Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. And welcome to the Loews Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. And after the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. Thank you. I would now turn the conference over to Ms. Mary Skafidas. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Kristal, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Loews Corporation second quarter earnings conference call. A copy of our earnings release, earnings snapshot, and company overview may be found on our website, loews.com. On the call this morning, we have our Chief Executive Officer, Jim Tisch; and our Chief Financial Officer, David Edelson. Following our prepared remarks this morning, we will have a question-and-answer session. Before we begin, however, I will remind you that this conference call might include statements that are forward-looking in nature. Actual results achieved by the company may differ materially from those projections made in any forward-looking statements, due to wide range of risks and uncertainties, including those set forth in our SEC filings. Forward-looking statements reflect circumstances at the time they are made, the company expressly disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. This disclaimer is only a brief summary of the company's statutory forward-looking statements disclaimer, which is included in the company's filings with the SEC. During the call today, we might also discuss non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to our security filings for reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP measures. I will now turn the call over to Loews' Chief Executive Officer, Jim Tisch.

Thank you, Mary, and good morning. We're going to change the format of this call slightly today just to mix things up a bit. Our CFO, David Edelson, will start by walking you through Loews' second quarter results, and then I'll talk about our view of the medium-term to long-term prospects for each of our businesses. Okay, David, over to you.

Thank you, Jim, and good morning. Loews reported a net loss of $65 million or $0.19 per share in Q2 2016 as opposed to net income of $170 million or $0.46 per share in last year's second quarter. Year-to-date, we have generated net income of $37 million or $0.11 per share. Our second quarter earnings were dominated by asset impairments at Diamond Offshore, which overwhelmed favorable results posted by CNA Financial and Boardwalk Pipeline, as well as good returns generated by our parent company investment portfolio. The impairments at Diamond, which totaled $678 million pre-tax on its books reduced our net income by $267 million. Before I drill into Diamond's results, let me summarize the year-over-year quarterly net income contribution by each of our subsidiaries and by the parent company investment portfolio. Two of our subsidiaries, CNA and Boardwalk, posted significant increases in net income contribution over the prior year. CNA contributed $189 million including realized gains up 52% from last year and Boardwalk's contribution rose from $12 million last year to $17 million this year. In addition, the parent company investment portfolio generated $56 million of after tax income this year, a big swing from the last quarter's $8 million loss and the $7 million gain in Q2 2015. Our remaining two subsidiaries, Diamond and Loews Hotels, posted year-over-year declines in each case driven by unusual items. Diamond contributed a $290 million net loss in Q2 2016 versus net income of $45 million last year and Loews Hotels essentially broke even this quarter, down from net income of $8 million in the prior year. Loews Hotels' results this quarter were significantly affected by the write-down of an equity investment in a joint venture hotel property. But clearly, Diamond drove our disappointing second quarter results, so let me start by…

Thank you, David. I'd like to talk about the medium-term to long-term prospects of each of our subsidiaries. Actually, I think it's much – a much more fitting conversation for us to have since at Loews quarterly results are not necessarily indicative of the long-term performance and ultimate value of our businesses. While we take notice of the near-term developments, we rarely measure the significance of an event or the returns on an investment over the short-term. As always, we are focused on a long-term value we can deliver to shareholders. First, let's turn to Diamond Offshore. I want to start out by addressing the proverbial elephant in the room. Diamond's results this quarter were severely impacted by the rig impairment charges David mentioned earlier in the call. Keep in mind that the severe downturn in the offshore drilling market, combined with the difficulty in predicting the timing and degree of this inevitable recovery precipitated these impairments. It's important to note however, that Diamond is scrapping only two of the eight rigs being impaired today. Having been in the offshore drilling business for nearly 30 years and the supertanker business for seven years prior to that, I've seen cyclical downturns before. I'm hopeful that in this case, and similar to prior cases, the rigs being stacked today will work again and earn an attractive rate of return in the future. Holding on to and ultimately reactivating capable older rigs is a strategy that Diamond has employed historically to create value and to differentiate itself from its competitors. There is no doubt that an oversupply of sixth-generation drillships currently exists. However, I believe that the older semisubmersibles being stacked today may indeed find work as the market recovers on jobs for which these third-generation, fourth-generation and fifth-generation rigs are better suited.…

Thank you, Jim. Kristal, at this time, we'd like to open up the call for any questions.

And your first question comes from the line of Josh Shanker with Deutsche Bank.

Hey. Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

So, I want to throw a bunch of things out there and have you sort of explained to me relative valuations for various things. Back about a year ago when oil was priced at around, I think, $35 a barrel and Diamond's stock was trading below $30 you bought back some stock, I am sure with an eye on where you thought two-year oil was going to be. About a quarter ago, with CNA stock dropping below $30, and trying to, I guess, capture what you expect to be about a 10% dividend yield, you bought back stock. So, both Diamond and CNA might be attractive to you – not as attractive, but can we talk about the price of oil, the price of a 10% dividend yield and your willingness to buy back subsidiary stock as opposed to your own?

Okay. Let's start with Diamond. When we bought back the shares of Diamond, I think that, we did not anticipate that the decline in offshore drilling would be as bad as it has been. We didn't anticipate that oil prices would go into the $20s, we didn't anticipate that oil companies would cut back their capital budget so dramatically. And we certainly didn't anticipate that utilization today of drilling rigs would be at the levels that they're at. So, I think we were surprised and I daresay that the rest of the market was surprised by what's happened in the offshore drilling industry. But now, I think, we recognized very clearly exactly where we are in that business. With respect to CNA, I would say it's just the opposite of Diamond. Things have worked out pretty much as we have expected. CNA continues to improve on its underwriting, its earnings have come in very strong and when we bought CNA's stock in the $20s we said then and we say now the stock is just too damn cheap. You're right, when we bought it, it did represent a 10% yield when you look at – look in the rearview mirror and take into account the special dividend along with the regular dividend. And we believe very much in the strength of CNA's business. As I said in my remarks, we believe strongly in the capital level that CNA has and we believe strongly in the improvements that are taking place at CNA.

And so – and versus Loews' stock – the return on Loews' stock, I guess.

So when I think about what I do, the primary – I think my primary job is that of capital allocator. We allocate capital to Loews share repurchases to purchases of subsidiary shares. We allocate capital from time-to-time to our subsidiaries to the extent that they might need capital from Loews and it represents a good return to Loews. And then, we also allocate capital to – less often, but in bigger amounts to repurchase – to purchase, sorry, new businesses. So, these are just the types of capital allocation issues that we have the competition for our capital. And from my perspective and the Loews Corporation perspective, we are constantly making judgments every day, what is the best place for our capital, and the times when we bought CNA shares and the times when we bought Diamond shares, at those points in time, without the benefit of rearview mirror today, we decided to purchase those shares.

And just backtracking, do you have a view on two-year oil?

I like it a lot. I think the – as I said in my remarks, I think oil companies in the world in general are dramatically under-investing in oil production capacity, I think that – I think, I believe, I know that depletion is real that oil wells do not continue producing forever, some of them decline at 70% a year, some of them decline at 5% a year, but all of them decline. And to the extent that the world is not reinvesting in new productive capacity, those declines in production will be felt in the coming years. Combined with that even though some say that oil demand growth is sluggish, oil demand is still continuing to increase every year generally on the order by about 1 million barrels a day or about 1%. So, as you add a few years together of underinvestment, combined with continued demand growth, I think you can see that in a few years time, prices will have to go up in order to provide the investment returns needed by oil companies in order to make the investment in more productive capacity. And I think that in two years' time, that will certainly happen. I recall – I – in prior calls, I've said that $65 was my fearless forecast, for year-end 2018 oil, I think there is a good chance that oil will be significantly higher than that on the order of, say, $10 a barrel.

Okay. And in terms of the, I guess, cash flows to Loews Corp right now, as you look at your appetite for deploying dividends, repurchases and other opportunities, is there a corporate outlook about how much cash flow you expect your businesses to generate to you in the next 12 months?

Yes. Yeah, yeah. We think about that all the time. We don't...

And the CNA dividend coming, I guess, do you consider the special part of the dividend part of that capital management or that cash flow forecast?

We take all the sources of capital that we anticipate coming into Loews into account. The thing that Loews doesn't do nor do our subsidiaries do is make forward-looking statements as to what specifically those amounts are.

Okay. Thank you for answering all the questions and good luck with the remainder of the year.

Thank you.

The next question comes from the line of Bob Glasspiegel, Janney.

Good morning, Loews.

Good morning.

The parent investment income was relatively robust, relative to recent run rates in a period where the stock market was not that robust. What was the source of the $56 million?

As I say, you die by the sword, you live by the sword. We had for a number of quarters, even years, suffered with gold investments. And what's happened in this most recent quarter is that our gold investments came to life. And the investment income in the quarter is primarily attributable to our gold investments.

How big a commitment do you have to gold?

It is surprisingly small. It's about $150 million maybe, this is not – it's not so big. We've had on our gold investments, this quarter, this year-to-date, more than a 100% rate of return, not annualized, just in the six months 100% rate of – greater than a 100% rate of return on those gold investments.

Okay. Second question is – you said you are going to have a drag on hotels in the second half because of – was it Miami investments? What's the order of magnitude of that drag or investment spending?

Well, this is David. Miami is undergoing a renovation and occupancy, RevPAR will be way down during that period of time. So we don't break out the earnings of Miami, or any of our individual properties. So suffice it to say though that Miami is quite a profitable property and the lack of profitability from that will be a drag on earnings.

I'd say differently....

Was it $3 million to $5 million or much bigger than that?

We're not going to give a range, but let me just say...

Okay.

Miami is a significant contributor to Loews Hotels' income, and its earnings during this capital improvement time will be dramatically affected by the work that's being done. But we strongly believe that the hotel that will be seen by the public, when the work is completed will be a dramatic improvement over an already very profitable hotel.

Okay. How long is the renovation period again?

(34:08) it's planned to be concluded at the end of November, the first part of December.

Okay. And last question, Jim, over the last several years your economic view of like 2% GDP growth has proven to be a very valid forecast. We are limping along a little bit below that. Any concerns about the near-term economic outlook? Are you revising sort of your consistent?

I'm staying with my forecast and when you said growth has been a bit below it, below my 2% mark, I'm reminded of what Larry Lindsey said to me and he may have been quoting some other economists, but he said that economists use decimal points to show the world that they have a sense of humor. So...

I get that.

...I'm going to stick with my 2% growth forecast.

There is nothing as far as the election or Brexit or the macro stuff that has happened that makes you pause on that forecast?

My forecast – my forecast takes all of that and more into account.

Great. Okay, that makes me feel a little bit better. Thank you.

My pleasure.

And your next question comes from the line of Michael Millman with Millman Research Associates.

Thank you. So given that you see and that maybe the industry sees some improvement in oil prices the next couple years, that would suggest that there is no rush to dump rigs, I guess, like the Yankees selling. Where does that leave Diamond's strategy?

So, Diamond is scrapping two rigs, but we believe that even in a robust recovery that there won't be work for those two rigs. Those rigs are generally very old and have served their useful productive lives, but we do have a number of rigs that are stacked, that will be able to come out of stack mode and operate when, as and if, the oil – offshore oil drilling industry improves.

I guess maybe I didn't ask my question well. In the past, you have indicated that a big turning point is when the industry gets so discouraged or out of money that they are dumping rigs as an opportunity to pick them up. Do you see that occurring in this cycle of two years, five years, whatever it may be?

So the primary market for third-generation, fourth-generation and fifth-generation rigs, I believe, will be in the shallower water depths where sixth-generation dynamically positioned rigs cannot compete. They just technically cannot compete there. So I think that there will be in the future, a good market for those third-generation, fourth-generation and fifth-generation rigs, but it will be a relatively small market, certainly not as big as it was in prior decades. So we are very comfortable – Diamond is very comfortable with the exposure that it has to that class of rigs.

So, do you see – maybe I am not understanding your answer. Do you see a dumping, so as to speak, of rigs by the industry creating good opportunity – better opportunities for pricing rigs?

Yeah. So, I don't foresee Diamond purchasing any third-generation, fourth-generation and fifth-generation rigs. When you look at the economics of purchasing a third-generation, fourth-generation and fifth-generation rig, what you quickly realize is that the purchase price of the rig is really incidental and very small in comparison to the cost of re-commissioning the rig and going through a special survey. So the – in my opinion, the cycle is different, slightly different this time than last time, because in the cycle, say, in the late 1980s, early 1990s, you were able to buy rigs, re-commission them for very little and bingo, you would be back in business. This time, the cost to re-commission the rig after it's been in stacked mode for a few years can, in some instances, be measured – can be greater than a $100 million. So it doesn't – the economics aren't – are not driven by whether you pay $5 million for the rig or $7 million for the rig. We feel that we have enough of that class of rigs that when and if the industry comes back, we will make a lot of money from those rigs, and we would anticipate making money then from sixth-generation and later rigs if the market truly improves.

I see. Okay. Slightly different on the gold. With a 2% forecast for economic growth, that would not suggest a lot of inflation, which would seem to argue against gold investments.

So, I don't want to argue the merits of gold, I would just say that, for us gold has, and our portfolio has been a very good hedge that when stocks are down, gold tends to outperform and when stocks are in – are up, gold tends to underperform. And so, it's been, I think, a very good balance for our portfolio. I am not, nor is anybody else here at Loews what you would call a gold bug, but it was – it is interesting to me that in the first half of this year, we have a relatively modest investment in gold securities we've been able to earn an outsized rate of return on that investment.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes the Q&A portion of today's call. I will now turn it back to Mary Skafidas.

Great. Thank you, Kristal. And thank you all of you for your continued interest in Loews. A replay will be available on our website, loews.com in approximately two hours. That concludes today's call.

That concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.