Question-and-Answer Session
Operator
Thank you. (Operator instructions) We take our first question from Mike Grasher with Piper Jaffray.
Mike Grasher – Piper Jaffray
All right, good afternoon gentlemen.
Phil Romney
Hi, Mike.
Mike Grasher – Piper Jaffray
First question I wanted to go back to Phil was when you were addressing retrospective premiums, could you go over that with us again? I was just looking over model and that didn’t look like the premium earned was just like bit – and I just wanted to know that was part of it?
Phil Romney
Yes, we had about – are you referring to the adjustment to prior accident years?
Mike Grasher – Piper Jaffray
Yes.
Phil Romney
Yes. We had about $4 million roughly in calendar year 2008 earned premium that related to prior accident years. So, in our analysis by accident year, we carried that premium, these were negative adjustments to earned premium. We carried those adjustments back to the prior accident years, so that they could properly be reflected in those years. It’s really the noise [ph] if you will that’s introduced by primarily the retrospective adjustments.
Mike Grasher – Piper Jaffray
Okay.
John Pasqualetto
Those adjustments, Mike, tend to be negative because the experience has been so good we have tended to return premiums rather than bill additional premiums.
Mike Grasher – Piper Jaffray
Yes, understood. I just was curious if there was any in that number for this quarter, so that’s helpful. Thank you. And then second question John, and just wondering if you could give us, I guess any comments around your latest discussions with AMBS [ph]?
John Pasqualetto
Well, Richard, I made my trip to overlook New Jersey in June and sat down and asked frankly if the reason was twofold, one typically of where we are and what we are doing both practically and strategically, and that went very well, I think. Second was to explore with them their rating approach, specifically with respect to the 160 B card score that they tend to hold this to qualify for A- rating, which as you know in most instances if you look at their rating models would suggest that rating should be like an A or A+. That exploration frankly didn’t end up with much of a different position than we currently had before and that is they will tend to continue to hold us at 160, at least over the foreseeable future, and find that perhaps being something like a year or two. But again we continue to look at that from the standpoint of future meetings and developing and understanding on their part, so that we can eventually get some relief from that higher standard.
- To read the full transcript on Seeking Alpha, click here »
