Logo of jester cap with thought bubble.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

DATE

Friday, May 1, 2026 at 9 a.m. ET

CALL PARTICIPANTS

  • Chief Executive Officer — Pina Albo
  • Chief Financial Officer — Craig William Howie

TAKEAWAYS

  • Net Income -- $134 million, representing a 65% increase and an annualized return on average equity of 19%.
  • Operating Income -- $167 million, or $1.64 per diluted share, with a 24% operating ROAE.
  • Gross Premiums Written -- $940 million, up 11% due to targeted growth in specialty and casualty segments and select property and specialty lines.
  • Group Combined Ratio -- 89.8%, improving from 111.6%, with the decrease driven by the absence of catastrophe losses.
  • Loss Ratio -- 56.9%, down 22.3 points, with no catastrophe losses (vs. 30 points of cat losses previous year); attritional loss ratio rose to 54.5% from 51.9% as anticipated due to business mix and large loss threshold adjustment.
  • Expense Ratio -- 32.9%, up 0.5 points due to higher acquisition costs, partially offset by Bermuda tax credit and performance fee income.
  • Bermuda Segment Gross Premiums Written -- $497 million, up 5%, with casualty reinsurance driving growth and property flat after excluding $26 million reinstatement premiums from the prior year.
  • International Segment Gross Premiums Written -- $443 million, up 20%, driven by increases in specialty and casualty insurance, notably in accident and health and M&A.
  • Hamilton Select Growth -- 17% increase in U.S. E&S casualty, supported by excess casualty and small business; growth in professional and medical professional lines was subdued.
  • Casualty Reinsurance Sidecar -- New structure established, with $300 million expected in premium cessions over multiple years, providing fee income and capital efficiency; Bermuda retention rate decreased to 74% from 79% due to sidecar.
  • Underwriting Income -- $58 million, compared to an underwriting loss of $58 million previously; Bermuda contributed $51 million, International $7 million.
  • Bermuda Combined Ratio -- 81.8%, improvement from 122%, aided by no catastrophe losses; expense ratio decreased 1.9 points to 24.3%.
  • International Combined Ratio -- 97.5%, down from 99.7%; expense ratio rose 2.1 points to 41.2% due to business mix shifts.
  • Prior Year Development -- Unfavorable $14 million, solely from the Baltimore Bridge loss, with the reserve raised to $38 million based on updated loss settlements.
  • Investment Income -- $94 million total, with $93 million net return from the Two Sigma Hamilton Fund (4.3% return); fixed income and cash returned $1 million; new money yield was 4.3%, portfolio average yield to maturity 4.5%, duration 3.7 years.
  • Two Sigma Hamilton Fund Proportion -- Represents 38% of total investments and cash as of quarter-end.
  • Capital Actions -- $200 million special dividend paid in March, $20 million in share repurchases executed, $159 million remains under authorization.
  • Book Value Per Share -- $27.42, up 3% after accounting for the $2 per share special dividend.
  • Total Assets -- $9.9 billion, increasing 3%; investments and cash total $5.9 billion, with shareholders’ equity at $2.7 billion.

Need a quote from a Motley Fool analyst? Email [email protected]

RISKS

  • Unfavorable prior year development of $14 million was entirely due to the Baltimore Bridge loss; Craig William Howie said, "PYD was one event, first quarter, it was the Baltimore Bridge. It was $14 million. It was 2.4 points in total, so it was literally one event."
  • Exposure to ongoing Middle East conflict produced direct specialty insurance losses in political violence and marine lines in the quarter, with expectations for further losses if the conflict continues; Pina Albo stated, "Losses will continue as long as the conflict does, and may also impact reinsurance programs going forward."
  • Increasing attritional loss ratios, with current year ratios higher in both International (54.9%) and Bermuda (53.9%) due to changes in business mix and large loss threshold methodology.
  • Expense ratios rose in International segment by 2.1 points, driven by higher acquisition costs from shifts in business mix toward classes with inherently higher commission structures.

SUMMARY

Hamilton Insurance Group (HG 0.12%) delivered higher net and operating income, improved underwriting profitability, and accelerated premium growth in targeted specialty and casualty segments. The launch of a multi-year $300 million casualty reinsurance sidecar provided added fee income and capital efficiency, while capital deployment included both a $200 million special dividend and active share repurchases. Strategic cycle management continued to drive selective underwriting, preserving margins despite increasing competition and pricing pressure in select property lines, though higher attritional and acquisition cost ratios reflected business mix changes.

  • Management maintained that both current and expected loss ratios are within full-year guidance, attributing attritional loss increases to a previously announced shift in loss threshold methodology and business composition.
  • Pricing pressure persisted across certain property and specialty lines; however, management explicitly assessed current margins as "risk-adequate," and signaled no intention to write unprofitable business solely for growth.
  • The Bermuda segment’s property premium growth was essentially flat after adjusting for large prior-year reinstatement premiums; underlying property business declined 2% when excluding reinstatement effects.
  • The company indicated further reserve releases or prior period development are unlikely to occur until after upcoming casualty, specialty, and property reserve studies are completed in subsequent quarters.
  • No material expected impact from property rate declines on current profitability was stated; no negative effects from major MGA relationships or coverholder exposures are anticipated based on oversight practices.
  • Continued capital deployment flexibility was emphasized, with potential for additional buybacks or special dividends depending on market opportunities and valuation metrics.

INDUSTRY GLOSSARY

  • Attritional Loss Ratio: The ratio of non-catastrophe, expected insurance losses to premiums earned, excluding large single-event or shock losses.
  • Reinstatement Premiums: Additional premiums paid to restore reinsurance coverage limits exhausted by prior claims, typically following significant loss events.
  • Casualty Reinsurance Sidecar: A third-party capital structure through which investors take on a share of a reinsurer’s casualty portfolio, receiving a proportional share of premiums, losses, and profit commissions.
  • MGA (Managing General Agent): An intermediary with delegated authority from an insurer to underwrite, price, and bind coverage, often used in specialty and Lloyd’s markets.
  • Two Sigma Hamilton Fund: A dedicated investment vehicle managed in partnership with Two Sigma, holding a material proportion of Hamilton’s group investment assets and contributing directly to investment income.

Full Conference Call Transcript

Pina Albo: Thank you, Darian, and hello, everyone. Let me start by welcoming you to Hamilton’s first quarter 2026 earnings conference call. We are very pleased with our performance this quarter, particularly in the context of a global economic and geopolitical environment that has become more complex and volatile, and an insurance market that remains competitive. Pricing across parts of the industry continues to come under pressure, so underwriting discipline takes center stage. In this context, we continue to stay true to our strong culture of cycle management this quarter, writing the business we wanted to write at pricing and terms that met our return requirements and stepping away from business that did not.

We believe that sticking to this disciplined approach will continue to help us produce the kinds of results we have delivered since going public in 2023. On that note, Hamilton delivered very solid results in the first quarter with net income of $134 million, equal to an annualized return on average equity of 19%. This result was underpinned by an attritional loss ratio of 54.5%, strong investment income of $94 million, and thoughtful growth with gross premiums written increasing by 11% for the quarter. While this growth was more measured than in prior periods, it was selective, targeted, and fully aligned with the view we shared with you last quarter.

Let me start with a few broader market observations before I walk through our segment results. Starting with reinsurance renewals, as you will have heard, record levels of industry capital, both traditional and ILS, and manageable cat losses impacted the April 1 renewals, which largely involved property cat reinsurance in the Asia-Pacific region. While this region does not form a large part of our book, we saw a continuation of the competitive pricing experienced at January 1 with outcomes broadly in line with expectations. Having said that, while pricing levels deteriorated, they were still risk-adequate and structures, terms, and conditions remained largely intact.

Other renewals in the quarter outside of this region were also competitive, but we were satisfied with the book we wrote and the signings we achieved. As for the upcoming midyear renewals, which are largely property driven, given robust capital positions, we expect pricing pressure to be similar to what we experienced so far this year. It is important to note that softening is coming off historic highs, so we expect margins, particularly in our portfolio, which is largely U.S.-driven, to remain above our thresholds. In reinsurance, we will continue to execute our strategy of supporting key clients with whom we have a broad trading relationship.

That said, in this environment, growth for growth’s sake is not the objective—at least not ours. Margin preservation, attachment points, and terms and conditions, which we expect to remain largely untouched, matter far more, and that philosophy will guide our underwriting decisions and our portfolio. Moving on to the broader geopolitical environment, the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is yet another reminder of the uncertainty embedded in today’s risk landscape, which has implications for our industry. On a line of business level, based on what we have observed to date, direct insured losses are concentrated primarily in the specialty insurance classes such as marine hull and political violence, which we write.

Losses will continue as long as the conflict does, and may also impact reinsurance programs going forward. At this time, for Hamilton, our exposure remains manageable as we have always been mindful of the capacity we deploy in that region. The conflict in the Middle East may also have broader ramifications for our industry, namely inflationary pressures. We will continue to monitor this closely and make adjustments as warranted. Moving on to the segments, let us take a look at the top line growth this quarter for Bermuda and International. In Bermuda, which renews about one third of its business during the first quarter, we wrote $497 million in gross premiums, an increase of 5% over last year.

Our most significant driver of growth came from casualty reinsurance. Some of this is attributable to business bound in prior quarters earning through and the rest from business written during the quarter where we had the ability to increase our modest shares on accounts where underlying rates are still attractive as well as some new business. Our casualty strategy remains unchanged. We focus on counterparties with a strong underwriting and claims culture who keep meaningful net retentions and with whom we enjoy broad trading relationships. Where those characteristics are not present, we are comfortable passing on the opportunity. I also want to highlight our recently announced casualty reinsurance sidecar, which reflects a proactive approach to capital and portfolio management.

This structure allows Hamilton to support targeted casualty reinsurance growth, while providing us with an additional source of fee income. The sidecar will provide reinsurance capital over a multiyear period with ceded premium over the duration of the structure expected to be about $300 million. Craig will discuss this in more detail shortly. Moving on to property reinsurance in Bermuda, premiums fell compared to the same period last year, mainly because of substantial nonrecurring reinstatement premiums resulting from the California wildfires in 2025. If these reinstatement premiums are excluded, property reinsurance writings during the quarter would have been largely flat, reflecting a disciplined approach in this market. Our specialty reinsurance line grew 2.7%.

We grew our financial risk treaty account, both new and renewal business, but pulled back in multiline accounts which were not as attractive. On the insurance side of our Bermuda book, we also reduced writings in our large account property D&F book as we were not satisfied with the pricing. Now turning to our International segment, which houses Hamilton Global Specialty and Hamilton Select, International gross premiums written grew 20% over the prior period. Starting with Hamilton Global Specialty, gross premiums written were up 20%, driven by specialty and casualty classes, specifically in the core classes such as accident and health and M&A, which benefited from some seasonality in these lines and the continued earn-out from the prior underwriting year.

At the same time, we pulled back writings in our property binders and D&F lines where we saw rate reductions we were unwilling to support. Overall, our pricing assessments and underwriting framework continue to indicate that we are comfortable with the margins we are achieving on the business we are writing, but our teams are being more selective in many lines. And finally, a few words on Hamilton Select, our U.S. E&S platform. This business is all casualty insurance and grew 17% this quarter, driven by excess casualty, general casualty, and small business where we still see attractive pricing, terms, and conditions. Growth in professional and medical professional lines, on the other hand, was muted given the competitive pricing environment.

Overall for the quarter, Hamilton demonstrated a continued ability to manage the underwriting cycle appropriately. While submission flow remains healthy across many products we write, we were disciplined in binding only those risks that met our underwriting and pricing requirements. As a result, growth varied by class, which we view as the right outcome in the current environment. Stepping back, our message is a simple one. While the market still offers pockets of attractive business, it is one where cycle management is key. In other words, it is not a market where everything should be written, nor one where top line growth alone should be encouraged.

This is a market where risk and client selection and the fortitude to walk away will serve as differentiators that ensure underwriting performance. It is a market that plays to Hamilton’s thoughtful and disciplined approach and its culture of prioritizing sustainable profitability, strategic growth, and thoughtful capital deployment. With that, I will turn the call over to Craig to walk through the financial results in more detail.

Craig William Howie: Thank you, Pina, and hello, everyone. Hamilton is off to a strong start for 2026, with net income of $134 million, or $1.31 per diluted share, and an annualized return on average equity of 19% in the first quarter of 2026. We had operating income of $167 million, equal to $1.64 per diluted share, producing an annualized operating return on average equity of 24%. As a reminder, our operating income excludes net realized and unrealized gains and losses on fixed maturity and short-term investments and foreign exchange gains and losses, but it does include the results of the Two Sigma Hamilton Fund.

These results compare favorably to the first quarter of 2025, where we reported net income of $81 million, or $0.77 per diluted share, operating income of $49 million, or $0.47 per diluted share, and annualized returns on average equity of 14% for net income and 8% for operating income. Moving on to our underwriting results for the first quarter of 2026, gross premiums written increased to $940 million, compared to $843 million this time last year—an increase of 11%. Each of our platforms—Hamilton Global Specialty, Hamilton Select, and Hamilton Re—pursued thoughtful, strategic growth in areas presenting strong returns, while pulling back from lines with less attractive risk-adjusted returns to maintain and enhance overall profitability.

Hamilton had underwriting income of $58 million for the first quarter compared to an underwriting loss of $58 million in the first quarter last year. The group combined ratio was 89.8% compared to 111.6% in the first quarter of 2025. In the first quarter, the loss ratio improved to 56.9%, down 22.3 points from 79.2% in the prior period. The improvement was driven by no catastrophe losses in the quarter, compared to about 30 points of catastrophe losses in the first quarter last year, primarily due to the California wildfires. This was partially offset by a higher attritional loss ratio of 54.5% compared to 51.9% in the prior period.

As a reminder, this increase in attritional loss was within expectations, given our guidance of 55% expected for the full year of 2026 after making a change to our large loss threshold that we announced last quarter. We also had unfavorable prior year development of $14 million driven by an increase in reserves for the Baltimore Bridge. The expense ratio increased 0.5 points to 32.9% compared to 32.4% in the first quarter of last year. The increase was driven by higher acquisition costs, partially offset by a decrease in other underwriting expenses, which included benefits from the Bermuda substance-based tax credit and third-party performance fee income. Next, I will go through the first quarter results by segment.

Let us start with the International segment, which includes our specialty insurance businesses, Hamilton Global Specialty and Hamilton Select. In the first quarter of 2026, International grew premium to $443 million, up from $370 million—an increase of 20%. This was primarily driven by growth in our specialty and casualty insurance classes. International had underwriting income of $7 million and a combined ratio of 97.5%, compared to underwriting income of $1 million and a combined ratio of 99.7% in the first quarter last year. The decrease in the combined ratio was primarily related to no catastrophe losses in the quarter, whereas the first quarter of 2025 had about 12 points driven by the California wildfires.

This was partially offset by the current and prior year attritional loss ratios and the expense ratio. The current year attritional loss ratio was 54.9%, or 2.8 points higher than the prior period. The increase was anticipated, given our changing business mix and the large loss threshold change we announced last quarter. We still expect this ratio to be about 54.5% for the full year 2026. The prior year attritional loss ratio was an unfavorable 1.4 points due to the increase in the Baltimore Bridge reserve estimate. The expense ratio increased 2.1 points to 41.2% compared to 39.1% in the first quarter last year. The increase was primarily driven by the acquisition cost ratio due to changing business mix.

I will now turn to the Bermuda segment, which houses Hamilton Re and Hamilton Re U.S., the entities that predominantly write reinsurance business. For the first quarter of 2026, Bermuda grew premium to $497 million, up from $473 million—an increase of 5%. The increase was primarily driven by new and existing business in casualty reinsurance classes. Bermuda had underwriting income of $51 million and a combined ratio of 81.8%, compared to an underwriting loss of $59 million and a combined ratio of 122% in the first quarter last year.

The decrease in combined ratio was primarily related to no catastrophe losses in the quarter, whereas the first quarter of 2025 had about 47 points of catastrophe losses related to the California wildfires. The Bermuda segment also saw a decrease in expense ratio, partially offset by an increase in the current and prior year attritional loss ratios. Bermuda’s current year attritional loss ratio increased 2.1 points to 53.9% in the first quarter compared to 51.8% in the first quarter last year. Similar to my comments in International, this increase was anticipated, given our changing business mix and the large loss threshold change we announced last quarter.

We still expect the Bermuda current year attritional loss ratio to be about 56% for the full year 2026. The prior year attritional loss ratio was an unfavorable 3.6 points due to an increase in the Baltimore Bridge reserve estimate. The Bermuda expense ratio decreased by 1.9 points to 24.3% compared to 26.2% in the first quarter of 2025, driven by a decrease in the other underwriting expense ratio related to the Bermuda substance-based tax credit and increased third-party performance fee income. This was partially offset by the acquisition cost ratio due to a change in business mix. Bermuda segment results also reflected our new casualty reinsurance sidecar, which Pina mentioned in her comments.

This sidecar enhances our ability to support casualty reinsurance underwriting through scalable and efficient capital solutions, and it also provides Hamilton with an additional source of fee income. Premium cessions to the sidecar began in the first quarter of 2026 and will continue over a multiyear period, and are expected to total about $300 million. You may have noticed that Bermuda retained about 74% of its gross premium written in the first quarter of 2026, compared to 79% in the first quarter of 2025, reflecting the premium ceded to the sidecar. Now turning to investment income, total net investment income for the first quarter was $94 million compared to investment income of $167 million in the first quarter of 2025.

The fixed income portfolio, short-term investments, and cash produced a gain of $1 million for the quarter compared to a gain of $64 million in the first quarter of 2025. As a reminder, this result includes the realized and unrealized gains and losses that Hamilton reports through net income as part of our trading investment portfolio. The new money yield was 4.3% on fixed income investments purchased this quarter, and the duration of the portfolio is now 3.7 years. The average yield to maturity on this portfolio was 4.5% compared to 4.1% at year-end 2025.

The Two Sigma Hamilton Fund produced a $93 million net return for the first quarter, equal to 4.3%, compared to $104 million, or 5.5%, in the first quarter last year. The Two Sigma Hamilton Fund made up about 38% of our total investments, including cash and investments, at 03/31/2026. Now turning to capital management. As a reminder, we declared a $200 million special dividend in February, which was paid in March. We also repurchased $20 million of shares in the first quarter of 2026. We still have $159 million remaining under our share repurchase authorization. Both the special dividend and the share repurchases reflect our ongoing commitment to active and effective capital management.

Next, I have some comments on our strong balance sheet. Total assets were $9.9 billion at 03/31/2026, up 3% from $9.6 billion at year-end 2025. Total investments and cash were $5.9 billion at March 31. Shareholders’ equity for the group was $2.7 billion at the end of the first quarter. Our book value per share was $27.42 at 03/31/2026, up 3% from year-end 2025 after adjusting for the impact of the $2 per share special dividend we paid in March. In conclusion, we are very pleased with Hamilton’s start to the year.

Our balance sheet remains strong, our attritional loss ratios are tracking where we expect them to, and we believe we are well positioned to continue delivering attractive returns even as market conditions evolve. Thank you, and with that, we will open the call for your questions.

Operator: We will now open the call for questions. Please limit yourself to two questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 to raise your hand. To withdraw your question, please press star 1 again. We ask that you pick up your handset when asking a question to allow for optimum sound quality. If you are muted locally, please remember to unmute your device. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Hristian Getsov with Wells Fargo. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hristian Getsov: Hi, good morning. My first question is on the PYD. Pina, you laid out the Iran conflict exposure, and it sounds like it is manageable. But did you take any development in the quarter either through the cat line or PYD?

Pina Albo: Craig, why do you not talk about the PYD, and then I can cover Iran?

Craig William Howie: Sure. Let us start with the PYD. The PYD was one event, first quarter, it was the Baltimore Bridge. It was $14 million. It was 2.4 points in total, so it was literally one event. But I will provide a little bit more color around the Baltimore Bridge loss, which happened in 2024. The industry loss estimate at that point in time was $1 billion to $3 billion. We had initially posted a conservative reserve at the high end of that range. But after ongoing feedback and specific renewal information during 2025 that indicated an industry loss estimate of $1.5 billion, we adjusted our reserve down to about a $2 billion industry loss estimate range.

However, in light of the new recently announced settlement of that loss, we have taken our reserve back to our original ultimate loss estimate of $38 million, and that increased our prior period development this quarter by $14 million, or 2.4 points, in the first quarter. We did not take into account any potential subrogation on this loss. And, as you know, we have a history of overall favorable prior year loss development each and every year since the inception of the company. There was no offset to this prior period development in Q1 since we did not complete any reserve studies in the quarter. You may recall that we complete our reserve studies in quarters two, three, and four.

Over to you, Pina, to talk about Iran.

Pina Albo: Yes, just briefly on Iran, the losses were driven by specialty insurance classes in Q1, which we write in our International segment out of Lloyd’s, of course. Those are predominantly political violence and terror covers and marine lines. We continue to provide some selective coverage in that region at appropriate rates because we often offer our products on an international basis, but we are mindful of our total exposure. In fact, we are very mindful that there are some areas in the world that are more prone to conflict than others, so we adjust our risk appetite accordingly, and we carry appropriate outwards protection. But in Q1, the losses came from specialty insurance. And, Craig, over to you.

Craig William Howie: Yes. Just on the Middle East conflict, our exposures in the first quarter did not meet or exceed our new large loss or catastrophe loss thresholds of $10 million. The exposure, as Pina said, was really related to insurance lines. And as this conflict continues, the loss exposures are expected to continue as well. We would expect to include those losses in our catastrophe loss line going forward, consistent with the way we reported our loss estimates for Ukraine.

Hristian Getsov: Got it. Thank you. And then for my second question, could you elaborate on your appetite for Florida renewals? It sounds like pricing is going to be down mid–double digits, similar to 1/1, but there has been a lot of tort reform, which is probably providing a benefit on loss trends. How are you thinking about growth there given the expected price dynamics currently?

Pina Albo: I will take that, Hristian. The upcoming 6/1 renewals are largely Florida driven, and the 7/1 renewals are largely national accounts. Regarding the Florida-only market, this is not a big part of our portfolio, and I do not expect that to change at this coming 6/1. We do, however, use Eta Re, our third-party capital arm, to service Florida renewals, and that will be the vehicle that we use to address Florida this renewal as well, or predominantly. Our focus is on key clients at the 7/1 renewals, and these are clients with whom we enjoy broad trading relationships across classes.

We expect pricing at midyear to be more of the same, but we also expect the terms, conditions, and attachment points to largely hold. And just as a reminder, the pricing again comes off historic highs after the market reset when pricing went up materially. So even with some pricing pressure at 7/1, we expect the rates on the accounts that we renew to be more than adequate.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Daniel Cohen with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Daniel Cohen: Hey, good morning. My first question is maybe just an update on how Select is doing—17% is still a really strong result there. Is this really the only weak spot you are seeing in your book, just professional lines? And then maybe also just checking in on whether there is an update to the smaller or midsized E&S property rollout that you are looking into? Thank you.

Pina Albo: Sure, I will take that. We are really, really pleased with the continued development of our Hamilton Select platform. As we said, our growth was predominantly in casualty lines—excess casualty, the general casualty products, and contractors, small business. There we are seeing still very healthy terms, conditions, and pricing. Where we wrote less business in Select were, again, medical and professional lines because we just did not like the pricing that we were seeing. Our property launch just got started, so that is a Q2 update to give you.

But I think what we can say in general about property in the E&S market is that on the large accounts—the shared and layered business—we do not write that in Select, but we see that in the group on that business. And as I said in the call, we are seeing pricing pressure and we have reduced our book as a result. If we do not see it meet our threshold, we will not write it. On the smaller to midsize property business, which we also write in Hamilton Global Specialty and will focus on in Select, we are seeing the rates still hold up, so we will have more to report on our property launch at Select in Q2.

Daniel Cohen: And then maybe just a follow-up on reserves. Is there anything with the review process that has changed there? Last first quarter there was some favorability, and now it sounds like maybe nothing moved ex Baltimore. Has anything changed there, or am I misinterpreting something? Thank you.

Craig William Howie: Good question. Nothing has really changed. We still complete our casualty reserve studies in the second quarter, specialty in the third quarter, and property in the fourth quarter. We really do not expect to see much in the first quarter after going through the full study at year-end and comparing with our outside actuarial views at year-end. So we really do not expect to see much in the first quarter. As I said, the only thing that we saw this first quarter was new information that we got about the settlement for the Baltimore Bridge; that is the reason we took that prior period development.

Daniel Cohen: And was there anything in the prior-year quarter that was unusual when we look at the favorability last year?

Craig William Howie: The only thing I would say is we are quick to react to new information that we see. So if something happens within a quarter that is outside our reserve studies, we would be quick to react to that. But that would have to be new and additional information to react.

Daniel Cohen: Okay, makes sense. And then maybe just on the third-party fee income in Bermuda, is there an update on what the quarterly run rate should be following the sidecar, or is that still the same expectation?

Craig William Howie: We have two components to that fee income. We still have performance fee income from Eta Re, which is our ILS property cat platform. That favorable development from lower catastrophe losses last year still continues to come through this year. That is tracked as a contra expense in other underwriting expenses. And then you mentioned the new casualty sidecar. That fee income will come through as profit commissions, and those profit commissions received will offset the acquisition cost ratio—that is similar to the way that we treat other profit commissions today as well.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Analyst with Citi. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Analyst: Hi, good morning. First question: how worried should we be about the knock-on effects of the accelerating property rate declines with regard to property premium re-estimates and midyear renewal pricing?

Pina Albo: Thank you. A quick answer: we do not expect to see any material impact from that. It is still a very profitable line for us.

Analyst: Okay. And then are there any material MGA relationships that would potentially impact volume if rate trends persist?

Pina Albo: By way of context, we do bind a percentage of our business—predominantly in Hamilton Global Specialty—via what you would call coverholders or MGAs. This is a common method of acquisition in the Lloyd’s market. The majority of our relationships are long-standing, tried and tested relationships. None of our MGA relationships are of a size or have parameters that would lead us to expect any kind of outsized premium adjustments, and we have a tight oversight, control, and governance mechanism for these relationships.

Analyst: One last one, if I could sneak it in. Would the rapid deterioration in fundamentals in certain markets potentially make inorganic growth more difficult to contemplate at this time?

Pina Albo: At this stage in the market, as I said in the call, it is a differentiated market. We are still seeing opportunity across a number of classes that we write, and we will continue to focus our efforts on those classes where risk-adjusted returns are still attractive. Where returns do not meet our threshold, we will reduce our writings. It is not a one-size-fits-all market; it is differentiated, and that is where our underwriters shine with risk selection and appropriate capital deployment. We feel comfortable navigating this market now.

Analyst: My question was more oriented towards inorganic growth.

Pina Albo: Understood—on inorganic growth more broadly, you saw activity during the course of 2025, and markets that are struggling to find growth in their portfolios may look for inorganic growth opportunities during the course of 2026. That would not be unheard of. As for us, we did do one acquisition in my tenure at Hamilton, and that was a game changer for us. Our bar for inorganic is incredibly high, and it will continue to stay high. We still feel very comfortable about our organic opportunity.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Thomas Patrick McJoynt-Griffith with KBW. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Thomas Patrick McJoynt-Griffith: Hi, good morning. The increased mix of the casualty business has driven the acquisition cost ratio higher on a year-over-year basis. Is the level that we are at in the first quarter a good run rate to use going forward, or could there be a further uptick in that acquisition cost ratio to the extent that casualty continues to grow faster than property?

Craig William Howie: Hi, Tommy, appreciate the question. I would say the majority of this is change in business mix. Let us go through the two segments. If you look at Bermuda, Bermuda writes about one third of its book in the first quarter. We wrote more specialty and casualty business and less property, for example. Although it appears as if the acquisition expense ratio is higher year-over-year, first quarter to first quarter, if you look at where it was at year-end 2025, it is right in line with where we would expect for this business mix, and we really do not expect the business mix to change very much from here on the Bermuda side.

On International, we wrote more specialty business this period compared to the period last year. For example, as Pina said, we wrote more accident and health business—almost double what we did a year ago—and that carries a higher acquisition expense ratio or commission ratio. Similarly, we wrote less property, which again would have a lower cost ratio. So again, it is based on business mix—that is what is driving the acquisition expense ratio, similar to the loss ratios that we discussed before. Each line has its own loss ratio and separate loss pick; acquisition expenses are the same way.

The metric where we see potential benefit would be an improvement in our other underwriting expense ratio, something that we have been able to do every year since 2019.

Thomas Patrick McJoynt-Griffith: Great, thanks. And then thinking about property reinsurance writings in the second and the third quarter, can you talk a little bit about your account mix in terms of whether a lot of the counterparties you are negotiating with were loss-affected accounts last year or non–loss-affected, and for the business that you are writing, how typically high up in the tower is it or is it lower layer? Maybe give us some metrics around that to help us think about the ability to write and grow property reinsurance in the upcoming renewals.

Pina Albo: The upcoming renewals are the 6/1s and 7/1s. Again, on the 6/1s, which are largely Florida, I do not see us changing our appetite on Florida domestic covers. That is more the realm of Eta Re—our sidecar—which would participate in those classes. In terms of the 7/1s, which are the national account business, we will look across layers and support our clients where it makes sense for us, where we are seeing appropriate risk-adjusted returns, and also in the context of the broad trading relationship that we have. We are not chasing lower layers. We are not chasing aggregate covers.

We are keeping true to our underwriting, which is broad-based across key clients in layers where we enjoy pricing that is still more than risk-adequate.

Operator: As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question or rejoin the queue, please press star 1 to raise your hand. Our next question comes from the line of Matthew John Carletti with Citizens. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Matthew John Carletti: Thanks, good morning. Most of my questions were asked and answered. I just have a numbers follow-up. Pina, I think you said in Bermuda property growth would have basically been flat ex reinstatement. So I just want to make sure I am lining it up right in the supplement. Is that about $30 million in terms of what the reinstatements were in the year-ago period?

Pina Albo: Craig, do you want to take that?

Craig William Howie: I can give you those numbers, Matt. The reinstatement premium for Bermuda—and it is essentially property—was $26 million. So the growth in Bermuda ex reinstatement premiums would have been 11% instead of 5%, but property growth ex reinstatement premiums would have been minus 2%.

Matthew John Carletti: Got it. That is exactly what I was looking for. Super helpful. Thank you very much.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Hristian Getsov with Wells Fargo. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hristian Getsov: Hi, thank you for taking my follow-up. I just had a Two Sigma question. Can you remind us of the reporting cadence of that? Is it live—as in, whatever the Q2 results are is what the return is? I am just thinking about the equity drawdown in the quarter and whether there are ramifications for the Two Sigma returns in Q2.

Craig William Howie: Hristian, we announce the Two Sigma results on a quarterly basis with no lag, just like the rest of our portfolio. Our monthly results that we receive—we do not have the monthly results for April at this point in time. As you know, Two Sigma has historically outperformed in volatile markets. You saw that already in the first quarter. With a 13% annualized net return since the inception of the fund in 2014, we feel very good about our relationship with our Two Sigma partnership.

Hristian Getsov: And then just one more. It sounds like property cat is going to have maybe lower growth opportunities given the pricing dynamic. How should we think about buybacks as we get to the second half? If your shares continue to trade at an attractive valuation, could we see a more elevated level, or how should we think about maybe even the use of another special dividend later on in the year?

Craig William Howie: Thank you for the question. First of all, the special dividend was an active and effective way for us to return capital quickly to our shareholders. And as you know, we bought back $20 million of shares in the first quarter. We had the flexibility and the ability to do both of those—meaning both dividends and buybacks. We have a track record of being good stewards of capital. If we see strong business opportunities, we are going to deploy our capital there. For example, we have been able to grow our premium at double-digit levels each and every year since 2017.

Otherwise, we will continue to return some of that excess capital to shareholders, and that could be through a special dividend or buybacks throughout the rest of the year. We have $159 million remaining on our share repurchase authorization, and we plan to use that to buy back shares as we see that being accretive.

Operator: There are no further questions, and we have reached the end of the Q&A session. I will now turn the call back to Pina Albo for closing remarks.

Pina Albo: To wrap up, we are very pleased with our performance this quarter and remain confident in our strategy, in the talent we have, and in our positioning going forward. We want to thank you all for your continued interest and support of the company and look forward to speaking to you again soon. This concludes today’s call. Thank you for attending.

Operator: You may now disconnect.