Jump to content

racemize

Member
  • Posts

    2,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by racemize

  1. Good point, yes, have not had any withholding from the annual dividend in that account, so probably would work for this.
  2. It is not clear to me what the tax implications (e.g., Canadian withholding) if this is sold via a U.S. IRA. Any thoughts from board members?
  3. If they were basing it on the patent value, I wish they had talked to me. That was peak wireless patent price when those previous transactions went down (nortel and motorola). Experts would have known that at the time. Also everyone out there saying “patent value” is a thesis (for virtually any stock) who isn’t in that specific patent space—don’t put too much weight on it. Patents are very tricky and fickle things.
  4. Refused to comment on BB, several questions on it. All shorts closed.
  5. What was said? Rough version: Called in and told him he needed to step away, he wasn't paying attention anymore, and had lost his touch. Continued by saying that Prem didn't understand any of the companies he was investing in and wasn't doing any detailed analysis on microeconomics, his partners agreed but were Canadian so too nice to tell him, and the bankers were cowards not asking hard questions because Canada doesn't have enough good companies.
  6. wow, which one of you just went off on Prem on the call?
  7. Pelosi didn’t ask for $2k checks?
  8. Apparently BB is making the rounds on various YOLO places, e.g., WSB, TikTok. (This is what I hear anyway)
  9. I believe BAM was in warehousing/logistics first and sold it to BX or others. 2018 investor day transcript:
  10. At least according to ycharts 2010 eps was around 13$ which would be a cagr of ~14%. Don't know about ycharts. I used the 10-k. See attached. Missing the stock split--in today's numbers it was $13.16
  11. +1 pupil, surprised so many people reacting to the sale of less than 1% of a company that doesn't meet his requirements in the first place.
  12. Would you ever expect them to trade above par, given how low rates have gone? I need to look at the terms again. No, just trading back to where they were in 2019 is sufficient. Meantime, 8% yield or so.
  13. Viking, what's your short-term trade target here? Getting back to book value? One idea, and I've switched to it, is just buying the preferreds. If you are aiming to get to book value, I'm assuming they will get back to $20-$25 (depending on the series) at the same or better pace than common.
  14. Sanjeev, I'm curious as to what you think of the fact that insiders all all buying preferred shares rather than common shares? They seem to have quite a bit of upside themselves these days...
  15. MKL has a lot more specialty policies than BRK I believe. And that's where language gets a little weird, as those are not standardized. I for example, have a policy from MKL (only 5%, as it was a lloyd's syndicate) that specifically covers business interruption when the government shuts you down for "an occurence of an identified human disease", with no pandemic exclusion language or addendum.
  16. Oh, why did the Fed make us take on too much leverage over the past decade! Who knew that leverage can be a bad thing! Let’s see who makes it out of this stronger—PE with high leverage or BRK with cash on hand... just as a data point, BX just said they took no money from the government, don't plan to, and have ample reserves to support their companies. just as a data point, the largest 19 US banks 'returned' almost $80B to shareholders between the third quarter of 2007, when some felt trouble was being contained, through the accelerating phase of 2008. Interesting to note that the $80B (and more) was 'returned' to banks as part of a plan labelled, as typically is in those cases, with capital letters. The banks are much better capitalized at this point and the present environment, by itself, has little 'predictive' power but this is only to say that it may be risky to assess risk from the point of view of actors (like private equity) who tend to act pro-cyclically and to be lagging indicators. BX has > $100 billion in available dry powder. edit: anyway, you guys have helped me decide to continue not to post here. Carry on!
  17. Oh, why did the Fed make us take on too much leverage over the past decade! Who knew that leverage can be a bad thing! Let’s see who makes it out of this stronger—PE with high leverage or BRK with cash on hand... just as a data point, BX just said they took no money from the government, don't plan to, and have ample reserves to support their companies.
  18. He's also hard of hearing, so he often just never heard the question right.
  19. Some weird end-point picking in several sections. I guess the 2016 one makes sense because of hedges, but the one that stopped at 2018 instead of 2019 on underwriting reserves--really?
  20. Thanks. The price history at close for past 5 years that you shared, suggests if one was holding since Dec 2014, annual return has been about 2%/yr (from dividends) in generally a bull market. Wow! Will take a substantial run up in price to justify for those of us who have held. Looking in the rear view mirror is important. Why has the stock price gone sideways for 5 years? 1.) what errors were made? 2.) has the company learned the lessons? The much more important number for me is $608.19 (Dec 24 stock price). 3.) What will the company do moving forward? The shares currently trade below book value (cheap compared to other insurance companies). - Their insurance businesses are performing well and look to be in a hardening market; this is a big positive. - their bond portfolio is positioned well (short end of curve) should rates continue to move higher - their equity portfolio looks well positioned as we enter 2020 should we see economic growth continue to chug along And sentiment towards the company is terrible. This is not to suggest the company is perfect; it is not. I think the company has learned some valuable lessons. However, on balance, i like the decisions the company has made the past 2 years. More importantly, the company (and its equity holdings) is doing lots of things to drive shareholder value in 2020 and beyond. Q4 results should be solid. I like the risk reward at current prices. +1 to this post. A couple of add-ons: 1) It is annoying that they have USD BVPS, but Canadian stock price, as it doesn't let you compare them that directly. Anyway, 2014 was something like $530 USD share price, on a book value of 394.83, which is a P/B of 1.35 vs $460 USD/462 BVPS (unadjusted) of basically 1. So value creation was more like 3.4%+2% div = 5.4% CAGR. Obviously still not a great result, but that tells you more about how they did as a company than the stock price does. I think Q4 will make this look a bit better too, with the recent sales, depending on cats. 2) Let's compare to Markel that has much better sentiment (although last year didn't help them much). 2014 YE bvps was 543.96, price was $687 (P/B was 1.26). Current is BVPS of $768, and price of $1,123 (P/B of 1.46). Value creation (again using BVPS) was 7.5% CAGR. So Fairfax underperformed Markel by 2.1% per annum on BVPS+div, even though the price change was quite a bit different. 3) Continuing this Markel comparison, if you go back and look at combined ratios of the two companies, FFH is pretty close to Markel. Markel Combined ratios, 2014 to current: 95%, 89%, 92%, 105%, 98%, 95%; average: 95.7% FFH Combined ratios, 2014 to current: 90.8%, 89.9%, 92.5%, 106.6%, 97.3%, 97.1%, average: 95.7% Thinking about the above, it seems quite clear to me that FFH is undervalued and/or MKL is overvalued. I tend to think the former, but a mix is possible.
  21. Well I did while I made it. ;)
  22. Anyone know what the 2018 net returns were? Updating some tracking information. Cheers!
  23. I stayed 2 hours north of QC for a couple of weeks in La Malbaie--the views over the river were gorgeous, and land seemed really cheap (< $100k for amazing views), around 1 acre. Is this common in not-close-to-city Canada?
  24. Hi Packer, the proxy for IV changes depend on the company in question. For Berkshire, I used Book value and also added 1% per year to make up for IV changing from 1->1.7 over the entire time period (per Buffett's comments this year). For KO/S&P I used earnings. For Giverny, I used his internal OE projections. (Dividends are added in all cases) Thanks. So for KO what did you use as your base value for IV? I am assuming book value would have some issues due to buybacks & earnings above the WACC. Packer Ah, I see. I didn't have any base value, so there's no explicit calculation of an "IV". There is only a proxy for the change in IV, compared to change in price, so in both cases the base price and the base IV are not considered, nor is there any consideration for the gap between price and IV. So, in the case of KO, I started with the first year's price and the first year's earnings, then compared annual growth of price+div and earnings+div from that start point.
×
×
  • Create New...