73 Reds

Well, success is a good obsession to have. And it is far preferable to the abject failure many of us witnessed previously. Small wins are really all we can reasonably hope for from Presidential administrations and this one has provided some and hopefully more to come. Others can fixate on nuance; I could care less as long as what I voted for gets accomplished.

Thanks Viking. It always comes down to superior management possessing the right discipline and integrity. My favorite element is unconstrained capital allocation, an issue I asked Maverick47 about just yesterday. The only thing in the slides you presented that I don't care for is their 15% LT annual BV CAGR. Just never liked arbitrary growth aspirations; let the OPs take care of growth. But what about potential new competition?

@Viking, if you or anyone knows, how many direct competitors does Fairfax have in the insurance/reinsurance market? And with so much global liquidity, how strong are the barriers to entry for potential new competitors? Not to give any credence to our favorite Morningstar analyst, but he got me to thinking more about what Moat(s) Fairfax actually has and how strong they might be.

I dunno, some of us prefer to follow people we like. What you describe seems like the perfect definition of "obsession".

Truly feel bad for those of you who can't distinguish between the person and policy. Must be hard when one individual so thoroughly dominates your thoughts and thought process. Post away if it makes you feel better about yourself. I chuckle when some of my friends vent about Trump on social media yet never, ever bring it up in person. There must be a name for such a condition or maybe they are just not prepared for a face-to-face response to their nonsensical rants.

Yeah, who wants fair and accurate elections anyway? All the people who ask why these matters have not been investigated before or why there is no previous evidence of election fraud are the same people who tend to form judgments on other matters before the final verdict is read. The other thing these folks have in common is they all have a narrative. Imagine simply investigating irregularities without a vested interest in the outcome. At least we seem to have one example here but the mere idea gets people so twisted in knots the outcome won't matter to them if it doesn't suit their ideology. I mean is consistent voting procedures across all States and all elections really a divisive issue? Maybe someday elections will no longer even be necessary - just ask AI for the results on Election Day.

Could it be that a better iteration of digital currency is coming?

You demonstrate cult behavior here on this thread better than anyone I have ever met. Feel free to have the last word - you deserve it.

No @dwy000 just going to let your post sit there on this largely useless thread for all to view at their leisure.

Could you possibly be more clueless? How embarrassing.

The difference is we both tend to only respond to the barrage of Trump-hate. The fact that some of you here (maybe not you) feel that because we support certain Trump policies we are members of some "cult" demonstrates how little you all know or appreciate about one's perspective on things. Can't recall ever feeling the need to post anything about anyone in such a negatively-deranged way in spite of personal feelings one way or the other. It's as if you just can't help yourselves. Calling 'em like I see 'em.

Yeah, but we've discussed the fact that gold has more uses and doesn't need to be used for transactions at all. .What else is BTC good for?

Yeah, I get that but over time if some (even small) % was allocated to equities, the long term results should be better both as to an increased ability to write more insurance and also nominal investment results, no? As for activist investors, I've always liked them even when not always agreeing with their positions - they keep management on their toes.

Just trying to avoid your daily Trump rants and remain on a worthwhile topic. But feel free to keep this thread as useless as ever.

Um, the Supreme Court was just doing its job. Nothing more and nothing less. Ruling on a set of facts placed before it by applying specific case law, precedent and rationale. IMO they got it right for the correct, rather narrow reasons. When other laws, procedures and avenues exist, why do you or anyone assume that they should be affected by a narrow court ruling that would be otherwise inapplicable?

Not surprising that someone who works for a blockchain/crypto company uses a crypto credit card. But I'd really like to know the source of "a quarter of Americans have tried using crypto for purchases and investments".

Another thought-provoking post - really learning a lot. If more capital reserves are needed for premium growth, why then do most insurers shy away from potentially higher investment returns through equity investments with at least some portion of their capital?

@Maverick47 That's quite a testament to Fairfax's underwriting - thanks for an insurance insider POV. I never really thought about how there could be a CR "sweet spot" so appreciate you pointing that out.

Well, I can't think of a more important "moat" for an insurance company than underwriting discipline. Investment discipline is a close second and they're getting there. Just to spite him I bought some more today.

LOL, I tend to agree with the "extrapolation into the future" part but this guy is so out to lunch on his value estimate its truly a wonder he still has a job. Yet as long as he is going to be wrong, we all should wish him more followers so we could pluck some shares at his value estimate.

@gfp you're on the right track. Checks and balances never disappeared in spite of what many believe. The fact that Trump is now our President shows they are stronger than ever. I didn't read the decision but never felt that tariffs were needed for any kind of "emergency" while at the same time chuckled at all those who became crybabies at the thought that the US could do to other countries what they do to us. As usual, life goes and we did see that for the short time that tariffs were in place, it didn't end.

Yeah, but the stock has been cheap for most of that time so bullishness was not out of place. I just question the high expectations going forward vs. a backdrop of near perfection the past 5 years. Personally, would be happy with 10% annual returns on this investment for the next 5 years, given a not so rosy crystal ball for public equities in general over the remainder of this decade.

Of course - which is why I own a rather large position in the stock. Yet I don't mind being the lone skeptic here. Have seen recency bias cause a lot of disappointment in past travails.

Perhaps you are right (again, as a shareholder I'm rooting for you). But as a betting man, they literally did everything right for the past 5 years with a lot of macro help; what are the odds of that repeating over the next five years?

Huh? As a shareholder the stock can be a successful investment even if the bet falls short. Today, I'd bet the under.