Good day, everyone and welcome to the Everest Re Group Limited First Quarter 2014 Earnings Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time, for opening remarks and introductions, I would like to turn the conference to Ms. Beth Farrell, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, ma’am.

Thank you, Augusta. Good morning, and welcome to Everest Re Group’s first quarter 2014 earnings conference call. On the call with me today are Dom Addesso, the company’s President and Chief Executive Officer; John Doucette, our Chief Underwriting Officer; and Craig Howie, our Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I will preface our comments by noting that our SEC filings include extensive disclosures with respect to forward-looking statements. In that regard, I note that statements made during today’s call, which are forward-looking in nature, such as statements about projections, estimates, expectations and the like are subject to various risks. As you know, actual results could differ materially from current projections or expectations. Our SEC filings have full listing of the risks that investors should consider in connection with such statements. Now, let me turn the call over to Dom.

Thanks, Beth and good morning to all. We are pleased to report another excellent quarter, which continues to improve on the trend from last year. The attritional combined ratio for the first quarter improved to 80.4% from 81% for the full year of 2013. Premium volume continues to grow rising 7% over last year. Despite softening in the property cat market, there are still sufficient opportunities for profitable growth for Everest given our scale and financial strength. John will get into further detail in his report, but is evidenced by the improving combined ratio. The growth has come with improving margins, which is partly the result of new products, particularly in the credit and specialty line space. In the property reinsurance lines, where there have been rate reductions would continue to modify our portfolio to achieve the best risk-adjusted return. So, for example, in Canada, where rates were going up for property catastrophe exposed lines, we committed more capacity. Likewise in other territories, we reduced our move to different layers, our move to pro rata from excess, or we rode different types of product. Of course, we did renew accounts at reduced rates, but only when they met our return hurdles. And in most regions, there is still business at attractive rates. I must emphasize that the ability to diversify and remain flexible is the key to improving margins. An additional tool that has enabled us to improve our net position is our capital markets platform, Mt. Logan. This has enabled us to increase our share across many programs and bring new product to market. While at the same time earned fees and profit share on the business sourced. A key value of our global franchise is being able to marry the risk appetite of the capital markets, with a…

Thank you, Dom and good morning everyone. We are pleased to report that Everest had another strong quarter of earnings with after-tax operating income of $281 million or $5.93 per diluted common share for the first quarter of 2014, this compares to operating income of $301 million or $5.88 per share for the first quarter of 2013. Net income for the first quarter was $294 million or $6.21 per diluted share, compared to $384 million or $7.50 per share in 2013. Net income includes realized capital gains and represents an annualized return on equity of over 17%. These results were driven by a solid underwriting result offset by lower net investment income compared to the first quarter of 2013. The results reflect the continued improvement in the overall current year attritional combined ratio of 80.4%, down from 80.7% at the first quarter of 2013 and down from 81.0% at year end 2013. This measure excludes the impact of catastrophes reinstatement premiums and prior period loss development. The total reinsurance attritional combined ratio was 77.3% compared to 76.8% in the prior year first quarter. The slight increase in this ratio for the reinsurance portfolio was anticipated after the January 1 renewals and with the additional pro rata business written. The insurance segment attritional combined ratio was 97.2% compared to 98.5% in the prior year. However, eliminating the effects of the primary crop book, this ratio would have been 92.8% compared to 95.9% in the prior year. All segments reported underwriting gains for the quarter. Neither this year, nor last year included any catastrophe losses in the first quarter. Total reinsurance reported an underwriting gain of $215 million for the quarter compared to $210 million underwriting gain last year. The insurance segment reported an underwriting gain of $4 million for the quarter…

Thank you, Craig. Good morning. As Dom highlighted we had a strong start to the 2014 year. Our group first quarter 2014 gross written premium was $1.3 billion, up $90 million from Q1 of last year with growth coming predominantly from U.S. reinsurance and international reinsurance. For our reinsurance segments total reinsurance gross written premium including Logan was $1.04 billion for the quarter, up 12% from Q1 last year. As mentioned on the last earnings call, we continued to benefit from flight-to-quality, rolling out new products, expanding our relationships with some larger clients and writing U.S. property exposures domestically as we leverage the competitive advantage of our high ratings and significant capacity. We have continued to make progress in our multi-line initiative in the USA developing new relationships and broadening existing relationships with multi-line clients as our underwriters relationships with those clients go back for many years sometimes decades. In Q1 we deployed capacity to fund several short tailed quota share treaties at terms we found attractive. Expanded our purple lightings and continued to deploy capacity this quarter in credit related opportunities. Total reinsurance including Logan bottom line we had a very solid quarter with underwriting profits of $225 million, up 7% compared to last year Q1 underwriting profits. Now, some color on April 1 reinsurance renewals. For our overall reinsurance book, we grew our global property gross written premium and continued to see dollar margin expansion in the overall book at 41 compared to last year. With the combined ratio and the expected risk adjusted returns remaining flat from the prior period. This demonstrates the strength and the diversification of our business. That said, specifically for Japan our premium dollars in Japan were down from last year due to the following reasons. The continued consolidation trend among of longstanding…

Yes. Augusta, we are open for questions now.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Our first question will come from Jay Gelb of Barclays.

Thank you. On the insurance segment with the 94 combined ratio excluding Heartland in the first quarter, would you anticipate is that sort of the right run rate we should anticipate for the rest of the year barring any usual items?

Jay, this is Dom. That certainly would be a reasonable assumption. It could improve from there, but due to continued improvement in California comp, but that’s a reasonable assumption.

Including the crop book would be a couple of points higher all-in?

The crop book actually for the year we are still anticipating at this point mid 90s combined, so low 90s combined depending on the outcome of winter wheat, but generally we are expecting the overall number to gravitate towards the mid 90s on an accident year basis.

The next issue is on partnership income, Craig, I think you mentioned that were – that part of the decline was reflecting the book seasoning. So just trying to get a perspective on for the remaining quarters, maybe what we should be penciling in, in terms of partnership return?

Well, as I said, we are starting to see a slight decline, because they are become fairly mature, but as you noticed even over the last several quarters, it has started to come down. This quarter we happen to have one partnership that threw off a loss of over $5 million, which is what was driving the $2 million loss in the quarter, but it has been coming down over the last several quarters.

Right. So in the back half of last year when it was running in that kind of $5 million…

$5 million for quarter.

Yes.

I think that’s probably a better estimate, Jay.

Okay, that’s helpful. And then Dom, do you have any thoughts or commentary on the recent movement we have seen in Bermuda between Endurance and Aspen, has that changed your view at all on M&A in Bermuda or anticipating any sort of increased consolidation beyond that transaction?

Well, I didn’t expect that question right out of the gate. I think first of all let me say, it certainly would be inappropriate for me to comment on the transaction per se and I know that’s not what you are asking about, but clearly I think that as we have been discussing in some of our opening comments, we have benefited by, for example, by our scale and our strength in the marketplace and our capital position. And I think in part if this transaction or transactions like this are in fact an attempt to achieve a different level of scale in the marketplace. So, it doesn’t surprise me, not particularly this transaction, but that we would see transactions like this bubble up in the marketplace for that reason. The other reasons I really wouldn’t be in a position to comment on, but I do think that’s in part what’s driving this particular idea and perhaps ideas like this in the future.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Our next question will come from the Vinay Misquith of Evercore.

Hi, good morning. So, first just the numbers questions, curious how much was the crop insurance negative adjustment, I believe you mentioned $17 million, so was that for the earned premiums, so was the adjustment $17 million or what the premiums down $17 million?

The earned premium was down $17 million. The net premium that was written is down $30 million for the quarter. Vinay Misquith – Evercore: Sorry. And what was the impact of – just the adjustment for the entire $40 million, sorry?

Down $15 million. Vinay Misquith – Evercore: Okay. So down $15 million, okay, fine. That’s the adjustment, okay. Second is we have seen that citizens has upsized take at bond significantly, what do you think is going to happen on the June 1 renewals for Florida?

Well, certainly there is downward pressure in the overall property cat space depending on the territory. And given how well that market is still priced, we certainly would expect that pressure to carryover into Florida. In terms of our prediction as to how much, well, we will just have to wait and see. We are not prognosticating at this point. No, for us, we write on an XOL basis about $130 million in Florida and then the remainder of our exposure is on a pro rata basis. And as we said again in our opening comments, if rates are down, but still meet our return hurdles, yes, we may do some continuing XOL, but it more likely be that perhaps we would ship some of our capacity to quota share. And again it depends on what the market is willing to give us from this June.

Okay, that’s helpful. And just one last numbers question I believe the tax rate 13.8% that I hear correctly that you expect, yes, and I believe you mentioned that you expect that for the entire year. Historically, I thought it was between 12% and 13%, so curious why you expect a higher tax rate for this year? Thanks.

13.8% is an effective tax rate that we would expect for the year that rate could even go up from there as we have talked about in the past specifically on the last quarter call that if there are no catastrophes for the year that rate could even go up. That’s with an expected amount of catastrophes for the year.

Okay, thank you.

Our next question is …

Excuse me, one other point, keep in mind that, that in your assumptions that rate does have to move with cat losses, so you can take the rate up without taking expected cat losses down, correct.

Thank you. We’ll go next to Michael Nannizzi of Goldman Sachs.

Thanks. Wouldn’t just I know we – it sounds like we got some pieces per crop, but would it be possible just to get the 1Q premium for crop and then the combined ratio for crop for the first quarter?

1Q premium for crop was minus 15% for gross written premium.

Okay.

And I’m sorry your second question was…

The earn premium, I mean, I guess the earned premium that rolled into revenues?

The earned premium that you would see in the first quarter for crop is only about $2 million.

Okay, got it. Great, thanks. And then the question about the California comp book, can you talk about the rate you took in remind us what the rate you took in 2013 and where loss churn was there and where you are booking comps today on an action in here on an initial pick basis?

I’ll let Craig give you the last year information, but right now for California comp on an accident year basis, we are in the mid 90s.

Accident year combined?

Yes.

Okay, got it. Great.

I don’t know if Craig is looking for some of the information…

Okay, great. And then if I can just ask one more. So in Bermuda, is it possible to know and I realize it to blended book and probably there is some – there is some composition change to it, but is it possible to get an idea of what the year-over-year change in pricing or rate was in that book?

You are talking about…. Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs: Roughly.

What property cat, because Bermuda is a mixture of property and casualty, so it’s a little tough to answer that question.

Well, let me get to the base of my question. So the part I am trying to understand is the attritional loss ratio was flattish year-over-year and it’s been down on a year-over-year basis for the last few quarters. And I am just trying to understand just given generally that there has been some pressure in reinsurance pricing how does that factoring, because if it were just typical primary insurance or something very simple, you have reductions in pricing that would cause your combined ratio to rise, but it seems like we have absorbed is the market some declines in pricing, but that attritional ratio has been flat. I am guessing there is some mix change in there or something I am just trying to reconcile that?

It’s exactly that. It’s the mix change. They can move in and out of retro business depending on what we do, out of London and some of those transactions, it’s essentially mix change which is driving that.

Right. So, I mean – so, is it fair to assume that if all else equal if you have this environment and you have mix change, which it allows you to keep your attritional flat, does that mean that you are taking more risk per unit of premium that you are collecting?

Well, first of all, keep in mind that on a gross written premium basis, Bermuda was down year-over-year.

Yes.

And I think it’s a reflection of when we say a mix change, it’s kind of we would like to emphasize over and over is that we have the capacity, the willingness and the ability to actually change our mix and move from one class of business to another, one layer to another always trying to achieve the best risk-adjusted return. So that’s really what we are striving to do and in times you will see a segment like Bermuda, for example, perhaps slip in premium, because we are backing away from certain class of business that aren’t giving us the right return.

Right. I mean, if we are in an environment where if there continues to be challenges in the reinsurance market, is it possible to just keep that attritional loss ratio flat even with pressure just, are there some limitations of mix that will cause at some point that attritional loss ratio to start to rise?

There is always that potential. And it all depends on how fast and how far rate decreases are and what we back away from in terms of business that doesn’t meet our return hurdle. So, yes, if you would want to continue to write the same book of business, year-in and year-out, yes, attritionals will rise. On the other hand, if you move into different new products, different geographies change attachment point, use the capital markets potentially. I mean, there is lots of ways in which we can maintain our profitability throughout difficult, which you are describing as a difficult market.

Great, thank you very much for answering those questions. I appreciate it.

We will go next to Amit Kumar of Macquarie.

Thanks and good morning. Just a few quick follow-up questions. First of all, going back to the Florida piece, you mentioned that your XOL piece is $130 million, is the remainder $70 million or so or am I thinking of the total Florida book wrongly?

Our Florida pro rata is approximately it would be another couple of $100 million or in total – sorry, in total it would be $280 million roughly, that’s XOL and pro rata.

Got it. That’s helpful. The follow-up to that point is I think last year you had talked about getting preferential signings, you talked about private players, multi-year deals are you seeing that phenomenon for at least this year too or is it much different?

I will let John answer that.

Yes, this is John, Amit. Yes, we are seeing that opportunity in some cases private layers, in some cases clearly at 11 and 41 preferential signings, but also new products, new layers, new products with existing clients and new clients. And that answers the prior question about attritional losses as well. It’s our job to figure out how to make money, no matter what market we face. And yes we are seeing the opportunities where we are one of the biggest broker markets in the world and we are getting better and better signings from brokers and clients working with the brokers.

And then when you mentioned new clients are the smaller I guess new de-pop entities who exactly are these…?

We are not talking just Florida here. We are talking across the entire portfolio globally. So its new clients globally, it’s an with existing clients across the world. Specifically in Florida I mean we have relationships with almost 40 companies and we see how deal that comes into the market and we have been trading with many of those clients for many, many years. And we do have relationships that are not broadly marketed.

Got it. That’s quite helpful. The other question I think is a follow-up to Mike’s question on maybe California comp. Did you see any changes in loss cost trends over the past quarter. There has been obviously a lot of debate. A lot of reports have come out on the impact of SB-863. And it seems that impacted very strong the companies presence in the marketplace do you see any changes in your book or has it been sort of a steady state from 2013?

We have not yet seen any changes I am not saying we are not out there. But we have maintained – actually we didn’t answer much question earlier about loss cost trends. We have build loss cost trends into projection and that’s typically depending on massive business in the mid to high single digit range so that’s built into our reserve assumptions. And so far that has been sufficient clearly in the most recent accident years. The reserve development we saw in the fourth quarter of last year is primarily older years.

And the answer to Mike’s question was the rate increase for 2013 was 13%. And we were running in the 96 range last year on an accident basis.

Got it. The final question?

So just to follow-up on that you can see that we – while the combined ratio has not improved to the level of rate increases which means that we are taking some of that obviously into loss cost trend and probably more than as necessary at this point but (indiscernible).

That’s good. The final question is probably a follow-up to Jade initial question as you look at your growth prospects your purple on Logan you have talked about different new products I am curious as you sort of look out how do you look at organic growth versus outside opportunities to add to the portfolio?

What’s the distinction that you are making between organic growth and outside opportunities.

What I am trying to ask is based on all the changes we are seeing recently is it fair to say that probably you don’t need to look at other entities at this juncture?

Okay, I am sorry. So right now we do not need to do that and in fact growth strategy at least for us will never be built on an acquisition. It doesn’t mean that we don’t look at many things because as you can well imagine everyone calls us when there is a potential deal out there. But we do not build our growth strategy off of an acquisition. We prefer frankly to build from within so you don’t have to deal with legacy issues, integration issues and nine times out of ten there is limited strategic value to many of the opportunities that we see.

Got it. That did answer my question. Thanks. Thanks for the answers and good luck for the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Your next question will come from Meyer Shields with KBW.

Thanks. Dom you talked earlier about the tendency of seeding commissions to go up now, is that trend varying by the size of the seeding, is that different now than it was five or ten years ago?

That was John that spoke to that and I don’t know that we are necessarily seeing it differently by size customer. Certainly, it can be influenced by the size of the transaction given that there might be some that are hungrier for premium. That would maybe – could be the only comment I would make about that.

And obviously, this is John, and obviously it is also reflective of the clients’ individual experience. So, lot of cases, whether it’s whatever class of business they are in, if they are spending that results, we see seeding commissions going down. If there has been catastrophes that have hit, there are covers, including pro rata deals, seeding commissions go down. So, really it’s both the macro and the micro situation that drives these.

Okay, that’s helpful. Thank you. And very briefly is there a good proxy we can use of limited partnerships?

Well in the past, we have guided people to just the general equity markets. And I think we probably still would say that, that is as good a proxy as you can get and I think it points to what Craig mentioned earlier that in response to another question that our limited partnerships were quite strong last year, but that’s kind of in line with the general equity markets were strong last year. And conversely, the equity markets in the first quarter this year were not quite as strong or flattish. And I think that’s consistent with our limited partnership experience, except for the one. I mean, in our particular case, there was this one LP, which was distorting I think what we would otherwise normally have expected for the quarter. And that we would not expect that going forward. So, I would say that the best proxy you can use is the general equity market – public equity market.

Okay, fantastic. Thank you very much.

Our next question will come from Brian Meredith of UBS.

Yes. Couple of quick questions. The first one and my apologies if I missed this, but in the insurance segment, operating expenses were down about 13% year-over-year, was there something unusual that happened there?

Just good stewards on the expense side, in part it’s premium growth and frankly that’s most of it and maybe some internal allocations, but nothing dramatic other than premium growth.

Premium right, but actual expenses were down 13% year-over-year.

That would be driven by allocation, you include commissions in that.

No.

That would just be allocations then.

Okay, thanks. And then Dom and John, I wonder if you could just update or not update or just remind us kind of what’s your thoughts are on Watford Re and then there is a bunch of other companies that are kind of looking into these types of potential facilities, what interest level would an Everest have of potentially doing something like that and what do you think the potential impact is on the casualty markets, reinsurance markets?

Well, yes, one of your questions was that we are looking at that as I think probably most of our peer companies are doing. And we haven’t yet determined where we are going with or we have not yet concluded on that analysis yet. And generally it would certainly cause one to think that it could soften the casualty reinsurance market further from where it is now. On the other hand of the types of transactions that are likely to go into these types – into these facilities are not generally – generally already tend to be lower margin type business, lower volatility associated with the class of the business that fit these structures. And so it may not have as dramatic an impact as has been prognosticated by many on the overall capital market. That remains to be seen. I am not sure that any of us really know for sure where that all ends up, but it is something we are looking at. And in fact it can create interesting opportunities for seeding companies frankly that to help them with their cost to capital on transactions and they in fact create opportunities into the reinsurance market space that don’t exist today. We are the casualty space frankly where a lot of companies are holding on seeding less business, increasing mix. Some of these ideas can in fact create transactions that can help their P&L or balance sheet and perhaps a reinsurer can add value and see premium go up in the space. There are a lot of possibilities that can come out of these structures, but we are examining that very closely. Brian Meredith – UBS: Great. Thanks for answers.

We will go next to Ian Gutterman of BAM.

Hi, good morning. I guess a few different questions on different parts of your cap book, just to follow up on the Florida question from earlier, obviously we speculate pressure on extra well which is mentioned, you talked about your book, can you talk about I assume there will be upward pressure on seed-in commissions in quarter two is out there and can you give us the sense of how you think about that?

Again there is many, many moving parts to it. There is a current submits to seed-in commissions to the extent and we saw this phenomenon last year to the extent that there was a – to the extent that the reinsurance spanning goes down from some of our clients resulted in more attractive combined ratios including seed-in commission to the reinsurer. So we – as we talked about it on the last couple of calls, we wrote more pro rata business last June. We also wrote more pro rata business at one -one. We wrote another $50 million - $55 million of property pro rata at one-one. And again we crossed our book the combined ratio globally improved.

I wouldn’t expect that the same dynamics that we are expecting be extra well of our market from the introduction of third party capital to have as to no matter can impact on the pro rata market that I think is really what you are getting in.

Yes, exactly. Okay, great and then as a follow up to that on the extra well side given the talk on how much rates will fall this year, do you feel like we are approaching a bottom or are we near people’s walk away price or if there is another no last year and there is still abundant capacity next year can flow the rate go down another double digits or are we getting closer to walk away point.

I don’t know we answered that question certainly if we were to go down to your question, 10 this year and 10 next year, we certainly would be getting very, very close to all walk away point.

Okay.

On a full basis, but again remember that it doesn’t mean that we don’t participate in that market through our platform. If capital markets are willing to come down to those levels then we have the capacity that we can deploy in that fashion or move again to more pro rata. And as we can still stay very, very active in the marketplace and move to other products, move to different attachments points. Perhaps write the business and use the capital markets as a reinsurer, so there are many ways in which this can play out to our benefit frankly going forward.

Got it. And then that actually leads to the next question on the cap on, I was just confused and maybe this was just nomenclature or something that I don’t quite follow, but is your for US vendors I think $1.2 billion at the 1 and 100 and the cap on, on the index that was referenced had $1.4 billion to $2.1 billion index loss that equated to 1 and 34 to 1 and close to 100, so on the current one you are obviously talking so that I can be comparable, I was curious why index loss at the 1 and 100 is $2.1 billion when your PML 1 and 100 is $1.2 billion are they not comparable for some reason?

Yes, this is John. Basically that’s the (indiscernible) cap-on the mechanics of that really reflect, it’s basically is taking for the current one it’s Southeast states and it basically is taking industry loss events because it’s a PCS trigger. It’s taking industry loss event and then there is effectively market shares by each of those states. And so it’s taking a very big loss and then scaling it down or range of big losses and then scaling it down to the market share. So those are – the short answer is those are two different things, our PMLs and how the mechanics of the bond responds.

Okay, that does that. I can maybe follow up more from that. That’s what I was trying to get at. And then just….

I think, Ian, just bottom line is that purchase of that bond did reduce our PMLs, our 1-in-100.

Basically the $2.1 billion equates to your $1.2 billion, is that the right way to think about it?

It’s not – the $1.2 billion is one point in the curve. The reinsurance we purchased is a special purpose vehicle, Kilimanjaro, that finishes that cap-on is not one point on the curve, it’s across the distribution.

Okay, got it. Okay. And then just real quick on Mt. Logan, the $36 million in gross premium just knowing the capital deployed is a little over 10% rate online, if my math is correct, is that right?

Yes, but remember the $400 million be careful though, the $400 million that we cited as now assets under management that’s a recent number.

Right, using I think it was 320 million earlier in the year maybe?

There is also a accounting recognition of the premium. Over 2014, we would expect it to be higher and more seeded premium in each of the quarters going forward against that capital base.

Okay. Well, what I was getting at is just I thought normally for fleet collateralizing indeed closer to a 20% rate online to sort of make the math work, is that generally accurate?

I think we are trying to build the mousetrap that is maybe different and better than what is out there. And I think the fact that we have been able to go from zero to $400 million in the relatively short of time highlights that we may have a better mousetrap than others that are out there.

But I do think though that the simple arithmetic that you were trying to do is probably a bit low.

Got it, okay. I will follow up on that one offline to you. Thanks.

We will go next to Kai Pan of Morgan Stanley.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my call. And I have two questions. One is on the capital structure, another on reserves on the capital structure you have the one of sort of the least levered balance sheet debt to capital ratio less than 7%. And now you have a third-party capital Mt. Logan and cap-ons and what do you think about your equity base of $7 billion. Could you sort of buyback more than you earned like you did this quarter that actually actively reducing your shareholder base?

Well, we tend to want to think about share repurchases within the context of earnings. That’s generally has been our approach. And what we are trying to do with our capital in Mt. Logan and the use of cap-ons and other types of third-party capital structures is grow the business. Alright, this is a growth strategy not one in which we are trying to shrink the business. As we have mentioned earlier, we think that our size capital position rating, global franchise and the ability to grow is what perpetuates the good earnings we have been able to produce and good ROEs we have been able to produce. So in all of that context, it really means that it’s to our advantage in the marketplace to the extent that opportunities present themselves to grow our capital base. And when I say grow our capital base that means in all vehicles that we have mentioned meaning our own equity capital, Mt. Logan, use of cap-on structures and other vehicles. But in the context of our equity capital, it is important to us to be the size that we are at. So we think about share repurchases in the context of earnings.

So would 100% payout ratio a fair assumption?

That depends on the price of our stock. It depends on what opportunities present themselves. It depends on a lot of things. And we don’t give prognostications about what level of shares we are going to be repurchasing, but as you saw we did obviously have $250 million this quarter was a pretty good number for us.

Okay. In terms of my second question on reserves and your reserve development has been minimal throughout the past two years and each quarter actually, but if you look underneath, you have some large reserve charges and the insurance operation why you have large reserve releases from your reinsurance operation, then they tend to coincide like in the fourth quarter, I just wonder are those just coincidental that you do big reserves like study at year end? And then following on that is that going forward as you see the past reserve issues in your insurance book gradually well hopefully were diminishing and you said Dom, since you joined Everest you have been focusing on the reserve side setting probably more prudent like setting more cushions in your reserve that is possible we will see sort of these efforts actually playing out in formal favorable development in the future?

Yes, hopefully the reserve practices that we have been adopting over the last couple of years I think will hold us in good stead, but we point out that our reserves even prior to we getting here in many years developed favorably, probably less than 9 years come in positive relative to the initial pick. The we do our reserve studies meanly around the year end we do some of the smaller classes of business throughout the year, but the larger material lines, we focus on that in the fourth quarter, certainly if we see anything coming out of the smaller lines of business during the years we can pick some action certainly like we did here in the first quarter with the insurance from the medical amounts side and but insurance has been more of an issue than reinsurance because many of the business we were in were lines of business and those typically many of the business tend to be more problematic than in the ongoing book. And also our insurance lines of business tend to be on overall basis tend to be in the longer tail areas in the reinsurance side. So those are some of the more challenges related to insurance, but we clearly think that we have got control.

Thank you very much.

And it appears that’s all the time we have for questions today. And I would like to turn it back to our presenters for any additional or closing remarks.

We thank you very much and thanks for your questions. We would like to just say in summary that clearly we think we had a great quarter what some will describe as a challenging environment. We happened to think that the challenges create opportunities for a company like Everest and we have the ability to do different things and respond quickly and appropriately to market conditions that are at our feet today and they certainly won’t be the same tomorrow or two years from now. We appreciate your questions and your support and look forward to seeing everybody in the interim. Thank you.

That does conclude today’s conference. Thank you all for your participation.