73 Reds

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.

As a current shareholder that would be a fine outcome but if you're asking me whether I'd bet on it beyond stock holdings - probably not.

I dunno, there is a place in Florida called "The Villages" that he might like.

Well, good discussion and it helps to add clarity to one's thoughts even when they don't change.

I wouldn't assume interest rates will remain where they are now. Consider the tailwinds of the past five years. Here we are now in what looks like a softening insurance market and the likelihood of lower interest rates. If so, there may be a lot better investment alternatives on the horizon than Fairfax shares.

I think that any assumption that the company will continue to grow at 15%/year in its current configuration is a mistake. They need increasingly more outside investments at this stage. When the investment universe has become largely saturated, share buybacks are more attractive. We are nowhere near that point in time.

Agreed, yet coming off of a prolonged hard insurance market I just don't think that share repurchases at current prices are their best bet.

Again, the issue to me is buying back shares reduces available capital for other purchases/acquisitions. I'm fine with that for a company like Berkshire which [evidently] has very limited investment options and probably more capital than it needs. Fairfax is small enough that it has lots of options. Not necessarily right now but what always appealed to me most about Berkshire is Buffett thought well ahead and was patient. He could have easily repurchased shares when Berkshire was the size of present-day Fairfax but he didn't. Berkshire shareholders reaped the benefits.

So if I'm understanding correctly, this is a self-imposed restriction?

Why are they limited to insurance company interests?

@Hamburg Investor the point is, I'd hate to think that Fairfax is the best investment THEY think they can make. If that is so, really have to reevaluate my investment in this stock.

Silly me. thought that sign was describing NYC water when the money runs out.

Even as a FL resident and property owner, I'd shy away from eliminating property taxes in this State. OTOH, consider who would vote for more property taxes in NYC. Either the vote should come only from property owners - the people directly affected, or bring back polling tests. Hate to think what NYC may look like at the end of this mayor's tenure and am glad I have no interests there whatsoever.

Your point and other similar points make sense, but my fear is the company may miss out on certain opportunities that otherwise might have been available with more deployable capital. Times of really cheap stocks and low hanging fruit everywhere only happen every so often. Such a time is likely sooner than many would like to think. Berkshire, for one is well-prepared.

I think that is somewhat of a circular argument. Prem may "know" Fairfax better than outside investments but that doesn't necessarily make Fairfax a better investment than outside investments. The difference between asset allocators (i.e., Fairfax and Berkshire) and most other companies is that other companies operating in specific sectors or industries often reach a plateau, whether temporary or permanent, outside of which growth becomes limited or even non-existent. Sure they can try to operate more efficiently and sometimes even initiate entire new divisions or make strategic acquisitions, but this often requires a great deal of diverse technology, innovation, brainpower, etc... (As an aside, those are characteristics of any large public equity investment I make). So when even the strongest companies face such limitations, one of the best ways to increase shareholder value is repurchasing shares at favorable prices. Asset allocators have no such limitations. When a company like Fairfax repurchases a lot of stock, it makes me wonder why they can't - or don't find any better investments than their own shares for the same money. Again, this is not to suggest that share repurchases should never be made but they should be weighed against everything else out there, which is an enormous investment universe for a relatively small and growing company like Fairfax.