73 Reds

I just can't understand why any first-time homeowner believes they have a right to the perfect home in the perfect neighborhood. Buy what you can afford, work harder so you can afford more, or live somewhere else that is affordable.

The usual whiners and complainers (not you) extrapolate present events into the indefinite future, just like they always do. They sound like a broken record and assess blame to suit their narrative. Nary a solution, that would require some thought.

Cubs, they don't forget; they ignore. That's all part of the narrative.

Yep. Thank goodness for State borders. The only opinions who counted were those of his constituents. Isn't it ironic that those who knew him best from both sides of the aisle were quick to sing his praises even though they didn't always agree?

Inflation heated up directly because of Covid. It would not have mattered who was President at the time.

If so, isn't the obvious answer to earn more? We can talk about housing supply vs. demand all day long but the fact is useful jobs and degrees will go a long way to resolve that issue for homebuyers. People who are gainfully employed to their capabilities tend to have less problems affording a house. Apologists tend to be from one political party and support many of the same issues that contribute to high housing costs. And there is always the option to move somewhere that is more affordable. Yet there are people who will complain no matter what. Like most things, the longer term solution to high housing prices is high housing prices. But don't tell that to folks who don't understand fundamental economics.

Did he cast any other votes in the last 30 years? Perhaps you'd have preferred his predecessor in the Senate, Strom Thurmond.

Mortgage rates are in line with long term averages and well below when I financed my first, fifth and tenth property. Today's mortgage rates are not the culprit. Its the actual purchase price and cost of insurance, taxes and maintenance.

Its a good business if its the best they can do with the borrowed funds.

Appreciate the response but still don't see how a TRS counterparty is the same as a bank when the counterparty owns the same number of shares as its TRS exposure. If it owns less shares than its exposure that provides leverage but also creates risk. Otherwise, still trying to figure out why a counterparty would settle for a risk-free 3% +/- return.

Could you explain how the counterparty uses leverage in a TRS for us "slow leaners"? I'm still not getting it, Do they have more exposure than the shares they own?

Are you referring to leverage by the counterparty? I thought the counterparty owned an equivalent number of shares as its exposure(?) Sorry for the confusion but I never did understand the precise mechanics.

Got it. Doesn't seem like a very high rate of return considering the counterparty has to own the stock to generate 3% interest plus whatever dividends it may receive.

Please excuse the dumb question but if the counterparty owns an equivalent number of shares as its TRS exposure, how does it make money? Does it collect a "vig" either way?

Maybe he can now afford his child support payments.

Sure but it would give a certain short seller another opportunity or at least something to think about - especially if they still hold the same beliefs about the company. Just thinking out loud - you guys are great and help crystalize these issues.

Can't really speak to UA and Andrew Peller b/c admittedly don't follow those industries and candidly don't understand what Fairfax management sees there. So to answer your question, would probably prefer Fairfax buybacks to THOSE investments (little as I know or care about either). And b/c of your point that dividends are and can be sent by insurance subs to holding company, not sure it matters specifically which is buying what - they're all part of Fairfax Financial. The point I was trying to make is that Buffett passed on repurchasing BRK shares at times when the stock traded at and below BV, i.e., ridiculously cheap - for reasons I could never understand. Fairfax is not at such a price, though it is cheap enough for me to have purchased shares this year at various times. But it raises the thought that what if Fairfax repurchases its limit of stock for the year and then the stock price craters to BV or below?

You may be right. Perhaps I'm viewing the issue more as a Berkshire shareholder with a younger Buffett at the helm. They are different companies and different management teams. Gotta always keep that in mind.

For me, the question is what they are spending it on. Ironically, as a long time Berkshire shareholder, I felt the exact opposite way when Buffett completely shunned share buybacks, particularly during the dot com era and during the financial crisis though Buffett was understandably concerned more with the latter. I guess my feeling is share buybacks should be a tool and are more appropriate for larger, more mature companies. Truly hope they don't try to buy back 10% of the company each year for lack of other ideas.

Good question. I'm old enough to have been through a number of downturns, beginning in Oct. 1987 (though admittedly didn't have much back then). Never felt the need to hedge b/c always felt the asset mix was appropriate and had sufficient income coming in, which is probably the main point.

Fairfax is but a tiny fraction of Berkshire's total market cap. When Berkshire was the size of Fairfax, no one was even considering the possibility that Berkshire would outgrow its investment possibilities (I don't think they have even today). And when Berkshire was worth just shy of $40 billion, that same $40 billion was worth a lot more. No question, share buybacks are fine if they are the best investment available to management at the time. My question always is whether that is the case. Because of Berkshire's size, that question is more easily answered in favor of Berkshire. Fairfax still has a lot of growth ahead and shrinking the balance sheet to such a large extent at this stage gives me pause.

Yep. Anyone who feels the need to maintain 25-50% cash probably lacks confidence in their investment abilities. My advice would be to follow Jack Bogle's advice and remain nearly fully invested & DCA into broad based equity index funds, less any cash that you need for day to day expenses and a sufficient cushion. Hedging rarely works because you're typically over-hedged or under-hedged for any actual event.

Hey, we agree for once! And the most prevalent buyers are liberals. The further left, the more they buy!

You guys really need to think about this more creatively. There are a multitude of ways to hide/conceal/ maintain wealth worldwide without the need for BTC or worrying about "frozen" accounts. It takes planning but evidently some of you really worry about this stuff.

Made my first - large for me - six figure- donation to charity about 10 years ago, much larger than usual because the donation was meaningful to them and to me. Try to do this each year with a charity where smaller amounts go a long way. Also try to keep it mostly local so I can monitor and/or be involved with the activities and ensure the money is used for its intended purpose.