Nothing new, I’ve been talking about it for quite some time. And then there’s a lot of visibility that particularly acute in exposure that has wheels, anything with wheels. It could be logistics companies, trucking, companies anybody who’s got fleet and the larger the vehicles in the fleet, the more of a target, it is and has been. That’s what you’re — that story has continued. And there’s been inflation in both frequency and severity in that, nothing new. And that is the theme in large accounts. And it’s pretty focused and directed. It doesn’t mean balance of casualty doesn’t have elevated loss cost, which has been, I just addressed, which has had a lot of visibility and is steady. But it has been more acute in isolated segments.
Gregory Peters: Great. Thanks for the detail.
Evan Greenberg: You’re welcome.
Operator: Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Tunis with Autonomous Research. Please go ahead.
Ryan Tunis: Hey, thanks. Good morning. Just I guess, following up with the large account space. So I guess I’ve always thought about that as a business where you guys had a competitive advantage, not a lot of players that can write the primary casualty, the primary D&O. But it’s clearly been a place that’s frustrated you more recently. I’m just curious, there’s no risk here that any of the actions you’re taking could somehow change the significance — the strategic significance of that franchise several years down the road? Is there?
Evan Greenberg: Oh my God, no. You’re overthinking. No. And this is — you look at the actions that we just flagged, half of it is exposure change and half of it is additional written premium that we lost. Since then, by the way, the market is beginning to catch up at similar actions and no impact to the franchise. It’s not like we’re wholesale underwriting our book of business. So a very large, very healthy book of business.
Ryan Tunis: Understood. And then I guess my follow-up is just on the property side…
Evan Greenberg: I’m sorry, Ryan.
Ryan Tunis: Sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. Sorry about that.
Evan Greenberg: No, I just editorialize that that’s why it gave you an amount of money and told you how it was it just a fraction.
Ryan Tunis: Understood. And then my follow-up is just on the property side, and I’m thinking more wholesale like Westchester type CAT-exposed property, probably in ’23, how are you thinking about the rate adequacy in our business after that huge rate all we got last year?
Evan Greenberg: I think it is radar adequacy is strong. Quite strong. I’m not going to go into any more detail other than to say that and we triangulate it numerous ways, but it’s quite strong. From everything we know, all the models and the balance of input and our analysis of the portfolio, hikes of occupancies, geographies it’s in, perils it’s exposed to, you add it all up. We feel very good about that book of business. If you want to know more, you’re going to have to join the company. That was a joke, Ryan.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Meyer Shields with KBW. Please go ahead.
Meyer Shields: Great, thanks. And good morning. Within North American personal, I was hoping you could get an update as to how much of the business that wanted to move to E&S to actually now on E&S paper? And how much opportunity there is for that shift in 2024?
Evan Greenberg: Yes. It’s — I’m not going to give you a dollar amount or a data point that way, except that directionally, we are writing more business on E&S. It is growing at a rapid clip. It will continue to. Our preference is always to offer our customer first admitted, but where the states and regulation don’t allow us to tailor coverage for those who were exposed in a more outsized way to catastrophes. Remember, affluent people want to live in beautiful places that are right on the edge of civilization in nature, and its more CAT-exposed and where we can’t tailor coverage in line with exposure, we’ll use it and price it adequately. We use the E&S. And that’s what we’re doing. But again, I think that — and I wish it was more flexibility within regulation, within jurisdictions so that we could serve this customer base on an admitted basis versus be forced to E&S to give them what they need and that they want to buy.
Meyer Shields: Okay. Understood. That’s very helpful. Second question is sort of the same theme. Within agriculture, at least on the crop side, can you talk about how you can manage through climate change risks where you don’t have flexibility in pricing or policy language?
Evan Greenberg: But there’s a difference. In agriculture, we have a ton of data. We have a couple of very fundamental advantages. Number one, we can select risk. And so we can determine — we have to take all commerce. So we can determine what risk to retain and which risk to share with the government. And that’s what helps you with this election is what helps you in managing to price adequacy. And the second thing, we have scale. And you only get reimbursed so much of their expenses out of the government program because of our scale and our technology and automation, we operate efficiently. So we limit any expense-related exposure to the company. And that allows us to operate on a favorable risk.
Meyer Shields: Okay. That’s perfect. Thank you so much.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Yaron Kinar with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Yaron Kinar : Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Evan, I wanted to follow up on your previous answer with regards to the E&S market and high net worth. And I think you said you would like to have the flexibility of continuing to offer the product in the admitted market. What’s the difference from your perspective? Why would you like the admitted market over E&S?
Evan Greenberg: Well, it’s customer friendly. And I think just from a customer point of view, they just feel it’s easier to place with us. You don’t go through — you have to go through more administrative process to place it on E&S. Remember, there are — you can’t just jump to E&S, you have to be able to leap through admitted market hurdles to get to E&S. And it’s simpler and I think for them, from their own point of view, it’s more comfortable. Now to keep it in perspective, the vast, vast majority of our portfolio is admitted. And then it’s on the margin right now that it is not admitted. But my point is I don’t like the trend. More will go on non-admitted climate change continues and states take the wrong action to try to cover up price and deflect price signals and ability to risk share with people who — out of the well and choose to live in places that are more exposed.
And I think there would be more flexibility and recognition of that consumer base and their needs and their desires and not force them to go through all they have to go through to place on [indiscernible].
Yaron Kinar: Makes sense. I appreciate the answer. And then if I could shift gears to China. I think you called out about $100 billion of AUM that are managed in China, mostly third-party capital. Just curious how you’re thinking about that book in the face of, I guess, some selling consumer and business sentiment in China and maybe the equity market performance there. How do you go about — are you making any shift in how you’re managing the book with that?
