Ategrity Specialty Holdings LLC (NYSE:ASIC) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Ategrity Specialty Holdings LLC (NYSE:ASIC) Q1 2026 Earnings Call Transcript April 30, 2026

Operator: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for Ategrity’s First Quarter Fiscal Year 2026 Earnings Results Conference Call. Speaking today are Justin Cohen, Chief Executive Officer; Chris Schenk, President and Chief Underwriting Officer; and Neelam Patel, Chief Financial Officer. After Justin, Chris and Neelam have made their formal remarks, we will open the call for questions. [Operator Instructions] Before we begin, I would like to mention that certain matters discussed in today’s conference call are forward-looking statements relating to future events, management’s plans and objectives for the business and the future financial performance of the company that are subject to risks and uncertainties.

Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements. The risk factors that may affect results are referred to in our press release issued today, our final prospectus and other filings filed with the SEC. We do not undertake any obligation to update the forward-looking statements made today. Finally, the speakers may refer to certain adjusted or non-GAAP financial measures on this call. A reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures is also available in our press release issued today, a copy of which may be obtained by visiting the Investor Relations website at investors.ategrity.com. I will now turn the call over to Justin.

Justin Cohen: Good evening, and thank you all for joining Ategrity’s first quarter earnings call. This is Justin Cohen, and I’m joined today by Chris Schenk, our President and Chief Underwriting Officer; and Neelam Patel, our CFO. Ategrity delivered another quarter of record earnings, generating outstanding margins while gaining market share. We produced a combined ratio of 87.4% and grew gross written premiums by 23.1% in an industry that was relatively flat with both metrics better than guidance. We are winning by identifying underserved segments, building solutions that give our distribution partners an advantage and improving the quality and renewability of our portfolio. While competition is increasing, we are defining distinct markets where we can compete on our own terms.

This quarter, we extended that momentum by launching several new strategic initiatives, including new regional strategies in Texas, Florida and New England while maintaining strict technical rigor in risk selection and pricing. We will discuss these initiatives in more detail later in the call. As our footprint expands, we are demonstrating operating leverage. Our expense ratio improved 2.5 percentage points year-over-year as earned premium growth outpaced expenses. We continue to optimize our business mix and leverage our centralized underwriting model to improve profitability and lower unit costs. At the same time, we are investing in the business, both to support our growth initiatives and to advance automation and AI across the organization.

Turning to the market. Competitive pressure continued to intensify in parts of the E&S market this quarter, but its impact on our business remain limited. By focusing on small- and medium-sized businesses and delivering differentiated solutions, we continue to operate outside the more commoditized parts of the market. We are seeing this play out consistently across the portfolio, reinforcing our confidence that we can continue to build profitable market share. With that, I’ll turn it over to Neelam to review our financials, followed by Chris to discuss our underwriting performance and go-to-market strategy.

Neelam Patel: Thanks, Justin. We delivered another strong quarter with adjusted net income of $25.6 million, up from $8.5 million in the same quarter last year, driven by top line growth, improving margins and continued strength in our investment income. Gross written premiums were up 23% in the quarter and growth was broad-based. Casualty premiums grew 27% and property premiums grew 13%. Net written premiums increased 32%, which reflects higher retention year-over-year, while net earned premiums were up by 34%. Fee income was $2.2 million compared to $0.6 million a year ago, reflecting standard policy fees introduced over the course of 2025. Our underwriting income for the quarter was $13.3 million, up 87% year-over-year. That translates into a combined ratio of 87.4% compared to 90.9% last year due to reductions in both our loss and expense ratio.

Our loss ratio came in at 58.8%, down 1 point year-over-year, driven by strong underlying results in our property business. We had favorable development this period equal to 0.5% of net earned premium. Catastrophe losses were 4% of net earned premium, down from 6.2% last year due to very few CAT events in the first quarter compared to the prior year, where we had modest losses from California wildfires. On expenses, the overall expense ratio improved 2.5 points to 28.6% Operating expense was 10.9% of net earned premiums, down 1.4 points year-over-year. That improvement was driven by earned premiums growing faster than operating expenses, along with the benefit of higher fee income. Policy acquisition costs as a percentage of net earned premiums declined to 17.6% from 18.8%.

The improvement was primarily mix driven as growth has been concentrated in lines of business carrying lower acquisition costs and higher ceding commissions. Moving on to investment results. Net investment income was $12 million, up from $7.9 million last year, reflecting a larger investment portfolio. Realized and unrealized gains were $9.5 million, supported by strong results in our utility and infrastructure portfolio. Our effective tax rate was 20.6%, bringing the net income to $25.5 million. Adjusted net income was $25.6 million or $0.51 per diluted share. Turning to the balance sheet. Cash and investments increased by $42 million from the fourth quarter to $1.15 billion, reflecting strong operating cash flow. Book value increased by $17 million, driven by retained earnings, offset by a decrease in AOCI.

Our book value per share ended the quarter at $13.13, up 24% since the IPO. Overall, the quarter reflects strong growth, underwriting discipline and increased operating leverage. With that, I’ll turn it over to Chris to discuss underwriting and operating performance.

Chris Schenk: Thanks, Neelam. Last quarter, we described our business as having multiple differentiated pathways for growth and how that has allowed us to operate independently of market cycles. This quarter is another validation of that model. In a competitive environment, Ategrity delivered another record quarter with all of our key metrics trending favorably. Top line growth of 23.1% with more than 50% coming from strategies unique to us. Expense ratio declined even as we continued investing in production capacity, technology, marketing and partnership management. Rate change remained positive. Cost of product indicators continued to track favorably. We are succeeding because our model is built on two key principles: a long-term view of customer value and a deliberate approach to creating new markets for growth.

These are uncommon in E&S. At a fundamental level, all carriers operate within the same growth equation, renewal contribution plus new business production. These are driven by the same inputs. What is your renewal base? What is your retention ratio, average premium, submission growth, quote ratio and buying ratio. The difference in carrier results is driven by which levers they can move and which levers they’re willing to move. For us, what we adjust is driven by our view of risk taking and that long-term view is measured in terms of customer lifetime value. For several years, we have optimized the inputs that matter to us. And as the market shifted, these became a clear structural advantage. On renewal inputs, since 2021, we have focused on writing durable, sticky business.

That showed up this quarter in a record renewal base and our highest retention since going public. We optimized our retention rate through targeted rate actions while maintaining positive rate across the portfolio. On new business, the levers we can actively manage are submission growth, quote production and average premium. Submission growth was strong. This was driven by our distribution investments as well as our strategic initiatives. Quote production reached an all-time high, supported by the submission volume as well as the quality of those submissions. Our investments in AI and our operating model allowed us to process that volume efficiently while maintaining fast turnaround. Shifting to conversion. Conversion moderated modestly, but that was expected.

Conversion is often the least controllable lever for a technical underwriting organization. We were able to win at a higher rate in areas where we have a regional strategy. And finally, average premium. As the competition intensified in larger accounts, we leaned into small and middle market risk in our core verticals where precision, speed and consistency matters most. Those dynamics combined improved the overall quality and renewability of the portfolio. Our results this quarter is straightforward. We retained more of what we wanted, and we added new business with higher expected lifetime value. Our model only works if we acquire business on the right terms, which is why we continue to build targeted growth pathways that position us where competition is less aggressive.

This quarter, we launched three new regional strategies in areas with attractive economics and lower competition. Let me take you through how we did this. While headlines suggest that the E&S market is losing share to admitted carriers, the reality is there’s a two-way flow, and we are focused on the inflows. Ultimately, there are 50 state-level markets, each with its own distinct dynamics and even more localized submarkets beneath that. Dislocations are constant, and our advantage is identifying them early. To be clear, what we’re doing goes beyond simply tracking state-level trends. We analyze municipal level economic, legal and policy trends. We look at submission flows and loss experience, and we even look at admitted market filings to pinpoint opportunity.

That work drove targeted strategies in Texas, New England and Florida in the last quarter. Those strategies are focused at a city and even at a neighborhood level. For example, along the I-10 corridor in Texas, we have seen wholesale trade moving into the E&S space, while in Springfield, Massachusetts, older mixed-use properties are flowing into the market. We have built strategies around these specific profiles, and we are offering solutions. And furthermore, we equip our partners with the insights through interactive city guides and targeted marketing, enabling them to source the business more effectively. In doing so, we’re establishing ourselves as the go-to-market for these risks. This will, in turn, drive future submission growth, provide offsets should there be any declines in conversion rates.

and it will allow us to win on our terms. And finally, this will all feed back into our future renewal base. This is how our differentiated growth strategies translate into above-market performance. Combined with our focus on lifetime value, they create a compounding growth model while preserving underwriting discipline, and this ultimately positions us for superior results going forward. With that, I’ll turn it back to Justin.

Justin Cohen: Thanks, Chris. Our model is standing out in an increasingly competitive market as we have built a repeatable advantage and are executing against it with discipline. Turning to our outlook. Our top line guidance for the second quarter of 2026 remains consistent with last quarter. We expect direct written premium growth of approximately 20 percentage points above the E&S market, reflecting continued market share gains and the strength of our model. From an underwriting margin perspective, we expect a combined ratio in the 87s, representing continued year-over-year improvement. We thank you for your time listening. And operator, can you please open the line for questions?

Q&A Session

Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Elyse Greenspan with Wells Fargo.

Elyse Greenspan: I was hoping just going back, I guess, tying it a little bit to your growth outlook. If you could just give us a sense when you think you’re going to be 20% above, I guess, the industry for the second quarter. What are you thinking about just in terms of property versus casualty top line growth?

Justin Cohen: Elyse, at this stage, we’re not breaking out the growth by property and casualty, although what I would say is that we do believe that there is an opportunity in the second quarter for property to accelerate a little bit compared to the first quarter.

Elyse Greenspan: And then if that’s the case, I guess, — what are you guys seeing from a pricing perspective — sorry, go ahead.

Chris Schenk: Yes. So the catalyst for growth, as we mentioned, are the regional strategies and our — those are all packaged products. So that alone should give you a signal in terms of how they will move.

Elyse Greenspan: Okay. That’s helpful. But then what are you seeing, I guess, when we — we’ve heard of a lot of just aggressive pretty substantial price cuts on the property side within the E&S market. What are you guys seeing from a pricing perspective, both in property as well as within casualty?

Chris Schenk: So we — there’s two dynamics. There is there’s CAT property where there’s very aggressive competition. Those tend to be larger accounts also. We are not in that space. We — that’s not core to us. So we have not observed those dynamics. as severely as our peers had. When it comes to just large non-CAT accounts, we did see some more pressure there, and we chose to walk away because the rates were not right. We had more than enough opportunities in small and medium to compensate.

Elyse Greenspan: Okay. And then I think you guys said there was 0.5 point of, I believe, was favorable development for the quarter. What drove that? Just some color on lines and accident years?

Justin Cohen: Elyse, if you may recall from the last earnings call, we talked about how we have been very conservative in recent years on both property and casualty. In particular, we spoke about how property, we were booking at a prudent accident year ratio — current accident year ratio, even though we hadn’t quite seen the losses come through. As we went through this quarter, that continued. So we haven’t seen that development that we expected. And even into this quarter as well, that trend continues. So we think we’re very prudently reserved there. And that this quarter was a release of some of those reserves in property 2025.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Pablo Singzon with JPMorgan.

Pablo Singzon: Your attritional loss ratio, I think, was up year-over-year. And then I guess if you take a step back and look at it on an annual basis, it seems like it’s been going up as well. And I assume that’s mainly mix. I was wondering if you could talk to what’s going on beneath the surface there?

Justin Cohen: Yes. We have not changed our underlying liability loss pick. So there is a component of that, that is mix. And the other component is that, again, in this year, we are booking our attritional property in a conservative way relative to last year and especially relative to the losses that emerged in the first quarter that have actually emerged in the first quarter.

Pablo Singzon: Makes sense. And then second question on reinsurance retention. So that stepped up year-over-year as you sort of communicated before. How will that ratio look for the balance of the year? And is there more appetite to bring it up in subsequent years?

Justin Cohen: Yes. There is — this year should be relatively consistent with regard to reinsurance. We had stopped or nonrenewed a casualty quota share formally this year. So we had done a half step in the beginning of ’25 and half step in 2026. And so what you’ve seen in the first quarter is relatively consistent. There is some mix amongst quarters because there’s more property in some quarters than others, but this is a good benchmark.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Andrew Kligerman with TD Cowen.

Andrew Kligerman: And I’d like to get a sense of pricing a little more granularly. I know Elyse was asking. But on the property that you are writing, and I suspect that’s a lot of the smaller property accounts as well as casualty, could you talk about the rate that you’re getting there?

Chris Schenk: Yes. So as part of our renewal playbook, we sought to — we managed to lifetime value. So we actually had accounts that performed really well, and we give back some rates there, as I said on the call. Overall, we had net positive rate change. In terms of what we’re seeing on new business — there is the pressure on the CAT-exposed business. There’s pressure on business in certain parts of Texas, certain parts of Florida. We have a regional strategy for Texas and Florida. We are — where we are, there is less competition. So most of the market is competing for and competing on price. In Houston and Galveston, we are in Laredo and Waco and El Paso and San Antonio. Those are — it’s a different risk profile and also smaller markets. That’s really what is driving the new business growth. And we — as a result, new business rate levels are slightly above our — what we would expect, if not flat.

Andrew Kligerman: Got it. That was helpful. And with regard to those regional strategies, and that was an interesting comment, Chris, about being in some of the smaller markets in Texas, for example. Could you elaborate a little more on what industries you’re looking for with these smaller businesses in smaller markets?

Chris Schenk: Yes. So the binding constraint here is that we do not go beyond our core verticals as we go into a region and build our playbook. So we look for opportunities within our core verticals which we have talked about in the past, construction, hotel, hotels, restaurants, retail, residential real estate. So we are still sticking to our core verticals. We have some emerging verticals like wholesale trade, which we do in small business, and we’re now expanding into middle market. That is — I mentioned that one on the call. A lot of that is emerging in Texas. In addition, we have mixed-use retail. So those are effectively occupancies that are a little bit more complex because you have multiple types of businesses on the first floor of a building with an apartment building with apartments above.

So that type of mixed occupancy is something that you need specialized knowledge for, right? So we are a restaurant and a retail on the first floor is something we can figure out. Those are the types of classes. So we are not deviating from our core specialist classes because, in fact, it’s the specialized knowledge that makes the difference.

Andrew Kligerman: That sounds very thoughtful. And if I could sneak one last one in. So with the policy acquisition costs at $17.6 million and the operating expense at 10.9%, just given the rationale that you provided, these seem like sustainable numbers. So 28.6% on the expense ratio seems like a decent run rate. Am I thinking about it right?

Justin Cohen: Yes, Andrew, I think that’s right. The 17.6% in the acquisition cost is a strong ratio, and it’s been going down because we’ve been mixing into brokerage, which has lower commissions. There will be a very, very modest upward trend there in terms of one as the earning of the ceding commissions on the quota share go away, but that will be very modest. And we still do believe we have meaningful opportunity on the expense ratio over time because we are — we have the scalable model.

Chris Schenk: We have talked about AI. We have talked about technology that is in development right now. We have a number of solutions that are in pilot phase. And as those get fully implemented, they will provide for further leverage. And as we have been developing those, we are doing them in a relatively cost-effective way. So — we’re not building that legacy tech debt which one might assume based on what the historic cost around these types of solutions might have been.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Alex Scott with Barclays.

Taylor Scott: First one is on distribution. Can you talk me through sort of the timing of when you launch some of these new initiatives like the Texas-based initiative in New England? And is that — are we starting to get new business coming through from that? Are we still in the phase where we’re kind of building out distribution? And how will — if we are building out distribution still, like how does that roll in over the next 12 months?

Chris Schenk: So the way we approach the regional strategy, it does start with an appointment strategy. So that starts well ahead of our official launches. So New England launched 2 weeks ago, for example. But starting in September, the distribution buildup was in progress. So we actually did get some contributions from New England as a result, even though the official launch event, if you will, was just 2 weeks ago. Similarly — similar for Texas, similar for Florida. There is a market — there’s an engagement phase where we get feedback from the market regarding solutions that we’re willing to offer, and that alone starts to generate interest in doing business with us. Then there’s an appointment phase and then there’s the official launch event, which is really a marker more than anything else.

Taylor Scott: Got it. Okay. Could you talk about gross versus net premiums and just how we should think about your retention and how that will be expected to trend here?

Chris Schenk: Yes. So as you probably saw the retention is up meaningfully year-over-year, which we expected. And that was, as I referred to earlier, the cessation of the quota share on our primary casualty business, which was purely opportunistic in nature. So we are deploying capital through that, and that’s why our retention ratio has gone up into the 80s, which we think is the — in the low 80s is the right place to think about it going forward.

Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Matthew Heimermann with Citi.

Matthew Heimermann: Two quick ones or one quick one and then a follow-up. Do you have losses in the quarter, right?

Chris Schenk: We do — it will be in the Q, but the — I think the [ paid-to-incurred ] just to back into it, we’re in the mid-50s.

Matthew Heimermann: Okay. And then just for — I don’t know if this is for you, Chris or Justin or both. But just thinking about like with the regional strategy going focused on the smaller account sizes, I’m curious just what the — what competitors you’re potentially displacing there? And is it legacy carriers? Is it some of the MGAs that maybe are — is it traditional MGAs or tech-enabled MGAs where maybe the cost structure is a little less advantageous relative to what you can do? Just be curious your thoughts on kind of who you might be competing with there, given it’s different than the majority of the calls that we would listen to as we go through the quarter?

Chris Schenk: Yes. So on the E&S side, very few carriers truly have a playbook for the places that we are — where we’re competing. We are positioning ourselves to absorb business coming out of the admitted market. Part of this is studying what is flowing in E&S and being proactive in designing solutions. That is very different than what many of our peers do. And in fact, is a more traditional E&S playbook would be take whatever comes in, wait to see what comes in, build solutions in a bespoke way for whatever comes across the underwriter’s desk. We are studying what’s actually exiting the market, building a solution. And as I mentioned on the call, we have these city guides, right? So we are actually giving our partners, our wholesale partners, wholesale distributors, the city guides, they’re interactive.

The up on their iPhone and they can have a conversation with their retailer that says, this is what’s coming out of the admitted markets. I have a home for it. It’s called Ategrity. And that is what we’re doing here. So it’s less about displacing more so kind of guerrilla marketing, if you will.

Matthew Heimermann: Okay. And it does sound like it’s fair to read you a few carriers doing this as it is other intermediaries who might be aggregating or it’s just rifle shot — excuse me, it’s just kind of a shotgun approach for a retailer if they have one of these particular risks previously?

Justin Cohen: You’re asking do the retailers have this risk, the wholesalers to the retailers. I think as Chris was saying, we’re helping — we’re providing the opportunity for growth for our retail partners more than anything else.

Chris Schenk: For our wholesale partners…

Matthew Heimermann: For our wholesale partners.

Justin Cohen: Their clients are the retailers in a framework.

Matthew Heimermann: My question was as they’re going — yes, but is that like — sorry, I should have said wholesaler, not retailer. But the point was, is that wholesaler kind of like shotgun isn’t quite sure where to go in the market in the past or it’s still going to traditional carriers? Or are there, in your mind, some other intermediaries kind of playing in these channels? That’s — I get what you’re doing. I’m just trying to figure out what the home — what might have been in the past for this business if you haven’t stuck in front of it?

Justin Cohen: So that retailer did not need to work with a wholesaler because they would have been able to go to an admitted market. So in this scenario, now that they need to find a home for that specific profile, we are being proactive in telling them where that home is. That’s what our wholesalers are doing. And that’s why we invested in the marketing because we want to be the first in the door to make sure that we establish ourselves in that way.

Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Alex Scott with Barclays.

Taylor Scott: I just want to see if you could give us a feel for how persistency has been running. Any kind of metrics you can give us and particularly as you’ve kind of lapped some of these bigger initiatives, how is that trending?

Justin Cohen: Yes. So our retention rate was the highest since we’ve gone public. And we had a larger renewal pool, so which means that our theory of kind of a highly — high lifetime value for each account acquired is starting to prove out. And in fact, so with the newer strategies, in fact, though, with Project Heartland, for example, where we’re now two or three renewal in, we are now starting to see that lifetime value target come into place, which we have not disclosed, but we do have a target.

Taylor Scott: Okay. But you guys aren’t willing to offer up just at a high level how persistency is running for the overall book?

Justin Cohen: When you say persistency, you mean the retention rate? Policy retention rate?

Taylor Scott: Yes. Yes, correct.

Justin Cohen: We’re not disclosing it.

Taylor Scott: Okay, all right.

Operator: We have reached the end of the Q&A session. I will now turn the call back to Justin for closing remarks.

Justin Cohen: Well, thank you all for joining us this evening. We thank you for your interest in the company, and we look forward to speaking with you in the weeks ahead. Take care.

Operator: This concludes today’s call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.