Alex Scott: Got it. And then a follow-up, maybe just a high-level question on excess and surplus versus standard lines. I know in the past you’ve talked about standard lines and a lot of things going over; I mean we’re certainly hearing about it in personal lines. I mean can you help us think through that end and just how that’s been going in the last quarter and where you’re seeing opportunities?
Robert Berkley: Our E&S businesses, their submission flow is very robust. And again, we are — there’s nothing that leads us to believe that the market, by and large and the lines that I talked about is softening in any capacity. There’s a lot of momentum out there not just in the property but in the liability, including pockets of professional. That’s why I called out D&O, in particular, because that is a particularly challenged line. That’s why I called out workers’ comp. It has been very competitive for an extended period of time. But much of the rest of what we do, we are seeing very strong submission flow.
Operator: Your next question comes from Mike Zaremski with BMO Capital Markets.
Mike Zaremski: A follow-up on the question from Elyse in your comments about maybe about some non-cat property losses and you, Rob, used that comment, the metaphor about the pig through the python. So are you saying that some current year property losses led into the underlying — this — from last quarter to this quarter? Because I thought you used that term when we’re talking about kind of a reserve tail.
Robert Berkley: No. What I’m talking about is that during the quarter, there was some non-cat property losses that contributed to the loss ratio. That is what I’m referring to. That is less elevated than what we’ve seen over the past couple of quarters but more elevated than what we’ve seen historically. And the actions that we are taking, we believe, are taking hold but it takes a little bit of time for that to work through the book in its entirety.
Mike Zaremski: Okay. Good. And so that makes sense. And just curious, lots of your competitors call out and helps us — tell us non-cat property was 2 points higher or 2 points less than expected. But Berkley has a smaller property book than some of those competitors. So just curious, are non-cat property losses, is that many — is that 10 points of your loss ratio? Or are we talking kind of normal, it would be a low active number of points from the loss ratio?
Robert Berkley: No. Property is not a huge part of our book and no, it would not be anything approaching what you — the number that you were referring to.
Mike Zaremski: Okay. And a follow-up on — you made some interesting comments on some growing evidence that the tail is elongating on occurrence but maybe also at claims made. Just curious if you can elaborate because when we look at — I thought last time we looked at your — the statutory pay to incurred loss ratios, we couldn’t see that. And I also noticed you didn’t give us an update, I don’t know if you want to, on just how paid-to-incurred loss ratios are trending for you all.
Robert Berkley: So as far as what we’re seeing coming through, it was really more of a comment as far as the tail elongating based on discussions that we’re having with our colleagues on the claims front and what they are seeing. So are we going to start to see it in the data? Yes. But one of the things that we try and do is not just wait to see it in the traditional actuarial data but we’re visiting with colleagues trying to understand what are they seeing very much on the front lines because that’s the leading indicator as to what to expect. I think the plaintiffs’ bar is as aggressive as ever. And oftentimes, what they are trying to do is wait till the eleventh hour and then put forth a demand and try and create a situation that is optimal for them.
