73 Reds

In a tax-deferred account you can nimbly exit and re-enter so your considerations are far easier than for those of us with substantial deferred cap. gains. Were I considering investing new money in both namesakes of this forum today, I'd invest in Fairfax over Berkshire.

Depends on many factors. Certainly won't sell immediately and inclination is not to sell at all as a very long-time shareholder. If new management gives us a reason to sell due to poor performance/decision-making, then perhaps. But can't answer the question now or until it becomes a reality.

I wouldn't invest in any coastal areas yet to be developed. IMO the results will be disappointing. I'd also shy away from partially developed coastal regions simply because the costs and risks don't warrant being there and ultimately this will affect investment performance.

Not at all. There is a large difference between areas that are already developed and those that aren't. Then look no further than demographics. In South Florida the coasts are all developed and at night when you look up at a 30-story beachfront condo most months other than December, 90% of the units are dark since no one is even occupying those residences. Foreign ownership dominates and the local economy works in, shall we say funny ways (I'll leave it at that). The distinction between South Florida and Central Florida and/or North Florida is often as wide as the difference between Brazil and Indiana.

That's just the point - trends are all local. Florida is a large State. South Florida, particularly along the coast is already built up - there is no more vacant land. Other coastal regions are not. Trends in each place differ, often by wide margins.

Perhaps, but that doesn't take anything away from their accomplishments.

No forecasts or guessing at all. When you deal with these real estate professionals every day there is no need to wait for "experts" to tell you what they already see and know. When folks have lived and worked in communities for decades and even generations, trends become pretty obvious. That's why in nearly every small and mid sized community there are always your local "Billy-Bobs" who aren't necessarily book smart but they own the most successful businesses and largest homes. They don't need to wait for data reports to understand local trends. Not sure what the fixation is on "sensationalism" or what it has to do with this discussion.

LOL, no one is ignoring data. But by the time you process the data, it will have been all too obvious. Talk to any realtor, title company, developer, and property owner - they already know. Not here trying to convince anyone of anything - just telling it like it is.

Precisely. You don't need to wait for any data points. Just talk to the locals and observe.

Correct. Most people outside of storm-prone areas candidly don't understand hurricanes. The "cone" is largely meaningless, particularly for storms that are strong, large and fast-moving. Weather forecasters do an abysmal job explaining the risks because they rarely explain the directional differences depending on where you are in relation to potential storm surge and winds, not to mention that often the worst damage comes from outer rain bands far away from the storm's center. They seem to be getting better at predicting the path of storms farther in advance, but fail miserably in warning those areas ultimately affected by the resulting risks. Regarding insurance: My view is a minority view and often perceived as anti-development. But I believe that there should be areas in storm-prone coastal regions that are uninsurable. Many coastal areas should remain unimproved. If you want to build there, you take the risk, not a company and industry which then pawns off your entirely avoidable risk on other more prudent customers.

What's changed is there are more people and property in the way of the storms. Don't under-estimate the significance of that.

How can one decide in advance on an appropriate price at which to sell? Besides all the personal factors involved, doesn't the decision depend on how the company is doing once it reaches that price and what other investment alternatives are available at that time?

What do you mean by "beaten the SPX by over 30% annually"? Does this mean if SPX returned 10% that he did 13% or do you mean that if SPX returned 10% he did 40%? The latter seems implausible.

The problem is flood zones are based on historical data. Helene rewrote the record books, as did water temperatures this year. It doesn't take rocket science to recognize that this is no coincidence. Should water temperatures continue to rise it won't be long before "hurricane season" is expanded well beyond June 1 to Dec. 1. and flood zones are expanded well inland.

Yeah, unfortunately it takes experience to really grasp the concept. I learned long ago you can't fight Mother Nature and you'll never outsmart it either.

@dinar thanks for the well wishes. We are in the Tampa Bay Area, elevation of my residence here is 7.5 feet. But water came up and flooded parts at elevation of more than 15 feet. Have been here more than 30 years and never saw water come so far so fast. Neighbor 2 doors away had to evacuate through bedroom window in the middle of the night with wife and cat as water came up over their bed. I've lived through a hurricane with winds of 150 mph but never experienced water threats like last night. Good news is there was plenty of catfish floating around the street so no need to go hungry.

Massive water damage on the FL Gulf Coast. In some areas (my neighborhood) water came up so fast that people had to leave out of windows in the middle of the night to avoid waist deep water in their homes. Barrier islands will take a long time to recover. Even though eye of the storm was 100 miles offshore in these parts and max winds were only 80 mph, damage from water and even wind is excessive. NWS and even local weather forecaster severely underestimated the potential flood impacts. If the storm came in 100 miles to the east, entire communities would be gone. Just a small word of caution for all you JOE shareholders - you may believe that you are protected but you are not.

Yep, don't buy stocks that can "go to 0" without having an exit plan. Strong balance sheets prevent a stock from going to 0. Money making companies don't go to 0 while making money. The whole discussion about "going to 0" really makes no sense because if somehow a high quality company were to become worthless overnight, that would likely be the least of our worries.

They only have so much of the stuff and they have to get it out of the ground. As @Dinar suggested, their facilities can be destroyed. If all else fails, that's probably next. And if that happens, Iran has nothing left.

+1. I never understood the concept of "positioning". Why buy any position unless you know it as well as possible and have enough confidence to own it large? Imagine if a small business owner "positioned" his/her interest. Or a real estate owner. The objective is for it to grow. Generally diversification equates to mediocrity. Rather than diversifying, maintain sufficient cash or liquidity to ride out down cycles and also so you can take advantage of them. I fully realize that this is not the prevailing view (and would get me fired from most financial advisor jobs) but there are reasons why some folks achieve massive financial success and diversification is not one of them.

Iran isn’t exactly thriving but how do you prevent them from selling their oil. They have plenty of it and there are plenty of buyers for a small discount. They are in much better financial shape now than they were 4 years ago. We don't have to do business with them or give them money. We don't have to be a part of a ridiculous nuclear "treaty". We don't have to buy their oil or encourage others to do so by our own laissez faire attitude toward their terrorist regime. If we set the right example, much of the world will follow. The less money they have, the less they are able to supply weapons and cash to their proxies.

The shock and awe needs to target the source - Iran. It is unforgivable that our present government has allowed Iran to thrive while its abhorrent position as to Israel remains unchanged. Without funding, these terrorist groups will die a not-so-slow death.

No argument but for the reasons stated earlier it won't happen that way. It would be far more feasible for these people to relocate to Egypt and/or Jordan but that is not happening either - unless or until a whole lot of compensation is put on the table.

This has already gone on forever and depriving a population of food & water and trying to force your way into another country to offload tens of thousand of unwanted human beings will absolutely cause larger casualties. Israel does not need a conflict on a third front. What do you think might happen to these people if they were somehow deposited in Syria - it would create another version of Southern Lebanon or existing territories with conflicts along yet another border. Moreover, what do you think happens to people who are wholly unwanted by a terrorist country in which they happen to reside? I think we were on the right track with the Abraham accords. From a Middle East perspective, I hope Trump gets another opportunity - it won't happen under any current Democratic administration.

Syria would place troops at the border. It can't logistically be done as much as we might want it. And withholding food and water will ensure Israel's complete isolation world-wide.