Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

The Chubb (NYSE:CB)

Q2 2012 Earnings Call

July 26, 2012 5:00 pm ET

Executives

John D. Finnegan - Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman of Executive Committee and Chairman of Finance Committee

Paul J. Krump - Executive Vice President and President of Commercial & Specialty Lines

Dino E. Robusto - Executive Vice President and President of Personal Lines & Claims

Richard G. Spiro - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President

Analysts

Michael Zaremski - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division

Amit Kumar - Macquarie Research

Josh Stirling - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Vinay Misquith - Evercore Partners Inc., Research Division

Jay Gelb - Barclays Capital, Research Division

Matthew G. Heimermann - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Meyer Shields - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division

Adam Klauber - William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division

Jay A. Cohen - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division

Ian Gutterman - Adage Capital Management, L.P.

Operator

Good day, everyone, and welcome to the Chubb Corporation's Second Quarter 2012 Earnings Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded.

Before we begin, Chubb has asked me to make the following statements. In order to help you understand Chubb, its industry and its results, members of Chubb's management team will include in today's presentation, forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. It is possible that actual results might differ from estimates and forecasts that Chubb's management team might make today. Additional information regarding factors that could cause such differences appears in Chubb's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the prepared remarks and responses to questions during today's presentation of Chubb's second quarter 2012 financial results, Chubb's management may refer to financial measures that are not derived from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable financial measures, calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP and related information, is provided in the press release and the financial supplements to the second quarter 2012, which are available on the Investors section of Chubb's website at www.chubb.com.

Please also note that no portion of this conference call may be reproduced or rebroadcast in any form without the prior written consent of Chubb. Replays of this webcast will be available through August 24, 2012. Those listening after July 26, 2012 should please note that the information and forecast provided in this recording will not necessarily be updated, and it is possible that the information will no longer be current.

Now, I will turn the call over to Mr. Finnegan.

John D. Finnegan

Thank you for joining us. We had a strong second quarter even with high catastrophe losses from multiple hail and windstorm events, continued slow economic growth and the impact of historically low interest rate on investment income.

These results reflected excellent x cat operating performance. We're also pleased that the positive momentum of rate increases in all our businesses continued in the second quarter.

Operating income per share was $1.37, an 8% increase compared to $1.27 in last year's second quarter. This resulted in an annualized operating ROE of 10.9%. The combined ratio for the quarter was 93.8 compared to 94.9 last year. Excluding tax, the combined ratio for the second quarter was 86.3 in 2012 and 83.6 last year, with the difference attributable almost entirely to lower favorable development this quarter.

During the second quarter, we had net realized investment gains of $47 million before tax, or $0.11 per share after tax. This spread-out second quarter net income per share to $1.48 resulted in an annualized ROE of 10.4% for the quarter. GAAP book value per share at June 30, 2012 was $58.54. That's a 4% increase since year-end 2011, and an 8% increase since June 30 a year ago. Our capital position is excellent. We continue to make good progress on our share repurchase program.

Net written premiums for the second quarter were up 1%, driven by Chubb Personal and Chubb Commercial Insurance, which were up 4% and 3%, respectively. Growth at CPI and CCI was partially offset by a 6% decline in Chubb's Specialty premiums. Excluding the impact of currency translation, net written premiums at Chubb overall were up 2%.

Given our strong x cat results in the first half and our outlook for the second half of the year, we've increased our operating income per share guidance for the full year by $0.33 to midpoint, as Ricky will discuss in more detail later. But we'll start with Paul, who will discuss the performance of Chubb's Commercial and Specialty Insurance operations.

Paul J. Krump

Thanks, John. In Chubb Commercial Insurance, net written premiums for the second quarter were up 3% to $1.4 billion. The combined ratio was 97.5 versus 102.5 in the second quarter of 2011. Excluding the impact of catastrophes, CCI's second quarter combined ratio was 89.3, compared to 87.3 in the second quarter of 2011. We are pleased that CCI's average U.S. renewal rate increased in the second quarter by 9%, continuing the positive rate momentum of the past 4 quarters. This 9% rate increase compares with the 8% we obtained in this year's first quarter, and 2% in the second quarter of 2011.

CCI secured U.S. renewal rate increases in each line of business in the second quarter of 2012. Once again, Monoline property rates increased the most with a mid-teen average, followed by general liability, workers compensation, package, excess umbrella, automobile, boiler and Marine. Further evidence of an improved rate environment can be found in the higher proportion of our accounts that renewed with rate increases. In the second quarter, about 90% of our U.S. accounts that renewed received a rate increase, compared to 80% in the first quarter of this year.

Turning to the CCI markets outside of the U.S., average renewal rates in Canada picked up nicely from the low single digits in the first quarter of the year to mid-single digits in the second quarter. In Europe, average renewal rates were up by low single digits in the second quarter, matching what occurred in the first quarter of the year. In addition, CCI continued to obtain rate increases in Australia, along with some of our smaller markets in Asia. Average renewal rates in Latin America were flat in the second quarter. CCI's second quarter U.S. renewal retention was 84%, up 1 point from the first quarter.

Along with strong renewal rate increases and solid retention, CCI's quarterly premium growth was aided by midterm endorsement activity and premium audits. With respect to new business, we continued to be vigilant in our risk assessment and pricing, which resulted in CCI's new-to-lost business ratio in the U.S. remaining at 0.9:1 in the second quarter, identical to the first quarter of the year.

Turning to Chubb's Specialty Insurance, net written premiums declined to 6% in the second quarter to $638 million, and the combined ratio was 91.4. For the professional liability portion of CSI, net written premiums were down 7% to $555 million and the combined ratio was 97.9 compared to 84.6 in the second quarter of 2011.

We are very encouraged that average renewal rates for professional liability in the U.S. increased to 7% in the second quarter, continuing the solid positive momentum that began in the fourth quarter of last year. The 7% increase in the second quarter was the strongest quarterly renewal rate increase since 2003, and compares to a 4% increase in the first quarter of this year, a negative 2% in the second quarter of 2011.

CSI obtained renewal rate increases in the United States in each of its professional liability lines of business in the second quarter of 2012. Rate increases were led by a private company and public company, D&O, both of which experienced average renewal rate increases in the low double digits. These were followed by EPL, crime, not-for-profit D&O, E&O and fiduciary. In markets outside of the U.S., average renewal rates for professional liability improved modestly in the second quarter, edging to positive depending upon the territory, whereas they were flat in major markets outside the U.S. in the first quarter of this year. Renewal premium retention for professional liability in the second quarter was 82% in the U.S., down 3 points from the first quarter. The new-to-lost business ratio for professional liability in the U.S. was 0.7:1, compared to 0.8:1 in the first quarter of the year. We'd like the professional liability business long-term, but current market conditions being what they are, this is not the time to be aggressively growing the book. We are willing to accept the decline in retention and new business as we reprofile the book for improved profitability.

In addition to driving renewal rates, we are increasing deductibles, shifting layers, refining our new business appetite and culling customer segments where we are unable to achieve rate adequacy. Regarding the surety portion of our CSI book, net written premiums in the second quarter were down 2% to $83 million, and the combined ratio was 42.8. While our surety operation was off to a slow start in the beginning of the year, activity improved for our customers in the second quarter as they were awarded more bondable projects.

And with that, I will turn it over to Dino, who will review our Personal lines results, as well as our corporate-wide claims.

Dino E. Robusto

Thanks, Paul. Chubb Personal Insurance net written premiums increased 4% in the second quarter to $1.1 billion. CPI produced the combined ratio of 91.2 compared to 96.9 in the corresponding quarter last year. Impact of catastrophes on CPI's second quarter was 11.5 points in 2012, whereas last year, we had a second quarter catastrophe total of 14.5 points. On an x cat basis, CPI's combined ratio was 79.7 in the second quarter, compared to 82.4 in the second quarter of 2011. This 2.7-point improvement is partially due to our having had fewer non-cat weather-related losses than we had in the second quarter a year ago.

The second quarter x cat combined ratio was the best quarter for CPI in 8 quarters, reflecting strong underwriting performance across all geographies and all product lines. Homeowners premiums grew 4% for the quarter, and the combined ratio was 90.3 compared to 97.7 in the corresponding quarter last year. Cat losses accounted for 18 points of the homeowners combined ratio in the second quarter of 2012, compared to 22.5 points in the second quarter of 2011. Excluding cat, the 2012 second quarter homeowners combined ratio was 72.3 compared to 75.2 in the same period a year ago.

Personal auto premiums increased 2% and the combined ratio was 93.2 compared to 92 in the second quarter of 2011. The growth of personal auto for the quarter was negatively impacted by a couple of points of currency translations.

In Other Personal, which includes our accident, EEOC and personal excess liability lines, premiums were up 8%, and the combined ratio was 92.6, compared to 98.6 in the second quarter a year ago. In the U.S., the second quarter of 2012 was the seventh consecutive quarter of growth in both premiums and in force policy count for homeowners and personal auto. In force count grew 1.5% for homeowners and 3% for personal auto. New business premium volume was up 7% overall in Personal lines. Policy retention was 91% for homeowners and 89% for auto. These retention rates were consistent with the first quarter of this year, and were up from the second quarter of last year by almost a 0.5 point in homeowners and a full point in personal auto. In short, we are very pleased with the performance and prospects of Personal lines.

Turning now to claims, corporate-wide. In the second quarter of 2012, the impact of catastrophe losses was $223 million before tax, accounting for 7.5 points of the combined ratio. The second quarter cat losses this year were almost evenly split between CPI and CCI. The $223 million reflects $249 million of losses before tax from 13 second quarter cat events in the U.S. and 1 event in Canada, partially offset by about $26 million in downward revision to our estimated losses from prior catastrophes, about 1/2 of which was attributable to cat in the first quarter of 2012.

Nearly all the catastrophe losses in the second quarter of this year were attributable to winds and hailstorms, which affected highly localized areas within various regions of the United States. In particular, the Dallas and Oklahoma City hailstorms, as well as the intense windstorm which affected parts of the Midwest and Middle Island states, represented about 60% of our total catastrophe losses in the second quarter. Our losses from the Waldo Canyon wildfire in Colorado were not significant.

Although our catastrophe losses in the second quarter of this year were much higher than the first quarter of this year, they were far lower than the second quarter a year ago, when we had $329 million or 11.3 points of cat losses. For the first 6 months of 2012, catastrophe losses were $247 million before tax, accounting for 4.2 points of the combined ratio. This compares with $599 million or 10.4 points in the first half of 2011.

Now, I'll turn it over to Ricky, who will review our financial results in more detail.

Richard G. Spiro

Thanks, Dino. As usual, I will discuss our financial results for the quarter, and I will also review our updated earnings guidance.

We had solid underwriting income of $159 million in the quarter. Property and casualty investment income after tax was down 5% to $303 million, due primarily to lower reinvestment rates in both our domestic and international fixed maturity portfolios. Currency fluctuation also had a negative impact. Net income was higher than operating income in the quarter due to net realized investment gains before tax of $47 million or $0.11 per share after tax. For comparison, in the second quarter of 2011, we had net realized investment gains before tax of $69 million or $0.15 per share after tax. Amounts in both periods were driven largely by gains from our alternative investments.

As a reminder, we account for our alternative investments on a quarter lag because of the time required to receive updated valuations from the limited partnerships' investment managers. Accordingly, our alternative investment results for the second quarter reflect market performance in the first quarter, and our third quarter 2012 results will reflect market performance in the second quarter, which was less favorable. Unrealized appreciation before tax at June 30, 2012 was $2.9 billion compared to $2.8 billion at the end of the first quarter. The total carrying value of our consolidated investment portfolio was $43.2 billion as of June 30. The composition of our portfolio remains largely unchanged from the prior quarter. The average duration of our fixed maturity portfolio is 3.6 years, and the average credit rating is AA2.

We continue to have excellent liquidity at the holding company. At June 30, 2012, our holding company portfolio had $2.2 billion of investments, including approximately $740 million of short-term investments. Book value per share under GAAP at June 30, 2012, was $58.54 compared to $56.15 at year-end 2011 and $54.28 a year ago. Adjusted book value per share, which we calculate with available for sale fixed maturities at amortized costs, was $52.34, compared to $50.37 at 2011 year end, and $50.39 a year ago.

As a reminder, during the first quarter of 2012, we adopted new guidance related to the accounting for costs associated with acquiring or renewing insurance contracts. We elected retrospective application of the guidance, which reduced our shareholders equity as of June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2011 by $273 million or approximately $1 per share. These adjustments are reflected in the book value per share amounts that I just shared with you.

As for reserves, we estimate that we had favorable development in the second quarter of 2012 on prior year reserves by SBU as follows: In CPI, we had about $30 million; CCI had about $85 million; CSI had about $40 million; and reinsurance assumed had about $10 million, bringing our total favorable development to about $165 million for the quarter. This represents a favorable impact on the second quarter combined ratio of about 5.5 points overall, including about 1/2 a point of favorable development from prior year catastrophes. Please note that this favorable development from prior year catastrophes is already reflected in our catastrophe losses for the second quarter of 2012, and should not be double-counted when calculating x cat accident year ratios.

For comparison, in the second quarter of 2011, we had about $205 million of favorable development for the company overall, including $35 million in CPI, $80 million in CCI, $80 million in CSI and $10 million in reinsurance assumed. The favorable impact on the combined ratio in the second quarter of 2011 was about 7 points, including about 1/2 a point of adverse development from prior year catastrophes.

For the second quarter of 2012, our x cat accident year combined ratio was 91.4, similar to the 91.1 in last year's second quarter. During the second quarter of 2012, our loss reserves increased by $155 million, including an increase of $177 million for the insurance business, and a decrease of $22 million for the reinsurance assumed business, which is in runoff. The overall increase in reserves reflects an increase of about $105 million related to catastrophes, and the impact of currency translation on loss reserves during the quarter resulted in a decrease in reserves of about $70 million.

Turning to capital management. During the second quarter, we repurchased approximately 4.3 million shares at an aggregate cost of $305 million. The average cost of our repurchases in the quarter was $71.63 per share. At the end of the second quarter, we had $658 million available for share repurchases under our current authorization, and as we have said previously, we expect to complete this program by the end of January 2013.

Before turning it back to John, let me provide you with some additional details on our revised guidance. We have increased our guidance for operating income per share for the full year to a range of $5.70 to $5.95, from the range of $5.30 to $5.70 that we had provided in January. As John mentioned, our increased guidance reflects our strong x cat operating performance in the first half of this year, as well as our outlook for the balance of the year.

Our increased guidance is based upon the following underlying assumptions: For our 2012 combined ratio, we expect a range of 93 to 94, compared to the January guidance assumption of 93 to 95. This improvement reflects our strong underlying performance in the first 6 months. We are assuming 4.5 points of catastrophe losses for the second half of 2012, based on the 4.2 points of actual cat losses we had in the first half. Our assumption for the full year calculates the 4.3 points or 8/10 of a point higher than the 3.5 point cat assumption in our original guidance. The 0.8 point increase in our catastrophe assumption is more than offset by the expected improvement in our full year x cat combined ratio.

For those who would like to make a higher or lower cat assumption, the impact of each percentage point of catastrophe losses for the full year on operating income per share is approximately $0.28. We expect net written premiums for the full year to increase 1% to 3%, including about a negative 1 point impact to foreign currency translation, based on exchange rates as of June 30, 2012. Our January 2012 guidance had assumed that net written premiums would be up 2% to 4%, and also included a negative 1% impact from currency. We expect property and casualty investment income after tax to be down 4% to 6%. Our January guidance assumed the decline of 3% to 5%. In both estimates, we assumed a negative 1 point impact of currency translations.

Finally, we assumed $271 million average diluted shares are outstanding for the full year, unchanged from our earlier guidance.

And now, I'll turn it back to John.

John D. Finnegan

Thanks, Ricky. Let me summarize a few of the key highlights of the second quarter. We had operating income per share of $1.37, despite the adverse impact from catastrophe losses of $0.56 -- $0.53 per share. Our annualized ROE was 10.4%, and then annualized operating ROE was 10.9%. We produced an x cat combined ratio of 86.3 and an x cat accident year combined ratio of 91.4, in line with the second quarter a year ago and much better than the second half of last year. We continued up with momentum of rate increases in all of our businesses.

Book value per share at June 30 was $58.54, up 8% from a year earlier, and up 4% from year-end 2011. We repurchased 305 million of common shares, and we paid 112 million in dividends. For the first 6 months of 2012, operating income totaled $843 million or $3.07 per share, a 17% increase compared to last year. Annualized operating ROE for the first half was 12.3% and annualized ROE for the first half was 11.8%. The combined ratio for first 6 months was 92 and the x cat combined ratio was 87.8.

Our strong performance in the first half of the year has enabled us to increase our 2012 operating income per share guidance to a range of $5.70 to $5.95. The midpoint of our revised guidance is $0.33 per share higher than the midpoint of our prior guidance, despite an increase in our catastrophe loss assumption for the full year from 3.5 points to 4.3 points. If you adjust for the $0.22 per share adverse impact of this higher annual catastrophe loss assumption, our outlook for 2012 operating income per share has improved by $0.55.

In summary, we have a very good second quarter on top of an excellent first quarter, and we continue to be encouraged by the rate increases we're achieving.

And with that, I'll open the line to your questions.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

[Operator Instructions] We will go first to Mike Zaremski with Crédit Suisse.

Michael Zaremski - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division

Okay, so in CCI, it looks like you're moving with the market, taking rate increases. But in Specialty lines, it looks like you're moving against the grain, at least as reflected by the drop in retention. So would you agree with that statement? And can you provide color on the competitive dynamics between the measure of business lines?

John D. Finnegan

I think up to now -- over the last year, we started getting rate increases in Commercial a year ago. The Commercial market is the more receptive to rate increases. I think a couple of lines, especially property, of course, have -- with all those catastrophes we've had at workers comp. And with the higher loss experience in the industry has suffered, we fortunately have performed quite well in that area. So I think the Commercial market got -- we got there earlier. The market has moved with us, although, I think our rate increases are looking pretty good even compared to the average. And at this point, we feel good about it. Professional liability was a laggard. I mean, we didn't start increasing rates until the end of last year, the first quarter of this year. We've had a 3-point increase in each of the last 2 quarters. Are we going against the market? I don't know, I think that the market is moving certainly, but it's a tougher market at this point still. Our retention though, you can't read our retention as being necessarily indicative totally of the market. Our retention is down for 2 reasons: First, we're calling our book in some areas where we -- we start with 104 combined ratio, so we need rate and the fact that we got to get rid some of the accounts that are performing worse than 104. So we're calling the business -- that we don't see the market allowing us to take enough rate now in the near future, to make an adequate profit. So we're getting out of those businesses. In other cases, we're aggressively pursuing rate on least profitable lines of business, which has resulted in a significant decline in our retention on our poorest-performing accounts. We have a 5-star system and 1-star is our poorest-performing accounts, and retention on those over the last year has gone from mid-80s to mid-60s. We're still in the high 80s on our 4 and 5 accounts, which are best-performing accounts. So I think we're getting rid of accounts where we can't make money and taking the rates, I think, on the poor accounts. The ones we're taking, we got 35% of rate, 35% rate increases in this last quarter. We lost a lot of retention, but that's okay. At 104, you got to improve the profile of your book.

Michael Zaremski - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division

And do you feel like there's momentum in rates and property? Or have we kind of reached a level that, if this sticks for a little while, the industry and Chubb will be able to earn adequate returns?

John D. Finnegan

I don't know if there's momentum. You know we've -- not in third quarter, but the second quarter is better than the first quarter by a point. I guess just from a planning perspective, we're expecting continued significant rate increases in the U.S. but when accounting, I don't have any prediction on whether the rate increases will continue to accelerate. Professional liability again is a little different. It's been a laggard. It's been moving up a little bit faster. There’s probably more reason now for rates to increase, but on the other hand, it's a tremendously competitive environment. So I'm not sure. Outside the U.S., which is 25% of our business, rate increases have been relatively de minimis. We saw some movement in Canada. Last quarter, our rates were up 5 points. It's not certain, but there's probably good reason to expect the overseas market to track the U.S. on a lagged basis, such that rate increases will pick up over the next few quarters.

Michael Zaremski - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division

Okay, that's helpful. And lastly, I was hoping you could shed some light on your Latin American and Asian A&H business. Would you be able to say how big that business is, and does it opt for similar return characteristics in the U.S. A&H business?

Paul J. Krump

This is Paul, Mike. I'm not going to give you a premium breakout by continent. But we -- I can tell you this, it's the inverse of our typical book of business and say, Personal lines or Commercial or Specialty, in that 75% of the premium for A&H is outside of the United States, about 25% is within the United States. The business outside of the United States is actually more profitable than the business in the United States and we're working hard on improving that business in the U.S.

John D. Finnegan

It provides probably greater growth protection.

Paul J. Krump

Oh, absolutely.

Operator

And next we will go to Amit Kumar with Macquarie.

Amit Kumar - Macquarie Research

My first question relates to pricing, and these are obviously, phenomenal rate increases compared to some of your competitors. I'm curious if you could sort of extend on new business pricing as it relates to CCI?

Paul J. Krump

Sure, I can take it. Again, this is Paul. First off, the spread between rates on renewals and new customer businesses is very -- now very small. But again, that's reflecting a very selective underwriting approach to new business on our part. In turn, that underwriting discipline has resulted in lower levels of new business over the last year. The general matter though, agents are putting more renewals into the market today because nearly all cost to carriers are seeking some level of rate increases. We are very pleased to see these new opportunities, but most of these business deals are coming in the market, need at least a level of rate increases that the incumbent carrier is seeking. As a result of that, we're just being very selective in our underwriting and pricing of new business. And that's the reason why new business is only making up 12% of our overall commercial book, both for standard and Specialty in the second quarter. Just for some perspective, that's near a historic low for both groups. Back in the very hard market of 2004, CCI was enjoying new business growth of 21% and professional liability was at 19%. So -- anyway, the bottom line is that we realized that new business rarely performs as well as our season renewals. Accordingly, we're just carefully scrutinizing this business and expect rates in the business to try to be as good as they are in the renewals, and that just means we're being very diligent in how we're going about it.

Michael Zaremski - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division

That's actually very helpful. The only other question I had was on capital management. If I look back, typically, buybacks will slow down in third quarter and then pick up later. Just based on your strong capital position, I'm wondering, would anything change in Q3 this time, or should we anticipate the usual slowdown and then pick up at end of the year?

Richard G. Spiro

It's Ricky. I'm not going to predict how many shares we're going to buy back in the third quarter. I'll just stick to what I said during my prepared remarks. Our intention is to complete the program that's remaining on it by the end of January 2013. And that's the only thing I can say about our future buyback plan.

Operator

And next, we'll go to Josh Stirling of Sanford Bernstein.

Josh Stirling - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

So a big question for you on public D&O. Did I hear you correctly when you said that you're getting low double-digit rate increases? I'm very impressed with that, and I'd love to get a sense of what's going on in that market because if that's right, that would seem to be a huge swing from where we've been not very far long ago, and if we're wondering, can I get a sense of what's driving that among the incumbents there?

Paul J. Krump

Yes, you heard it correctly. And the honest answer is, we're pushing it very, very hard. And as John said, our professional liability will go up at 104 combined. So we're very cognizant of the need to push rate, and we're spending an awful lot of time working on the book of business. At Chubb, it's always about improving the profit, and so we keep trying to improve the overall rate on the renewals. We try to make certain that the new business is coming in, equally as good, at least the quality of the business is equally as good as the renewal business. But yes, the primary segment is actually doing better on the public and we're also seeing improvement in Side A and excess, where a good portion of our book of business is.

Josh Stirling - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

That's great. As you guys are calling your book, I'd be curious to get some color around some of the changes you're making. Has the industry picked up bad underwriting habits over the years? Or is this – or are there specific classes where there's just more loss to merchants than expected to securities, a different gain or creative litigation or something? Or is this just generally -- there's been rate need in the industry, and now you’re going to get a chance to address it?

John D. Finnegan

I think to some degree, culling the cards all at the time, I think there's been a little more enhanced culling in some areas in recent periods. For example, with the recent cat models and the level of catastrophe activity. We've seen some culling in some of our property lines in geographic areas where we have bigger cat exposures. But on Commercial overall, standard Commercial, other than that is for more of an ongoing sort of culling. And professional liability, you have to do more. I mean, when we're running 90, you didn't need to cull as much. And running at 104, well, how did we get there? I think we had about 6 years of rate declines in professional liability. But it was obfuscated to some degree by very benign loss trends in the second half of last year. Loss costs escalated, and we talk about that on the third quarter, fourth quarter calls. It caused us to increase our combined ratio of professional liability at the end of last year, and increased our projections for the current calendar year. Now the rate of escalation has not continued, but at 104, you -- therefore by definition, if that's the average, you have some stuff running on 115, you got to get out of it or get rate. And -- so I'd say, it's certainly, an enhanced culling that's occurred in professional liability.

Josh Stirling - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

That's great. Just one final numbers question. Workers comp seems to have increased a lot, relative to your other lines, some of which are shrinking. Is that the audit adjustments you guys are talking about? Or should we actually see you guys as taking share in workers comp?

Paul J. Krump

It's a combination of several things. Yes, there's audit premium coming in. We had a tremendous amount of rate. The retention has held up quite well there. The actual in force count is respects -- workers compensation is growing nowhere near the amount of what was it -- 13 points for the second quarter? In fact, that number has actually slowed down in the second quarter than what we were seeing sequentially in, I think, the first and the fourth.

John D. Finnegan

Workers comp growth is down quarter-to-quarter sequentially, right?

Paul J. Krump

Yes.

Operator

And next from Goldman Sachs, we'll go to Michael Nannizzi.

Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

So just trying to understand a little bit, so in the underlying combined ratios, if I look at CCI and CSI, deteriorated a bit versus 1Q and also versus 2Q last year. Trying to reconcile that to the rate that you've gotten over the last 3 quarters, is it that loss cost trends are the missing piece, or what am I missing in thinking that the underlying should start to improve?

John D. Finnegan

You're talking about x cat combined ratio?

Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

X cat and x prior year development, yes.

John D. Finnegan

Yes. Well, CCI was marginal, right? I mean, not much difference. CSI has its own issues as we've talked about. In CCI, we have had -- well, again, you -- look, you have to compare the premium growth and the loss trends. And loss trends do fluctuate for individual periods obviously, but just on a longer-term basis, let's call it 4% loss trend. Now, you take our 9% rate in premiums, and you got added earned impact premiums -- earned impact of a rate at 6%, that's U.S. Worldwide was slower. So you're probably between 4.5% and 5%. You parsing it pretty closely, between that and a 4% underlying cost trend, which can fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter. For example, we had one major boiler loss this quarter. Not worth mentioning, except that you're talking about the difference between 4.5% and 4%. So not a big issue. In CSI, we really haven't had the earned premium impact of CSI as minuscule so far. I mean, we had 7% in the U.S., less overseas in written premium, but it's come up quickly. We're probably at 1 point in the second quarter of earned premium impact. So it's not having the big effect. What happened, though, is that the loss trends over the last year have gone up more than the -- most of the long-term trend because of the big increases in the third and fourth quarter. Move to a more plateaued level now, but you're still up a little bit more. So -- you really can't look at margin expansion there. You haven't gotten enough earned premium to even have an impact yet.

Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

So I guess the rates wouldn't be so -- if these rate levels continue, how long will it take to get -- especially, in CSI and CCI, to get to underwriting profitability that is -- given where investment income is, that is acceptable to you, internally, without the benefit of favorable development?

John D. Finnegan

Well, let me say this. Let's talk about what the impact of rate increase is. What we'd see is on a Commercial book, we're well on our way. We're probably going to have a net effect on earned premium. Earned premium, the rate impact will be about 5% for the year, 7% in the fourth quarter. That will be positive. Mild impact overall on the calendar year, positive probably. But 2013, if we continue at this level, it should have a significant improvement in margin expansion. Professional liability is going to take time to catch up, in terms of rate. And we might be getting there by the fourth quarter, and we might be rolling the rates depending on what happens at lease levels of cost escalation going next year. But the important -- the -- really big driving factor in professional liability and financial results in any individual quarter, the more function of the presence or absence for systematic events and longer-term loss trends. So combined -- well, actually combined ratio is tough to project. And CPI, I think by the end of this year, we're in good shape, and next year should be a year of margin expansion. Just basically, on the rate versus loss cost escalation analysis, now of course, you just assume it's historical loss cost trends in all these businesses. In actuality, the losses in any given quarter or even year tend to be lumpy, falling above or below the trend line. So they're not predictive, but theoretically, in all of our businesses, we're improving our margin position. Commercial's -- it's probably first to the party. Personal, right behind. Specialty take a little longer, but Specialty results will be much more effective by the type of underwriting initiatives and actions we're taking, than the pricing in the immediate future.

Michael Nannizzi - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division

Great. And I mean, are you seeing -- last one, are you seeing any increased competition, anyone, kind of spoiling the party on the rate side in either CCI or CSI?

Paul J. Krump

No, we don't see any one person doing there, or anyone carrier doing that, and if we did, we won't identify them here.

Operator

And we'll go next to Vinay Misquith of Evercore Partners.

Vinay Misquith - Evercore Partners Inc., Research Division

The first question is on CPI. The margins of x cat's prior accident basis were really strong this quarter versus the year ago and the last quarter, could you help us understand what's happening there, please?

Paul J. Krump

Yes, on a x cat basis, the improvement, to a large extent, is due to a light quarter this quarter from non-cat weather compared to the second quarter last year, where we had a much higher impact on non-cat weather losses.

John D. Finnegan

The weather was better over there.

Vinay Misquith - Evercore Partners Inc., Research Division

All right. How about the first quarter of this year, because I'm looking at an accident year, combined ratio x cats of around 82 7 this quarter versus about 87 3 last quarter. Was is just pure non-cat weather?

Richard G. Spiro

Yes, a large component of it was principally non-cat weather. When you compare it, the second quarter of 2011, you had a little bit of improvement in the expense ratio, about 3/10 of a point, and we had also a little bit of improvement in our accident results.

John D. Finnegan

For the first quarter, you generally have a little bit more non-cat weather than you have in the second quarter. But both quarters this year weren't too bad, in terms of non-cat weather, given the weather.

Vinay Misquith - Evercore Partners Inc., Research Division

Okay, great. And you mentioned margin expansion next year, or maybe later on this year within CPI. Can you help us understand sort of what the pricing and loss cost trends are on the land, please?

Richard G. Spiro

Yes, so if you look at our U.S. homeowner rate and exposure increases, we produced a written premium impact of about 5% in the first half of 2012, and that's going to probably generate, by year end, a little bit more than 5% for the full year. That's the written premium impact. That's going to translate into an earned premium impact for the year of about 4%, which is in line with our loss cost trends that are about 4% in Personal lines. We expect to enjoy an additional increase in earned premiums of about 6% in 2013. So there, all else being equal, you're going to see some meaningful margin expansion, and if you look at our rate filings that are taking effect in the third and the fourth quarter of this year that are targeted to take effect -- and I say targeted because some are subject to regulatory approval -- we're filing rates in the high single-digit and sort of lower mid-teens in a bunch of states. So it's looking good.

Vinay Misquith - Evercore Partners Inc., Research Division

Okay, that's great. And could I just have one more follow-up on this? I believe you mentioned that the pitfalls up by maybe about 1.5% in homeowners, and 3% in auto. If you could help us understand what's driving that, I mean, are competitors taking rates up in homeowners much more than you are? Or is it just your initiative to spread out across the country more?

John D. Finnegan

Yes, you would typically think when you're filing for these kinds of rate increases that you'd see a little bit of a hit on retention, and the reality is our retentions remained flat over the past 2 quarters in homeowners, and then it's at a historically high level. So really, what we think is the widespread rate-taking that's going on in the general market, is really leveling the playing field in mitigating that dynamic.

Operator

And now we'll go to Jay Gelb of Barclays.

Jay Gelb - Barclays Capital, Research Division

I had 2 questions. The first is on the LIBOR issue. I know it's early days, but I think there's some concern out there that directors' and officers' liability for financial institutions could end up being exposed to some of the civil litigation involving LIBORs. I'm interested in getting your thoughts on that first.

Paul J. Krump

Sure, Jay. This is Paul. First off, I agree with you. I think it's very important to remember that this is really early days, and what actually happened to peers could still be unfolding. So the full facts are not yet known. It's really too early to speculate how the situation will play out, what the full extent of the allegations may be, and against whom. In addition, as you know, Jay, we will not, obviously, comment on whether or not a specific organization or person is a customer in a given situation. What I can say, as respect to Chubb's professional liability business, is the following. First, we have very little E&O exposure to large global or money center banks. Second, for Chubb, only 3% of our worldwide professional liability book is comprised of public D&O covers for financial institutions. We have a very diverse book, which just doesn't include large banks. It has other bank -- other institutions in there as well. Third, as respects any potential D&O exposure for larger banks, the vast majority would be Side A covers or high excess layers for traditional Side A and B covers. These are the key points when thinking about Chubb because Side A only covers claims brought against a director or officer, if the Corporation is unable or not allowed to indemnify them. High excess participation is important to consider because if and -- it's still a big if. If D&O coverage ever was brought into play after an institution's self-insured retention and these type of banks take very large SIRs. The primary layers will typically absorb much of the defense cost. Another data point for perspective is our average attachment point on our excess, FI, D&O book at Chubb, is in excess of $80 million. And turning a little bit to the factual information surrounding the LIBOR issue as we understand it at this point in time, it appears there would be some serious D&O coverage issues as well. Just to name a few, regulatory fines and penalties are typically excluded, company investigate costs are typically not covered, intentional acts and/or criminal acts exclusions may be triggered, and while a shareholder derivative claim could be covered under certain situations, absent insolvency, which doesn't seem to be likely in this situation, the settle amounts -- settlement amounts are typically fairly modest. And lastly, traditional securities class actions could potentially develop if the implicated banks or bank experience a stock drop directly attributable to LIBOR issues. But as far as we know, and as of today, that has been the case for only one of the banks that has been mentioned in the news. So that's kind of where it stands, as respects LIBOR for us at Chubb at this point in time.

Jay Gelb - Barclays Capital, Research Division

I think I know which bank that is. Switching gears, John, can you give us an update on succession planning?

John D. Finnegan

No, it's still early. They're not kicking me out yet, so we got to...

Jay Gelb - Barclays Capital, Research Division

I don't expect them to, but it's a mandatory 65 retirement age, is that right?

John D. Finnegan

As it would be applied, it would be the end of 2014.

Operator

And moving on to Matthew Heimermann of JPMorgan.

Matthew G. Heimermann - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division

One numbers question, if I could, for Dino. The $26 million of favorable prior cat development, could you break that out between CPI and CSI for us?

Dino E. Robusto

Yes, so in Personal lines, it included a slight upward revision of about $1 million from prior events. And on Commercial lines, the catastrophe losses in the quarter were inclusive of about $27 million of downward revision.

Matthew G. Heimermann - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Okay, perfect. And then just on professional liability probably, you did a great job of kind of highlighting kind of what rate was doing across the different businesses that make up that segment, as well as some of the changes you're making. I just be curious, within – is it, I'm just, well, let me -- what's the best way to ask this? With respect to some of the individual products, I mean, are you seeing higher or lower retentions kind of, in some of those individual products or kind of the low retention and the need to get account improvement, is that consistent across kind of the product base? And I'd also be curious whether or not the shift from primary to excessive loss is specific to any individual coverages, or kind of generalization as well?

Paul J. Krump

Okay, Matthew, I'll give it a go here. In a nutshell, yes, the overall rate range, if you are thinking about that way in professional liability, did differ from the overall 7% rate change that we averaged in professional liability in the second quarter that I quoted. It went from a low single-digits for one product on average to mid- to very high teens on a few other products. And it's obviously buried then within those as well by subsegments and obviously, when you start looking at individual accounts, it can be a very, very large range. The important thing, I think, to think about here, though, is that we're really working to reprofile the book of business. So when John talked about the star rankings, if you will, from 1 to 5, within our book, we look at the stars' rankings though, of a 5-star account and what's happening to the rate there, and what's happening to the retention versus the 1-stars and the 2-stars, et cetera. And I can tell you that in general, those patterns look very encouraging to us.

Matthew G. Heimermann - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Okay, maybe -- I guess, maybe one of the things I was hoping to get out of it, and this is poorly asked questions, so this is my fault. Just when we think about retention or maybe even percentage of accounts that are 4- or 5-star, is that in any way inversely related to the amount of rate you're getting in those individual product lines right now?

Paul J. Krump

Yes, that exactly what I was saying, Matt. Or maybe I wasn't being very...

Matthew G. Heimermann - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Well, I wasn't asking it well, or hearing it well then.

John D. Finnegan

It's this number ideas before. It was that we were getting 35% rate increases in the worst category. We're getting low single-digit rate increases in the best category. Retention in the worst has gotten from 85% to 65%.

Matthew G. Heimermann - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Yes, I just didn't know if for example, D&O, public D&O and private D&O, where you're getting the biggest rate increases, if that had the highest percentage of low-star accounts.

Paul J. Krump

I really don't want to reveal it here, but it's -- there's a different bell-shaped curve, Matthew, to each product line.

Matthew G. Heimermann - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division

Then, I guess one follow-up I had was just when we think about the rate you're getting on the public D&O. Is part of the reason you're getting such a big increase is a function of maybe having a little bit more primary layer exposure, especially given that some of the issues in loss trend side have seemed to view litigation, we go coverage?

Paul J. Krump

Maybe I could just step back a little bit because I know that there's been some thoughts around excess versus primary. I can tell you that, yes, primary took higher rate increases than excess. But we've got years of experiences doing D&O and lots of data, and when we think about pricing, what we first do is individually price the account ourselves in primary and then we think about what is an adequate price for each layer of the tower, and then we decide where is the best place to play. And -- well, our book may have shifted a little bit to excess over the last couple of years. It's because we found, in our individual pricing, that there was better margin opportunity in some of these excess plays. But it boils down to individual account, 1 over and 1 account underwriting.

Operator

And going to Meyer Shields of Stifel, Nicolaus.

Meyer Shields - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division

Two quick questions, if I can. One, could the audit premiums have a material impact in the workers compensation combined ratio change year-over-year?

John D. Finnegan

Combined ratio or growth? The growth?

Meyer Shields - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division

The combined ratio. I understand the growth part.

Paul J. Krump

Well, when we pick up an AP, and additional premium from an audit, it goes right to the bottom line. It's fully earned. So they always help the combined ratio.

Meyer Shields - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division

Okay, is there anyway of ballparking that?

John D. Finnegan

I don't think we've ever done it, so I don't...

Paul J. Krump

I don't have it off the top of my head.

Meyer Shields - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division

Second question, and it's going to sound a little nitpicky, but John, when you talk about that 104% combined ratio in the professional liability, was that assuming that the loss cost escalation that you saw last year continued?

John D. Finnegan

Well, it's one of those actuarial questions. It definitely comprehends the fact we had an increase in loss cost in the second half of last year. I think our loss cost trends for this year are probably in longer-term basis that picks up somewhat in escalation, but certainly doesn't extrapolate all of it from the first half of last year to the second half of last year. It picks up anticipated rate increases. It picks up anticipate -- it picks up initiatives we have under way. And it's a projection, which is -- it's always uncertain. It's a long tail line. We don't get a lot of loss experience to test it against for a few years. But it has higher losses, obviously, expected than we had in the initial loss picks a year ago.

Operator

And next, we will go to Adam Klauber of William Blair.

Adam Klauber - William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division

Your earnings guidance is higher than it was before, but it suggests that earnings for the second of the year will be below what they are in the first half of this year. Why is that?

John D. Finnegan

I think 2 things. One, if you could tell from the guidance, our investment income is down in the second half of the year versus the first half. And second, we have a little bit, couple of point higher, x cat combined ratio assumed in the second half of the year. This is, I would say, a couple of reasons. They're qualitative, I mean, first is that, Asia in the past 2 years, we have seen a deterioration in combined ratio in the second half versus the first half last year, with 3 or 4 points. And secondly, it might be difficult to replicate the unusually lower x cat combined ratio that's running in the first half of the year, to some of our business, such as homeowners, which had an unusually low level of non-cat-related weather and had terrific numbers. Now going against that, as we make in a little pickup from increased rate, although you have to compare that to loss trend -- loss escalation. So those are the 2 factors.

Adam Klauber - William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division

And one quick follow-up, your commercial casualty, it looks like paid losses are pretty good, actually down from the first half of last year but looks like the loss ratio was up. Why the disparity?

John D. Finnegan

Prior period development, I think, was significantly different.

Paul J. Krump

And the other thing, that you're comparing it against last -- the first and second quarters of 2011, they were just remarkably good in the casualty line at 83 and 84, and I think we told you then that there was -- probably not sustainable. It was -- they were just unbelievably good.

Operator

And we'll go to Jay Cohen of Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Jay A. Cohen - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division

Two questions, just the first one, kind of a picky one, but the $26 million of prior period development in the cat line, was that all prior year? Or were some of that in the first quarter?

Dino E. Robusto

Yes, it was split between the first quarter and prior year, about $15 million in 2011, and the rest in 2012.

Jay A. Cohen - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division

And the bulk of that, obviously, in the Commercial side, where the development was. Question for Ricky. Ricky, can you talk about the new money yields available in the market that would mimic your portfolio, how they compare to your book yield? And then in addition, if you could talk about the level of assets that you see maturing in 2013?

Richard G. Spiro

Sure. Well, I'll take the second question first. In our 10-K, we have a breakdown of our maturities over the next number of years. I think it's on Page 67 of the 10-K. The number for 2013 is about $5 billion that mature. I hope that answers the second part. As far as the first part, obviously, rates continue to move down, I'd say today, we are reinvesting on the tax exempt side at roughly, call it 125 to 150 basis points lower than the maturing book yields. On the domestic taxable side, it's probably 250 basis points, and it's also about 250 basis points lower on the -- outside the U.S. fixed income investments.

Operator

And we have one more fellow in the queue. We'll go to Ian Gutterman of Adage Capital.

Ian Gutterman - Adage Capital Management, L.P.

I have 2 clarifications as well. One on the guidance, Ricky, I was doing some quick math so I may be dangerous here, but in the original guidance, the midpoint was a 94 combined. Now we're at a 93.5 midpoint. So half a point is $0.14 and when I look at every other assumption, it was either static to worse, right? The shares were the same. The premium was down, and NAI is down, so if we only had $0.14 of better combined ratio, everything else is a tad worse, how do we get $0.25 to $0.40 increase in the guidance? What's the other piece I'm missing?

Richard G. Spiro

Sure, well, it's hard for you to see but it has to do with rounding. We were on a number of alternative scenarios related to business unit contribution, current and prior accident year results, when we're coming up with our guidance, and we can reach our guidance levels in a number of different ways. The reality is when we put together the ranges for a combined ratio and everything else, we end up rounding, so that the actual midpoint of the numbers that we come up with to our scenario analysis may not be 94, in the case of the January guidance. It could be a few 1/10 higher or lower in either direction. And the same thing now. So when we looked -- the way it worked down -- and the reason we were able to raise it by $0.33, is even though we raised our cat assumption by about, now we call it, 8/10 of a point, that was more than offset, because when you look at the way the x cat combined ratio has moved, putting aside the rounding per second, in our mind, those were up about 2 points or improved by 2 points. So we ended up with more than 1 point improvement in the combined ratio. It's just hard to see when you're just looking at the midpoints.

Ian Gutterman - Adage Capital Management, L.P.

And then on professional lines, I guess it's a 2-parter. One, is just -- it's now the third quarter in a row that we're at 104 accident year. I guess, I'm trying to figure out what got so bad. I mean, Chubb doesn't normally write annualized, but especially professionalize it in underwriting loss. It's back to loss off mark. So sort of, A, how we've gotten here that were still sticking at this 104, that we're not seeing any improvement, and then, B, do you think you're writing new business to underwriting profit? And is it just a matter of waiting for that to get earned out? Or is there something more to it?

John D. Finnegan

No, I think they're all good questions. I think the answer is, we got there unfortunately, and then it came about because for many years -- and actually before we have rate the contract, we had 10 to 12 points of Q level rate decline over a 5- or 6-year period, and -- but we're still looking like we're writing stuff pretty well, at pretty good rates. The -- look, charts are benign. Then they picked up. We've talked about them in the second half of 2012. We started in sort of economic-related areas. They weren't credit crisis as such, but they were crime, fidelity. We saw a pickup in those, and we saw a pickup in D&O and merger objection suits, and there was a -- and then finally, a big one was the increase in employment practices liability, which for reasons you could figure out. So – what did we run the first quarter, 2 quarters, last year? Accident year -- and we've traditionally, high 990s, so I mean, don't mistake reported with accident year. We reported for about 7 years that we had an average report of about 87. We had great years. But our initial accident year for many years, I mean, the credit crisis, for example, was very high. We had over 100 that year, and that's an initial accident year. So it's a little bit higher than we traditionally run without an x -- so it's a rate decline and because of the increase in losses. Now I don't think it's your bookkeeping by quarter because much of this line is projections on long-tail classes. So we projected it's going to run 104 this year. In a lot of these classes, we won't see losses -- experience it more than 10% of the projection for every year. So we wouldn't have any loss experience to really assess it against to any great degree, except for a few of the shorter tail line. But that’s a small portion of the book. So I would expect the 104 -- hey, if things stayed the way they were on loss ratio, we might move down a little, because the expense ratio will decline over the course of the year. We had a little bit of increase on loss activity in the short tails in the second quarter. That could go away. But you're looking at 100, 105, probably, for the rest of the year. Nothing big is going to happen until we get more loss experience, in our long-tail lines, and/or until we see significant rate increases that we can embody in the projection. Now, Ian, your point is right. We're certainly running at unattractive returns. At 104 though, it's still profitable business. It's not profitable enough. I mean, it's probably mid-single-digits, is where we're at, and that ain't going to get it done. But it's not unprofitable business. And listen, we're pretty good at this business and I don't, those loss increases that came about in employment practices liability, merger objection suits, crime and fidelity, they didn't affect us alone. A lot of companies don't break out this stuff. They're not running 95 here. I mean, there's no way that they're running significantly better than us. And given our track record, and given the fact that the gas was usually in the opposite way, it's hard to believe they're not running higher than us.

Operator

At this time we have no further questions.

John D. Finnegan

Thank you very much for joining us tonight. Have a good evening.

Operator

And once again, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our conference. Thank you, all, for your participation.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: The Chubb Management Discusses Q2 2012 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts