Good morning, and thank you for joining us today for Progressive's third quarter investor event. I am Julianna Paterra, Director of Investor Relations, and I will be moderator for today's event.

The company will not make detailed comments related to its results in addition to those provided in its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and the letter to shareholders, which have been posted to the company's website. Although our quarterly Investor Relations events often include a presentation on a specific portion of our business, we will instead use the 60-minute schedule for today's event for introductory comments by our CEO and Chief Personal Lines Officer and a question-and-answer session with members of our leadership team.

These introductory comments were previously recorded. Upon completion of the previously recorded remarks, we will use the balance of the 60-minute schedule for the event for live questions and answers with members of our leadership team.

As always, discussions in this event may include forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those discussed during today's event.

Additional information concerning those risks and uncertainties is available in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, as supplemented by our Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2026, where you will find discussions of the risk factors affecting our business, safe harbor statements related to forward-looking statements and other discussions of the challenges we face. These documents can be found via the Investor Relations section of our website at investors.progressive.com.

To begin today, I am pleased to introduce our CEO, Tricia Griffith, who will kick us off with some introductory comments. Tricia?

Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us. We delivered another strong quarter with continued growth and healthy underwriting margins.

These results reflect the outstanding work of our people and their continued focus on executing our strategy. For the third quarter, net premiums written grew 4% to $22.3 billion.

And at quarter end, we had approximately 40.5 million policies in force. While year-over-year PIF growth moderated slightly to 6%, we feel very good about that level of growth given the size of our customer base.

Of course, we want units to increase. So we continue to create plans for growth in both our Personal Lines and Commercial Lines segments, and we'll advertise to maximize growth as long as that spend remains efficient.

Even as growth moderates, our relative performance remains strong, underscoring the resilience of our business. I'm really proud of these results and more importantly, of how we're achieving them.

We will be diligent and focused on what we've always believed is important, growing as fast as we can while maintaining our underwriting discipline. We feel really good about where we are.

Maintaining that momentum over the long term also requires us to keep evolving how we compete. Innovation has long been central to how Progressive competes.

We have consistently developed and applied technology to make insurance easier to understand, buy and use. And we have invested in digital experiences that help customers engage with us easily and confidently.

Over many years, we have been early developers and adopters of tools such as chatbots and predictive AI to enhance pricing, underwriting, marketing, customer retention and the accuracy and efficiency of claims handling. That foundation has been an important contributor to our performance, particularly over the past decade.

We are now in the next generation of technology, including generative and agentic AI with the same long-term mindset. We believe these capabilities have the potential to influence nearly every part of our business over time, including growth, customer experience, underwriting, claims and operating efficiency.

Our goal is to study, learn and grow, considering opportunities across the short, medium and long term while remaining focused on measurable improvements in outcomes. To support that learning, we have made generative AI tools broadly available across the organization.

We already have dozens of advanced AI initiatives in production that are delivering meaningful results with a clear line of sight to significantly more value. We also established an AI Strategy Council to evaluate the longer-term opportunities and implications of these technologies.

While we do not plan to discuss specific applications that we believe are competitively sensitive, we want to be clear that this work is active, enterprise-wide and grounded in practical business outcomes. At the same time, we are mindful of the risks associated with advanced AI and are taking a disciplined and responsible approach.

Consistent with our core values, our responsible AI governance and risk management program draws on talent from across the enterprise and is designed to support the responsible use of AI for our customers, claimants, consumers, employees, job applicants and other constituencies while meeting our compliance obligations. AI is also considered through our enterprise risk management process and our Board, including its technology committee oversees technology-related risks and opportunities.

We believe this combination of innovation, strong governance and a focus on measurable outcomes positions us well to capture the long-term potential of AI while managing its risks thoughtfully. Generally, when customers shop more, we win.

Recent history has underscored that. In both 2024 and 2025, we captured over 40% share of shoppers while holding less than 20% in market share and took over 1 point of share in 2024 and nearly 2 points of share in 2025.

And from what we can see so far year-to-date, we continue to take more than our fair share of shoppers. Regardless of the shopping environment, we're comfortable losing new business volume when competing against rates that we believe are underpriced.

Over the long term, this discipline has proven to generate market share gains for Progressive. Looking at where we stand today, we are leaning in by testing and researching agentic technology ourselves.

Customers appear to be doing the same, though at a very small scale. Over the last few weeks, we estimate we received agentic inbound interactions representing a rounding error relative to our overall volume.

Activity we see today suggests much of this usage reflects experimentation rather than true shopping intent. While the usage seems limited today, we believe there is a high likelihood that agentic AI changes some aspect of consumer shopping behavior.

And historically, when shopping behavior has changed, we've been at the forefront of that change. Lastly, I want to take a moment to thank Pat Callahan for his hard work and dedication in both preparing and executing on our IR calls over the past decade.

Your insights and steady leadership have played a significant role in our success, and your contributions have been deeply appreciated by everyone in this room, and I'm sure on this call. While you will certainly be missed in this setting, I'm pleased that we'll still have the opportunity to work closely together as you take on several strategic initiatives.

I know you will bring the same level of commitment, creativity and excellence to those efforts, and I look forward to seeing the impact you will make. Thank you again for everything you've done, and I wish you well in your retirement from PL President and look forward to working beside you in this new capacity.

Now I'll hand it over to Lori to introduce Jim Curtis.

Thanks, Tricia. I've been fortunate to work beside Pat for over a decade in various roles, and I've learned a great deal from him.

I know the same is true for Jim Curtis, who was recently named our next Personal Lines President. Jim has been with Progressive for 31 years.

He joined in 1995 as a customer service representative when we were roughly a $2.5 billion company. Since then, he's led a wide range of business functions, including auto pricing, product management and our Progressive Advantage Agency.

Most recently, Jim served as our Personal Lines Controller and then our national auto leader, where he was responsible for shaping the strategy and growth of our largest product line. Over the past 5 years, Jim helped steer personal lines through the pandemic and the inflationary period that followed.

He has seen this business from more angles than most Progressive people. Jim brings the depth and continuity that's critical in this role, but he's also just a great example of the talent and succession strategy at Progressive, having started his career as a call center consultant and now leading our largest business.

And now we can open it up for questions.

This concludes the previously recorded portion of today's event. We now have members of our management team available live to answer questions.

[Operator Instructions].

If I look at the policy count growth of the company, it's been decelerating and even declined in the direct channel during 2 different months of this past year. But when I look at the 10-Q and see new policy applications, the growth demands are about the same, and really we're talking about a decline in retention.

Over the past 20 years, Progressive has made huge strides in retention. The first question, I guess, is do you think that this is merely cyclicality and that retention should go up in the future as shopping behaviors subside?

Or, b, are we in a new market where shopping is a permanent feature of consumer behavior? And what does that mean for the amount you're paying in terms of ad spend to generate that business?

Wow, Josh, that's like 5 questions in one, so I may have to get some help here. I'll talk a little bit about policy growth on the commercial line side.

I'll have Lori talk about it on the private passenger auto side, and then Jim and I will tag team on the retention piece. So one, we're extremely proud that we grew 263,000 PIFs this quarter, especially on the base of how large we are.

So we continue to be proud of that. One piece of data that gets to your question on, do you think the shopping will continue, which, of course, we don't know, is there's a demand meter that LexisNexis puts out.

And the quarter 2 results would say that 47% of policies were shopped in the trailing 12-month period, which seems pretty high. In addition, we have our own data that says over -- we've been quoted over 50 million times on the auto alone.

That seems like a lot of shopping. So I think shopping has really increased based on affordability across -- not just insurance, but fuel prices, grocery prices, et cetera.

So I do think shopping has been at an all-time high, and we're seeing it kind of level out, albeit really high. So our focus will continue to be -- to grow.

When you think about retention, and you go back to sort of after COVID, at all the volatile years, the retention has gone up and down, really depending on mix on shopping. And some of it's just a timing thing, not that we don't care deeply about retention, but if you look at our post-COVID period, in that time, that was so volatile up and down with inflation and then us getting rate, giving rate, and we added more than 12.5 million PIFs, doubled our premium by 38 -- added $38 billion, and that translated to 5 points of market share.

So in these volatile times, that's really where we prevail. Again, we are still pushing the envelope on growth and balancing growth and profitability.

So Lori, why don't you give a little bit about the policy growth on the private passenger auto side? And then, Jim, why don't you add in some on retention?

Sure. Josh, as your question implies, September was a softer month.

The month-over-month decline in auto PIF was driven primarily by new direct applications, which follows historical seasonality that includes a decline in the second half of the year. I would say these month-to-month variances may start to be more pronounced now that our growth rate is down from the historical highs that we've experienced over the last few years.

But overall, competition is intense in both channels. Carriers are trading margin for growth with rate reductions, increased advertising, higher agent commissions.

And in direct, we're spending more, too. And so competition is driving up acquisition costs, but we're going to stay disciplined and only acquire customers within our targets.

In the agency channel, specifically, we're benefiting from some of the investments that we've made in agent compensation and incentives. We're benefiting also from new relationships with independent agents and agency networks.

And then there's the continual shift of business from captive to independent agency channel that's benefiting us as well. Conversion is up from a year ago, which is being led by direct.

And so it tells us we remain competitive when shoppers come to us. Tricia put our growth into perspective.

I think it's worth noting that the last industry reporting, which is for the second quarter, it reflects our growth of almost $800 million in premiums over the prior year, while our 9 largest competitors lost $1.1 billion between them. So despite the competitive environment, we continue to outperform the industry.

But I would make no mistake about it. We're very focused on growth right now in both channels and with all of our products.

Thanks, Lori. And as it relates to just general retention, I'd point out that our current PLE comparison is to a period of unprecedented volatility, which drives changes in both mix and market condition.

But we believe our current level of PLE is simply reverting to a more normalized level. And in that regard, we look at our new business conversion as a primary means to understand our competitiveness.

And it's worth noting that, that remains elevated across a comparison to recent years. As it relates to current retention efforts, we certainly have a playbook and tactics in play that help our customers maintain competitive rates on their policies.

And lastly, I would leave you with, aside from our PLE performance, we also just gauge renewal acceptance. And in any given month, we have data that would show that roughly 90% or greater of customers will accept their renewal offer.

I think I blew through commercial lines. I got excited to talk about private passenger.

But Commercial Lines really contributed significantly on the growth in premium for sure, 9% net premium written growth, 5% PIF growth and new business applications are up 11% and retention looks good on both the trailing 3 and trailing 12. So we're excited about where we're at in commercial.

We've taken a couple rate decreases in very specific segments where we had the margin to do so in the states to do so, and we feel very bullish about our growth opportunities on the commercial lines side.

So just given the higher interest rate and investment yield, as you're thinking about rate filings, would regulators push back on any rate increases as ROE naturally drifts higher due to higher interest rate environment? Do you need to resubmit any rate filings due to the fact that investment yield is changing?

No, those 2 typically are bifurcated. That's very much on our investment side and regulators look to make sure that rates are adequate, not excessive and actuarially justified.

Okay. Really appreciate that.

And then just given that the agentic environment is obviously being slowly introduced into the distribution system. Do you see agentic AI or any type of like automated shopping capabilities potentially change the lead gen world?

Or would that be something that impacts Progressive?

Yes, I'll let Lori take a deeper dive on that. But here's how I would start that, Bob.

I would say that we've had a strategic pillar. We've had 4, but one specific one for a long time, and that is broad coverage.

So we are going to be where, when and how customers want to shop and be serviced for their insurance. So -- and years ago, we started in the independent agent channel and no one thought anyone would buy insurance over the Internet.

We saw that coming in '95. We were out there selling auto on the Internet.

And then we've continued to evolve, whether it's our AutoQuote Explorer, BusinessQuote Explorer, or HomeQuote Explorer. We feel the same way about agentic, and we're doing a lot of testing internally as well, but we see the same way.

If that's how consumers want to shop, we will be there for them, and we will be there to make sure that they get what they need in the right way, the right coverage, et cetera. Lori, do you want to talk a little bit about what you're seeing since CRM follows under your purview?

Sure. Yes.

I mean historically, when shopping increases, Progressive gains market share. And agentic shopping, as Tricia said, we believe, creates the potential for elevated and sustained levels of shopping.

And so that's why we see this as an opportunity. Tricia mentioned in her opening comments that the level of shopping that we're seeing today is really a fraction of our direct quote volume.

But it's still very early. We're monitoring closely, and we're preparing, assuming that agentic shopping has the potential to become an important acquisition channel for us.

So, we look at a number of factors when we analyze shopping behavior. And if or when is more likely, customer behavior changes, our intent is going to remain to make Progressive easy to find, easy to quote and easy to buy.

So I'll just ask one question in 2 parts. And I was looking at the letter and you talked about the non-acquisition expense ratio improving.

And then in your previous answer, you mentioned how commission, there might be some upward pressure on commission. So, I was wondering if you could just comment on those 2 variables, give some more color.

Yes. So we consider commission and acquisition expense.

So the non-acquisition expense are all other expenses. And those are just us getting more efficient, making sure as we roll out new technologies, we get more efficient.

We look at a bunch of different internal data on that. As an example, our PIFs per FTE, per full-time equivalent are up over 10%.

So we're excited about the efficiencies we're gaining as we see more technology solutions, more process solutions. So our non-acquisition expense ratio, we will always focus on.

In fact, we've reduced that 0.5 point a year over the last 15 years, and we'll continue to put pressure on that because we know that equates to giving more competitive rates in the system. On the overall expense ratio, we will spend efficiently both on the direct side and the agent side to spur on growth.

And that's where we'll give commissions for business that we think is important, as an example, bundled auto, home, et cetera, and that's really where that comes from.

My first question, I wanted to go back to just what you were talking about with September, right, and new business in direct, right, trending negatively. And I think you guys mentioned that there was some seasonality in the back half of the year.

So how do we think about, I guess, the remaining quarters of the Q3 and into the Q4 as you think about -- I'm sorry, the remaining months of the Q3 and then into the Q4, as you think about just the level of new business on direct and how that could triangulate into PIF on the personal auto side. And I'm not sure if you can give us a sense of how things have trended in October.

Yes. I can't give you anything that we haven't published.

Well, obviously, and Lori said this, we'll continue to push for growth and we'll spend while it's efficient. So there is some seasonality to growth, which sometimes people find unusual, but there's some seasonality.

I will say that we've seen a lot of the direct competitors sort of get off the bench and start to be in the auction environment, which makes acquisition costs a little bit more competitive. Now we'll continue to push, again as long as it's competitive.

We have seen some competitors spend beyond what we would think we would spend for those policies. And so we're not -- we're okay to lose in that -- for those policies because we're not going to buy business if we don't think it's economically prudent.

So I don't know how it will all turn out. Obviously, I have an idea of October, but we're going to keep pushing the envelope, be efficient and treat our customers the way they've come to expect.

And then I guess my follow-up, right, is on the advertising side because obviously, right, we've seen advertising right, continues to be up on a year-over-year basis. As you guys think about just the fourth quarter, and you made comments right, on this call and just in the Q, right, about continuing to spend as long as it's efficient.

So how do you -- do you think we'll continue to see elevated ad spend through the fourth quarter and then into 2027 based on just your views of the current -- the overall current environment?

I think we'll just have to see how that plays out in terms of our efficiency. We keep very close tab on our cost per sale versus our targeted acquisition cost.

And we always want to write to [indiscernible] lifetime. So that's how we look at it.

So if we believe we can get growth and we believe it's efficient, we'll spend. If not, we'll pull back a little bit.

Could you -- switching to the auto insurance loss cost environment. Maybe you can kind of give us any updates on what you're thinking and seeing on the severity side of the equation.

We're seeing -- I think your disclosed severity includes reserve movements, which have been great. But is anything changing on bodily injury or personal injury protection?

We've seen some of the numbers move around in the Qs.

Yes. Our severity is incurred, so it does include reserving.

It's been fairly benign, right around 4%. I would say -- and it's been sort of the same culprits as we've seen in the past in terms of medical cost, more attorney rep claims.

I will say we did see an increase in severity on the PIP side. And that has been in the majority, New York and then somewhat New Jersey based on the fact that they had very low PIP severity in Q3 '25.

I'll let Andrew give a little bit more detail on that.

Yes. On the severity side, as Tricia said, overall, we feel as though the environment is benign.

Our BI severity was a bit lower in the past quarter versus year-to-date. And there are some things that impact that.

We report incurred severity, not paid severity like some of our competitors. And so that does include some actuarial adjustments, closure rates, things like that.

But within severity, injury is definitely what we're paying attention to. And we look at the year-to-date number for BI, which is more like 6% severity trend, is a good indication of where things are going.

PIP did stick out this quarter. When I think about PIP, I do think about the fact that it's different by state.

And so that -- there's a mix between states that's impacting the severity trend in the quarter. But the Northeast is a place where we do see some higher severity trends.

We called out New York in our 10-Q. Florida is a place though where we've seen the trends to be more benign.

And so it's a bit of a mixed bag on the PIP side. It depends on the state, and there's definitely some state mix contributions that are there.

Overall, though, on severity, we feel pretty good. We're watching the injury side in particular.

Great. And my follow-up, switching gears to personal property home insurance.

You did a good job on the last call, explaining to us how you're opening up your appetite. You talked about the new sales environment in the shareholder letter.

Curious about the competitive environment there. Do you feel that you could grow meaningfully more in home and it can move the needle on auto as well given the bundled nature?

Or is it a very competitive environment that -- so we should be kind of careful about accelerating the growth rate from here?

Yes, I'll open it up and then pass it over to Jim to give more details. But we're excited about laying out what John and Lori did last quarter.

And in fact, Pat, Lori, Jim and I had the privilege of meeting with some of our platinum, our top agents that sell auto, home last week at an event and had a lot of conversations, and they're getting very excited that we're more open for business, and they want to do those bundles. So I think the opportunity is one of our largest opportunities over the next couple of years.

I'm excited about it. We're in such a different position, investing in people, processes.

I wrote in my letter about our new claims training center out in Phoenix. We're super excited about having hands-on information and training for people that do the property claims.

So we're very excited about where we're at. We're on target with our plan.

We just want to make sure that we open it up and we don't swing the pendulum. And do you want to talk any more about it, Jim?

Yes, sure. I would just reinforce that Robinsons continued to be a huge opportunity of growth for us.

We would estimate that, that segment alone is roughly 40% of the auto and home market. And while it's probably a little too early to evaluate our efforts following on our progress in property, we're pleased with the results.

We mentioned in the Q that our homeowner volume -- new business volume was up 22%, and it really just reflects our increased availability and broadening acceptability. And we're starting to see signs of that within our agency business on increased demand or increased quoting in Robinsons.

We start to see an increased demand, you'll see a natural downward pressure on conversion, but certainly within what we would talk about as our expected response, and we continue to be bullish on the opportunity we have in both channels and Robinsons growth.

And maybe following up on that last answer there. The agency auto Robinson quote volume seems relatively strong, but conversion and PIF are a bit lighter there.

Could you talk about where customers are falling out of the funnel and how much of that is -- reflects the total household proposition versus maybe just the competitiveness of the AutoQuote itself?

I think it's a lot -- and Jim weigh in or actually any of you weigh in. I think a lot of it is sometimes timing of the auto and property quote and when we get those.

So we have a program that we're working with on agents to make sure that if they have the auto now, and they haven't had the property, we sync those up. So I think sometimes it's a timing thing.

Sometimes it's a discount where some companies might have a deeper discount, sometimes we will. So I think it's really timing.

I think the overall point that Jim made was this is such an opportunity for us, and we will make sure that we are competitive while reaching our target profit margins. And we owe that to our customers, we owe that to our agent partners.

And that's really been our approach for this really exceptional opportunity that is in front of us.

And when you talk about the nonacquisition expense productivity gain, how do you view the permanent productivity gains versus maybe temporary leverage from prior year's pricing and premium growth? I guess, how sensitive do you find that nonacquisition expense ratio relative to NPE growth?

I mean I think it's sensitive ratio. Because I think over time, we've gone up and down, and we try to look at it, obviously, on a percentage basis, but we look at an absolute basis as well in terms of how we spend our money.

Does it -- are we getting what we want? We are surgical about every technology project, every process project to make sure that it makes us more efficient if that's the reason we're doing it.

And we have a 3-year goal that we create every 3 years or a year or 2 into it that we present to the Board on how we can continue to reduce expenses because, again, we want to have our prices competitive.

I'd just add in, Andrew, that the month-to-month, the NAER, the nonacquisition expense ratio, it can be somewhat volatile. But over the years, it has moved pretty steadily.

And so the actions we're taking, we feel good that they're translating into lower cost that we can deliver to our customers, which means that we can have lower prices and gain more market share over time. So I don't view these as a blip.

I think we're on the right trajectory for long-term lower cost structure for the business.

Yes, Andrew, I would only add the reason that we should have confidence is because both in claims and in our CRM organization, we're investing in technology that helps our customers self-serve easier. And we're seeing some pretty steep increases with customers' willingness to both shop, service and start their claims process themselves and using the technology that we're investing in.

So there's real reason to believe that, that's sustainable.

No policyholder credit expense was booked in September versus last year. Does that signal no Florida excess profit return in 2027?

Or is that simply a change in your cadence of making these estimates? And relatedly, I'm just wondering how much of that $1.3 billion of year-to-date auto favorable reserve releases came from Florida?

Yes. So the reserve development, some came from Florida, but it diminished towards the last part of the year or the second part of the year.

And we feel like we're in a good position in Florida from an excess or lack thereof perspective for 2027. But I think the development was kind of across the board and in many different areas.

Yes. I'd just add in on the reserve side, personal auto BI has been a driver of our favorable reserve development.

That's across the country. Florida has a contribution, but in general, it's been more BI across the country.

And on the Florida credit side, we have not changed our approach there. We evaluate that position every month.

We do not believe that an accrual is necessary at this point. And so, we'll monitor with each month, but we currently don't believe it's probable that we'll need credits or refunds for Florida.

And I think we've done a great job adjusting to the Florida environment. We've been able to lower rates for customers and continue to grow that business.

And so we feel good about our Florida position.

Excellent. And also about 63% of your year-to-date releases came from the '25 accident year.

I'm wondering how that plays into your [indiscernible] loss picks?

Jim, do you want to talk about that?

Yes. What was the -- I missed the last part of the question?

How does the 63% come from prior -- the prior 2 years, '25 and '24. How does it go into our loss picks for '27?

Yes. On our loss picks, I would just share that, and for starters, we evaluate our rate adequacy or loss picks for 2027 at the state level and do so on an accident year basis.

In many of the states, we enjoy the benefit of scale -- scale and the ability to look back on shorter durations to set rates. So we would capture the reserve adequacy and the accident period for which it's realized and then evaluate with typical actuarial approach on rate adequacy.

Jim commented on the rate side, which is incredibly important to make sure we get the right rates out on the street. Tracy, on the reserve side, sending reserves for our financials, we have a fantastic actuarial team.

They have been working hard to make sure we get our reserves correct. We do it every quarter, but certainly as we approach the end of the year, and so there's been a focus on that.

And so we believe we have the right adequate reserves currently, and we will continue to strive to have minimal variation in those reserves as we set them at the end of the year.

Just another question just on agentic AI or AI agent. So Tricia, you spoke about how, even though it's limited today that you think that if agentic AI changes consumer shopping behavior, you guys are usually at the forefront of that change and capitalizing on that.

Can you just talk about some of the things you're working on to be able to capitalize on this potential change in shopping behavior?

Yes, David. We are working on a bunch of different things.

We have a lot of different tests and pilots, and we're involved with many different vendors as we think about this because we do believe it could absolutely change behavior, and we want to be out in front of it. I hesitate to share many details because I really want to do more than tell at this juncture.

And that's why I tried to put a little bit of that in my opening comments. What I'll say is when we have a more cogent, solid story to tell you the results of many of those tests, which we believe are very positive, we'll have another deep dive some time in the future.

Okay. Fair enough.

For my second question, I'm wondering, there's been some press out there of some of your competitors who are more exclusive agent-focused changing or potentially changing in the future, some of their agent compensation structures. I'm just wondering if you're seeing any impact of that on shopping activity out there, particularly in the bundled market.

I don't think we've seen anything yet, and I hesitate to talk about what companies are doing, but we do believe that is an opportunity for us as more and more companies either sort of changed their compensation or more actually flock to the independent agent channel because we think that is a great channel for choice for customers, and we believe when there's more choices and more competition we win.

I guess I'd like to better understand some of the technical and legal challenges you think you need to tackle to allow customers to shop and buy with the assistance of the agentic tools?

I think there's a lot. And that's why I think there's a lot to unfold and learn and understand, especially because -- this is a regulated industry.

Consumers want to feel comfortable and good that they've picked the right coverages to protect them. They want to make sure it's at a fair price.

So there's a lot that goes into this. So it's -- I think you captured it, Matthew.

It's way more complex than just getting a rate for rate because underneath all of the rates that we give, whether in the independent agent channel or the direct channel is there's a lot of variables, a lot of information, a lot of external information that we have to gather. So there will be challenges, but that's not unlike challenges, we see anytime something changes.

And so we'll be at the forefront, and we will make sure that whatever we do, we do it in the right way.

More to come there. I guess the follow-up question being changing gears, there's litigation in some states.

There's congressional investigations potentially on the horizons around claims handling practices in the industry. I'm curious on the property side, in particular, given that's a capability that you've invested in and now own as opposed to outsource parts of, is there any noticeable differences in kind of your approach and processes and what informs those relative to competitors?

It's hard to say because I don't have their manuals of how they do things. I would tell you how we do because this is sort of where I grew up.

We are always going to do the right thing by our customer. if it's -- if we're on a balance of what to do, we always go towards the customer.

This is in the moment where they need us most, especially in likely their most expensive thing they'll ever own. And that's one of the reasons why we invested because we wanted our people there with our customers, and making sure that they have -- that they're spoken to with respect, that they're cared for and that they know that they got what they paid for.

So that's why we're investing so much on the property side. We're very proud of our claims service and have been proud for decades of how much we put into our training, and we're doing that, and that's exactly why we decided to do it on the property side.

I really can't speak to the competition though.

I probably could write this answer for you. But I think it's worth asking.

I think the big fear is that something that you've seen in the increased shopping behavior or the potential for AI changes your history of taking fairly small bites when you try to change prices. So I mean, it's worth reiterating just your approach towards the actual price changes and whether or not -- how we should think about the potential for you or your competitors taking pretty big changes in the future if the environment changes.

I think no matter what the environment, we are going to remain disciplined. And we're not going to -- people want stable rates.

Customers want stable rates. And so we're going to do that.

And we have so much data that are -- that's our competitive advantage. Our biggest competitive advantage, I believe, with the prices is our industry-leading segmentation, including our UBI, our Snapshot.

So we're going -- it will be a different way with which customers want to shop possibly, but we're going to keep our discipline because I'm not going to swing the pendulum. We will always work towards our target profit margins that we've set.

I'd just add on that, Progressive, we have a history of competing in different shopping environments. An example is in the independent agent channel, where with some agents we're shopped on a comparative rater against many other brands.

And we believe we compete very effectively there. And in the direct channel, often people come directly to Progressive and get one quote.

Sometimes though, we offer them quotes of other companies. And so we've had a history of being able to both engage one-on-one with customers when they're getting a single quote, but also engage in a competitive environment with many quotes.

And so that makes us confident that as the environment changes, we can remain nimble and respond to it effectively.

Yes, I guess one of the things I would...

Hold on, Pat is going to add something real quick.

Yes, just a quick you mentioned a step change in kind of rating, like, unless there's a massive change in acquisition cost, I think our ability to leverage our scale, leverage our data and actually revise rates more frequently and with a smaller magnitude is essential to winning with more frequent shopping that potentially is automated or done by an agent. So I just challenge your proposition that big changes may come out of this.

I think it's the carriers who are equipped to more precisely and more rapidly adjust rates on a small basis to ensure as the machines shop more often, that you've got your best, most competitive, most accurate rate out on the street almost continuously.

So for my first question, I'm just curious, Commercial Lines for the quarter, if I look at your, we'll it, combined ratio or loss ratio ex reserving, it's kind of mid-95 or mid-90s combined ratios. Is there something unusual that happened this quarter that really caused it the pop up?

Or is this kind of a new level that we should expect?

No, I don't think you should necessarily expect it as a new level. August, there were some combined ratios up due to some higher reserving.

In September, we would call out as a month of just some elevated -- it's typically elevated in terms of volatility. So we're watching those closely.

But we -- obviously, we're still sub-93 for the quarter, so we feel good about it. But no, I don't think you'd necessarily have that as the new normal because those 2 months were a little bit volatile based on different things.

Makes sense. And then second question, just pivoting over to personal auto.

Claims frequency trends continue to be quite favorable for you all and I think the industry. I'm just curious, are you factoring in call it, this favorable claims frequency we've seen for at least the last couple of years into pricing right now?

And is maybe there a new outlook that you'll have or your long-term outlook on frequency may be changing given what's going on with ADAS technology and all that stuff for cars?

Yes. We look at all the technology, and we can talk about the pricing.

I'll have Jim talk about the pricing. What we're seeing and what we're watching probably more closely is driving behavior and driving is still down about 3%.

I'm not sure if that's the new normal. We're seeing a lot of the driving on non-commute miles like travel miles, which have less frequency.

So we'll watch those to see if those persist as we think about pricing.

Yes. And I would just reiterate a point I made in an earlier reply that when we think about rate adequacy and specifically future trends, we do so at the state level.

So we'll pick up variation across jurisdiction or market. And then while frequency is a portion of what we evaluate when we think about future inflation, there's also certainly correlations and offsets with severity and our mix of business.

So we'll factor in all 3, understand if we see a drop in frequency, but as illustratively, it's a function of technology and there's an offsetting increase in severity, we'll pick that up and then basically look to see with some degree of reasonable accuracy, what we think our best estimate is of future overall loss costs.

Wanted to ask on capital deployment and maybe just remind us your priorities, particularly as we're heading into end of the year when sometimes you've done a special dividend?

Yes. I'll have Andrew take that.

I'll have him talk -- like you said about how we think about capital and how we think about excess capital.

Yes, Alex. So the -- I'll start by just reiterating our 3 layers of capital that we think about at Progressive.

The first layer is regulatory capital. This is the required capital from our regulators.

And here, an important metric we think about is our premium to surplus ratio. I'll remind you that 2 of our regulators have allowed us to provide a clearance to move personal auto to a 3.5:1, which is a higher level of operating leverage than we've had historically in those jurisdictions for personal auto.

Other environments and other products have different levels, different thresholds for that same premium to surplus metric. But that first layer is about regulatory capital.

The second layer is our contingent capital. There, we try to think about 1 in 200-year events and the impact on our balance sheet and make sure that we have enough capital to withstand those events.

Above that is where we -- what we consider to be additional or excess capital, and that's where I think both internally and externally, we're focused on is what that looks like and what we should be thinking about there. We've had a strong year of profitable execution, and that's resulted in really strong capital generation.

And with the capital we generate, our most important use of funds is to fund our core business, which we've grown by $3.5 billion in net written premium so far in 2026. Beyond funding business growth, we take a disciplined approach to that additional capital layer.

We try to optimize our balance sheet and maximize shareholder returns. And we talked about this in the March investor call, and we look at really 3 options for that additional capital.

The first one is share repurchase. In 2026, we already repurchased $1.6 billion in stock, which is about $1.5 billion more than we repurchased last year.

We still have a quarter left in the year, and so it could certainly go up. While our strong profitability metrics are similar to last year, we have spent considerably more capital on share repurchases than we did last year.

The second bucket of options we look at are around strategic options. We will continue to evaluate strategic options available to our operating business or in our investment portfolio that may require capital.

Our final bucket is dividends. Finally, our Board will consider declaring a variable dividend, also taking account the financial flexibility that we want to have as a company.

The decision there depends on our other options and opportunities. And so, dividends are just one aspect of the larger conversation around capital, and we continue to iterate through those 3 options for additional capital to optimize our balance sheet and maximize shareholder value.

And so we'll continue to do that as we go towards the end of the year, and our Board, will make a decision on the dividend later in the year.

Tricia, your letter mentioned entering California with a BOP product. And I was hoping you could update us on where you are in small commercial in terms of growing as fast as possible.

We're in 47 states. California is exciting because it has so many small businesses.

It's obviously very new. So, we don't have a lot of data on that.

We are on track with our plan that Karen rolled out some years ago in terms of increasing. And I believe we are continuing to evolve that plan because we think there's even more opportunity.

So that's another one of those areas, like I talked about property that I believe, in the next several years, we have a lot of runway to grow. I'm very excited about it.

Okay. And then unrelated follow-up, I guess.

When -- or if we assume that there's a lot more shopping and maybe lower conversion rates in an agentic AI world, are there any expenses associated with issuing quotes that require a shift in business model. I'm thinking like paying for credit scores, but I don't know if there's a more broad issue.

Yes, I'm sure there will be. I don't know that we're at that point yet.

I mean I think from a conversion perspective, we're excited about that. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but yes, there'll be -- there will be expenses related to information we need to accurately quote, but there'll be expenses or savings related to things being more from an agent perspective.

I would add is that, I mean, we feel generally, if shopping increases, that benefits Progressive because that means more consumers are going to see the competitive rates that we have available. So we'll continue to watch that.

But that's not one of the not one of the primary things that we're looking at right now.

So on your comment regarding advertising to maximize growth as long as that spend remains efficient, are there changes to advertising channels that you're prioritizing when considering normalizing retention?

Yes. I mean we look at that all the time to see what the efficiency is both on a monetary basis and a conversion basis.

And we look also what competitors are doing. So as an example, I talked a little bit about not spending in the channels where it's not economically viable or prudent for us.

We won't do that across the board, whether it's agency or direct. So yes, that's -- our story is basically we have -- we buy a lot of our media internally.

We think that's one of our secret sauces. We understand the conversion rate where -- from where we're advertising.

We'll keep trying to capitalize on that given our large budget.

Maybe just one addition there. In addition to optimizing around the conversion, we optimize around the lifetime value of the customers that are coming in.

And so -- to your question, retention is already part of that calculation. And so as it changes by advertising channel, we're able to make sure that our lifetime values reflect any dynamics there.

That's very helpful. And then for my second question, if I could shift gears to the investment portfolio.

So as the company shifts that portfolio to take on a bit more risk per comments you made, I think, in previous calls. What's the capital impact from this?

And I guess what I'm trying to get at is, does it potentially lower your investment leverage or be -- can it become a headwind to your move to extend premium and surplus to 3.5x?

I'll have Andrew start with that. Maybe if you need Jonathan to weigh in on some more details, we could do that.

Yes, I'll start and then Jon can add on. So the way -- so our regulatory capital layer, I talked about the 3 capital layers in the previous question.

The first layer is regulatory capital. For that, as we go through the calculations with our regulators around RBC and IRIS ratio, certainly, our investment mix has an impact there.

We mostly talk about premium and surplus because that is an IRIS ratio that is most impactful on the amount of capital we need to hold in the regulatory layer, but investments do play a role there. And then secondly, when we calculate contingent capital layers, we also include our investment mix there and make sure that, as we think about a 1 in 200-year event, it's reflective of our investments.

So to your question, yes, investments impact both of those, that being said, they are not driving major changes today, and it doesn't hold us back from doing what we think is right from a shareholder value perspective. And so we do consider the impact on capital when we're making investment choices, but it is not a huge driver today of our investment selection.

Jon Bauer, I don't know if you want to add on anything there.

Yes. The only thing that I would just echo in terms of what Andrew is saying is, the leadership team at Progressive, be it on the investment side, CFO, CEO with Andrew and Tricia, we are always talking about the best way that we could drive long-term shareholder value.

And so you can be assured when we think about investment risk that we would take now or in the future, it would only be decided in the realm of this is the right use of capital that would drive overall shareholder returns for Progressive. So we are all very much focused on how do we have the return on equity and the growth that we're looking for to drive the business forward.

So it's a great question, and those conversations are always had, be it any of the realms that Andrew talked about in terms of use of capital for share repurchase, dividends, or strategic or investment risk. Those are all the questions we're asking ourselves and our focus is on driving long-term shareholder value.

Combined ratios in the homeowners book have been very good for some time already with or without catastrophes. Do you think that goes up the more you push into the bundled market?

And I guess if you have a 96% target for personal auto, do you have a similar target in mind for homeowners?

Yes. We don't actually share our individual targets for different products, and we are pleased with the combined ratios that we have been enjoying.

However, we do want to grow, so that could push it up a little bit. And obviously, catastrophes are a part of it, and we have those typically baked in on a low, but it's been a very low cat year.

But -- yes, I mean we're going to grow as fast as we can and that the 70s combined ratio probably isn't long-term strategic if we want to grow. We'll definitely in the aggregate be at or below 96%.

And I would just add, as it relates to our calendar year performance, we are still getting some measure of a tailwind on the rate action we've taken over the past couple of years. And just a reminder that we sell annual policies.

So that tailwind will persist longer relative to what we would experience in auto.