfolio. Let's start on slide 2. Net income for the quarter was $491 million and operating income was $474 million, which was $1.26 per share. Operating income was adversely affected by elevated catastrophe losses and a $99 million increase in reserves for discontinued lines. The property-liability recorded combined ratio was 95.5 for the quarter and the underlying combined ratio was 88, both for the quarter and the first nine months of the year, which is at the favorable end of the full-year outlook that we gave you in February of 88 to 90. Investment income was 7.3% lower than last year's third quarter, reflecting last year we sold about $2 billion of long duration bonds in the payout annuity portfolio and results in a lower interest income and we had a strong return on the performance-based portfolio in 2015's third quarter. Total investment returns remain strong at 1.3% for the quarter, and 5.2% for the year, driven by both net investment income and price appreciation in the bond portfolio. Let's go to slide 3. On a total company basis, about half of the decline in property-liability policies was offset by providing consumers a broad set of unique products using different brands and distribution channels, most notably because of…

Thanks, Tom. I'll start on slide 5. Property-liability earned premium of $7.9 billion in the third quarter of 2016 was 2.9% higher than the same period last year. During the first three quarters of 2016, earned premium grew by 3.5%. Third quarter catastrophe losses of $481 million were 78.1% higher than the prior-year quarter. Catastrophe losses of $2.3 billion through the first nine months of 2016 were $908 million higher than the first three quarters of last year. The recorded combined ratio for property-liability was 95.5 in the third quarter of 2016. When we exclude catastrophes in prior-year reserve re-estimates, the underlying combined ratio for the third quarter and the first nine months of 2016 were both 88.0, which is better than 2015, and at the favorable end of our annual outlook range of 88 to 90. Property-liability operating income of $452 million in the third quarter of 2016 was 17.8% below prior-year results due to higher catastrophe losses and a $99 million reserve increase for discontinued lines. In the chart on the bottom left, the blue line represents net written premium growth, while the red line shows policy in force growth. Property-liability's policies in force were 2.6% below the third quarter of 2015, while net written premium increased by 2.1% over the same time period. These trends were heavily influenced by our auto profit improvement actions across underwriting brands. The widening gap between these two trend lines reflects increased average premium per policy. The bottom right graph shows the recorded combined ratio in red, in comparison to the underlying combined ratio in the blue bars and illustrates that most of the quarter-to-quarter volatility is due to catastrophe losses. Going to slide 6, the chart on the top left shows the quarterly underlying loss ratios and combined ratios for Allstate…

Thanks, John. Slide 10 provides overview of our profitability and growth trends for Esurance and Encompass. The Esurance recorded combined ratio as shown on the top left chart, was 109.8 in the third quarter and 106.0 in catastrophes, prior-year reserve re-estimates, and the amortization of intangibles are excluded. You'll remember, with the direct distribution model, combined ratios are impacted by acquisition expenses being written off much faster than the agency channel, where commissions are spread over the policy life. This result also adversely impacted by expenses related to expanding into homeowners insurance and new markets. The underlying loss ratio of 74.7 is higher than our long-term target and we will continue to take actions to raise Esurance returns. On the top right, Esurance written premium was up 5.4%, while policies in force declined by 0.6% points compared to a year ago, reflecting the auto improvement initiatives. The chart on the bottom left shows Encompass' improvement in both recorded and underlying combined ratios. The recorded combined ratio of 98.3 was 3 points better than the third quarter a year ago, and the underlying combined ratio of 89.3, improved by 1.6 points. The chart on the bottom right show the top line trend, which you can see was impacted by profit improvement actions. Policies in force, shown on the bottom right by the gray line, declined by 12.6%, while net written premium, represented by the blue line, declined by 9.7%. Encompass will continue to take pricing, underwriting, and expense actions in order to achieve target margins. Turning to slide 11, Allstate Financial premiums and contract charges totaled $571 million in the third quarter of 2016, an increase of 6.1% when compared to the third quarter of 2015. Allstate Benefits grew 11.3% in the third quarter, with an increase of 444,000 policies over…

Certainly. Our first question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan from Wells Fargo. Your question please? Elyse, you might have your phone on mute.

Hi, sorry. Good morning. First question in terms of the commentary that you provided on severity in terms of bodily injury and the process changes you saw in the quarter, so it seems like that was just a reconfiguration between frequency and severity and we'll see those trends move back to normal in the fourth quarter? So, I guess, is it the right way to think about it, that there was no real impact on your underlying auto margin from those changes?

Yeah, Elyse. It's Matt Winter. Thanks for the question. Well, as you correctly pointed out, there's a fluctuation as you see on slide 6, you see some offset between the frequency and severity. That being said, there were some process changes that do influence some of those results, so we'll see it normalize, but it may not go back to exactly where it was previously, because there were some of the changes, as John referred to in his remarks. There's some enhanced documentation requirements. So the next changes, I think in response to a question you asked last quarter, I talked about the timing impact and the peristalsis that sometimes occurs in the claims area, where you have a buildup of claims that are then processed. And especially in BI with the long tail on it, you can see that happen. So, you can expect to see some fluctuation, but the general trend here that you see at the bottom right on slide 6, which is that overall, the combination in frequency and severity is declining and offsetting itself, that we expect to continue.

Great. And then just a follow-on to that, as you said, getting to a more favorable loss cost environment when we talk about frequency and severity, how do you guys think about what type of rate you need to take from here? I mean, the level of rate increase did slow a bit in the quarter. Just kind of a forward view as you think about the rate you might take into Q4 and into 2017, just kind of high level?

Well, I can't give you – we don't forecast or predict rate that we're going to take in the future. What I can tell you is that we continue to look at actual rate need, and the rate need is based upon paid trends. We look at that rate need, we look at our indications and we make determinations on the localized basis. Take into consideration economic capital, the rate needs, our competitive position and a bunch of other criteria in determining what our rate need is and in determining what rate we'll take. But I think it's impossible for me to predict for you what that will look like in the future.

This is Tom. Let me add one thought. As we increase rates and obviously as our costs go up, we need to recover those costs, so that's part of it. If in fact those costs moderate over time, you expect that component of increases to go down. That said, we still need to increase our margin to where it has been historically. So, I think you should expect to see our price increases stay above our cost increases, those are the times when we get back our target margin.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Nannizzi from Goldman Sachs. Your question please? Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Thanks so much. I guess, couple of questions here just outside of auto. But in Allstate Financial, as we look at this quarter post disposition of Lincoln Benefit, should we be looking at these levels as sort of where you expect them to be? It seems like there's maybe a little bit of variability on one element in the business, but the others seem to be squarely at that run rate. Just love to get some, a little bit of color on that?

Mike, let me make just a comment, strategic about the positioning we talked about, then Mary Jane can talk about the results at Allstate Life and Allstate Benefits. So, first, Lincoln Benefit, I think it was 2014 we sold it. So, we kind of came around the track on that one already. And so you saw that really beginning in last year's numbers. This year, what you're seeing, it's a different strategic choice, which is the choice to do a different asset liability matching program in the Annuity business. So, as Steve mentioned we have about $12 billion of payments that are due over the next 40 years to 50 years in that immediate annuity business. Of course, we have to have investments that generate returns to make those payments. With current interest rates, it would not generate, we took all that money and invested it today. First, we couldn't get the right duration. Secondly, the rate on that would not be enough to generate enough earnings to pay all those amounts off, so we would then have to put some capital in. What we've chosen to do is put the capital in now and invest in equities, which will generate a higher return. When you get past the 10-year period, the return on equities is twice that of bonds, and the risk is about the same. So, we think that's a good use of shareholder capital from a strategic standpoint, that's a different use of capital than the capital you're talking about freeing up from Lincoln Benefit. Mary Jane, might want to make some comments about Life and Benefit.

Yeah, after that. So, for the Allstate Life business, this quarter, the earnings were down; and in this quarter, we did have our annual review of DAC unlock. So this quarter does have a $2 million impact in the Life business for that. And also, we did have some one-time expenses that did impact the quarter. So, that is impacting the results this quarter. We have been running favorable in our mortality, which is – for the last four quarters, we have been experiencing favorable mortality, which has been impacting those results in a positive way. In terms of the Annuities, as Tom mentioned, we've been actively putting the $2 billion to work, $1.3 billion has been put to work year-to-date. The returns on the performance-based investments were 10% in the quarter, which is in line with our long-term expectation. So that really reflects kind of the run rate for the Annuity business. So, we'll continue to actively invest in that asset class, which will generate earnings additionally over time. Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Great. Thank you. And then, Tom, one question for you, I guess, on Esurance. I remember post the transaction, you talked a lot about economic value of policies and sort of thinking about that platform on a marginal basis. I guess what we have seen here recently is, we've been taking a lot of rate action consistent with what you're doing in the rest of the auto book. I guess, I would think, like at a time like this, when you're still smaller than the two big direct peers, that this would be like the exact time that you would want to really grow that business, maybe at a time when others are not growing or at least everyone is not growing as rapidly. Could you just comment a little bit about on that and how you're thinking? It seems like, feels like, maybe Esurance is managing a little bit more the output in terms of earnings as opposed to that sort of platform building element? Thanks.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Mike. First, Esurance is a better company now than when we bought it, because of the skills and capabilities be brought to it whether that's branding, marketing, claims, pricing preferred, customers getting into the homeowners business. So, we've added value. And it's a good, strong company, and a much stronger competitor now than it was five years ago. It has grown a lot. It's doubled in size. We accepted a lower return on capital from the auto insurance business at Esurance during that growth than we did from the Allstate brand, because we wanted to lean into the growth as you point out. But it was always above our cost of capital. So, we're always like, okay, as Matt, Don and I always talk about -- we're like "okay, we'll take a lower return, but it's got to be above what our cost is, because we should be creating shareholder value as we grow." That continues to be the case. We continue to write it above our cost of capital as we look at the vintage years of each of the products. That said, when we ran into the increase in frequency and severity that impacted all of the brands, we chose to slow growth some, because we don't want to write it at below the cost of capital. We've now got our pricing position in a better place. So, I do expect that we'll begin to grow that business again like we'll grow our other businesses. But I don't feel like we're at the place right now where we should throw hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing money at growth there. In part because, while we've dramatically improved the brand, we still need to get our consideration and awareness up. And that takes a number of years to invest in that. So, we like what we got. It's been growing. I think it can be – it certainly has broadened our strategic platform and gave us a broader set of capabilities to compete in the market with. But, it's not to the point where I feel like we should run hundreds of millions of dollars of underwriting losses. That said, we don't really manage them to the P&L. We manage them to the economics, and because we're big enough, we can take the underwriting losses from that business, if we believe it's economic. Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sarah DeWitt from JPMorgan. Your question please?

Hi, good morning. On the severity trends, travelers saw an uptick from higher attorney involvement, more fatalities and more occupants per vehicles. And they suggested they might be recognizing a trend before the rest of the industry. Are you seeing anything on this front or how are you avoiding this?

It's Matt, Sarah. We're not seeing the same kind of trends that some of our competitors have reported regarding severity. Clearly, if you look at our paid severity trends on the bottom right on slide 6, you'll see that there's been some fluctuation; but for the most part, since the beginning of 2015, it's held relatively constant and I'd say in line with inflationary indices.

Okay. Thanks. And then on the auto insurance underlying margin, should we expect any uptick in the fourth quarter because of seasonality? Does that tend to be a seasonally worse quarter or would rate increases more than offset that?

Yeah, Sarah. Obviously, we can't give you a forecast for the fourth quarter because we don't do those forecasts. But I would go off a little bit and just say, we're extremely comfortable with 88 to 90 underlying combined ratio being the range we're going to be in, obviously, because we're at 88 flat for first three quarters. What we'll do is in February, when we announce the full-year results, we'll give you a new outlook for next year.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Kai Pan from Morgan Stanley. Your question please? Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Good morning. Thank you. First question, do you have any early indication from Hurricane Matthew losses?

No. Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay.

I mean, any indication – we have no indication we plan to share publicly. We obviously are active out there. We have playing people on the ground doing a bunch of work, Matt said, a bunch of people doing stuff. But we have, as you know, we have a normal monthly cat release where we have catastrophes over $150 million in a quarter, we disclose it to you all. That is – when is that? It's in two weeks on a Thursday. So – and because that was an October storm, it would fall into that. So, you should have some indication of what the number would be, if we do a release in two weeks. Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay. Good. We're waiting for that. Your core loss ratio in auto improved quite a bit year-over-year, but it's still much higher than the 60%-80% average in like 2013 and 2014. Is that still the target you want to get back to? And how long could it take?

Well, first, that's the $100 per share question. As I maybe answer it – and Matt will have some – I'll give you part of my view and Matt will share with you his. First, we don't really just target the underlying, we target the reported. So, we believe as printed is what you need to shoot for. There's nothing that I see in the value we provide to consumers or in a competitive space that would tell me that we couldn't earn the kind of returns in the auto business that we have earned historically. Nothing has changed in terms of our skills and capabilities other than we've gotten better. So, I think we should be able to earn the kind of economic returns we earned in the past. Matt, you might want to make a comment about target combined ratios.

Yeah. Hi, it's Matt. The only thing I'd add to what Tom said, because I think he's 100% correct, fundamentally there's nothing that's changed in the overall business that would imply limitations that didn't exist before, regarding our ability to earn appropriate returns. But the way we really manage the business is towards the creation of long-term economic value. And so that's not just targeting a specific combined ratio, whether it's recorded or underlying. It's the combination of earning an appropriate return and being able to grow the business at that appropriate return. And so, we'll optimize around long-term profitable growth in the business. Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay. Then related, at what point are you stepping back on the rate increases, more focusing on the pace of growth?

Kai, I think what Matt said was here's – let me – one more layer of detail on that. Until we know what frequency and severity is in the future, we can't really determine when we'll be changing our pricing, right? So, if frequency and severity keeps going up, we'll have to continue to raise our prices, so our customers pay for an appropriate amount of money for both the cost we have and the returns we should get, given our skills, capabilities and the capital we put at risk. To the extent that frequency and severity level out, and we got back to the kind of returns Matt was talking about, then you would see it come down. But, it's really – until you can predict frequency and severity, you can't really predict future price increases. Kai Pan - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Great. Thanks so much for all the answers.

Sure.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Greg Peters from Raymond James. Your question please? Charles Gregory Peters - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: Good morning, team Allstate. I'm happy to be on this call as a result of pulling almost an all-nighter watching the Cubs on TV last night.

Thank you, Greg. We're excited as well. We decided not to play "Go Cubs Go" at the beginning of the call, but there was some pressure to do so. Charles Gregory Peters - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: Yeah, I would have been cheering for you, so that would have been good. I wanted to just follow up on some of the commentary on the recorded versus the underlying combined ratio. And I noticed in one of your answers, Tom, you said you wanted to increase the margin back to where it has been historically. And I guess when I'm looking at an 88 underlying combined ratio, considering all the headwinds that you guys have had to deal with, that's a pretty impressive result. And I've always, in the back of my mind, been thinking strategically that as the loss ratio – the underlying loss ratio began to improve that you would start ramping up expenses again, advertising, etc. Has there been any change in your approach or thinking on that?

Greg, it's Matt. Let me try to take that. So, as we shift out of rate taking mode and enhanced focus on profitability and get back to a more balanced approach, it's not just a question of just ramping up expenses for advertising, because that's just one component of what's necessary to get the system growing. So, it's multiple components, it's "volume", it's rate competitiveness, which impacts close rates. It's capacity and agencies and it's number of points of presence. And what happens when you're unfortunately taking a fair amount of rate and we have over the last several quarters, is it impacts all of those things. It's not just that you're not advertising, a lot is you're eating up aging capacity or impacting your close rate. It's hard to put on new agencies in that environment and so your number of points of presence tends to stabilize. So, as we get more stable and as we believe we can see frequency and severity stabilize and that puts us in a better position to begin, the growth initiatives, you'll see a whole bunch of things change and one of them might be some additional marketing expense. But it's only a small component and I would say that marketing in and of itself, if you don't have the agent capacity and if your competitiveness isn't there, it's not a very efficient spend. So, we'll consider that among the other levers that are available in the business to work towards long-term profitable growth.

Right, that's sort of two questions, and I think there's – I want to make sure we're clear on our philosophy on expenses. So, I think some people, as we've gone through this increase in frequency and severity that Matt was talking about, look at the reduction of expenses. So, we just cut expenses so we could make our number. That's not the case. Our philosophy on expenses is not let's do a target P&L number. First, don't spend it if your customers don't want it. Do spend it if your customers do want it. Secondly, Matt talked about this integrated basis. If you're advertising your agencies aren't ready or your competitive position is not right, and it doesn't really make any sense. We really do run it on an integrated basis. And then we also invest for the long-term. So I don't want to – in 2011, you remember, I think, (41:58) if we may have been $750 million or something like that in net income and we didn't back off a wit on our advertising expense, because we knew we needed to do that to stay competitive for the long-term. So, we will always have things, whether it's advertising, technology, investing, so we try to manage it really on the long-term economics that Matt was talking about. So, it's our philosophy, sometimes when I read some of the reports that have come out, it feels like people think we've got this, you know, we're managing just to get the P&L number and that's not the way to run a business, except we can cut our costs. Matt's got a big program going on a continuous improvement, we're reducing our costs as aggressively as we can, except we need to use that money to invest in something else, we will, because we think it makes sense for us. Charles Gregory Peters - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: That's great color. Considering you've held on to your underlying combined ratio target and all the headwinds, it still is a remarkable accomplishment. One other area, and I noticed that you referenced it briefly in your slides, I think slide 3, it just continues to be a considerable amount of oxygen spent on driverless cars and its impact on auto insurance. Can you give us an update on what you're doing with Arity and what your thinking is in this area?

Sure. I'll go up for a second and then I'll come down very quickly to Arity. We think the personal transportation industry is going to change dramatically and we think that's an opportunity for us to do more for our customers. As a reason, it will change dramatically, it's incredibly inefficient. So, we have about $4 trillion tied up in hardware called cars and trucks and stuff like that. We spend about $2 trillion a year in direct costs making that work. Capacity utilization is in the – even at peak hours is in the 30%, 34% range and there's one person in the car. A 20% improvement in the efficiency of that system would be a 5% increase in household income in America. We think that's going to happen. It's going to take a while to happen because it's an economically dispersed system. Nobody controls all of it, there's lots of different pieces to it. So, it's not just the autonomous car, it's shared vehicle, it's machine-to-machine communication, it's better stoplights. There's a whole bunch of stuff that's going to change in that system. Arity is one of our efforts to take advantage of that. So, Arity is outside the insurance company. It provides services to Allstate and Esurance. These services that the insurance companies get from it, first it gives them the ability to do a more accurate price for our customers, because we know exactly how they drive, where they drive, and when they drive. But, we have a different model than others, we've taken it beyond pricing to include things like improving the driving experience. So adding applications on to our continuous connection to help those customers have a better driving experience, and then also to use that technology for other things. So, there's many other uses, many other ways that value could be created by cars being connected. We can share that value with customers. We can use that value to reduce costs for other people and capture those costs. So, there's really a three-part focus. Better pricing, better services, and additional ways to use a connected car. So Arity is pursuing all three of those. It will do that for our insurance companies, we'll do it for non-insurance companies, and we will also do it for other insurance companies as well. So we think it's a platform where we will all be stronger because we are together without giving up our competitive ability to price with our own data in the marketplace. Charles Gregory Peters - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: Great color. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis from Credit Suisse. Your question please? Ryan J. Tunis - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Hey, thanks. I just have a follow-up on some of the process changes. I guess first of all, if you could just elaborate a little bit on the thought process that went into putting those in place. And also, is it possible that those changes could have a positive exogenous impact on frequency going forward? In other words, was the lack of those changes potentially something that maybe caused frequency to spike up in 2015?

Ryan, this is Matt. We'll distinguish between process changes that impacted PD and those that impacted BI. If you recall in the last quarter and potentially the quarter before that, I referred to our desire in this environment to capture more and more information regarding the claim and PD, so that we're better able to manage staffing costs and appropriately serve our customers and ensure that the claims machine is ready to deal with and help out customers at this time. So, we began capturing a greater amount of information at first notice of loss, especially on the PD side. And so, we told you at that point, and it continues to hold true, that there is a differential between the gross and the paid. And that we will over-capture information on PD and have some of those claims closed without payment. That's okay as far as we're concerned. We're more interested in effectively managing the system and taking care of customers than anything else. So, if we have to have some dislocation in the numbers, and some volatility in the numbers to do that properly, we'll do that. On the BI side, as John said in the opening comments, this really had to do with just requiring some enhanced documentation for injuries and related medical treatment in our numbers. And so, that does influence the mix, it does influence the cost, it impacts the mix and the timing. It impacts both the frequency and severity. But none of these things impact our overall actual loss trends or our reserving or the P&L. Because as John mentioned, in his opening comments all of these changes and all of this information is factored in, along with our paid trends and all of the other information that we review on a very careful basis in setting our reserve levels and determining our actual loss costs. So, yes, we have some volatility in some of the operational claim statistics that we show you. But no, it doesn't imply any real change in the actual P&L type statistics that we manage the business on, take rate based upon, and report on.

Ryan, it's Tom. Let me – maybe one other additional angle on it. We're always trying to get better, right? And you see that show up. As Matt points out, I think splitting in those two categories is absolutely right. You will see to the extent – the way we do our reserving, when we – if we see it, we book it. And we don't – but we have to see it. So, as Matt points out, you do see it in PD earlier. So, those claims tend to get resolved in about 90 days. To an extent, we're getting better. And to your extent, you would see it in this stuff. On the BI basis, that takes several years to really get your arms around it. So that tends to be – it takes much longer to settle those cases. So, whatever we've done in opening practices, as Matt points out, is reflected in our loss costs. And if you look at our reserving practices over a 10 year or 20 year period, we have pretty consistent ability to accurately predict what losses are. Ryan J. Tunis - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Okay. That's helpful. And then just a follow-up on, I guess, how to think about the re-underwriting of the book, the re-pricing. So, we've seen retention come down. And obviously, we associate that with better margins. But I'm curious – maybe you guys could talk a little bit about how you make sure that you're getting – that you're not losing policyholders that are already meeting profitability objectives. In other words, is there may be a way you can quantify for every three drivers you lose, because they don't want to renew at the rate that's appropriate, you maybe lose one because they – that you wouldn't have wanted to lose? And I'm just curious how much of the loss retention potentially as you guys losing clients that were already meeting profitability at Allstate? Thanks.

Ryan, Matt will give you a specific answer to your question, but I would say we don't want to lose any customers. We just want to get the right price for them.

Ryan, it's Matt. So, let me follow up on that. It's a really good question. And I think it's important to remember I've been talking during this entire profit improvement program over the last 18 months about the fact that we, as we've taken rate, tended to take segmented rate. That is, we did not just spread rate along the entire book in any geography, but did it by sub segment, looking at those categories of customers where we were having margin pressure. So, we didn't take the rate in equal doses across an entire book; but in fact broke it down, so that we were applying the rate need to those segments of the business that were most problematic. In some cases, that tended to be newer customers, shopping customers, segments that as we had expanded our books over the last couple of years tend to be more volatile and they shop more often. And so, if we had pressure in that segment and we took rate there, it's not surprising that we had some renewal pressure. But we tried very hard, as Tom said, not to lose any customers, and not to have any impact. But it is an unintended consequence, an expected consequence, whether or not an intended consequence of our need to get margin appropriate. Any time you take rate, you stimulate shopping behavior. And we know that when you stimulate shopping behavior, you are going to lose some segment of those customers. And the same thing will happen to our competitors as they now take rate and begin to disrupt their books as well. We will be the recipient of some of that. And we hope that as we emerge out of – you will recall, we took a lot of rate in the last quarter in the second quarter, and in some of the larger states, so that is why our number looked particularly large in second quarter. But as that comes down a little bit, we hope to be less disruptive to our customer base. And on a system-wide basis, we hope to get back to a more normalized basis where we're not disrupting customers. It's not good for customers. Obviously, we think they're all better off staying with Allstate, and it's also not good for our agencies who are dealing with that disruption. Ryan J. Tunis - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Thanks for your answers.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker from Deutsche Bank. Your question please?

Yeah. Thank you. So, just back to this BI-PD recalibration. Is there any risk in future quarters as you go through a processes change that we've missed something and this is a – this will lead to whether in your favor or against you favorable or unfavorable development?

Josh, it's Tom. We have a really sophisticated set of processes the way we estimate loss ratio. So, as Matt mentioned, we start with the actual number of claims that get reported. We then go through and say how many are paid, how many are not paid. We do it by state, we do it by risk class, we do it by coverage. We have a whole variety of statistical methods we use to determine what those trend lines look like and where it goes. We do it by year. We do it – I mean we slice and dice this every way. So, the answer is, we feel very good about the way in which we do it. It's accurate. And I would just say, there's obviously, as you point out, some volatility and some risk. But we try to mitigate that by being thorough. And so, the statistics you see on the bottom of that page are just one of many, many, many statistics we use to determine it. So, we think we're accurate and we'll just continue to adjust it as we go forward, whether that's up or down.

So, it looks radical to us because of the limited amount of information we are receiving from your end. Things haven't changed in that radical a way?

I think that's accurate. Yeah. And there are times when I'm sad that we give you that information, because we do try to be complete transparency, but hopefully it doesn't lead to misinformation as opposed to it's just one of many statistics.

And then on asbestos, I'm always surprised when you guys get the flu. Can you talk a little bit – I've heard the story before. Why you have exposure? Why it's up right now? Why, unlike some of your competitors, we shouldn't think this is really a necessity for it to be an annual event? And I'm modeling forward, should I assume zero in the years going forward? How should I think about it?

Well, I can't tell you what to assume going forward, because we think with the reserves we have up now are accurate for what we will pay out in the future on a discounted basis. So that's...

That makes sense, of course. But, in terms of, you have indirect exposure. You didn't write those policies. Is that right?

Well, we have two kinds of exposure. We have some indirect, as you point out, which is – we did reinsurance with other people. We also have some direct exposure. We spend a fair amount of time and the businesses aggressively manage both in terms of the data we have, they collect the information on policies, what we fight on go into (58:14) arbitration. As you know, we have written this stuff now, been 30 years or something, since 1986, 30 years. So, and when we've had our claim practices, our reserving practices benchmarked for their accuracy and effectiveness, we always get high marks on that. So we think we're as good as, in fact, better than the average in industry. You can decide what (58:42). If you look at our history, you would see that occasionally, we do have to put up – we do look at it in some level of detail every year. I would point out I think the IBNR is like 56% to 60%.

58%.

58%, so the incurred but not reported is more than half of the amount that we have up. So, while not a completely accurate statistic, the survival ratio is double-digit in years, depending on that coverage and stuff like that, but it's over 10 years or most of the policies – most of the coverages. So we feel, you know, it's out there. It's the gift that keeps giving. I can tell you that we used – environmental used to be much higher and it came way down and asbestos went up. So, because this stuff has been out there for so long and it's likely to be out there for so long. Some of the other trends that are not predictable show up. So, people back off on environmental cleanups and the environmental stuff goes down. If asbestos, they find a new way to go after the sons and daughters of the people who are impacted by asbestos and say they got it by their parents coming home with asbestos on their clothes, that's a new litigation wave and then it goes up. But, we think it's about right and it's not a huge portion of our liabilities on the balance sheet.

Okay. Thank you for all the detail.

Okay, Jonathan, we have time for one more question.

Certainly. Our final question then comes from the line of Bob Glasspiegel from Janney. Your question please?

Good morning, Allstate. Did you make it to Progressive Field, Tom?

I did not make it to Progressive Field last night, because I wanted to be here for you, Bob.

Okay. I'm honored. Telematics, this is an Arity commercial, is it possible that it's already making a big difference for the companies that have it and the ones that don't are seeing worse frequency and severity trends? And how is the launch going for Arity?

Let me see if I can answer your question succinctly. First, it is making a difference for those companies that have it. It's making a difference for us. I don't think that that overrides the overall industry impact of higher frequency and severity. So, I don't think that Telematics will enable you to get around the fact that there are just more miles driven and people get in more accidents when they drive more. So, I don't think that's an answer for why some people's combined ratio did not appear to have moved as much as others. I can only answer what they do. I do think that it is an opportunity for us to further do more sophisticated pricing, for other people to do more sophisticated pricing. If you look back over a long period of time, when we first moved into credit, first moved into more algorithmic pricing for auto insurance has led to more stability in over our returns for the industry. So, I would just point out the fact that many people today are moving their pricing with respect to frequency and severity, because they have the analytics to know it. And so, I think in the long-term, it's just good for stability and lower volatility and auto insurance profitability.

Let me just close by thanking you all – saying looking forward, we're going to stay focused on our five operating priorities. We try to balance long-term and short-term priorities in a way that enables us to build a sustainable business model that creates values for our customers, our shareholders and all of our stakeholders. So, thank you. And we'll talk to you in the fourth quarter.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.