racemize

This is phenomenal. Every time I read Marks, I am impressed.

Is this true? This is the scenario I'm envisioning: Person has mortgage at an initial rate, let's say 6% and pays that rate for 3 years, leaving 27 years left. Then, the rate is decreased to 4% with a new 30 year mortgage. So now he pays a lower rate, but for 30 years (3 more years than would have been on the original mortgage)--it seems like the principle repayment would not be faster in that case, e.g., since the refinance results in a new amortization schedule and presumably lower payments. Perhaps you are talking about a different type of situation?

I think this is one of your most readable/coherent paragraphs. I encourage more of them!

write up on the LightSquared timeline: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/why-lightsquared-failed.ars

I own all three. Also, Prem's beaten pretty much everyone over long periods of time, so...

I agree, the call was great. Certainly made me feel pretty good about prospects and the business. My only regret was my entry price, but I wanted to get in on the Prem train! Ah well, he'll wash it out in the long run.

He indicated that at least some of the CR is due to low premium writing (i.e., the fixed costs were causing higher ratios). Accordingly, new business should help on two fronts: 1) higher prices due to the cats and 2) lower fixed costs relative to overall premiums. He also indicated that the entire P&C industry needs to be writing at 90-95% to get mid to high single digit ROE due to the low interest rates.

Current price is above book value though.

I believe he said they sold half their treasuries (though I'm not sure what percentage of the bond port that was).

I may be drinking the kool-aid, but listening to this phone call, I feel pretty good about future prospects. However, I bought at a higher price to book than I wanted/thought (sadface).

2 PST, markets were closed.

If we exclude the craziness in the early 2000's, what's the book value multiple range that FFH trades at? 0.8-1.6?

This is likely to sting in the morning!

thanks Sanjeev, I'll stop hitting refresh constantly in that case. =p.

I assume the announcement should come here: http://www.fairfax.ca/news/press-releases/default.aspx pretty much now right?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/21jan_severespaceweather/ Normally wouldn't pay too much attention, but it is from nasa. Given that there was a small one in 1989, a 10x one in 1921, and an even bigger one in 1851, it doesn't seem too far out of the question that a relatively large one could happen in the next 50 years. Really big ones are apparently more rare (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859): Ice cores contain thin nitrate-rich layers that can be used to reconstruct a history of past events before reliable observations. These show evidence that events of this magnitude—as measured by high-energy proton radiation, not geomagnetic effect—occur approximately once per 500 years, with events at least one-fifth as large occurring several times per century.[9] Less severe storms have occurred in 1921 and 1960, when widespread radio disruption was reported. Other links: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507&page=1 Probably not too useful for investing if the worst case happens, though.

Yeah, I found that pretty interesting as well--I'm mostly wondering why Buffett is selling it. I know it won't grow fast, but it's got a nice dividend with a seemingly solid moat.

hope so, I have indirect exposure via LUK.

there's no fast way to determine the changes is there? Just compare the two 13Fs?

my eye!

I have been reading all the stock sheets in value line as well as running some 3-5 year total return screens on that site. I'll also just keep track of which stocks drop a lot (e.g., on bad news) + other screens (e.g., ROE, P/E, expected growth, etc.).

I think people are missing my point--I never said anything about performance or education--clearly, people that are better off are able to provide more opportunities for their children. It would be silly to not provide the best education and opportunity that you can. There is a huge difference between that and giving your children anything they want and instilling poor values.

looks like they released the full thing: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/86252524/

I have two stories to tell on this front--one of myself, and one of my friend, both of which are extremely positive, but have very different situations: 1) For myself, at my birth, my parents began very poor--however, they were fortunate enough to have finished college or completed a portion of college, respectively. Regardless, I was born very early for them (20 and 21 respectively), and they were not making much money. We lived in various places, but the first half of my upbringing was in a mobile home, first at College Station while my dad got a Master's degree in English, and later while my dad taught and my mom finished her degree. My parents were very frugal, and eventually we moved the mobile home on to five acres, until we could afford to build a house. During that time (perhaps at the age of 10), we all cleared the land every morning on the weekends and every morning during the summer (I was not happy about this!). I was paid 8 dollars a week for chores, half of which went into a college fund. I saved the 4 dollars a week all the way up to 160-180 dollars to buy computer parts (e.g., 180 dollars for 4 mb of RAM, a sound card, a new modem, etc.). I would calculate how long this process would take, and wait in anticipation until it occurred, never spending any money on anything until the goal was reached. I also started working below minimum wage in a plant nursery at 14. I moved on from this to McDonalds, then doing IT work for a school, then IT work at a biotechnology company, eventually getting 17 dollars an hour. By the time I was in high school, we were no longer poor as a family (both parents were teachers, little debt, etc.), but were by no means well-off. Regardless, the whole upbringing and experience made me very frugal and a big saver. I was also a hard worker, but that was probably mostly due to genes and my parent's style of upbringing rather than the monetary situation. 2) My friend, on the other hand, had a dad that worked in the oil business, and they were very well-off. However, while they lived comfortably, it was by no means lavish, though they did have two houses. I don't believe he had to work that much, but he also got the same job doing IT work at the biotechnology company in high school. I suspect he was able to skip all the previous jobs that I had done beforehand--regardless, he worked so he could have money despite the lack of need to do so (I think this is good parenting). You might ask where I'm going with this (and I'm not totally sure), but here are some thoughts. First off, we're both doing really well in life, and are very fortunate people (he's an engineer at Google and I'm a patent agent). We both save tons of money and are generally frugal. However, there are some subtle differences, which stem from the two different situations. Throughout his life, I think he was very aware of the safety net behind him. I also think this still has an effect on him, as I'm sure he's very aware that he'll never have to worry about retirement money or that sort of thing and is really free to do what he wants. For example, he took a year off of work (using his own saved money) to explore his hobbies (e.g., investing, hiking, reading, gaming, etc.). I also think that he, on some level, has difficulty feeling like he has "earned" everything, even though he has been essentially self sufficient (both of our parents paid for our college). (Side note, I think he has earned everything as well as I have, though we are both very lucky people). Since we are talking about trusts, I think he falls into that category, though I don't know if he actually has/had one. That being said, he knows he has the safety net behind him and that everything will be easy/taken care of in the long run. My opinion is that the way he was brought up is the best for a family with money. However, I think there may be a better sense of accomplishment of doing well in life without there being an easy safety net, though this is probably all illusory given that a lot of success is just luck anyway (don't get me wrong here, I worked very hard, but you have to be good and lucky, imo). On the flip side, there are certainly very spoiled people, but this is not limited to trusts or not trusts. We grew up with people who made much less money than his parents, did not have trusts, but were not brought up well and were very spoiled, even with only upper-middle class incomes. I think my overall point is this--the more money that is involved, the more careful you have to be with upbringing. If you are raised poor, you are guaranteed a certain type of perspective, which I view as a positive. If you are raised rich (or simply un-poor), that perspective needs to be ingrained by parenting. In either case, parenting and instilled values are king.

The link to Southeastern Management was provided in the post above you. I'll spoon feed you to a link that you can easily find at the home page of SEAM. Here is an example: http://www.longleafpartners.com/investment_offerings/mutual_funds/partners_fund/performance I'm not sure what you are referring to here--I was commenting on the graph that you posted and indicating that it was nice to see the differences in returns for different discounts to intrinsic value given an underlying growth rate. I wasn't requesting any "spoon feeding".