Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing-by and welcome to the RenaissanceRe Third Quarter 2019 Financial Results Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today Keith McCue, you may begin your conference.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for joining our third quarter 2019 financial results conference call. Yesterday after the market closed, we issued our quarterly release. If you didn’t receive a copy, please call me at 441-239-4830, and we’ll make sure to provide you with one. There will be an audio replay of the call available from about 1:00 P.M. Eastern Time today through midnight on November 30. The replay can be accessed by dialing 855-859-2056 U.S. toll-free or 1-404-537-3406 internationally. The passcode you will need for both numbers is 6787756. 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 November 30, 2019. 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 today to discuss results are Kevin O’Donnell, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Bob Qutub, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. I’d now like to turn the call over to Kevin. Kevin? Kevin O’Donnell: Thanks, Keith. Good morning, and thank you for joining today’s call. I’ll open with a discussion of our third quarter performance. Bob will then highlight some of the quarterly results. And finally, I’ll address our segments and loss activity for the quarter before taking your questions. This was an active period for national disasters globally. In September, Hurricane Dorian devastated the Bahamas, which is in early stages of recovery. In Japan, Typhoon Faxai and Hagibis have caused wide-spread wind and flood damage through out the Tokyo region. We extend our sympathies to all those impacted by these catastrophes and are working closely with our…

Bob, thanks Kevin, and good morning everyone. Today we’ll discuss our consolidated financial performance for the quarter, review our segment results, the investment portfolio returns, and then our capital activities. Starting with our consolidated results where our annualized return on average common equity was 2.8% benefiting from mark-to-market gains in the investment portfolio. On an operating basis, we posted annualized operating return on average common equity of 1%. We reported net income for the quarter of $37 million or $0.83 per diluted common share. Our operating income was $13 million or $0.29 per diluted common share, which excludes $32 million of net realized and unrealized gains on investments attributable to shareholders and $4 million of transaction integration and compensation expenses associated with the TMR acquisition. We had an underwriting loss for the quarter of $3 million and reported an overall combined ratio of 100.4%. Net premiums earned for the quarter were $907 million up $375 million or 70% from the comparable quarter last year. As with the second quarter, this growth is a combination of organic growth and the impact of the TMR transaction. We recorded an operating income – we recorded in operating income net foreign exchange losses of $8 million this quarter. While we do experience quarterly volatility in our FX positions, our practices to hedge material exposures and year-to-date, our FX losses in operating income are less than $2 million. As a reminder, we incur non-controlling interest adjustments related to our fully consolidated joint ventures, primarily DaVinci, Medici and Vermeer. This quarter we reported $62 million in profits attributable to non-controlling interests compared to $6 million in the comparable quarter last year. Of this $62 million, $31 million relates to DaVinci, $15 million to the Medici and $16 million to Vermeer. And Vermeer rights risk remote U.S.…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Your line is open.

Great. Thanks. Kevin, I was hoping we could talk a little bit more about the worsening trend in casualty lines in terms of when they actually started deteriorating and how much exposure in let’s say the pre-2015 public D&O book Renaissance has? Kevin O’Donnell: Sure. Thanks for the question. It’s difficult to put a specific time on when trends are identified. You said first, they can look like just an early start on the curve. I would focus our book with the growth that we were having in the book and the credibility we have because of the size of the portfolios that we started noticing things probably as early as 2015. So I wouldn’t say that there is a specific date that targeted and it’s different by line of business where if you look back, as I mentioned the classes that are most affected are excess casualty. And I would say, excess casualty was probably a little bit more transparent in 2015, but it was a couple of large events. So that was what I would say people are referring to as the beginning of the higher frequency of high severity. Within the auto and the D&O books, it’s been a slower trend because the losses aren’t as exceptional as what we saw in 2015. So I don’t have a specific date, but it’s not as if it’s just in 2017 and 2018, it’s going back further than that.

Okay, that’s very helpful. And if I can switch gears really quickly, so there was more reserve release in DaVinci than on a consolidated basis. Is there a different schedule for when these vehicles reserves are reviewed? Kevin O’Donnell: So, no for DaVinci. Remember that any risk that’s in DaVinci is in RenRe, so by reviewing it in RenRe we’re – the fact that we’re reviewing it for DaVinci. The big difference in this quarter is the subrogation payments that we received and the reason that those are different is because we are within – those were specifically for California wildfire and we are within a reinsurance protection layer within RenRe Limited, so our partners are benefiting from the subrogation payment where in DaVinci, our shareholders are benefiting from the subrogation payment.

Okay, that’s perfect. Thank you so much. Kevin O’Donnell: Sure.

[Operator Instructions] There are no further questions at this time. I will turn the call back over to the presenters. We do have a question from Josh Shanker from Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.

Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you for taking my question. I was curious if I go back to 2004-2005 when there was Charley, Ivan, Frances and Jeanne. And then next year, we had Rita, Wilma and Katrina of course, it felt before the 2006 renewals that buyers felt something had changed in the market. And I don’t know, maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. We went through a decade without any hurricanes for a while, so who knows. Do you feel that in conversations that there is a sensibility both with typhoons and maybe with wildfires that something has changed in the market or at least I guess the fear factor, is there any – is it I guess in terms of the attitude on buyers? Kevin O’Donnell: It’s a great question. I think let me talk a little bit about what happened in 2004 and 2005 and I’ll talk a little bit about this and then give my perspective. 2004 and 2005 were coming off a quiet period. We had obviously lots of storms in 2004 and a couple of big ones in 2005. With that the modeling firms came out and substantially adjusted their hurricane models and that was reflected through pricing and we all know what happened to the markets after those events. What we’re seeing now is increased frequency in the typhoon landfalls. There is always a lot of typhoons going through the Pacific. I think the big difference is what you’ve touched on is fear. I think there is an uncertainty as to why things feel different than they are and I don’t have a specific reason to point to. I think as time passes, the ability to see climate change around the edges becomes more transparent. So I think that is component of the fear factor. I also think if you look at the wildfires and you look at what is forecast with climate change and what is occurring in California, particularly the 2017 wildfires are kind of a textbook example of future expectations. So I think there is just a general migration of opinion from it being normal climate variability to this being something more substantial and being man-made climate change. I think it’s important for us to mention that it’s man-made climate change because if it is just climate variability, one would expect that a reversion to means would occur. What we’re seeing is or what we believe we are seeing is that this is a permanent shift in the climate, a paradigm. And with that, there will be no reversion to mean and what we are seeing now is likely to have normal variability, but at an inflated rate.

But that’s your view. Do you find that clients have that view as well? I mean obviously look you have an incentive to want people to be concerned about these things. Do people want to be concerned about these things? Kevin O’Donnell: I think everybody is concerned about these things. Whether it’s reflected in the models, this is a separate discussion. Two things I mentioned in my comments is that we hold our wildfire curves and our surge curves associated with hurricane higher than any vendor model. So yes, you can say that – that is in our interest to do so, but ultimately we have one view. We don’t have near-term, medium-term views of risk. We have one view of risk that we need to take into account when we think about exposing our capital and it’s our best estimate of where we think the world is and we think the world is at a higher level of risk than what many of the vendor models are representing.

Okay. And then one quick thing, you might have mentioned it earlier. I apologize there are lot of calls this morning. Has your Jebi pick held over the past 12 months? Kevin O’Donnell: So for the quarter, our Jebi pick, as mentioned there has been some movement. Our Jebi was about flat on a net basis and going through time, our net Jebi numbers, our net negative impact from Jebi has been – there’s always some movement, it’s been remarkably stable.

Okay. I apologize for re-asking that question. Thank you. Kevin O’Donnell: No, that’s fine. I appreciate the questions. Thanks, Josh.

[Operator Instructions]. Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields from KBW. Your line is open.

Thanks. This one is follow-up. I don’t know if this is quantifiable. But given or – what is the catastrophe loss trend that emerges from your models currently on a global basis or maybe in particularly vulnerable regions? Kevin O’Donnell: Let me restate the question and see if that’s what you’re asking is, is when we look at how our models have changed over-time, can we described that in the form of trend?

It’s slightly different. When you look at what you – I mean, looking at the current model that I assume are the most updated, I assume that there is a level of assumed insured loss increase because of the environmental factors. And I was hoping you could describe that to us and quantify it. Kevin O’Donnell: So it’s a good question. It’s a complicated question. So what I mentioned in my comments is, if you break the model into the hazard and the damage function, the damage function we think has done reasonably well, reflecting social inflation. So that means if my house is damaged, how much does it cost to fix it and a component of that cost will be in Florida, whether it’s sign of benefits or just demand surge. We think that that’s in the models. The other side is, how likely is a catastrophe compared to the historic trend and then can you measure the difference and assign it to climate change. I think the way I would think about that it is it’s difficult to parse between, as I mentioned climate variability and climate change. What we do and built building our models is we rather have false positives and false negatives in our model. So we are taking the view that what we’re seeing is likely to persist and we’re adding non-historic components to the model. So, taking out a little bit more in a transparent and workable manner, if you take Atlantic hurricane, we don’t think Atlantic hurricane you can simply shift the curve higher or move the curve to the right. What you need to do is think about how the variables affecting storm will change the types of storm one expects to see. So as I mentioned, we expect to see weather storms, we expect the frequency of cat fours and fives higher. That doesn’t mean the category one, twos and threes increase at the same rate as the frequency of fours and fives. So it’s a much more nuanced way to think about it, but it’s one in which I think recognizing if you’re simply extrapolating from an historic curve, you’re – we believe there is a miss-factor that doesn’t contemplate the way the world is changing with regard to climate change.

Okay, that’s very helpful. Thank you. Kevin O’Donnell: Sure. Thanks.

There are no further questions at this time. I will turn the call back over to the presenters. Kevin O’Donnell: I’ve done the call for many years and this is the first time we finished so quickly. So hopefully we answered all your questions and provided the transparency you deserve. I’d like to say thank you for joining the call and we look forward to speaking with you next quarter.

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