73 Reds

Absolutely, the investor is responsible for all his/her decisions. But so is management. My point is the same management responsible for the equity hedge/short position is still in charge. Have they learned? We hope so. But that doesn't make folks wrong to ignore their history. Besides, who knows what people who passed on Fairfax did with their investment dollars; there have been other great performers and everyone's criteria for evaluating potential investments is different. You (and I) saw a stock that was too cheap to pass up. But that doesn't make not buying it (i.e. acts of omission) wrong.

@Viking, while I largely agree with you, it is a stretch to suggest that those who did not invest in Fairfax got it wrong. It was, and frankly still is completely rational to look at management responsible for the company's stagnation in the 2010s and compare them to present management. Looks like mostly the same folks. Personally, management is the number one factor in any investment I make. Without management, i.e., decision-making, companies don't generate anything. My choice to invest in Fairfax was due solely to how cheap the price had become; I initially invested IN SPITE OF (not because of) management. Has management done better in the 2020s? Well yes, for many of the reasons of which you so eloquently write. But even so, I'd hardly be willing to give the same management a pass for 10 years of poor decision-making and don't blame prior shareholders at all for taking a pass on this stock. Unlike Berkshire, where for 40+ years I've never questioned management (even while admittedly not understanding many decisions, past and present) Fairfax is, and always will be on a relatively short leash.

Indeed, there are many more world-wide options available today for folks everywhere, which perhaps explains why there are so many South Americans/Asians/Europeans who spend time and buy residences in Florida.

Sergio Mendes - Brasil '66. RIP.

No denying that technology is highly useful and here to stay; but that doesn't make the quality of one's life today any more enjoyable. Personally, there is a lot about the old days that I miss. [Way] back, Florida was an uninhabitable swampland. Like most places, development, combined with desirable natural resources attracted people, including snowbirds from Canada. It wasn't that long ago when there were as many Quebec licenses plates as Florida plates canvassing the streets of Hallandale and Hollywood during the Winter months. But Florida did not get any more expensive than most other nice places on a comparative basis. In fact, until the last 5-10 years, the West Coast of Florida was one of the better Winter-season bargains one could find anywhere and today prices are simply competitive but hardly out of the norm. Canadian snowbirds, like anyone else of course, are free to choose travel destinations but the tourism and real estate industries in Florida have certainly not suffered so evidently there are still many who find it to be an affordable destination while full-time residents continue to move here from other States and countries. So I'd ask whether the issue of Canadians going elsewhere, if true, is a bit more complicated than just cost. You're right about small cars and Europe but of course everything in Europe is smaller (just kidding, kind of). However when you see an RV on the highway here next to you, my guess is the driver is most likely not a 20 or 30 something. On the flip side, the "tiny-home" craze is surely not being kept alive by retirees and even though there are some fine mobile home parks scattered around they are far from the norm.

Hmm, not sure I understand your point but unless constrained by means or health, older folks do all the same things as their younger counterparts, often even more. Health care is indeed a concern as you age, which is why good health care is far more important than the local currency exchange rate if you are able to afford a second home somewhere else. As a US citizen, I don't know any older folks who downsize to a trailer (I'm sure there are some but just saying..), drive smaller vehicles (if anything they drive LARGER vehicles) or haven't adapted to technology when it suits their purposes. Maybe they just don't need all the bells and whistles of the latest i phone. As someone who has lived AND WORKED both in the current age of technology as well as before the PC and cellular phone were hardly even in use, let alone necessary, I can tell you that there were very distinct advantages in both times (albeit for vastly different reasons) and if forced to choose, I would have to admit that work and life in general was probably more enjoyable back then - for reasons that a lot of young folks may probably never understand.

Of course raising children is expensive. But so is in-home health/nursing care for older folks.

Well, yes and no to your question "and this isn't enough"? If you've got kids/grandkids, each one's higher education costs alone may cost you a good chunk of that sum alone. If you own a house, roofs, HVAC, major repairs all cost money. Uninsured health care - you better have significant income unless your savings are substantial, particularly as you get older. Personally, I don't know too many people who live "well" on less than $200k/year income. For my own daughter, more than 1/2 of that amount would be necessary just for rent and state/local taxes.

Can't you maintain a fully taxable investment account?

Absolutely. You don't need "skills", rather find something of interest and then develop the skills you need. Can't tell you the number of people I grew up with who were as far from book smart as one could be, but became hugely successful doing only one thing (mattresses, bagels, auto parts, liquidators, .... the list goes on and on.

This whole discussion, while interesting, seems rather hypothetical if you ask me. How many folks here want to retire early just to die with nothing after spending everything they ever had or be forced back into the labor pool? If you're going to retire early, plan ahead, save enough so you don't have to worry about withdrawal rates and/or do something in retirement that generates more income or wealth. Not trying to preach to anyone but most of us can determine whether we have enough without the need for algorithms.

LOL, should have added a 4th item to the earlier post: Avoid coming up with excuses.

Surfing lessons? All you need is an ocean. Personal trainer? A few pieces of equipment will do. The point is, anything extra that you bring in from enjoyable activities is that much less that you'll need to withdraw.

I thought a lot about this subject long ago before quitting my "day job". Over the years certain things have become clear. One, debt is OK for building wealth, but unnecessary and potentially counterproductive for retaining wealth. The very worst thing that can happen to you is forced selling and at the wrong time. Two, always have a cash cushion of some sort. Whatever amount you think you'll need, double it (at least). In fact, the larger the cushion, the more potential you have to take advantage of times when everyone else is selling. One never knows when the next crisis will hit, but being able to take advantage from time to time will help you build net worth even with systematic withdrawals from your investment account(s). Three, find something you really enjoy doing and try to monetize the activity. You will quickly forget your day job. Everyone is good at, and enjoys doing something.

Indeed, the key to financial happiness is managing your lifestyle with your means and steadily growing both.

There are, of course exceptions. But as @thepupil pointed out, sequence risk is real. A paying job all but eliminates such risk. Not to suggest that there isn't a time to quit and focus on investing. It would seem that if/when your investment income begins to dwarf your employment income, your time may then be getting too valuable for paid work. Or otherwise, if employment income is no longer needed.

Yep, good post. How many professional money managers fail to even outperform their benchmark indices? They may live to see another day by taking fees from their investors but a DIY investor will almost always be better off sticking with an equity index AND a job.

Leaving a "job" to focus full time on "investing" has a lot of different implications. If you love investing, effectively you are asking whether you have enough to retire. In the case of the original poster, he would at least need to achieve a 5% greater return on his investment portfolio to make up for lost job income. He would also need to consider lost job benefits, i.e., paid health insurance, 401k plan, etc.. You also need to determine your definition of "investing". Are you a purely passive investor? Or do you take a more active role, i.e, real estate, private equity, private lending, etc... For most, the question comes down to personal needs and lifestyle. Its like asking how much one needs to be "rich". The answer is not a uniform dollar amount, but simply being able to afford anything you want, whenever you may want it.

Simple answer - no. IMO you don't have nearly enough to quit your job and focus full time on investing. One bad stretch and you're back in the job market. And you'll feel the need to do "something" when often times doing nothing is your best course of action.

This time Israel is trying something different - they have vowed to eliminate Hamas, whether possible or not. Hezbollah may be next if they try similar tactics. Israelis can strike all they want but at their core they all want the same thing - to be left alone. If attacked, they will fight all the wars necessary to achieve that goal as long as it may take. If nothing else, the country's short 76 year history has proven that peace is achievable even after wars with neighbors who were once arch enemies.

Because when your shares are assigned it means they have been sold - right? Any CPAs here who wish to chime in?

If it works it is certainly a nice feature but I'm surprised the IRS lets you do it for tax purposes.

In that event you already own the shares (?). Here you have to initiate a separate transaction that occurs after the taxable event even though settlement occurs later.

That is interesting and I too wonder how exactly that works. Once the shares are called away how can the tax consequence be undone?

Yeah, but there are also those who own shares in taxable accounts and "traders" in tax-deferred accounts (long ago I used to be one).