What I noticed with Brit, especially Brit, was that the results were quite volatile, particularly during the 2017-2020 period. Of course, Covid was a factor, and the other subsidiaries were somewhat less volatile. But I completely understand what you're saying about the catastrophes. It seems that in the last two or three years, things have smoothed out a bit. Is that purely a function of the hard market, good pricing, or just favorable catastrophe outcomes?

This was an opportunity for Prem at Fairfax to address the volatility in Brit, which is at the more volatile end of their portfolio. They decided to trim down on underperforming areas, focusing on profitability rather than top-line growth. Martin was given the authority to streamline operations, cutting off areas that weren't performing well. Brit was pushing innovation in 2019 and 2020, with a new head of innovation and initiatives like the Ki syndicate. We were trying to push the boundaries of data within the London insurance market. However, the focus shifted back to core business profitability.

What I noticed with Brit, especially Brit, was that the results were quite volatile, particularly during the 2017-2020 period. Of course, Covid was a factor, and the other subsidiaries were somewhat less volatile. But I completely understand what you're saying about the catastrophes. It seems that in the last two or three years, things have smoothed out a bit. Is that purely a function of the hard market, good pricing, or just favorable catastrophe outcomes?

The message was to stabilize the core business, and once that was achieved, they could consider changes around 2024 to 2026. Martin, being an executor, implemented this strategy effectively, leading to smoother operations under his leadership. So I think that the smoothing is the result of his leadership and the message that he'd received from head office.

I'd like to focus more on Fairfax, if I may. Listening to you, my takeaway is that Fairfax's involvement with Brit, for example, isn't substantial. They keep it decentralized, possibly involved in general guidance or senior leadership-relevant decision-making, but otherwise stay out of the business. Is that correct? Could you add to that by giving examples of the communication between Brit and Fairfax? What is being reported, and what are the requirements in terms of reporting lines to headquarters?

Fundamentally, you're right. I would nuance it slightly by saying that, as with any situation, when the news is good, the attention is less. If the news becomes less favorable, then there's more attention. At the beginning, as we discussed how things played out with Brit to some extent, that was exactly the situation. As a patient owner, they were accepting of poor results for longer than another owner might have been. However, that wasn't going to last forever. Ultimately, they needed that to be fixed.