Parsad

There was an article in the WSJ within the last week that I thought said it best...ultimatley bitcoin is software. More specifically, it is a decentralized account ledger that tracks the finite digital coins & transactions within the network. The decentralized account ledger, which is essentially a function of blockchain technology, is what is valuable. You can track anything in such a ledger...real estate, stock certificates, bonds, pretty much any asset or anything. BTC itself is worthless and has zero utility...you could do the same thing with tulips if there was demand. Cheers!

Spek, i can be pretty hard on Prem but i think your criticism of the letter as a ‘joke’ is a little too hard. I appreciated the attempt made in the letter to help shareholders understand the various businesses (especially the equity holdings). But it is difficult to explain complicated stuff in a simply way. And it is complicated. And this may result in Fairfax permanently selling at a discount... not sure... we will see. My view is Fairfax is like a supertanker. It has slowly been making more of the right moves (than wrong) for a few years now. News that another $1.5 billion will be managed by Wade and Lawrence (for a total of $3 billion) looks like another solid move; it looks to me like these guys buy higher quality and are more diversified than Prem. The benefit of this shift has been playing out the past year and should be another tailwind moving forward (for Fairfax shareholders). IPO’ing Farmers Edge, Boat Rocker, Seven Island and Anchorage is another very positive development (for the future of those companies and so also for Fairfax’s ownership position); they are being VERY opportunistic. And i expect more will be done; Fairfax is highly motivated. I also view the disclosure that the final short position is officially, really gone to be net positive - a piece of added complexity that is now gone (and the losses are in the past). The sad truth is Fairfax has severely underperformed for investors for many years. However, for those who bought share after the March sell off, Fairfax has been a great investment. And with Fairfax’s equity holdings up more than $1.6 billion since Jan 1 (just the stuff i track and i am missing a bunch) Q1 is shaping up to be a strong quarter for earnings. The reality is Fairfax’s equity portfolio, concentrated in cyclicals, lower quality companies, emerging markets and service sector was punished especially hard last year. And it is way out performing as we start 2021. So my guess is there is a good chance we are going to see solid BV/EPS growth (of better than 15%) in 2021 and it could easily be much higher. The good news is Fairfax’s stock price is so low it has a very good risk / reward set up for investors. The next important pivot for Fairfax, and others on this board have pointed this out many times, is they need to start to generate more consistent and predicable quarterly earnings. And they need their various businesses start to spin off more free cash flow to Fairfax as a whole. I think we will see this start to happen in 2021 and into 2022. - Their insurance businesses are almost all now underwriting at a CR better than 100; taken as a whole they are now comfortable below 100. This has taken years to happen. And they have said NO MORE ACQUISITIONS. This is a big deal. - Fairfax now seems to be taking a sink or swim approach with their various equity holds in terms of hitting daddy (Fairfax) up for endless amounts of cash to fix struggling operations. And this was during the pandemic. These operations have survived and as we come out of the other side of the pandemic Fairfax’s many equity holdings should start contributing more cash to Fairfax. Stelco just re-instated their dividend of $0.10/share. It is highly likely Stelco will issue a couple of special dividends in 2021. I expect good news from lots of other Fairfax companies. - the earnings from the many equity holdings will also jump in 2021 and the year over year improvement should be outstanding and a material positive to Fairfax’s overall results. - and i expect further monetizations from Fairfax in 2021 and the kind that puts cash in Fairfax’s coffers; these could be meaningful. And it is an insurance company. And we are in a hard market so premium growth should be up double digits in 2021 and the CR should be lower than 2020. I continue to think that the stars are currently in alignment for Fairfax: hard market, solid underwriting, strong performance from equity holdings, rising interest rate environment, more confidence in management today than in years. But to your point, they have not delivered in terms of EPS or BV growth... But i think 2021 they will :-) Having followed Fairfax for a couple of decades, when the stars align like right now they do have a history of hitting home runs (not singles). As with all investments... time will tell. I agree with you Viking, but I can also see Spek's view. For many years now, we know that Fairfax had a few key weaknesses...whether anyone admits it or not. For a long time, they were guilty of buying lesser quality insurers and turning them around...used more asset/equity leverage than key comparable companies like Berkshire and Markel...invested in more distressed value plays, that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't, rather than better quality companies at a slight discount...because of the leverage, they had to pay more attention to macro economics and protect assets, so they shorted more, and bet against the bull market. At the same time, because of these faults, it's given investors several chances at making money investing in the company. Even those that hold for the long-term...as long as they dollar-cost averaged in over time...would have done quite well too. But, I agree with many investors. If Fairfax is using Berkshire as its role model, it is time for the board and Prem to continue to direct the company in that direction. - Our insurers are now operating at a very high level. Critics can say what they want, but Fairfax's insurers are really a superb group of insurers now and I would put them up against any other insurer other than National Indemnity. And everyone can see and agrees that has been a net benefit to Fairfax unlike their past insurance acquistions. - While debt is manageable, with the amount of float we have and investments per share, do we really need the leverage of debt to add any net benefit to investment returns? So I think it's time for Fairfax to eliminate most insurance holding company related debt...not non-insurance debt that is non-recourse, but they should only have a nominal amount of debt related to their insurance business or holding company. - Whereas most people think that Fairfax's portfolio is of low quality companies, I disagree slightly. I think they are distressed value investors and focus on low p/b, p/cf companies, no matter what the future really looks like...more cigar butts than discounted growth businesses. The overall portfolio is not bad, but they certainly could improve on it. Giving more capital to Wade and Lawrence is a good step...buying better quality, non-insurance businesses would be good to. - Finally, if they do the above, then they probably would have to pay less attention to macro issues...they wouldn't need to short...they would protect their ability to write business when pricing is good...they would generate more consistent returns. The downside of all of this is that investors would have less opportunity to buy the swings in the company's price. So you can have Fairfax as is, and make money in broad swings...or you can have an insurer more like Berkshire or Markel, but have less opportunity to buy cheaply. Cheers!

Yes, Prem's rosy view of Modi is certainly at odds with much of what I've read elsewhere. But he's talking his book so I personally don't worry about the discrepancies. In general, I feel Prem's writing often makes him seem avuncular to the point of being naive, particularly over the past few years. (The exclamation points ending every second sentence don't help.) I don't believe this is fully reflective of the depth of his thinking. Buffet also has the whole "Uncle Warren" persona, but there's certainly a very shrewd businessman behind the aphorisms and platitudes. Maybe not a fair comparison but perhaps you see my point. Not comparing Modi to Lee Kuan Yew, but things were not rosy during the first few years he took over either. But to make progressive change for the entire country, he had to make tough decisions to modernize the nation and bring it to developed standards. Today, Singapore is the standard by which most developed nations are measured. But did the ends justify the means? Perhaps, Modi is of the same cut...and to get India where it needs to be long-term for the benefit of all citizens, means pain for many years to create the necessary environment for change. Another example is China...not sure many of us agree with how they got there, but today people outside of China (Munger among others) are talking about the eradication of poverty in China...something we haven't seen any nation of their size accomplish as quickly as they have. I have no position on Modi or China...but I am amongst those surprised by the changes they have made or are attempting to make...having visited both countries recently, talking to various classes of people and just looking at what they are doing. That being said, I'm averse to investing in China simply because of the sheer frailty of property and legal rights there...and even now extending into Hong Kong. Cheers! Lets not compare modi to Lee kuan yew. Democaratic rights and free speech has gotten bad to worse in the last 6 years. nobody internally is covering farmers protesting from last three months because all the mainstream media is owned by big biz who back modi financially and have benefited from these privatization moves. lawyers and teachers are also protesting all over. Few people who do speak out are harrased with sedition charges or at least by income tax department. https://time.com/5942125/women-india-farmers-protests/ Ummm, I said "Not comparing Modi to Lee Kuan Yew...". But the similarities are there. Cheers! https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/lee-kuan-yew-who-led-singapore-into-prosperity-over-30-year-rule-dies-at-91/2015/03/22/00f7ccbe-d0d4-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html Scarred by deadly race riots that rocked Singapore in the 1960s, Mr. Lee took far-reaching steps to tamp down racial and religious tensions among the teeming island state’s Chinese, Malay and Indian populations. He imposed integration, instituting strict rules to ensure that Singaporeans of different backgrounds lived, studied and worked together. A British-educated lawyer by training, Mr. Lee ran a government that was widely regarded as farsighted, honest and efficient, but it also could be overbearing and patronizing. The result was a tidy, law-abiding country, but one that visitors often described as regimented, sterile and dull. Critics also charged that Mr. Lee’s administration permitted detention without charge or trial, censored the press, harassed political opponents and turned a blind eye to police mistreatment of suspects. Some Singaporeans complained that the avowedly “paternalistic” government treated them like children, forbidding private citizens to own home satellite dishes, fining and humiliating people caught failing to flush public toilets, and even imposing a nationwide ban on chewing gum. When a BBC reporter once suggested to him that allowing people to chew gum could help spur creativity, Mr. Lee retorted: “If you can’t think because you can’t chew, try a banana.” Mr. Lee steadfastly defended his tough approach to political opponents, arguing that it was imperative in a country such as Singapore, with its ethnic Chinese majority and sizable Malay and Indian minorities. “Nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul-de-sac,” he was quoted as saying in “Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas,” a 1997 biography. “If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society.”

Yes, Prem's rosy view of Modi is certainly at odds with much of what I've read elsewhere. But he's talking his book so I personally don't worry about the discrepancies. In general, I feel Prem's writing often makes him seem avuncular to the point of being naive, particularly over the past few years. (The exclamation points ending every second sentence don't help.) I don't believe this is fully reflective of the depth of his thinking. Buffet also has the whole "Uncle Warren" persona, but there's certainly a very shrewd businessman behind the aphorisms and platitudes. Maybe not a fair comparison but perhaps you see my point. Not comparing Modi to Lee Kuan Yew, but things were not rosy during the first few years he took over either. But to make progressive change for the entire country, he had to make tough decisions to modernize the nation and bring it to developed standards. Today, Singapore is the standard by which most developed nations are measured. But did the ends justify the means? Perhaps, Modi is of the same cut...and to get India where it needs to be long-term for the benefit of all citizens, means pain for many years to create the necessary environment for change. Another example is China...not sure many of us agree with how they got there, but today people outside of China (Munger among others) are talking about the eradication of poverty in China...something we haven't seen any nation of their size accomplish as quickly as they have. I have no position on Modi or China...but I am amongst those surprised by the changes they have made or are attempting to make...having visited both countries recently, talking to various classes of people and just looking at what they are doing. That being said, I'm averse to investing in China simply because of the sheer frailty of property and legal rights there...and even now extending into Hong Kong. Cheers!

Main takeaways: - No mention if anything was done to take advantage of BB's share price action in January. - Insurance operations are fully global and just killing it...2021 should be even better than insurance results in 2020...I would expect a below 93% ratio again excluding any one-off insurance losses - Room to write considerably more business - Wade and Lawrence did well in 2020...no mention of numbers...but looks like their portfolio will be doubled - Looks like Prem was trying to simplify investments to readers, but it seemed more complicated actually...hope analysts are smart enough to realize what is happening under the hood - Looking at what was said in the AR and the 2021 proxy circular, Prem's putting his money where his mouth is...his personal ownership (not Sixty Two Company) has tripled it's position in Fairfax...so that full $150M purchase was as the press release said...a personal purchase! Also they've bought back alot of shares and as previously stated, they have the huge total swap locked in at $343 USD. - Invested in about $1.5B, 5% mortgages through KW if I read that correctly. - Loss for 2020 in BIAL is extended in the lease by one-year, so no net loss over time as they grow BIAL and develop the 460 acres around the airport. - Thinks India will continue to proper under Modi, as will Fairfax India holdings - Utilizing Zoom effectively for manager and President's meetings...will this become the more safe, cost-efficient way to hold these meeting for corporations...certainly cheaper than flying them in from around the world and putting them up in hotels for 3-5 nights. - With the debt raise in Q1, as expected, debt ratios will fall to close to 2019 numbers - Will still have about $1.3B in cash as debt deals and sale of Riverstone Europe close Feel free to add to the list! Cheers!

I've met Wayne a number of times at the Fairfax AGM and in Toronto. He's always pretty good with fans...but if you ask him how his Dad is...his eyes and personality would suddenly light up and he would gratefully engage you. They were extremely close! Cheers to the Great One...Walter Gretzky! His son was pretty good too!

Sorry! I thought everyone could just post on this thread after it comes out and everyone has read it. Cheers!

Does it come out tomorrow or next week? Cheers!

I've met Warren a few times, as have many others, so I'll leave those stories for them to share...mine aren't particularly unusual except the very first time I met him. I've met Ajit Jain a couple of times in Omaha, and also in Toronto. He's been one of the the most pleasant people I've ever met all three times! I would love to see him lead Berkshire! I've also met Charlie a couple of times...always nice, but relatively quiet...there is a story I would like to share about Charlie: During the 2013 AGM, Alnesh, myself and a couple of friends were driving out of Regency Shopping Center in Omaha, where Borsheims is as many of you know. We were stopped at the light on a fairly busy road, and Charlie drove up next to us in a Toyota Camry and was waiting to turn right. I'm not sure if his blindness is worse in his left or right eye, but he stopped for a few seconds and then turned right into oncoming traffic. All of us were screaming "Charlie lookout" as two cars came to a screeching halt just barely stopping before crashing into the back of Charlie's car. It looked like it was going to be really bad! He kept driving like he owned the road, while all us were sweating and gasping as we thought we had almost watched the demise of Berkshire's vice-chairman! I've got one story about Bill Gates as well: At another AGM, I was outside of a private party that Buffett, Munger, Gates all attend at the Omaha Marriott. There was no way I was getting in, certainly not on the guest list, and then I noticed Bill Gates behind me looking for the party. I guided him to the party and he thanked me...but I still didn't get past the guest list! The last one is not terribly exciting, but I had your hopes up! Cheers!

Likewise, couldn't disagree more with the notion that Warren should focus his communications on excogitations about the future. Those who want discussions of Snowflake and explorations of the future development of Berkshire are in the wrong place. Read through the 50-plus letters and it is apparent what Warren tries to do/likes to do with these letters and with his Berkshire-specific communications in general. There are people who would like him to do quarterly conference calls, to discuss current investments with more depth (why did you investor in this?). I mean the most glaring omission would be the dearth of Apple discussion right? They have $120 billion in the company but he did not even review basic thoughts of the business, its moat, its value, etc. Essentially the only substantive discussion of Apple was an empirical description of its buybacks. So it may be reasonable to expect a discussion, at least a minimal one, of this $120 billion investment....BUT that is not the kind of thing he generally does. That is as a part of Berkshire as much as GEICO. Also the nature of annual report documents and letters is to review the past. That is their essential function - they are concerned with what has happened to get to this point. I do believe Warren is addressing the future though by addressing the past. These letters and Warren's Berkshire-specific communications shape and cement the culture and character that he intends to endure at Berkshire into the future. Reading through 50-plus years of Berkshire letters and the way he discusses the companies they've purchased, how those companies were built, the way the Buffett Partnership became Berkshire - and how that indelibly shaped the present, and he hopes future-Berkshire, is a powerful message to Greg, Ted, Todd and their successors. The communication has been so clear and the transmission of values through these communications so powerful, for instance, that if Greg immediately started quarterly conference calls after he takes over - then every single long-time Berkshire shareholder that I know of would revolt. That is because of Warren's clear communication in these letters. I fully agree with this sentiment. You can tell he's preparing his shareholders/partners for the future without Buffett & Munger. I had not seen the Berkshire site since last year, and I only now saw the Past, Present & Future letter written by Warren and one by Charlie. Clearly, they are preparing their goodbyes (hopefully still years and years away) and preparing the past, present and future shareholders. Charlie and Warren will be together again at the AGM, with Ajit Jain and Greg Abel (the vice-chairmen) available for questions as well. I hope if this is the slow, careful transition that it is, maybe we'll start to get Warren's annual letter, as well as smaller annual letters from both Ajit Jain and Greg Abel...but probably not, as that would be tipping the hand about who gets called to bat in the future. Cheers!

In the long run, we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes Clutch, I suspect Keynes would agree with your sentiment and belief. That being said, when we are investing, we are generally talking about events occurring in the next 5-10-50 years out at best. You suggested that these pieces of paper have no real ownership. Yet, we know that is not true. Stocks - Buffett would completely disagree with you here. They are pieces of businesses, including the underlying assets within those businesses. If you own enough pieces of paper, you directly control the assets. So, as long as the businesses are operating and generating cash flow, and the balance sheet is reasonable, the pieces of paper have some real value. Bonds/Loans - We've seen enough examples where owning the bonds of a business, mean you own the actual business...especially if it defaults. So they are backed. Currency - backed by nation state assets and tax revenues. Yes, a dictator could step in and change everything, but how often does that happen in stable, developed governments and economies...so while possible, the probabilities generally fall outside of the 5-10-50 year realm. Hard Assets - generally some utilitarian purpose supports the underlying value...whether it is land, commodities, etc. Bit Coin/Crypto in present form - nothing backing it in most cases. Gold is anonymous, whereas Bitcoin no longer is. When you transact in gold the transaction is over, with Bitcoin there must be a network maintained in order to maintain the function. Bitcoin is useful for very large transactions or transactions across borders. I see Bitcoin as an entirely separate asset class. It is not money, it is closer to art or collectibles than it is to gold. I agree it is a separate asset class presently...frankly not even akin to tulips, let alone art or collectibles. Art and collectibles have a historical pedigree and scarcity that gives it a value. People desire to own art and collectibles...you admire art...you drink wine...you drive antique/collectible cars...you marvel at the technical wonders of antique rifles...you listen to music...you play instruments. So while the utility isn't as apparent as commodities or precious metals, there is still an underlying utility. There is absolutely nothing utilitarian behind current crypto. There will be one day...but not behind the stuff we see out there now. And when that stuff comes, this current crop will generally be worthless. Remember Blue Chip Stamps! Cheers!

I think this is completely incorrect. Most currencies are backed by tax revenues and the country's assets. Gold has a utilitarian purpose, as does silver and virtually all other precious metals and commodities. Bitcoin has nothing at all supporting it other than demand as you say...as did tulips. I would dare say that tulips at least served some purpose in gardens. Bitcoin as it presently stands has no value whatsoever! Will crypto replace cash...almost certainly over time. But it will be supported by something...most likely large recurring cash flows from multi-national companies that are the size of small nations or digital currency issued by nations. Bitcoin isn't that digital currency...not now anyways...and alot of speculators will lose alot of money! Cheers!

The ledger technology can be adapted for any digital currency, not only BTC or the existing batch of crypto. So that technology is the backbone of crypto and what is important. BTC itself has no value...similar to internet stocks 20 years ago with no supporting cash flow or earnings. BTC is inflated by speculation and demand...nothing backing or supporting it...it will eventually turn into nothing! Most of the money being "invested" in crypto will be lost by their owners. Cheers!

This was pretty good ;D Gave me a good laugh and was actually quite catchy. Does anyone else find it ironic that during a period of intense government control and essentially total compliance by the population, that an "asset" which is reliant on stripping the government of power is the investment of choice? Until now we've all had to accept the abuses inherent with fiat currency, and all we could do was swap one fiat for another - the meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Now there's a real choice, and at all times - the fiat currency is always the safety net. The alternative to BTC is a global digital RESERVE currency - & elimination of USD reserve currency status. Today, central banks either get their collective sh1te together - and offer it (soon), or BTC becomes the RESERVE currency of choice. But it couldn't happen, had BTC not been invented by anarchists. All good. SD I still don't understand the fundamental functionality behind current cryptocurrencies including BTC. With fiat currency, you have tax revenues and public assets that support the currency. With gold/silver/etc you have actual utility value that increases with inflation over time. There is nothing supporting bitcoin except the increase in universality...but at one time tulips were just as universal as currency. This is going to end the same way...probably when well-endowed companies, sovereign funds, nation states create their own digital/crypto currency. Cheers! By the way, don't think that I don't believe in crypto or digital currencies, just not the current ones and how they are supported. I was way ahead of most people on this, because I bought into blockchain technology when Patrick Byrne was buying up companies years ago...just not a proponent of the current crop of crypto. I can see someone like Apple issuing their own crypto and backing it with their cash flows as they become larger and larger. I can see universal use of blockchain technology. I just don't see BTC being the winner...I see it as the AOL or tulip of this new "paradigm". Don't trade your shares of Berkshire for BTC! Remember Time Warner? Cheers!

Didn’t Elon Musk say Tesla price was too high at one point too? Yes. Back in like May 2020 when the price was like 1/5 of what it is today. BTC to the Does Musk own BTC because he believes it is a fundamental replacement for currency/hard assets? Or does he own it because he can now tap into the $100B market of potential Tesla buyers that make their money illegally and could not buy Teslas because they didn't want to show cash. That's alot of Teslas that he can now sell that other car companies can't because they don't accept BTC. The buyer pays in BTC and then sells the Tesla for cash to others...instantly laundered money for the buyer and Tesla sells a shitload of new Teslas. At some point, governments will crack down on BTC. They have to get their cut somehow...a BTC/crypto tax is coming! Cheers!

This was pretty good ;D Gave me a good laugh and was actually quite catchy. Does anyone else find it ironic that during a period of intense government control and essentially total compliance by the population, that an "asset" which is reliant on stripping the government of power is the investment of choice? Until now we've all had to accept the abuses inherent with fiat currency, and all we could do was swap one fiat for another - the meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Now there's a real choice, and at all times - the fiat currency is always the safety net. The alternative to BTC is a global digital RESERVE currency - & elimination of USD reserve currency status. Today, central banks either get their collective sh1te together - and offer it (soon), or BTC becomes the RESERVE currency of choice. But it couldn't happen, had BTC not been invented by anarchists. All good. SD I still don't understand the fundamental functionality behind current cryptocurrencies including BTC. With fiat currency, you have tax revenues and public assets that support the currency. With gold/silver/etc you have actual utility value that increases with inflation over time. There is nothing supporting bitcoin except the increase in universality...but at one time tulips were just as universal as currency. This is going to end the same way...probably when well-endowed companies, sovereign funds, nation states create their own digital/crypto currency. Cheers!

Every Tom, Dick and Harry is asking me about crypto now...GME and TSLA don't seem interesting to them anymore. Every time the subject comes up, I smirk reflexively out of disgust, and I keep hoping I didn't offend the person asking the question. I also don't want to engage them, so I just say "Yeessss...." I remember the last time this happened 2-3 years ago in these numbers, Bitcoin fell from $28K to $6K. I'm expecting something similar again, as I don't think we are in a new era! Cheers!

This This play, which he only held for 1 day, was a 5x and more importantly helped him build goodwill with the next generation of investors. These are the investors who will be buying his holding company when it goes public. It was a smart business move that communicated to retail investors "I'm on your side." Really? Even Chamath wasn't thinking that far ahead or communicating that. Either he'll disappear 10 years from now or he'll be huge. There's no middle ground here with him. We've seen these shows before...they go one way or the other. Cheers!

No one could have done that role other than Jeff Bridges...maybe Matthew McConaughey...but that's it! Cheers!

Could very well be CVX...could also have been XOM. Both were quite low and attractive around the end of October. Cheers!

Foreign stock positions are not included in the 13F, so they may have added to positions in Europe, India, South America, etc during the market downturn. Cheers!

Yes, but his girlfriend is absolutely smoking hot and smart too! Cheers!

What was said? Rough version: Called in and told him he needed to step away, he wasn't paying attention anymore, and had lost his touch. Continued by saying that Prem didn't understand any of the companies he was investing in and wasn't doing any detailed analysis on microeconomics, his partners agreed but were Canadian so too nice to tell him, and the bankers were cowards not asking hard questions because Canada doesn't have enough good companies. Sounds like Sanjeev. Kidding!!! Ha ha!! I'm listening to the call now. Let me see who this twat was! Cheers! Don't know who it was, but you could tell that they have very little understanding about how much analysis goes on at Fairfax when selecting investments. I'm probably one of a very few handful of people who has actually seen the internal workings and spoken to all of the analysts, portfolio managers, core group in detail over the years, and does not work for the company. This guy has no idea what he is talking about! Cheers! I have no doubt that you are right. Or more accurately I flipping hope you are right! But in fairness to the questioner, Prem's explanation of his investments is always highly simplistic, and usually revolves around people not microeconomics. We think John Chen is great!!! We believe in Blackberry!!! We bought Exxon on a 10% dividend yield!!! You can get away with that when you're knocking it out of the park, but you have to assume people will question your thinking when you're not. In my view it would do Prem no harm to adopt a more structured, numbers-based approach to explaining his investment theses. 90% of people wouldn't understand. Buffett says he writes his letters in a way so that his sisters could understand what he's investing in. The other issue is that if you say TOO MUCH, then shareholders linger on every tiny word you've said. For example, Prem's said he won't short again...no matter how great the opportunity, or perhaps necessary to protect statutory surplus?! Investors would be jumping all over him again if he shorts. So it's a balancing act between enough information and not too much information. If people really want to know the depth of their analysis and thought process, come to our annual dinner in Toronto. They get very deep into it where they can, especially past holdings. Cheers!

ZM. Cheers!

Did you guys catch the bit on they are investing in mortgages? Did I hear that correctly? Was it mortgage or mortgage related bonds...? Low interest rates, are they looking for yield. Cheers!