Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Yes, but only half of the story is written and only interest income is fixed for 4 years. What if insurance goes into a soft market now that every insurance company can get higher rates? And what if interest rates are much lower in 4 years, dont you think the market will anticipate that? Its all rosy now. I bought @ 0.5x bv and thought that around 1-1.1 is a good target (because that is where FFH was priced for a very long period of time), so at the moment the next year of income is also priced in at 1.2 x bv. If you are a long term holder just ignore me and stay the course .
  3. Today
  4. Sold exor bought at 26 and still negative on market so bought more PE funds for half and building small 5% cash same reason as in 2021 bought an expensive car at the end of 2021. And now I want to buy an expensive motorcycle “I am to happy” so selling stocks that’s what my senses are telling me.
  5. If the media and left leaning politicians honestly reported on Trump I’m certain he would have much lower support. Instead it’s been lies and information for eight straight years, from the Russia collusion narrative in 2016, the endless other shit in between, and now another blatant and transparent lie is the ‘bloodbath’ narrative. I think many on the right could agree with you about Trump’s character, but a sober analysis of his character is almost impossible when it’s just constant lies and misinformation about him spread by the powerful. It obscures any discussion about Trump itself because everyone can see these transparent machinations from various groups (media, politicians, courts). Imagine if none of this occurred and we didn’t have these talking points about the media (and others) because he was fairly and honestly appraised. There would be nothing to rage against and a sober assessment of Trump would be possible. I’m certain many would dislike what they see.
  6. Sweet

    China

    Because the outcomes in Democracies are obviously significantly worse than authoritarian? What a weird thing to say.
  7. Mr. Trump has until March 25 to post an additional bond for $456M. The dollar amount is approaching a record size. For example in 2009, Zurich wrote a surety bond for Panama Canal for $450M - believed to be one of the largest deals ever done in surety. I would like to highlight Chubb previously issued a $91.6M bond with brokerage account as collateral allowing Mr. Trump to appeal in this case. When the news broke of Chubb issuing the $91.6M bond, there was a ton of blow back to Chubb. CEO Evan Greenberg (son of Hank Greenberg - formerly of AIG now Starr) wrote a letter addressing the $91.6M bond (letter attached). I really liked reading the letter from Mr. Evan Greenberg - showed some leadership and belief in our system of government. One could argue the other side saying Greenberg/Chubb is favoring Mr. Trump and bring in all the politics however I want to believe Mr. Greenberg's words in his letter "we support the rule of law and our role in it". I just liked the letter a lot especially in this political climate where we need leadership. As a shareholder, I trust Berkshire made a sound decision. With a juicy premium and liquid collateral/margin of safety could be a good risk. However the political nature probably just makes it a too hard pile issue so I get it. Berkshire could have easily declined on same basis of Chubb - lack of collateral or size. As Mr. Buffet says, cash/liquidity is like oxygen. chubb-letter-on-trump-bond-3132024.pdf
  8. I see it as parlaying an airport into a bank. Fairfax will likely do their usual debt dressed as equity but with a twist to comply with the banking regulators. I doubt the regulators would take kindly to slicing the bank position so it is a case of what other assets they can leverage. I doubt Fairfax think about the market cap or even book value of Fairfax India but what lien they get against the underlying assets. I also think FFH has to throw $2-3 bn into this to make it happen too. All a bit previous as there are no approvals. Still think this has the making of minor indigestion but the balance sheet is much bigger than when this was first flagged a couple of years ago. I can see why Prem is keen but it is like elephant hunting with a bow and arrow, you better not miss.
  9. Parsad

    China

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-fines-evergrande-hui-bans-125059847.html Cheers!
  10. Can't stand Hillary, but even the biggest Trump supporters must know he's a real twat and moron, who says the dumbest things to fire up the more baser instincts of his acolytes. The really sad part is that both parties truly...truly...believe that Biden and Trump are their best chances and choices! How effed up has the U.S. gotten when it comes to their political leaders? Now please go back to talking about the Star Ship launch, instead of politics! Cheers!
  11. @Jaygo BOO looks very interesting to me- one of those cyclicals with a competitive advantage that are secular growers over the long term. Thanks for sharing. I put them on my watchlist.
  12. So what if I were to take net earnings - capex instead? Would that be more accurate you think? I of course want cash from operations but they don’t provide that data, I think net earnings is the closest I can get to that.
  13. This values only the stocks in the SP500 that actually pay a dividend. All those stocks like AMZN, TSLA, META (so far ) and many others are valued at zero in your model. I think this is the reason why the value in your model is too low. A dividend growth model can only be applied to dividend paying stocks.
  14. I'm sure everyone already has seen it, but just incase someone missed it over the weekend. Yahoo: Berkshire Hathaway speeds up stock buybacks In its proxy filing on Friday, Berkshire said it repurchased the equivalent of 3,808 Class A shares this year through March 6, spending approximately $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion depending on the dates of the buybacks. Nearly three-quarters of the repurchases took place after Feb. 12. Berkshire repurchased $2.2 billion of its own stock in last year's fourth quarter, and $9.2 billion in all of 2023. Its peak year for buybacks was 2021, when they totaled $27 billion. Through Friday, Berkshire's share price was up 14% this year, about twice the gain for the Standard & Poor's 500. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-hathaway-speeds-stock-buybacks-185257424.html
  15. Regarding TRS you are actually calculating share price being nearly flat (or up 25 dollars, so 2.5%) until end of 2024 for the next 3 quarters and two weeks, or do I misunderstand how the TRS works? Of course the share price could be higher or lower within such a short timeframe, but of course you have to assume something. But what’s the rational behind $250 for 2024? Wouldn‘t it be rational to e. g. assume a share price end of 2027 (whatever that would be) and than draw a straight (or compounding) line to that point? Than it would maybe be rational to readjust that line each time you recalculate your forecast? Otherwise you maybe would come to the point, where you would have to assume a negative return to the end of the year, if you assume a fixed return per calendar year and the share price gets above that?! I am just asking Why are net gains in investments lower in 2025 than in 2024? Intuitively I‘d think one would assume Fairfax to get 7% again but on 107% of 2024 equity, so it should be higher. Same with the TRS: If shareprice goes up algorithmic, than it should be higher 2025 than 2024; or is this a function of the good start of Fairfax share price in 2024, so you adjusted 2024, but not 2025? In general I totally understand, that you have to be conservative with your assumptions the longer you look into the future (that’s what all good investors do - margin of safety) at the same time looking at the numbers I ask myself: If Fairfax just manages a roe around 15% in 2024 and 2025 like in your foecast (so for times with a hard market, good hand with equity investments and bonds, very good crs…) and Prem at the same time gives out the goal of a roe of 15% on average (he said stock return or book value compounding should be 15%; but roughly that’s the same as having a roe of 15% as a goal. Or am I wrong?), than the question occurs: Is that goal doable if he just manages 15% as a roe in such good times, where not only management performs near perfection, but the circumstances (hard market etc.) give an extra tailwind? If Prem doesn’t manage 18%, or 20% or more on average in such good times, he won‘t make 15% over time. My best guess is, that this difference to 18% or 20% or even more is just a function of you being conservative with your estimates (which is very fine!). What do you think?
  16. Yesterday
  17. Hillary engaging in clickbaiting too maybe? Trolling for likes? Or trying to spread lies? I don't know.
  18. Thanks @nwoodman. This heart warming nugget from the Bishop's blog: "Emilie also said he placed a call from his hospital bed to Warren Buffett, his friend since 1959 and longtime business partner."
  19. That's true in theory but in practice it is not easy to buy $110 million worth of FIH.U shares without drastically moving the price. I think it just comes down to 'fair and friendly' and doing the right thing and it comes back around over and over when you always try to behave that way.
  20. They can take it in cash and buy the shares at the same discount and end up with the roughly the same number of shares. The difference being float/tradable shares decreases (as opposed to increases) which may help close the NAV gap in the future AND is does NOT adversely impact FIH shareholders (including the existing balance of FIH shares Fairfax holds) via unnecessary dilution.
  21. I would argue that reputationally it is very poor form to fleece one's asset management clients by foisting material dilution on them because of a formula that was set ex-ante and with a stock that has traded very poorly. In the long term I think doing the right thing will lead them to much better opportunities here, heck maybe FIH trades at a premium to book one day and they can issue a bunch of stock and drive more fees to say nothing of all of the other relationships FFH has.
  22. I think they were trying to be good partners and from a long term perspective it would likely hurt FIH from a fund raising perspective in the future if FFH is seen as punishing FIH for the discount. Forever is a long time. They had to take the first two performance fees in stock and have discretion going forward. I still hope they will use the cash to tender for FIH shares so we can get some price discovery.
  23. I think it's been mentioned before but you have to trade the way that fits your personality. I was addicted to video games when I was younger so I don't want a strategy that would involve lots of trades and looking at the screen constantly. Some people have all their net worth in one or two stocks, and some won't buy anything but an index fund. Both work if you know what you are doing and why, and do it consistently rather than switching strategies. "Consistency beats intensity". If you can't do Cross fit every day, then don't. Find something that works for you over time.
  24. Trimming a little Scorpio Tankers. I added 10% to my position about a year ago between $40 -$44 when it looked like a good setup. (I mentioned it on the STNG post at the time). I'll keep the earlier/cheaper shares but trimming this back to my original position.
  25. Yes, 99.99% of crypto really gives the other 0.01% a bad name. I wouldn't recommend putting real money into a dog with a hat coin.
  26. Poor Slorg. Basically the way crypto works is that a guy named Slorg makes up a token named Slerf, which is distinguished from other tokens by having a cartoon sloth logo. You send $10 million of Solana crypto tokens to Slorg, and he makes a note to himself that he owes you some Slerfs. Then he accidentally flushes that note down the toilet and, due to the irreversible nature of the blockchain, you get no Slerfs and your money is permanently gone, though Slorg is very sorry. If this were a company, and Slerf was a stock, this would all be bad: It is bad for a company to lose all of the money it raises in a stock offering. (Also, though, it would probably be reversible. If a company just lost its list of shareholders, it could probably, like, go back through its emails and reconstruct the list.) But Slerf is not a company or a stock: It is a crypto token, so absolutely nothing matters. Except that this is all sort of funny, and attention-grabbing, so of course Slerf went up. Arnold: “This mistake was very good for attention, and attention is the true value of any memecoin. So the obvious thing happened and the new tokens that were released shot up around 5,000%.” You could spend another 10 hours and 55 minutes pondering this but I do not recommend it.
  27. What are dogwifhat’s fundamentals? Well: Its logo is a dog, with a hat. If people kick in enough money, maybe they can put a picture of the dog with the hat on the Las Vegas Sphere, which might encourage more people to kick in more money.
  28. Some interesting/funny crypto observations by Matt Levine in todays column. First: Well. Sure. Look, I myself have spent at least 11 hours online learning about crypto, and I do not want to be too skeptical about crypto education. But these numbers strike me as reasonable. Of course the CFA program should be harder than the crypto program. One model that you could have for crypto is that it is finance without the content.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...