Good morning. My name is Tiffany, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the RenaissanceRe Third Quarter 2014 Financial Results Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) Thank you. Peter Hill, you may begin your conference.

Good morning and thank you for joining our third quarter 2014 financial results conference call. Yesterday after the market closed, we issued our quarterly release. If you didn’t get a copy, please call me at 212-521-4800, and we’ll make sure to provide you with one. There will be an audio replay of the call available from about noon Eastern Time today through midnight on November 25. The replay can be accessed by dialing 855-859-2056 or 404-537-3406. The pass code you will need for both numbers is 17974977. Today’s call is also available through the investor information section of www.renre.com and will be archived on RenaissanceRe’s website through midnight on January 14, 2015. Before we begin, I’m obliged to caution that today’s discussion may contain forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially from those discussed. Additional information regarding the factors shaping these outcomes can be found in RenaissanceRe’s SEC filings to which we direct you. With us to discuss today’s results are Kevin O’Donnell, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Jeff Kelly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. I would now like to turn the call over to Kevin. Kevin? Kevin O’Donnell: Thanks, Peter, and good morning, everyone. For today’s call, I’ll start with some general comments, then I’ll turn it over to Jeff to go over the financial results, and then I’ll come back on to discuss the business in more detail. Yesterday, we reported annualized operating return on equity of 11.7% for the third quarter. Growth in tangible book value per share plus accumulated dividends was 1.5%. Our results reflect our actions to reduce risk and optimize risk adjusted returns in a difficult and competitive environment. We benefited from another relatively light wind season, but we’re impacted by weaker investment returns, as Jeff will explain in more…

Thanks, Kevin, and good morning, everyone. I’ll cover our financial results for the third quarter and year-to-date and then finish by giving you our top line forecast for 2015. We had a profitable third quarter, again, benefiting from solid underwriting results and relatively low catastrophe losses. At the same time rising interest rates and widening credit spreads hurt the total investment return during the quarter. A continued decline in the managed cat top line was more than offset by growth in our specialty reinsurance and Lloyd’s platforms. We were again active with share repurchases and continued to return capital that we were not able to deploy. Earlier this year, we made the decision to improve our risk adjusted returns by reducing the size of our net cat portfolio, which we believe is the prudent strategy in the current competitive marketplace. We reported net income of $68 million, or $1.70 per diluted share, and operating income of $99 million, or $2.49 per diluted share for the third quarter. The annualized operating ROE was 11.7% for the third quarter and our tangible book value per share, including change in accumulated dividends increased by 1.5% during the quarter. For the first nine months of the year, we reported an annualized operating ROE of 12.9% and growth in tangible book value per share plus dividends of 8%. Let me shift to the segment results, beginning with our cat segment and followed by specialty reinsurance and then Lloyd’s. The vast majority of our cat book is written in the first two quarters of the year, so the third quarter tends to be pretty light in terms of managed cat premiums written. Managed cat gross premiums written declined 14% with the year ago during the third quarter. Adjusting for prior year reinstatement premiums of $10 million,…

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Vinay Misquith with Evercore ISI. Your line is open. Vinay Misquith – Evercore ISI: Hi, good morning. Just a big picture question, this quarter’s ROE was about 12% in a low cat quarter, just curious as to whether sort of given your capital situation, do you think you can generate a double-digit ROE on a normalized basis for a normal cat year? Are I mean, are you looking at it, because you’ve purchased more retro, so are you looking at your returns more on a risk adjusted basis, thinking lower, risk lower returns versus some your competitors who have imposed higher ROEs during the last three quarters? Thanks. Kevin O’Donnell: Sure, I think it’s a great question. The last point let me focus on first, which is the risk-adjusted returns. The way we think about constructing portfolios is building what we think of as an optimal portfolio across the full set of outcomes. With that we’re looking at risk-adjusted returns, not whether there are specifically no cats or there’s a heavy cat year, but optimizing it across the full distribution of outcomes. Being that this was a low cat quarter and the fact that we both reduced the size of our portfolio and bought the additional ceded to de-risk the portfolio as we discussed on the previous call as well. That lowered returns in the low cat scenario, but we believe the decisions we made across the full distribution of outcomes are the right decisions to maximize risk-adjusted returns. Vinay Misquith – Evercore ISI: So, do you think still think that you can generate a double-digit ROE in a normalized cat year? Kevin O’Donnell: I think we’ll continue to produce very attractive risk adjusted returns. I think focusing on whether…

Your next question comes from the line of Josh Shanker with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. Josh Shanker – Deutsche Bank: Yes. Thank you. I listened to your comments, Kevin, at the end about responding to your client’s needs, but given the long history of RenRe what kind of talent does RenRe have in casualty that we should think that RenRe can write it better than other people? Kevin O’Donnell: The talent that we have I think is world class, just to put that on the table. We continue to add staff to that team. We have a great track record. One of the things Jeff mentioned in his comments is that our Specialty business is broadly defined as added over $1 billion of income to the organization overtime. So it’s one in which I think we are very careful as to which lines we enter. The lines we target are lines that we believe are profitable and then we look for the best fields in those property lines. We’re not looking for that one profitable deal in a market that we think as unprofitable. I think we have the same core set of underwriting tools available on the Specialty side that we do on the cat side, so the technology supporting that team is very strong, but it’s one that we are – the book is younger, the book is changing more than the cat book at this point in time with growth initiatives that we have, but it’s one that I feel very confident we’ll continue to outperform the industry. Josh Shanker – Deutsche Bank: Can you give a few details, I mean, I would argue given my limited knowledge that the technology at RenRe is clearly superior in the cat space to many of your competitors.…

Josh, this is Jeff. So I think you’ve actually hit on the two components that are likely that to change a bit. The first is as the reserve book at least has a longer duration I’d expect to see a generally longer duration in our investment portfolio over time, without getting to specific numbers that will depend on how the book evolves over time. But I’d expect to see generally a bit longer duration in the investment portfolio. And as you point out, to the extent that reserves are less cat-related, there is probably a little bit lesser need for liquidity in the company and we structure our investment portfolio to be able to generate a tremendous amount of liquidity in a very short period of time. I think that probably – that need probably lessens over time as the mix changes. So it might – you might see over time a bit less – a couple of components in the investment portfolio that could be a bit less liquid, but I wouldn’t necessarily ascribe at least at this point any other investment components that would be terribly different than our current risk profile. Josh Shanker – Deutsche Bank: Okay.

And by the increased credit risk or anything else. Josh Shanker – Deutsche Bank: That makes sense and good luck in the New Year.

Thanks, Josh. Kevin O’Donnell: Thanks, Josh.

Your next question comes from the line of Josh Stirling with Sanford. Your line is open. Josh Stirling – Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, Inc.: Hi, good morning. And thanks for fitting me in right behind Josh. So I was wondering if you could walk us through, I guess, maybe, Kevin or Jeff, so how we should think about capital returns over the next two years? Big picture, is this something primarily you think will be driven by earnings or are you going to be looking at a lot of opportunities in retro, or setting up third party ventures basically to be able to shrink your own equity base? And the reason I ask is, it’s not totally obvious to me whether you look at that as sort of a financial arbitrage or sort of accretive thing to do, or you like being the size you are because you want to maintain flexibility and be able to respond after a storm and to keep your – to keep that really high AA rating you have? Thank you.

Okay. I’ll – Josh, this is Jeff, I’ll start off and then let Kevin add in. I think there’s a lot of – there’s a lot of hypotheticals in terms how we think about returning capital over the next couple of years and those would depend on the obvious things like cat-loads and specific events and as well as pricing in general. But I’d say absent other things being equal, we would expect to – we would expect to be returning – or we look to return at least the level of earnings that we generate over the course of the next couple of years. We don’t specifically target in any given year a level of retro purchases or ceded purchases to protect the book. That tends to be more opportunistic, so to the extent that there are more opportunities to do that, it might free up more capital in periods of time and thus give us more opportunities to return capital. We could cede off a higher level of ownership and various of the balance sheets that we manage for third-party investors which would also allow us to free up capital if we wanted to do that. And we also are at a level with most of the capital vehicles that we manage that we could increase our ownership in them if that made sense as well. So it’s – I think you have to look at – a base case might just be earnings are slightly better with a lot of potential flexibility to move in either direction frankly. Kevin O’Donnell: Okay. Let me just add one thing. I think what Jeff said is highlighting something that we think is critical, which is the flexibility we have between our partner and third-party capital. Our preference is to deploy…

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Nannizzi with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs: I guess, Kevin, one thing I was trying to understand a little bit is thinking about conditions in the Lloyd’s and Specialty business, sort of relative to the opportunities you see on the cat side. Clearly on the cat side, you’re shrinking, because you feel like the risk isn’t worth the return. But just trying to understand what you’re seeing in Specialty and Lloyd’s that allows you the comfort to continue to posture towards growth there? Thanks. Kevin O’Donnell: Sure. On way we’ve talked about the cap market before is negative return, lower return and adequate return. The return on that is really based on how much capital it’s requiring to support the business. There’s a negative return no matter how – this on a standalone basis, not profitable. We’re not seeing much business still in the cat market, particularly in the U.S., in the negative return. It’s mostly low return. So the reason we’re exiting is not because of standalone economics on some of the deals is negative. It’s because it doesn’t support the amount of capital to that the deal requires. On the Specialty side, because of the construct of our portfolio, we’re seeing deals that we believe are profitable on a standalone basis and on a marginal basis are still accretive to our portfolio because we’re not adding any real capital because it’s diversifying to our otherwise cat-dominated portfolio. So it’s kind of apples and oranges as to why we’re looking to see – why we’re seeing greater opportunity in Specialty and seeing fewer opportunities in cat. Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs: Right, I mean, I guess… Kevin O’Donnell: Did that answered your question? Michael…

Well, on – I’ll let – I think I’ll let Kevin talk about the mix of expected exposure changes and pricing. I’d say it’s mostly consistent with changes in price that we’re seeing but I – on your other question, I think the – I think, I forgot it, just forgot with your… Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs: I was saying like net versus so in terms of ceded premiums versus in 2015 and we talked about kind of managed cap down 10, just trying to think about the other part of that that gets you the net number.

Yes, thanks, Mike. Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs: Sure.

We don’t plan – we don’t have budgets for ceded purchases, they – so there is some volatility in that both on a quarterly basis and an annual basis and it will just be a matter of how attractive we think ceded purchases are next year. So we don’t – we’re not – we don’t really have any budget at all for them at this point. Michael Nannizzi – Goldman Sachs: Got it, great. Thank you so much. Kevin O’Donnell: Great. Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Amit Kumar with Macquarie. Your line is open. Amit Kumar – Macquarie Research Equities: Thanks, and good morning. Two quick follow-up questions. The first question relates to the discussion, I guess in the opening remarks. You were talking about a higher level, I guess of attritional losses. And I think what would be helpful is, if you could break out those numbers, so that we could compute the normalized ROE?

Okay. Hang on just a second. I have a couple of – okay at Lloyd’s, we had – our losses there were about, I think, I said about $6 million in crop hail losses. And we had a few million dollars related to a couple of wind storm events during the quarter, which were not particularly large. So those were kind of the – really kind of the I think the major components of the increase in losses at Lloyd’s. And specialty, the biggest single group related to, I think, it was three aviation events, which all-in-all totaled a little over $10 million. And then we had some additional crop losses there as well of about $3 million I think – $3 million, yes. Amit Kumar – Macquarie Research Equities: Okay, enough, that’s helpful. But the other question I had, I guess this goes back to Josh and Michael’s questions, regarding 2015. Recently, there has been some discussion in the market press that RenRe is either looking to or thinking about some sort of an agreement with one of the largest reinsurance brokers, if you will, to find outgrowth opportunities in the U.S. casualty reinsurance market. And I was trying to reconcile that fairly detailed discussion in the market press versus your comments. Could you sort of help us reconcile those comments versus your outlook for 2015, because net-net, it does seem like a meaningful departure as you start talking about casualty and lower tail businesses? Kevin O’Donnell: Okay. Firstly, I think we have a great relationship with all our brokers and we look at them as all strategically important to us. The agreement that’s been discussed in the press is one that is not something that’s exclusive. There is no incentive payments for business, or anything else, it’s really much more around helping us to understand some different markets. It’s around helping us understand how those markets are placed into the reinsurance business and where they’re placed. So from that perspective, I think, it’s an agreement that we would gladly engage with any of our brokers. With regard to it being a departure from what we’ve done on the specialty side, we’ve been in the specialty business for a long time. We are continuing to build out what we think is a world-class platform between Bermuda, London, and the U.S. We have a great team, and we are applying the same discipline in the lines that we’re writing to the cat market that we’ve executed into for a long time. So I don’t feel as if it’s as different when I’m sitting in this seat, as potentially you’re suggesting it is. It feels very organic and very much natural to what we’ve always done. Amit Kumar – Macquarie Research Equities: That answers my question. Thank you for that clarification. Thanks, and good luck for the future. Kevin O’Donnell: I appreciate it. Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Jay Cohen with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Your line is open. Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Yes, thank you. A couple of questions, I guess, first, in the specialty business, the acquisition expense ratio went up quite a bit, and you talked about the change in business mix and a higher ceding commissions. My question is, if the business mix doesn’t change, is that the kind of number we should assume going forward, or was anything in that number that might have inflated it this quarter? Kevin O’Donnell: Yes, I think the growth in that book was – we opened the U.S. platform earlier this year. We achieved good growth in the U.S. platform and a lot of that is quota share based, which has a higher ceding commission. I think the ceding commissions we’re paying are largely in line with where the market is. So I wouldn’t say that there is any one thing in the business mix or in the ceding commission that I would highlight. It’s just simply what percent of the book is actually – what percent of book is quota shares probably the more natural thing to look at. Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: So not a bad number to use going forward, all else being equal. Kevin O’Donnell: That’s probably a reasonable guess. Yes. Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Okay. Second question, I guess on the cat books, your guidance is for down 10 and again it does suggest discipline. By showing that discipline and again assuming market conditions get a bit worse, do you think you can maintain expected returns in your cat book in 2015 versus 2014? Kevin O’Donnell: So in our process to come up with the cat guidance is really a ground up process, where we’re looking at each deal and then we’re taking some assumptions of pricing both at a macro level and a deal level. I believe, we will be paid less for risk in 2015 than we are paid in 2014. But I also believe, we’ll have, at least, as many tools to manage the risk adjusted return that we are keeping on a net basis for both ourselves and our partners. So it’s a difficult question to answer, because there is a lot of levers that we have to pull between our gross book, our net book, and then the options for how we construct the two. Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: No, that’s fair. If I could sneak one really quick numbers question, the amount of capital you have at Lloyd’s?

Yes, why don’t we come back to that one? Let’s give us just a minute to check on it. We’ll come back to you. Jay Cohen – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Perfect, thanks Jeff.

Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Byrnes with Janney Capital. Your line is open. Ryan Byrnes – Janney Montgomery: Thanks, good morning, everybody. Kevin O’Donnell: Good morning. Ryan Byrnes – Janney Montgomery: I was just wondering if we could get a little better breakdown of what’s actually in the specialty book, and I know you guys kind of note there is some casualty in there and some specialty in there, and obviously we know there has been some mortgage insurance stuff in there. But just wondering if you guys could give a better color or breakdown as to what’s specialty and what’s casualty in that segment?

Well, I think – let me just start with perhaps where the change came kind of year-over-year. So in the specialty book, I would say, probably most of the growth came in various casualty lines, so professional lines, casualty clash, things like that. In terms of where they have been over the course of the year, or where it is on an in force base, Kevin, you may have a better idea than I do. Kevin O’Donnell: Yes, the business mix really hasn’t changed. I think we saw some good opportunities in some of the professional line stuff. We have an excess casualty book that we write here in Bermuda, a good-sized professional lines book written both out of Bermuda and out of London. You mentioned the mortgage book that we’ve been successful writing and we also have a trade credit book or a financial credit book that we have been able to grow really since the financial crisis. So the mix is reasonably consistent. I’d say the one thing we probably have a bigger percentage of quota share now than we did two years ago. And I’d anticipate that the quota share element of the book may continue to rise to a little faster than the XOL. Ryan Byrnes – Janney Montgomery: And then just the region of where is the U.S. as a percentage of that book to, just trying to figure out, I guess, for some sort of tax purposes as well. Kevin O’Donnell: You mean the amount of casualty risk we have that’s exposed to the U.S., or the amount of premium written by our U.S. platform? Ryan Byrnes – Janney Montgomery: The amount you’re writing out of your U.S. platform? Kevin O’Donnell: Yes, let me just – I’m not sure if that’s a number we’ve…

Your next question comes from the line of Mark Dwelle with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. Mark Dwelle – RBC Capital Markets: Yes, good morning. I guess, my question is actually somewhat similar to the last one, but oriented towards the Lloyd’s book. I mean now that about 25% of net premiums and continues to be the biggest growth driver. What are the main lines of business that you’re pursuing there? I know there has been some teams added. What are the main lines of business that are being pursued there, and how do you see that developing? Just an update.

Yes, I’ll comment again on where we saw growth particularly in the third quarter. But I think this is pretty consistent with where it has occurred over the course of the year. So part of the growth – the largest part of the growth has been in various casualty lines. So professional indemnity, D&O, general liability, lines like that, and as well some property businesses, property D&F, quota share businesses, and per risk – property per risk have been areas of growth in the last quarter. Kevin O’Donnell: Yes. Generally in Lloyd’s, you are paid, your capital requirements benefit from greater diversification. As the lines Jeff mentioned are the lines in which we’re currently in and looking to continue to build out into, and to develop. To the extent we can add one or two new lines in 2015, we are certainly open to that. The business we’re writing in Lloyd’s is highly coordinated with the business that we’re writing elsewhere in the organization. So that if we have a piece of business, we are indifferent as to which platform it goes on. On every deal we have exactly the same standalone economics. So that there is no arbitrage between platforms, but we may apply different capital rules, depending on whether it’s in Lloyd’s or on any one of our other balance sheets. So in general, it looks reasonably similar to the other specialty that we’re writing. There is a small component of insurance in it, and it’s one in which we’ll continue to seek some diversification there, because it provides an advantage for your funding at Lloyd’s. Mark Dwelle – RBC Capital Markets: Thank you, that’s a good update. And then one other question, just within the hedge portfolio took a loss during the quarter which isn’t unprecedented, but it is unusual. Is there any more detail you could provide related to that? What – maybe what type of strategies were – or whether there was a particular portfolio or more than one?

You’re talking about the private equity portfolio in particular. Mark Dwelle – RBC Capital Markets: Correct, yes.

No, I don’t think there was anything – I think the broader equity markets were pretty flat with some volatility in the quarter there. I don’t think there was anything in particular to point to with that. Mark Dwelle – RBC Capital Markets: Okay.

All the returns were just generally – the returns in the book were just generally lower flat to slightly down. Mark Dwelle – RBC Capital Markets: Okay. That’s all my question. Thanks.

And just returning to a question, I think Jay, asked about capital at Lloyd’s, I think as a general proxy, Jay, the number we would probably point you to is about $370 million.

(Operator Instructions) Your next question comes from the line Kai Pan with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley: Thank you. Good morning. So first question is on the expense ratio side, if you’re looking at property cat expense ratio drifting high from low-20s to the mid-20s, this is understandable given the premiums decline. So just wonder in this current environment, how do you balance that matching expense ratio at the same time reinvesting in the platform you have? Kevin O’Donnell: I think it’s something that we are keenly focused on, there is not that many levers as to reinsure that you can pull to manage – to manage the bottom line. I think managing expenses is a balance between making sure we’re continuing to invest in the businesses that we have, but also being cognizant of where the ratios are. We are continuing to hire people and to add staff, so we had a couple of great hires in the quarter. We’re continuing to invest in our systems. But we’re also being very mindful as to what – kind of how and where we’re spending money to make sure that it’s managed appropriately. But there is not much more than that I would say at this point regarding expenses. Kai Pan – Morgan Stanley: Okay. It’s great. Then in your opening remarks you talk about you active return to both shareholders, as well as third-party investors. That’s kind of in contrast to many of your peers actually growing the side card, third-party Capital Management business. You have the velocity that you want to sort of ride along your third-party investors with the risk you’re taking and seeking the same kind of returns. But some of these third-party investors might not have the same capital return…

Your next question comes from the line of Ian Gutterman with Balyasny. Your line is open. Ian Gutterman – Balyasny Asset Management LP: Kevin O’Donnell: Yes, I think it, actually frankly, I just divide the world into different buckets. In think, what does a cat world look like? What does specialty, casualty, XOL and quota share, and then come up with a mix and then blend it together, rather than think of a single number as to what the book is going to look like. So I think, you can go back over any period of time and come up with that mix and use that to forecast forward. It’s not a number that we give guidance on. Ian Gutterman – Balyasny Asset Management LP: Fair enough. I was trying to simplify. I was doing what you suggested and then I came to a simple answer and was hoping to confirm it, but that’s okay. And then on the market, I was hoping you could expanded a little bit on supply and demand and maybe if I can sort of see the response a little bit? On the demand side it certainly sounds like, we continue to see this trend where the large global buyers are eliminating cat trees by centralizing their purchasing and sort of, I guess warehousing the internal risk through internal risk transfer. Just – how much more of that do you see continuing, has that kind of played out after this year, is this a multi-year thing to come still that we’re going to keep seeing demand come out from the largest buyers? And I guess on the supply side given as you said nine years and this being another no loss year, do we see another big influx of capital markets participation from maybe more…

I will now turn the call back over the Mr. O’Donnell. Kevin O’Donnell: Well, thank you all for your attention and we appreciate the questions, and look forward to catching up with you after year end. Thank you very much.

This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.