Category: 3. Business

Global leaders gathered in Hong Kong explored how artificial intelligence, human literacy and intergenerational collaboration are transforming education and businesses in a rapidly changing world.  

As artificial intelligence reshapes society, the future of education depends on striking a balance between technological fluency and human literacy, Northeastern University President Joseph E. Aoun said.

“What Northeastern is providing is a differentiated education based on precisely this balance between understanding the agency that AI has and the human agency, and allowing you to navigate that for life,” Aoun told a large audience at the university’s third annual Intergenerational Leaders Exchange on Friday and Saturday in Hong Kong.

Artificial intelligence is accelerating this global transformation and universities and businesses — from small, family-owned enterprises to multinational corporations —  must embrace agility, openness and sustainable innovation, speakers said.

These themes dominated the summit. Northeastern alumni, parents, partners and prospective students gathered at the Asia Society Center to engage with C-suite leaders, innovators and trailblazers about the AI-driven future of the university, family businesses and global industries.

Jean-Pascal Tricoire, chairman of Schneider Electric, a Northeastern University trustee and a parent of students in the class of ’22, ’23 and ’26, emphasized agility over scale. 

“The absolute winning factor today is not size, it’s speed,” he said. “You have to be fast, and you can be fast only very close to your customer.” 

Participants toured Schneider Electric’s Hong Kong Innovation Hub to see how one of the world’s leading industrial technology companies is advancing smart industries and communities through electrification, automation, the Industrial Internet of Things and resilient infrastructure.

Kathy Sun, a 2018 graduate of Northeastern’s D’Amore-McKim School of Business and founder of Yatir Capital, opened the event by emphasizing the power of intentional intergenerational learning. Choosing to pause and engage in spaces like this, she said, is “in itself an act of leadership.”

“The most valuable learning doesn’t happen in a single classroom or with or within a single generation,” Sun said. “It happens when we intentionally create space for diverse perspectives, experiences and generations to come together.”

Hong Kong, where East meets West, tradition blends with innovation, and family businesses thrive alongside cutting-edge technology companies, was the ideal setting for these conversations, Sun said.

With AI becoming increasingly agentic and making decisions that impact humans, Aoun said, students need to understand what machines can do and what only humans can.

“That’s what we call human literacy,” he said. 

He pointed to Northeastern’s 230-plus combined majors, experiential education and lifelong learning opportunities designed to help learners continually reskill and reinvent themselves.

“It is an engagement for life, and we want to be there for you,” he said.

Supply chain giant

Spencer Fung, executive group chairman of Li & Fung, a Northeastern University trustee and graduate, shared how a 120-year-old legacy business can stay competitive through self-disruption, a startup mindset and AI integration.

Fung, who holds an MBA and a master’s in accounting from Northeastern, sees disruption as unavoidable. So to be prepared for these disturbances he challenged workers at Li & Fung — a global leader in supply chain and logistics with 230 offices in 40 markets — to shrink delivery times from a year to just two to four weeks. 

“It is a fact that every single company and country will get disrupted at some point. You just look at history,” he said.

To drive change, Fung built a startup-like team in Shanghai; embraced AI and backed experimentation.

“We don’t exactly call it R&D, but we’re supporting people trying new things, even without an immediate return,” he said, referring to research and development, a systematic, creative work on developing new services and products.

After two and a half years, the Shanghai team became profitable and competitive in the fast retail cycle. 

“This model, what we have found, is so disruptive that it almost solves every single problem in retail simultaneously, and we’re now trying to scale that up,” he said.

Fung sees AI as essential infrastructure.

“AI is kind of like electricity. If you don’t have it, you’re going to fall behind. If you have it, you’re just going to be on par with most people,” he said. Now, how do you become a step ahead? We’re not there yet. We’re merely trying to use AI in every facet of our company.”

For future generations, Fung emphasized family values and hands-on experience. Successive generations, he said, need to know the fundamentals and the basics of the business and start from the bottom.

“Otherwise, they cannot really make sound decisions,” he said. “I do remind myself once every few years to go all the way down to the details, to the engine room to make sure that I know what’s going on.”

The double revolution

Tricoire, the Schneider Electric chairman, shared how he transformed a traditional electric company into a global technology leader in electrification, automation and digitization. 

Under his leadership as CEO, the company expanded its technology portfolio and grew its market capitalization from €8 billion to €40 billion. Tricoire shifted the companies’ focus from Europe to new markets like the U.S., China and India, moving 60% of its business to digital solutions.

A key to this transformation has been talent, Tricoire said. Schneider employs 160,000 people in 100 countries, offering structured early-career and mid-career learning programs and fostering intergenerational exchange through its Open Talent Market platform. More than 4,000 mentoring relationships exist globally.

“The people who progress the fastest are the people who are able to harness the knowledge of somebody else in the company,” Tricoire said.

In 2011, he relocated from Paris to Hong Kong and distributed corporate functions globally to be close to customers. 

Schneider’s solutions are tailored regionally: centralized electrification in China, decentralized in India, and advanced smart grids in the U.S., where outdated infrastructure hinders AI.

“The U.S. wants to dominate AI, but the biggest bottleneck to AI is access to power,” he said. 

Tricoire explained the “double revolution” in energy: the shift to electrification and the use of digital technologies like AI to boost efficiency. He argues that by electrifying everything and embedding intelligence everywhere, society can more than offset the additional electricity needed to power AI.

Family legacy and investor demands

Adriel Chan, the chair of Hang Lung Group and Hang Lung Properties, spoke about leading a family-controlled, publicly traded business founded by his grandfather in Hong Kong in 1965.

“The sense of ownership has to be there,” said Chan. “It has to be very strong, but the way that you manage those relationships can be quite different.” 

While public shareholders focus on dividends and key performance indicators, families think in generations. 

Chan discussed the four core values his father and he established for the company: integrity, sustainability, excellence and openness. Openness, he said, is crucial in overcoming the “closed-mindedness” common in Asian family businesses. 

“They tend to be very conservative, very stuck in their own ways and unwilling to change,” Chan said. “I felt like we needed to move out of that and to really start thinking differently.”

Chan credited strategic decisions made by his father — such as investing in commercial real estate in China rather than residential in the 1990s — for insulating the company from the recent property crash.

“The Chinese market is big enough and is deep enough, sophisticated enough, and has enough gaps where I think that we can still do well in mainland China,” he said. 

“Our malls, 80% of them, are powered 100% by renewable electricity. We’ve managed to actually save costs, both in the short term and in the long term,” said Chan, who championed environmental, social and governance initiatives in the company.

Chan also described shifting to an asset-light model, which involves leasing properties, focusing on operational profits and aligning investor demands with family interests to “improve return on investment.” 

He stressed financial sustainability remains the foundation for broader social and environmental impact.

• Net income was $2.80 billion, up 20.5%, and record core operating income was $3.00 billion, up 28.7%.
• P&C net premiums written were $12.93 billion, up 5.3%. North America was up 4.4%, including growth of 8.1% in personal insurance and 3.5% in commercial insurance, or 6.2% adjusting for the impact of two non-recurring items that benefited 2024. Overseas General was up 9.7%, including growth of 15.5% in consumer insurance and 5.8% in commercial insurance; Asia, Latin America, and Europe were up 14.3%, 10.6% and 4.8%, respectively.
• P&C underwriting income was a record $2.26 billion, up 55.0%, with a record combined ratio of 81.8%. P&C current accident year underwriting income excluding catastrophe losses was a record $2.18 billion, up 10.3% over prior year, with a combined ratio of 82.5%.
• Total pre-tax catastrophe losses in the quarter were $285 million compared with $765 million last year, and $2.56 billion for the nine months compared with $1.78 billion last year.
• Total pre-tax favorable prior period development was $361 million compared with $244 million last year.
• Life Insurance net premiums written were $1.93 billion, up 24.6%, and segment income was $324 million, up 14.2%.
• Pre-tax net investment income was $1.65 billion, up 9.3%, and adjusted net investment income was $1.78 billion, up 8.3%. Both were records.
• Annualized return on equity (ROE) was 15.9%. Annualized core operating return on tangible equity (ROTE) was 24.5% and annualized core operating ROE was 16.3%.

ZURICH, Oct. 21, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Chubb Limited (NYSE: CB) today reported net income for the quarter ended September 30, 2025 of $2.80 billion, or $6.99 per share, and core operating income of $3.00 billion, or $7.49 per share. Book value per share and tangible book value per share increased 4.7% and 6.6%, respectively, from June 30, 2025 and now stand at $182.22 and $120.13. Book value was favorably impacted by after-tax net realized and unrealized gains of $884 million in Chubb’s investment portfolio. Book value per share and tangible book value per share excluding AOCI increased 2.8% and 3.8%, from June 30, 2025.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, net income was $7.10 billion, or $17.61 per share, and core operating income was $6.97 billion, or $17.29 per share. Book value per share and tangible book value per share increased 14.1% and 19.7%, from December 31, 2024. Book value was favorably impacted by after-tax net realized and unrealized gains of $3.25 billion in Chubb’s investment portfolio and $963 million of foreign currency gains. Book value per share and tangible book value per share excluding AOCI increased 7.3% and 10.1%, from December 31, 2024.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, the tax expenses (benefits) related to the table above were $50 million and $(76) million, respectively, for adjusted net realized gains and losses and other; $(38) million and nil for market risk benefits gains and losses; and $1.71 billion and $1.46 billion for core operating income.

Evan G. Greenberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chubb Limited, commented: “We had a simply outstanding quarter. The results again put a point on the broad-based, diversified nature of our company geographically, by customer segment both and within commercial and consumer, by product and distribution channel. Core operating income of $3 billion was a record, up 29%, driven by record underwriting and investment income and double-digit growth in life income. Our core operating EPS was also a record, $7.49 per share, up 31%.

“Underwriting income on both a published and current accident year ex-catastrophe basis was supported by solid premium growth and underwriting margin improvement. Published underwriting income of $2.3 billion was up 55% from a year ago, with a record combined ratio of 81.8% — about six percentage points better than a year earlier. While we benefited from light CAT losses in the quarter, the real story is our underlying underwriting results, which were excellent, and very strong prior period reserve development. Current accident year underwriting income excluding CATs was a record $2.2 billion, up 10%, with a combined ratio of 82.5%, nearly a full-point improvement from prior year, with most all of it coming from loss ratio improvement.

“Adjusted net investment income of $1.8 billion was up 8.3%. Financial, economic and fiscal conditions favor continued attractive fixed income and alternative investment portfolio returns on our growing invested asset.

“Total company premiums grew 7.5%, with P&C up 5.3% and life up over 24.5%. All businesses and regions of the world contributed to growth. North America was up 4.4%, including growth of 8.1% in personal insurance and 3.5% in commercial, or 6.2% excluding the impact of two items that benefited the prior year. Overseas General was up 9.7%, including growth of 15.5% in consumer insurance and 5.8% in commercial insurance; Asia, Latin America and Europe were up 14.3%, 10.6% and 4.8%, respectively. Our balance of business and deep local presence provides us a wide range of opportunities around the world, which supports long-term, profitable growth, and it gives us additional freedom to manage a transitioning commercial P&C cycle with discipline.

“In the quarter, we increased share buybacks since our stock is trading well below intrinsic value. Given our earning power, increased buyback activity will continue, while at the same time we build additional capital and our invested asset base.

“In sum, Chubb’s fundamentals and our positioning are excellent, and our balance sheet, starting with our loss reserves, has never been stronger. I am confident we will maintain superior earnings growth, including double-digit growth in EPS, book and tangible book value, with core operating ROE increasing to 14% plus over the medium term, CATs and FX notwithstanding.”

Operating highlights for the quarter ended September 30, 2025 were as follows:

• Consolidated net premiums earned increased 7.4%, or 6.6% in constant dollars. P&C net premiums earned increased 5.0%, or 4.2% in constant dollars.
• Operating cash flow was $3.64 billion and adjusted operating cash flow was $4.51 billion.
• Total pre-tax and after-tax catastrophe losses, net of reinsurance and including reinstatement premiums, in the quarter were $285 million (2.3 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $226 million, compared with $765 million (6.4 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $629 million, last year. Total pre-tax and after-tax catastrophe losses, net of reinsurance and including reinstatement premiums, for the nine months were $2.56 billion (7.4 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $2.04 billion, compared with $1.78 billion (5.5 percentage points of the combined ratio) and $1.46 billion, last year.
• Total pre-tax and after-tax favorable prior period development were $361 million and $238 million, compared with $244 million and $181 million, last year.
• Total capital returned to shareholders in the quarter was $1.62 billion, comprising share repurchases of $1.23 billion at an average purchase price of $277.67 per share and dividends of $385 million. Total capital returned to shareholders for the nine months was $3.43 billion, comprising share repurchases of $2.29 billion at an average purchase price of $282.38 per share and dividends of $1.14 billion.

Details of financial results by business segment are available in the Chubb Limited Financial Supplement. Key segment items for the quarter ended September 30, 2025 are presented below: 

• North America Commercial P&C Insurance: Net premiums written increased 2.9%, or 6.3% adjusting for two items. Middle market and small commercial were up 3.6%, or 6.9% excluding workers’ compensation annual payroll-related audit premium adjustments which are made in the third quarter every year, with P&C lines growth of 8.7%, and financial lines growth of 0.6%. Major accounts and specialty were up 2.5%, or 5.9% adjusting for a one-off structured transaction which occurred in 2024, with E&S up 6.6% and major accounts up 5.6%. The current accident year combined ratio excluding catastrophe losses was flat, including a 0.6 percentage point decrease in the loss ratio and a 0.6 percentage point increase in the expense ratio reflecting change in business mix.
• North America Personal P&C Insurance: The combined ratio decreased 16.2 percentage points, including a 5.4 percentage point decrease due to lower catastrophe losses and a 4.2 percentage point decrease due to higher favorable prior period development. The current accident year combined ratio excluding catastrophe losses decreased 6.6 percentage points, including loss ratio improvement of 5.1 percentage points primarily from lower underlying losses in homeowners and automobile and expense ratio improvement of 1.5 percentage points reflecting expense savings and strong net premiums earned growth.
• North America Agricultural Insurance: Net premiums written increased 5.6% due to an increase in exposure in our company’s crop insurance business which more than offset year-over-year declines in commodity prices.
• Overseas General Insurance: The current accident year combined ratio excluding catastrophe losses decreased 0.4 percentage points, including a 0.8 percentage point decrease in the loss ratio and a 0.4 percentage point increase in the expense ratio reflecting change in business mix.
• Life Insurance: Net premiums written were $1.93 billion, up 24.6%, with growth of 26.5% in International Life, including 9.9 percentage points from a one-time large transaction, and 18.1% in Combined Insurance North America. Life segment income was $324 million, up 14.2%.

All comparisons are with the same period last year unless otherwise specifically stated. 
Please refer to the Chubb Limited Financial Supplement, dated September 30, 2025, which is posted on Chubb’s investor relations website, investors.chubb.com, in the Financials section for more detailed information on individual segment performance, together with additional disclosure on reinsurance recoverable, loss reserves, investment portfolio, and debt and capital.

Chubb Limited will hold its third quarter earnings conference call on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern. The earnings conference call will be available via live webcast at investors.chubb.com or by dialing 877-400-4403 (within the United States) or 332-251-2601 (international), passcode 1641662. Please refer to the Chubb website under Events and Presentations for details. A replay will be available after the call at the same location. To listen to the replay, please click here to register and receive dial-in numbers.

In this release, business activity for, and the financial position of, Chubb acquisitions are reported at 100%, as required, except for core operating income, net income, book value, tangible book value, ROE, per share data, and certain other key metrics, which include only Chubb’s ownership interest and exclude the non-controlling interest.

Prior period core operating income and related metrics have been redefined to reflect the definition of core operating income adopted in Q1 2025, which excludes the non-recurring tax benefit related to the enactment of Bermuda’s income tax law in 2023. Refer to “Regulation G – Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for more information.

About Chubb
Chubb is a world leader in insurance. With operations in 54 countries and territories, Chubb provides commercial and personal property and casualty insurance, personal accident and supplemental health insurance, reinsurance and life insurance to a diverse group of clients. The company is defined by its extensive product and service offerings, broad distribution capabilities, exceptional financial strength and local operations globally. Parent company Chubb Limited is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CB) and is a component of the S&P 500 index. Chubb employs approximately 43,000 people worldwide. Additional information can be found at: www.chubb.com.

Regulation G – Non-GAAP Financial Measures
In presenting our results, we included and discussed certain non-GAAP measures. These non-GAAP measures, which may be defined differently by other companies, are important for an understanding of our overall results of operations and financial condition. However, they should not be viewed as a substitute for measures determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Throughout this document there are various measures presented on a constant-dollar basis (i.e., excludes the impact of foreign exchange). We believe it is useful to evaluate the trends in our results exclusive of the effect of fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the currencies in which our international business is transacted, as these exchange rates could fluctuate significantly between periods and distort the analysis of trends. The impact is determined by assuming constant foreign exchange rates between periods by translating prior period results using the same local currency exchange rates as the comparable current period.

Adjusted net investment income is net investment income excluding the amortization of the fair value adjustment on acquired invested assets from certain acquisitions of $1 million and $5 million in Q3 2025 and Q3 2024, and including investment income of $127 million in both Q3 2025 and Q3 2024, from partially owned investment companies (private equity partnerships) where our ownership interest is in excess of 3% that are accounted for under the equity method. The amortization of the fair value adjustment on acquired invested assets was $7 million and $14 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, and the investment income from private equity partnerships was $349 million and $304 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024. The mark-to-market movement on these private equity partnerships are included in adjusted net realized gains (losses) as described below. We believe this measure is meaningful as it highlights the underlying performance of our invested assets and portfolio management in support of our lines of business.

Adjusted net realized gains (losses) and other, net of tax, includes net realized gains (losses) and net realized gains (losses) recorded in other income (expense) related to unconsolidated subsidiaries, and excludes realized gains and losses on crop derivatives and realized gains and losses on underlying investments supporting the liabilities of certain participating policies related to the policyholders’ share of gains and losses. The crop derivatives were purchased to provide economic benefit, in a manner similar to reinsurance protection, in the event that a significant decline in commodity pricing impacts underwriting results. We view gains and losses on these derivatives as part of the results of our underwriting operations, and therefore realized gains (losses) from these derivatives are reclassified to adjusted losses and loss expenses. The realized gains and losses on underlying investments supporting the liabilities of certain participating policies have been reclassified from net realized gains (losses) to adjusted policy benefits. We believe this better reflects the economics of the liabilities and the underlying investments supporting those liabilities. Other includes integration expenses and the amortization of fair value adjustment of acquired invested assets and long-term debt related to certain acquisitions. See Core operating income, net of tax for further description of these items.

P&C underwriting income (loss) excludes the Life Insurance segment and is calculated by subtracting adjusted losses and loss expenses, adjusted policy benefits, policy acquisition costs and administrative expenses from net premiums earned. We use underwriting income (loss) and operating ratios to monitor the results of our operations without the impact of certain factors, including net investment income, other income (expense), interest expense, amortization expense of purchased intangibles, integration expenses, amortization of fair value of acquired invested assets and debt, income tax expense, adjusted net realized gains (losses), and market risk benefits gains (losses).

P&C current accident year underwriting income excluding catastrophe losses is P&C underwriting income adjusted to exclude P&C catastrophe losses and prior period development (PPD). We believe it is useful to exclude catastrophe losses, as they are not predictable as to timing and amount, and PPD as these unexpected loss developments on historical reserves are not indicative of our current underwriting performance. We believe the use of these measures enhances the understanding of our results of operations by highlighting the underlying profitability of our insurance business. References in this release to “current accident year” metrics exclude catastrophe losses and prior period development, unless stated otherwise.

Core operating income relates only to Chubb income, which excludes noncontrolling interests. It excludes from Chubb net income the after-tax impact of adjusted net realized gains (losses) and other, which include items described in this paragraph, and market risk benefits gains (losses). We believe this presentation enhances the understanding of our results of operations by highlighting the underlying profitability of our insurance business. We exclude adjusted net realized gains (losses) and market risk benefits gains (losses) because the amount of these gains (losses) is heavily influenced by, and fluctuates in part according to, the availability of market opportunities. In addition, we exclude the amortization of fair value adjustments on purchased invested assets and long-term debt related to certain acquisitions due to the size and complexity of these acquisitions. We also exclude integration expenses, which include legal and professional fees and all other costs directly related to acquisition integration activities. The costs are not related to the ongoing activities of the individual segments and are therefore included in Corporate and excluded from our definition of segment income. We believe these integration expenses are not indicative of our underlying profitability, and excluding these integration expenses facilitates the comparison of our financial results to our historical operating results. Additionally, we exclude the non-recurring tax benefit from the Bermuda Economic Transition Adjustment enacted in 2023 and adjusted in 2024 and subsequent years’ amortization of the related deferred tax asset, which we believe provides investors with a better view of our operating performance, enhances the understanding of the trends in the underlying business, improves comparability between periods and provides increased transparency compared to the prior presentation of the non-recurring tax benefit. References to core operating income measures mean net of tax, whether or not noted.

Core operating return on equity (ROE) and Core operating return on tangible equity (ROTE) are annualized non-GAAP financial measures. The numerator includes core operating income (loss), net of tax. The denominator includes the average Chubb shareholders’ equity for the period adjusted to exclude unrealized gains (losses) on investments, current discount rate on future policy benefits (FPB), and instrument-specific credit risk on market risk benefits (MRB), all net of tax and attributable to Chubb. For the ROTE calculation, the denominator is also adjusted to exclude Chubb goodwill and other intangible assets, net of tax. These measures enhance the understanding of the return on shareholders’ equity by highlighting the underlying profitability relative to shareholders’ equity and tangible equity excluding the effect of these items as these are heavily influenced by changes in market conditions. We believe ROTE is meaningful because it measures the performance of our operations without the impact of goodwill and other intangible assets.

P&C combined ratio is the sum of the loss and loss expense ratio, acquisition cost ratio and the administrative expense ratio excluding the life business and including the realized gains and losses on the crop derivatives, as noted above. 

P&C current accident year combined ratio excluding catastrophe losses excludes the impact of P&C catastrophe losses and PPD from the P&C combined ratio. We believe this measure provides a useful evaluation of our underwriting performance and enhances the understanding of the trends in our P&C business that may be obscured by these items.

Global P&C performance metrics comprise consolidated operating results (including corporate) and exclude the operating results of Chubb’s Life Insurance and North America Agricultural Insurance segments. The agriculture insurance business is a different business in that it is a public sector and private sector partnership in which insurance rates, premium growth, and risk-sharing is not market-driven like the remainder of Chubb’s P&C insurance business. We believe that these measures are useful and meaningful to investors as they are used by management to assess Chubb’s global P&C operations which are the most economically similar. We exclude the North America Agricultural Insurance and Life Insurance segments because the results of these businesses do not always correlate with the results of our global P&C operations.

Tangible book value per common share is Chubb shareholders’ equity less Chubb goodwill and other intangible assets, net of tax, divided by the shares outstanding. We believe that goodwill and other intangible assets are not indicative of our underlying insurance results or trends and make book value comparisons to less acquisitive peer companies less meaningful.

Book value per share and tangible book value per share excluding accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (AOCI), excludes AOCI from the numerator because it eliminates the effect of items that can fluctuate significantly from period to period, primarily based on changes in interest rates and foreign currency movement, to highlight underlying growth in book and tangible book value.

Adjusted operating cash flow is Operating cash flow excluding the operating cash flow related to the net investing activities of Huatai’s asset management companies as it relates to the Consolidated Investment Products as required under consolidation accounting. Because these entities are investment companies, we are required to retain the investment company presentation in our consolidated results, which means, we include the net investing activities of these entities in our operating cash flows. Chubb has elected to remove the impact of net investing activities of consolidated investment companies from our operating cash flow as they may distort a reader’s analysis of our underlying operating cash flow related to the core insurance company operations. These net investing activities are more appropriately classified outside of operating cash flows, consistent with our consolidated investing activities. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate to adjust operating cash flow for the impact of consolidated investment products.

Life Insurance and International life insurance net premiums written and deposits collected includes deposits collected on universal life and investment contracts (life deposits). Life deposits are not reflected as revenues in our consolidated statements of operations in accordance with U.S. GAAP. However, we include life deposits in presenting growth in our life insurance business because life deposits are an important component of production and key to our efforts to grow our business.

See the reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures on pages 27-33 in the Financial Supplement. These measures should not be viewed as a substitute for measures determined in accordance with GAAP, including premium, net income, book value, return on equity, and net investment income.

NM – not meaningful comparison

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements: 
Forward-looking statements made in this press release, such as those related to company performance, pricing, growth opportunities, economic and market conditions, and our expectations and intentions and other statements that are not historical facts, reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance and are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, including without limitation, the following: competition, pricing and policy term trends, the levels of new and renewal business achieved, the frequency and severity of unpredictable catastrophic events, actual loss experience, uncertainties in the reserving or settlement process, integration activities and performance of acquired companies, loss of key employees or disruptions to our operations, new theories of liability, judicial, legislative, regulatory and other governmental developments, litigation tactics and developments, investigation developments and actual settlement terms, the amount and timing of reinsurance recoverable, credit developments among reinsurers, rating agency action, possible terrorism or the outbreak and effects of war, economic, political, regulatory, insurance and reinsurance business conditions, potential strategic opportunities including acquisitions and our ability to achieve them, as well as management’s response to these factors, and other factors identified in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the dates on which they are made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

 

SOURCE Chubb Limited

When it comes to artificial intelligence, MIT and IBM were there at the beginning: laying foundational work and creating some of the first programs — AI predecessors — and theorizing how machine “intelligence” might come to be.

Today, collaborations like the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, which launched eight years ago, are continuing to deliver expertise for the promise of tomorrow’s AI technology. This is critical for industries and the labor force that stand to benefit, particularly in the short term: from $3-4 trillion of forecast global economic benefits and 80 percent productivity gains for knowledge workers and creative tasks, to significant incorporations of generative AI into business processes (80 percent) and software applications (70 percent) in the next three years.

While industry has seen a boom in notable models, chiefly in the past year, academia continues to drive the innovation, contributing most of the highly cited research. At the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, success takes the form of 54 patent disclosures, an excess of 128,000 citations with an h-index of 162, and more than 50 industry-driven use cases. Some of the lab’s many achievements include improved stent placement with AI imaging techniques, slashing computational overhead, shrinking models while maintaining performance, and modeling of interatomic potential for silicate chemistry.

“The lab is uniquely positioned to identify the ‘right’ problems to solve, setting us apart from other entities,” says Aude Oliva, lab MIT director and director of strategic industry engagement in the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing. “Further, the experience our students gain from working on these challenges for enterprise AI translates to their competitiveness in the job market and the promotion of a competitive industry.”

“The MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab has had tremendous impact by bringing together a rich set of collaborations between IBM and MIT’s researchers and students,” says Provost Anantha Chandrakasan, who is the lab’s MIT co-chair and the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “By supporting cross-cutting research at the intersection of AI and many other disciplines, the lab is advancing foundational work and accelerating the development of transformative solutions for our nation and the world.”

Long-horizon work

As AI continues to garner interest, many organizations struggle to channel the technology into meaningful outcomes. A 2024 Gartner study finds that, “at least 30% of generative AI projects will be abandoned after proof of concept by the end of 2025,” demonstrating ambition and widespread hunger for AI, but a lack of knowledge for how to develop and apply it to create immediate value.

Here, the lab shines, bridging research and deployment. The majority of the lab’s current-year research portfolio is aligned to use and develop new features, capacities, or products for IBM, the lab’s corporate members, or real-world applications. The last of these comprise large language models, AI hardware, and foundation models, including multi-modal, bio-medical, and geo-spatial ones. Inquiry-driven students and interns are invaluable in this pursuit, offering enthusiasm and new perspectives while accumulating domain knowledge to help derive and engineer advancements in the field, as well as opening up new frontiers for exploration with AI as a tool.

Findings from the AAAI 2025 Presidential panel on the Future of AI Research support the need for contributions from academia-industry collaborations like the lab in the AI arena: “Academics have a role to play in providing independent advice and interpretations of these results [from industry] and their consequences. The private sector focuses more on the short term, and universities and society more on a longer-term perspective.”

Bringing these strengths together, along with the push for open sourcing and open science, can spark innovation that neither could achieve alone. History shows that embracing these principles, and sharing code and making research accessible, has long-term benefits for both the sector and society. In line with IBM and MIT’s missions, the lab contributes technologies, findings, governance, and standards to the public sphere through this collaboration, thereby enhancing transparency, accelerating reproducibility, and ensuring trustworthy advances.

The lab was created to merge MIT’s deep research expertise with IBM’s industrial R&D capacity, aiming for breakthroughs in core AI methods and hardware, as well as new applications in areas like health care, chemistry, finance, cybersecurity, and robust planning and decision-making for business.

Bigger isn’t always better

Today, large foundation models are giving way to smaller, more task-specific models yielding better performance. Contributions from lab members like Song Han, associate professor in the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), and IBM Research’s Chuang Gan help make this possible, through work such as once-for-all and AWQ. Innovations such as these improve efficiency with better architectures, algorithm shrinking, and activation-aware weight quantization, letting models like language processing run on edge devices at faster speeds and reduced latency.

Consequently, foundation, vision, multimodal, and large language models have seen benefits, allowing for the lab research groups of Oliva, MIT EECS Associate Professor Yoon Kim, and IBM Research members Rameswar Panda, Yang Zhang, and Rogerio Feris to build on the work. This includes techniques to imbue models with external knowledge and the development of linear attention transformer methods for higher throughput, compared to other state-of-the-art systems. 

Understanding and reasoning in vision and multimodal systems has also seen a boon. Works like “Task2Sim” and “AdaFuse” demonstrate improved vision model performance if pre-training takes place on synthetic data, and how video action recognition can be boosted by fusing channels from past and current feature maps.

As part of a commitment to leaner AI, the lab teams of Gregory Wornell, the MIT EECS Sumitomo Electric Industries Professor in Engineering, IBM Research’s Chuang Gan, and David Cox, VP for foundational AI at IBM Research and the lab’s IBM director, have shown that model adaptability and data efficiency can go hand in hand. Two approaches, EvoScale and Chain-of-Action-Thought reasoning (COAT), enable language models to make the most of limited data and computation by improving on prior generation attempts through structured iteration, narrowing in on a better response. COAT uses a meta-action framework and reinforcement learning to tackle reasoning-intensive tasks via self-correction, while EvoScale brings a similar philosophy to code generation, evolving high-quality candidate solutions. These techniques help to enable resource-conscious, targeted, real-world deployment.

“The impact of MIT-IBM research on our large language model development efforts cannot be overstated,” says Cox. “We’re seeing that smaller, more specialized models and tools are having an outsized impact, especially when they are combined. Innovations from the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab help shape these technical directions and influence the strategy we are taking in the market through platforms like watsonx.”

For example, numerous lab projects have contributed features, capabilities, and uses to IBM’s Granite Vision, which provides impressive computer vision designed for document understanding, despite its compact size. This comes at a time when there’s a growing need for extraction, interpretation, and trustworthy summarization of information and data contained in long formats for enterprise purposes.

Other achievements that extend beyond direct research on AI and across disciplines are not only beneficial, but necessary for advancing the technology and lifting up society, concludes the 2025 AAAI panel.

Work from the lab’s Caroline Uhler and Devavrat Shah — both Andrew (1956) and Erna Viterbi Professors in EECS and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) — along with IBM Research’s Kristjan Greenewald, transcends specializations. They are developing causal discovery methods to uncover how interventions affect outcomes, and identify which ones achieve desired results. The studies include developing a framework that can both elucidate how “treatments” for different sub-populations may play out, like on an ecommerce platform or mobility restrictions on morbidity outcomes. Findings from this body of work could influence the fields of marketing and medicine to education and risk management.

“Advances in AI and other areas of computing are influencing how people formulate and tackle challenges in nearly every discipline. At the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, researchers recognize this cross-cutting nature of their work and its impact, interrogating problems from multiple viewpoints and bringing real-world problems from industry, in order to develop novel solutions,” says Dan Huttenlocher, MIT lab co-chair, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, and the Henry Ellis Warren (1894) Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

A significant piece of what makes this research ecosystem thrive is the steady influx of student talent and their contributions through MIT’s Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP), MIT EECS 6A Program, and the new MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab Internship Program. Altogether, more than 70 young researchers have not only accelerated their technical skill development, but, through guidance and support by the lab’s mentors, gained knowledge in AI domains to become emerging practitioners themselves. This is why the lab continually seeks to identify promising students at all stages in their exploration of AI’s potential.

“In order to unlock the full economic and societal potential of AI, we need to foster ‘useful and efficient intelligence,’” says Sriram Raghavan, IBM Research VP for AI and IBM chair of the lab. “To translate AI promise into progress, it’s crucial that we continue to focus on innovations to develop efficient, optimized, and fit-for-purpose models that can easily be adapted to specific domains and use cases. Academic-industry collaborations, such as the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, help drive the breakthroughs that make this possible.”

Join our award-winning Canadian Special Situations Team Co-chairs, Walied Soliman, KC and Orestes Pasparakis, for our annual webinar on Complex M&A, Shareholder Activism and Corporate Governance.

This year, our team will offer a fresh perspective on the evolving shareholder activism landscape, with a focus on the cross-border power play and dynamics between Canada and the US that are influencing investor strategies. Having played a leading role in some of Canada’s most high-profile activism and defence mandates, we’ll draw on our combined expertise, knowledge, and proven playbooks to deliver a comprehensive review of key developments from 2025 and offer a forward-looking preview of what’s ahead in 2026.

Topics

• Proxy season review: Activism trends and key case law 
• Shareholder proposals trends 
• Insights from the US
• Looking ahead to 2026

Our speakers

This is a 45-minute webinar available in English only. Webinars are intended for clients and contacts of Norton Rose Fulbright.

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits

	Law Society of British Columbia | This program contains 45 minutes of Substantive content.
	Law Society of Ontario | This program contains 45 minutes of Substantive content.
	Quebec | This program contains 45 minutes of content. If you watch the webinar in its entirety, you will be able to download your certificate of attendance that may be submitted to your professional order.

Contact us

The CD19/CD22-directed bispecific CAR T-cell therapy CAR2219 induced high response rates, including complete responses (CRs), in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), according to findings from a prospective, single-arm, single-center, phase 2 trial (NCT06081478) presented at the 2025 ESMO Congress.¹

At a median follow-up of 4.2 months after CAR2219 infusion, among 31 treated patients, the best overall response rate (ORR) was 100%. The CR rate was 67.7% (95% CI, 48.6%-83.3%), and the partial response (PR) rate was 32.3%. Early responses were reported; at 4 weeks post-infusion, the ORR was 93.5%, and the CR rate was 61.3%.

A subgroup analysis of CR rates showed the efficacy of this therapy across most prespecified subgroups. However, male patients (n = 14), those with bulky disease of at least 5 cm in diameter (n = 8), and those with double-expressor or double-hit lymphoma (n = 12) had the most inferior CR rates compared with the rest of the population, of 50.0% (95% CI, 23.0%-77.0%), 37.5% (95% CI, 8.5%-75.5%), and 50.0% (95% CI, 21.1%-78.9%), respectively.

Phase 2 Study of CAR2219: Key Takeaways

• The CD19/CD22-directed bispecific CAR T-cell therapy CAR2219 induced high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL, achieving a 100% ORR and a 67.7% CR rate at a median follow-up of 4.2 months.

• Although overall efficacy was high, CR rates were significantly inferior in specific subgroups, including male patients, those with bulky disease of at least 5 cm, and those with double-expressor or double-hit lymphoma.

• CAR2219 was generally well tolerated, with 74% of patients experiencing only CRS, and no deaths attributed to AEs were reported.

What was the rationale for investigating CAR2219 in relapsed/refractory LBCL?

The addition of CAR T-cell therapy to the LBCL treatment paradigm has improved the overall prognosis of this population. For example, findings from a 2023 SEER database analysis of 41,219 patients with diffuse LBCL (DLBCL) showed improved overall survival (OS) outcomes in the post-CAR T-cell therapy approval era vs the pre-approval era (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.913-0.990; P = .014).²

“There is a significant difference between those two eras, indicating the benefit brought by the CAR T-cells to [patients with] DLBCL, especially those with relapsed or refractory disease,” presenting author Liang Wang, MD, PhD, contextualized.

Wang is an associate professor in the Department of Hematology at Beijing Tongren Hospital Capital Medical University in China.

However, Wang noted that there is still room for improvement, citing an exploratory long-term survival assessment of the phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 trial (NCT02348216) that showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) elicited a median lymphoma-related event-free survival (EFS) of 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.1-13.9) and a 5-year EFS rate of 30.3% (95% CI, 21.5%-39.6%).³

CAR2219 is composed of a single-chain variable fragment derived from an anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody fused to a second single-chain variable fragment derived from an anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody.¹ Investigators used parallel truncated EGFR expression to detect the expression efficiency of CAR T cells.

“Previous studies have also found that anti-EGFR antibodies may help to eliminate the CAR T cells in case of severe adverse effects [AEs],” Wang added.

What was the design of the phase 2 study investigating CAR2219 in relapsed/refractory LBCL?

Patients in this trial underwent peripheral blood mononuclear cell collection. Bridging therapy prior to CAR2219 infusion was permitted at the choice of the treating physician. Patients then received a 3-day lymphodepletion regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide at 250 mg/m² per day plus fludarabine at 25 mg/m² per day, followed by CAR2219 infusion at 2 x 10⁶ cells/kg. Patients who responded to CAR2219 were allowed to receive maintenance therapy with agents such as PD-1 inhibitors 1 month after infusion.

Best ORR at 3 months post-infusion served as the trial’s primary end point. Secondary end points included best CR rate, progression-free survival (PFS), OS, and AEs.

A previously conducted retrospective study evaluated the use of bridging therapy with mitoxantrone liposome plus dexamethasone and polatuzumab vedotin (MPD) with or without rituximab prior to CAR T-cell therapy in patients with LBCL. All patients in that study (n = 10) received 1 cycle of MPD. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-5), 7 patients had refractory disease, and the median ECOG performance status before bridging therapy was 2 (range, 1-4). AEs associated with bridging therapy were grade 4 neutropenic fever (n = 2) and COVID-19 infection (n = 1). An efficacy evaluation prior to CAR T-cell infusion showed a disease control rate of 100% (CR, n = 1; PR, n = 5; stable disease [SD], n = 4), relief of lymphopenia-related symptoms, and a median ECOG performance status improvement to 1 (range, 1-2). All patients who received bridging therapy went on to receive subsequent CAR T-cell therapy infusion.

“Thus, we think the MPD regimen was an effective and tolerable regimen,” Wang reported.

What were the baseline characteristics of the population enrolled inthe trial of CAR2219 in relapsed/refractory LBCL?

Patients enrolled in the phase 2 trial had stage I (6.5%; n = 2), II (6.5%; n = 2), III (13%; n = 4) or IV (74%; n = 23) disease. Most patients had tumor bulk less than 5 cm (74%; n = 23), had refractory disease (74%; n= 23), had an International Prognostic Index score of greater than 2 (71%; n = 22), and had received more than 2 prior lines of therapy (55%; n = 17). Only 2 patients did not receive bridging therapy. Among those who did receive bridging therapy, this treatment resulted in CR (3.4%; n = 1), PR (31%; n = 9), SD (62.1%; n = 18), and progressive disease (3.4%; n = 1). Prognostic markers included double-expressor or double-hit lymphoma (39%; n = 12), p53-positive disease (42%; n = 13), disease invasion of more than 2 extranodal sites (55%; n = 17), lactate dehydrogenase levels above the upper limit of normal (61%; n = 19), and lymphoma present in the bone marrow (13%; n = 4).

What additional efficacy findings were seen with CAR2219 in relapsed/refractory LBCL?

At the median follow-up, the median PFS and OS were not reached. The estimated 6-month PFS and OS rates were 83% and 87.1%, respectively. At the data cutoff, 93.5% of treated patients were still alive. Among the 2 deaths that were reported, 1 was attributed to lymphoma progression, and the other was attributed to non-lymphoma causes.

In total, 90% of patients had peak CAR T-cell expansion between days 10 and 14 post-infusion. The median peak CAR T-cell count was 2.35 x 10⁸ cells per liter. CAR T cells were detectable after 3 months in most patients. Additionally, interleukin-6 concentration peaked between days 4 and 7 post-infusion; this level also rebounded after the use of tocilizumab.

Wang highlighted the case of a heavily pretreated male with DLBCL who had progressed on prior PD-1–directed therapy and went on to receive CAR2219. This patient had disease progression at 1 month post-infusion but had CAR T-cell expansion in both blood and neck lymphoma tissue.

“Thus, we think the exhausted CAR T cells may contribute to disease progression,” Wang contextualized.

This patient achieved a CR 2 months after reuse of a PD-1 inhibitor.

“Until now, this patient has been lymphoma free for more than 1 and a half years, and we can detect the CAR T cells in his peripheral blood,” he added.

What was the safety profile of CAR2219 in relapsed/refractory LBCL?

Overall, Wang explained that CAR2219 was well tolerated in most patients, and investigators reported no AE-related deaths. In total, 74% of patients (n = 23) had grade 1/2 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), with no grade 3 or higher CRS reported. The rate of any-grade immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was 6% (n = 2), and 3% of patients (n = 1) had grade 3 ICANS. Other AEs included neutropenia (any-grade, 93%, n = 29; grade ≥ 3, 90%, n = 28), thrombocytopenia (77%, n = 24; 45%, n = 14), and anemia (71%, n = 22; 32%, n = 10).

Wang noted that the patient with grade 3 ICANS was transferred to the intensive care unit, where he recovered after receiving high-dose steroids, plasma exchange, and cerebrospinal fluid exchange.

“The role of post-infusion maintenance therapy, especially using PD-1 inhibitors or other small molecule agents, needs to be further investigated,” Wang concluded.

Disclosures: Wang had no financial relationships to disclose. He reported that the present trial was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the National Science and Technology Major Project of China.

References

1. Wang L, Liu X-D, Cong J, et al. CD19/CD22 bispecific CAR-T cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma: a prospective, single-arm, single-center, phase II clinical trial. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-25, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract 1240O.
2. Wasifuddin M, Ilerhunmwuwa NP, Becerra H, et al. Survival trends in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the CAR-T cell therapy era vs pre-CAR-T cell therapy era in the United States: a population-based study. Blood. 2023;142(suppl 1):3765. doi:10.1182/blood-2023-181377
3. Neelapu SS, Jacobson CA, Ghobadi A, et al. Five-year follow-up of ZUMA-1 supports the curative potential of axicabtagene ciloleucel in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2023;141(19):2307-2315. doi:10.1182/blood.2022018893

Despite policy headwinds earlier in the year, energy storage additions in China and the US are set to continue growing this decade.
The removal of storage mandates in China for renewables and the absence of offsetting drivers were big concerns. However, a new energy storage target was set in September, underlining the commitment of the world’s second largest economy to the sector. China also aims to accelerate the shift from mandates to market-driven growth through the spot market launch and the provincial compensation scheme.
In the US, federal policy shifts brought uncertainty due to frequent changes in import tariffs and new restrictions on the use of equipment from China. Still, market players are quickly adapting to the new environment, supported by domestic battery manufacturing initiatives by leading Korean firms. With slower-than-expected battery demand for electric vehicles, battery makers are shifting focus to stationary energy storage.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has been ordered to testify in a landmark trial in the US over the impact of social media on young people.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl this week rejected the argument his company, Meta Platforms, had made that an in-person appearance was not necessary.

Her order also applies to Snap boss Evan Spiegel, as well as Adam Mosseri, who leads Meta-owned Instagram.

The trial, expected in January, is among the first to advance from a wave of litigation accusing social media companies of making their apps addictive and enticing to young people despite being aware of mental health and other risks.

Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

Law firm Kirkland & Ellis, which is representing Snap, said the decision did not “bear at all” on the truth of the claims and that they “look forward to the opportunity” of why they believe the “allegations against Snapchat are wrong factually and as a matter of law”.

Hundreds of claims brought by parents and school districts were consolidated into one case before the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2022.

They accuse the companies of having ineffective parental controls and weak safety features, and also say that alerts for “likes” and other responses keep young people tied to the platforms.

Meta and Snap have contested the claims, which are similar to those in a separate, but similarly sprawling federal case. TikTok and YouTube, owned by Alphabet, are also named in the suits.

In seeking to have both cases dismissed, the tech companies have argued that federal law protected them from responsibility for content on their platforms. Under a law passed in the 1990s, they are not liable for what people say or post on their services.

But the Los Angeles judge said the companies must still face claims of negligence and personal injury stemming from the apps’ designs.

Lawyers representing young people and their parents argue that the companies decided not to make changes because they were concerned about the hit to the business.

Meta had said Zuckerberg and Mosseri had already submitted to questioning as part of the case and that appearing in person represented “a substantial burden” and would “interfere with business”.

But Judge Kuhn wrote that hearing directly from the heads of the company was key to evaluating those claims.

“The testimony of a CEO is uniquely relevant,” Judge Kushn said, as their “knowledge of harms, and failure to take available steps to avoid such harms” could help prove negligence.

Beasley Allen, one of the firms law firms leading the litigation against the social media companies, was pleased with the ruling.

“We are eager for trial to force these companies and their executives to answer for the harms they’ve caused to countless children,” it said in a statement.

Social media companies have been facing growing legal and political pressure arising from concerns about the impact of the apps on young people’s mental health.

Testifying before Congress on the issues last year, Zuckerberg said his company took the issues seriously and defended the protections it had in place, while distancing it from responsibility.

“The existing body of scientific work has not shown a causal link between using social media and young people having worse mental health,” he said.

Instagram last year started rolling out special “teen accounts” in response to concerns.

It updated that system earlier this month, adding a default setting that screens out content guided by a system similar to movie ratings. It also said parents could opt for stricter controls.

Reporting contributed by Lily Jamali

Schedule (All times in ET)