W. R. Berkley Corporation: what the price is pricing in

The price implies earnings growth of -1.3% a year; our model expects 6.4%. The gap is too narrow for a position this quarter. Switch lens below to see the same question asked of earnings, growth, sales and book value.

No published rating for W. R. Berkley Corporation: valuation models disagree too widely to rate: held for review. The readings below run our models backwards for research and show how trading the gap would have done; they are not a valuation or a rating. The valuation page shows the models and their status.

What growth in earnings is the price paying for?

The price implies earnings growth of -1.3% a year; our model expects 6.4%.

Gap too narrow for a position this quarter

What the price implies What our model expects

Quarters with a position1919 long, 0 short, since March 31, 2012

Beat the S&P 50011 of 1957.9% of quarters held

Strategy against the index+33.5%cumulative; worst fall -23.3%

$10,000 became$48,678S&P 500 bought and held: $35,320

Over time

The earnings growth the price-to-earnings ratio requires, against the growth our model assumes. Net income is already after interest, so it is valued at the return shareholders require, plus spare cash (none for banks and insurers, whose cash is funded by deposits and policies), with no debt subtracted.

Growth our model assumes Growth the P/E implies Long quarter Short quarter. Lower panel: the share price at each quarter end, adjusted for later share splits and spin-offs (the table below gives the price as traded).

$10,000 trading the gap vs the S&P 500

StrategyS&P 500, buy and hold Hypothetical, before costs. The strategy holds the S&P 500 and only changes on a signal: it switches into WRB in long quarters and adds a short of WRB in short quarters. The gap between the lines is what the signal added or lost.

Skill or luck?

In plain English: Across 19 quarters with a position, this lens beat the S&P 500 in 11, by +1.9% a quarter on average. That could easily be chance. One company is a small sample: the results across all companies are the better guide.

Positions	Quarters	Beat the S&P 500	Average vs S&P 500, a quarter	Typical (median), a quarter	A year	Confidence (t)	Evidence
Longs	19	57.9%	+1.9%	+2.3%	+6.3%	0.93	No reliable evidence
Shorts	0	—	—	—	—	—	—
All positions	19	57.9%	+1.9%	+2.3%	+6.3%	0.93	No reliable evidence

Each position is measured against the S&P 500 over the same quarter: a long earns the stock's return minus the index's, a short the index's minus the stock's. "A year" compounds the per-quarter results. Evidence: strong at a t-statistic of 2 or more, some from 1.5; "worse" when the result is that far below zero; one company's history is a small sample, so read these alongside the results across all companies.

Every quarter (37)

From	Price paid	Growth the P/E implies	Growth our model assumes	Position	WRB	S&P 500
September 30, 2026 (open)	$67.54	-1.3%	6.4%	No position	+11.1%	−0.8%
June 30, 2026	$70.53	0.1%	8.3%	No position	−4.1%	+2.4%
March 31, 2026	$66.28	0.1%	8.7%	No position	+7.4%	+15.1%
December 31, 2025	$70.12	-0.1%	11.0%	Long	−5.4%	−4.4%
September 30, 2025	$76.62	2.8%	11.2%	No position	−7.0%	+2.7%
June 30, 2025	$73.47	2.4%	11.1%	No position	+4.4%	+8.1%
March 31, 2025	$71.16	1.7%	12.7%	Long	+4.1%	+10.8%
December 31, 2024	$58.52	0.1%	11.7%	Long	+21.8%	−4.3%
September 30, 2024	$56.73	0.0%	11.8%	Long	+4.2%	+2.5%
June 30, 2024	$78.58	-1.1%	13.1%	Long	+8.9%	+5.8%
March 31, 2024	$88.44	7.9%	11.6%	No position	−10.5%	+4.4%
June 30, 2018	$72.41	1.1%	2.0%	No position	+11.3%	+7.7%
March 31, 2018	$72.70	2.5%	2.0%	No position	+0.4%	+3.5%
December 31, 2017	$71.65	2.3%	3.1%	No position	+1.7%	−1.0%
September 30, 2017	$66.74	-0.7%	4.6%	No position	+8.4%	+6.8%
June 30, 2017	$69.17	-0.1%	5.7%	No position	−3.3%	+4.4%
March 31, 2017	$70.63	0.3%	6.2%	No position	−1.1%	+3.1%
December 31, 2016	$66.51	0.6%	5.1%	No position	+6.4%	+5.9%
September 30, 2016	$57.76	0.4%	4.4%	No position	+16.4%	+4.0%
June 30, 2016	$59.92	0.5%	4.2%	No position	−2.5%	+3.8%
March 31, 2016	$56.20	-0.4%	4.2%	No position	+6.9%	+2.5%
December 31, 2015	$54.75	-0.9%	5.3%	No position	+2.9%	+1.3%
September 30, 2015	$54.37	-2.1%	7.2%	No position	+0.9%	+7.0%
June 30, 2015	$51.93	-4.3%	9.5%	Long	+4.9%	−6.4%
March 31, 2015	$50.51	-6.1%	11.3%	Long	+3.1%	+0.2%
December 31, 2014	$51.26	-6.4%	11.7%	Long	−1.3%	+0.9%
September 30, 2014	$47.80	-6.2%	11.8%	Long	+9.6%	+4.9%
June 30, 2014	$46.31	-4.5%	11.1%	Long	+3.5%	+1.1%
March 31, 2014	$41.62	-4.1%	10.4%	Long	+11.5%	+5.2%
December 31, 2013	$43.39	-4.4%	11.9%	Long	−3.8%	+1.7%
September 30, 2013	$42.86	-3.4%	10.9%	Long	+1.5%	+10.5%
June 30, 2013	$40.86	-4.0%	10.5%	Long	+5.2%	+5.2%
March 31, 2013	$44.37	-2.6%	12.9%	Long	−7.7%	+2.9%
December 31, 2012	$37.74	-4.2%	11.3%	Long	+17.8%	+10.5%
September 30, 2012	$37.49	-3.4%	10.8%	Long	+3.5%	−0.4%
June 30, 2012	$38.92	-1.5%	10.3%	Long	−3.4%	+6.3%
March 31, 2012	$36.12	-2.0%	9.1%	Long	+8.0%	−2.8%

Price paid: the closing price that day as traded, before any later share split.

Is the price-to-earnings ratio cheap or dear for the growth delivered?

No current reading. The latest is from June 30, 2018: the figures this lens needs have not been filed recently enough (or no longer apply), so there is no position this quarter.

Quarters with a position82 long, 6 short, since March 31, 2015

Beat the S&P 5003 of 837.5% of quarters held

Strategy against the index−3.9%cumulative; worst fall -17.4%

$10,000 became$14,372S&P 500 bought and held: $14,725

Over time

The P/E divided by the earnings-per-share growth delivered over three years. Under 0.75 the market pays little for the growth (long); over 3 it pays a lot (short).

EPS growth, 3 years (%) Price-to-earnings ratio (x) Long quarter Short quarter. Lower panel: the share price at each quarter end, adjusted for later share splits and spin-offs (the table below gives the price as traded).

$10,000 trading the gap vs the S&P 500

Skill or luck?

In plain English: Across 8 quarters with a position, this lens beat the S&P 500 in 3, by −0.3% a quarter on average. That could easily be chance. One company is a small sample: the results across all companies are the better guide.

Positions	Quarters	Beat the S&P 500	Average vs S&P 500, a quarter	Typical (median), a quarter	A year	Confidence (t)	Evidence
Longs	2	100.0%	+7.1%	+7.1%	+31.2%	—	Too few quarters
Shorts	6	16.7%	−2.7%	−2.6%	−11.0%	-1.09	Too few quarters
All positions	8	37.5%	−0.3%	−1.1%	−2.0%	-0.10	No reliable evidence

Every quarter (12)

From	Price paid	Price-to-earnings ratio (x)	EPS growth, 3 years (%)	Position	WRB	S&P 500
June 30, 2018	$72.41	15.8x	1.4%	Short	+11.3%	+7.7%
September 30, 2017	$66.74	14.2x	1.6%	Short	+8.4%	+6.8%
June 30, 2017	$69.17	14.7x	5.9%	No position	−3.3%	+4.4%
March 31, 2017	$70.63	15.1x	9.7%	No position	−1.1%	+3.1%
December 31, 2016	$66.51	15.3x	4.9%	Short	+6.4%	+5.9%
September 30, 2016	$57.76	15.1x	2.9%	Short	+16.4%	+4.0%
June 30, 2016	$59.92	15.3x	4.3%	Short	−2.5%	+3.8%
March 31, 2016	$56.20	14.4x	2.8%	Short	+6.9%	+2.5%
December 31, 2015	$54.75	14.0x	5.9%	No position	+2.9%	+1.3%
September 30, 2015	$54.37	13.1x	10.2%	No position	+0.9%	+7.0%
June 30, 2015	$51.93	11.5x	16.5%	Long	+4.9%	−6.4%
March 31, 2015	$50.51	10.3x	21.8%	Long	+3.1%	+0.2%

Price paid: the closing price that day as traded, before any later share split.

What return on equity is the price paying for?

The price implies a return on equity of 18.6%; the company earned 20.2%.

Gap too narrow for a position this quarter

What the price implies What the company delivered

Quarters with a position10 long, 1 short, since March 31, 2012

Beat the S&P 5001 of 1100.0% of quarters held

Strategy against the index+14.8%cumulative; worst fall 0.0%

$10,000 became$40,341S&P 500 bought and held: $35,320

Over time

The return on equity that justifies the price-to-book ratio, (P/B)(r − g) + g with an 8.5% required return and 2.5% long-run growth, against the return the company delivered last year.

Return on equity delivered Return on equity the price implies Long quarter Short quarter. Lower panel: the share price at each quarter end, adjusted for later share splits and spin-offs (the table below gives the price as traded).

$10,000 trading the gap vs the S&P 500

Skill or luck?

In plain English: With only 1 quarters of positions, W. R. Berkley Corporation's own record is too short to tell skill from luck. The results across all companies on the priced-in page are the better guide.

Positions	Quarters	Beat the S&P 500	Average vs S&P 500, a quarter	Typical (median), a quarter	A year	Confidence (t)	Evidence
Longs	0	—	—	—	—	—	—
Shorts	1	100.0%	+14.8%	+14.8%	+73.9%	—	Too few quarters
All positions	1	100.0%	+14.8%	+14.8%	+73.9%	—	Too few quarters

Every quarter (37)

From	Price paid	Return on equity the price implies	Return on equity delivered	Position	WRB	S&P 500
September 30, 2026 (open)	$67.54	18.6%	20.2%	No position	+11.1%	−0.8%
June 30, 2026	$70.53	19.6%	20.1%	No position	−4.1%	+2.4%
March 31, 2026	$66.28	18.9%	19.7%	No position	+7.4%	+15.1%
December 31, 2025	$70.12	19.7%	20.9%	No position	−5.4%	−4.4%
September 30, 2025	$76.62	22.3%	20.6%	No position	−7.0%	+2.7%
June 30, 2025	$73.47	22.3%	20.7%	No position	+4.4%	+8.1%
March 31, 2025	$71.16	22.9%	22.2%	No position	+4.1%	+10.8%
December 31, 2024	$58.52	19.2%	20.6%	No position	+21.8%	−4.3%
September 30, 2024	$56.73	20.2%	21.1%	No position	+4.2%	+2.5%
June 30, 2024	$78.58	18.9%	20.8%	No position	+8.9%	+5.8%
March 31, 2024	$88.44	28.4%	19.4%	Short	−10.5%	+4.4%
June 30, 2018	$72.41	12.8%	11.1%	No position	+11.3%	+7.7%
March 31, 2018	$72.70	12.9%	10.5%	No position	+0.4%	+3.5%
December 31, 2017	$71.65	12.7%	10.6%	No position	+1.7%	−1.0%
September 30, 2017	$66.74	12.2%	11.9%	No position	+8.4%	+6.8%
June 30, 2017	$69.17	12.8%	12.2%	No position	−3.3%	+4.4%
March 31, 2017	$70.63	13.3%	12.5%	No position	−1.1%	+3.1%
December 31, 2016	$66.51	12.9%	11.8%	No position	+6.4%	+5.9%
September 30, 2016	$57.76	11.6%	10.4%	No position	+16.4%	+4.0%
June 30, 2016	$59.92	12.2%	10.8%	No position	−2.5%	+3.8%
March 31, 2016	$56.20	12.0%	11.0%	No position	+6.9%	+2.5%
December 31, 2015	$54.75	11.7%	10.9%	No position	+2.9%	+1.3%
September 30, 2015	$54.37	11.9%	11.8%	No position	+0.9%	+7.0%
June 30, 2015	$51.93	11.5%	13.3%	No position	+4.9%	−6.4%
March 31, 2015	$50.51	11.3%	14.5%	No position	+3.1%	+0.2%
December 31, 2014	$51.26	11.2%	14.7%	No position	−1.3%	+0.9%
September 30, 2014	$47.80	10.8%	13.9%	No position	+9.6%	+4.9%
June 30, 2014	$46.31	11.1%	12.6%	No position	+3.5%	+1.1%
March 31, 2014	$41.62	10.6%	11.6%	No position	+11.5%	+5.2%
December 31, 2013	$43.39	10.9%	12.3%	No position	−3.8%	+1.7%
September 30, 2013	$42.86	11.1%	11.8%	No position	+1.5%	+10.5%
June 30, 2013	$40.86	10.4%	11.6%	No position	+5.2%	+5.2%
March 31, 2013	$44.37	11.6%	12.4%	No position	−7.7%	+2.9%
December 31, 2012	$37.74	9.9%	11.3%	No position	+17.8%	+10.5%
September 30, 2012	$37.49	10.1%	10.8%	No position	+3.5%	−0.4%
June 30, 2012	$38.92	10.6%	10.4%	No position	−3.4%	+6.3%
March 31, 2012	$36.12	10.3%	10.2%	No position	+8.0%	−2.8%

Price paid: the closing price that day as traded, before any later share split.

How the test works

At each quarter end since March 2010 we rebuild the models from W. R. Berkley Corporation's quarters ending at least 90 days earlier (and no more than 200 days before that), using the figures as later filed, including any restatement, and value them at that day's close, adjusted for later share splits and spin-offs so that price and share count are on the same basis. A wide enough gap is a long or a short for one quarter (growth 10 points; margin and return on equity 5 points; a PEG under 0.75 or over 3), measured on total return against the S&P 500. The rules were set before the test. No trading or borrowing costs; today's list of companies. Not investment advice. All companies and the results across them.

Compare with peers

Head to head: CNA vs WRB FNF vs WRB CINF vs WRB ACGL vs WRB

More: Property & Casualty Insurance stocks compared, Financials sector, rankings of US companies

Figures from W. R. Berkley Corporation's SEC filings (10-K and 10-Q), retrieved November 2, 2026. How we read and check them: methodology and data sources. Not investment advice. Back to W. R. Berkley Corporation.