Leaderboard

Very exciting discussion between @Viking and @Munger_Disciple. Thank you! Maybe some thoughts on this: In the end, Munger's approach reminds me a bit of the early Buffett of Cigar Butt Investments. Of course not really, because Munger is also interested in the PE ratios and not the liquidation value; but Munger just insists on a very cautious assessment of the earnings, also sees no moat, and thus consequently focuses very strongly on the "margin of safety"; and especially this point reminds me of Cigar Butt. Viking, on the other hand, I often understand to mean that with the many in-depth analyses of the individual parts and the many changes in perspective, he ends up - in my perception - shedding much more light on management and its capabilities, and thus, in my view, the overall picture evolves of a value-oriented company that has become increasingly well-managed over the years and that uses "float" as leverage. Whereas decades ago, CRs were regularly extremely poor relative to the market, Fairfax has averaged a few percentage points better than the market over the past decade. Thus, Prem is following much more closely in the footsteps of a Buffett or Gayner at this point. Fairfax has had by far the strongest premium growth of the top 25 insurers over the past three years. Many investments in India, Greece and the U.S. have paid off or are performing well right now. And so on. And then Viking also builds in a Margin of Safety (one that I personally think is sufficient and reasonable!), but just less conservative than Munger. So the picture that emerges is one of many positive individual decisions that form an overall picture of how Fairfax has changed after 2016. Viking's number analyses are important, but a second layer (management, moat) is forming, and I personally read a strong case for management and the presence of a moat above all else from the mosaic of many individual analyses. And at the end Viking also builds in a Margin of Safety, but to show a possible, conservatively realistic compounding perspective it is lower than Munger's. Both seem perfectly legitimate and consistent to me. They are just completely different methods. Gayner explained in a podcast some time ago ("the evolution of a value investor") that he now pays much more attention to the development of a company than to its current state. In a sense, he said he is much more interested in the corporate movie that is being created over time than a still image (or something like that). If you have a company with a moat, the best way to recognize it is in a movie, that is, in an analysis over a longer period of time in the past, than by looking at just one point in time. I was very attracted to the idea. It is probably rare that a company can already be considered cheaply valued without a moat and it (possibly; tbd) also has a moat on top. Otherwise, there would probably not have been this exchange here. Either way, there is a lot to be said for either a good investment or even one along the lines of "Once in a Lifetime" . We will see.

This is a bit off topic but last comment. There is a bit of politics here as it relates to leadership so be forewarned. Will China take over USA as number 1 economy in the globe ? It all depends on the leadership of both countries in the coming years. Xi has changed the course of China that has made it less attractive for foreign investors and foreign entrepreneurs and brilliant innovators around the world. If this direction continues, China is unlikely to take over USA (and USA led order), however Xi has at most another 10 years and of course China can course correct back on the old path (before Xi ) but by then demographics starts acting as a head wind so it becomes more difficult. Even with perfect execution and more reasonable Xi, the odds are low except if USA really screws the pooch, which by the way is not out of question on the current trends in USA. The current state of leadership and politics in USA is loosing friends all over the world. The MAGA crowd and nutty republicans in house and nutty left is doing a great job in threatening our democracy and constitutional way of life and also scaring important foreigners and allies with the crazy rhetoric. It could be a phase and USA has always got its act together when faced with a real challenge (China currently) and perhaps it bounces back and gets back on right track but for USA to continue to beat China, it needs 3 things: (i) Trust of important allies ..Japan, Germany, India, France, Indonesia, Brazil ( support for dollar and support for US led world order/miltary) and (ii) Continued full force immigration and attraction of the best talent and entrepreneurs in the world (iii) Open society and free markets. None of this is a given, and the thread of history can go in many directions. My best guess is despite the worst of leadership in the USA, there are enough entrenched advantages that we can take a lot of damage before we start loosing on the 3 important things above and give China an opening. But the investment case for China, and Chinese companies is not if its number 1 GDP, but its the case of despite negatives modelled into the narrative, how will these companies perform. Many great Chinese companies are so undervalued that even if China grows without being number 1, these companies do well and investment in them produce good returns. Many US companies are so over valued that despite USA remaining number 1 GDP these companies many not do as well because it has to work off the over-valuation. Tencents and BABA have the (i) E-payments business (ii) Cloud/digitazation business and (iii) AI business which will have tail wind for many years to come.

I coulden't have phrased it better than @no_free_lunch above. Also : Wikipedia : Ukraine - Declaration of Independence. Please also here note which countries were among the first three contries to recognize this on December 2nd 1991 : Poland, Canada and ? ... Russia!.

@UK, @no_free_lunch, there has not been a poll done in at least a year of US citizens asking whether or not they would be willing to pay $100 per person per year to support the war in Ukraine. You may think $25bn per annum is a small price to pay, but US citizens think otherwise. Also, nobody is talking about handing the region over to Russia. However, it is NOT the job of US taxpayers to support Ukraine. It is the job of Ukrainians. Yes, we are obligated to defend Poland and the Baltics due to treaty obligations. Meanwhile, let's not forget, Ukraine has never existed as a country. Western Ukraine was part of Austro-Hungarian empire for centuries, and eastern Ukraine was called Little Russia for centuries, and part of Russian empire, and was Russian speaking. Hell, Kiev was called the mother of Russian cities.