Parsad

I'm sure the British thought the Patriots/Rebels were lefties when they sought independence...thank goodness for lefties! Cheers!

The U.S.' 243rd birthday and my 50th birthday! Made it past my old man and my grandpa...just barely. Now have to make it another 50 years! Cheers!

It, along with the thread on Bitcoin, was merged into a new thread called "Cryptocurrencies" in the "General Discussion" area. The Investment Board section should only have essentially market-listed securities specifically in the format "Ticker - Company Name". Otherwise it reduces the ability to search through that board by ticker. Cheers!

Sorry, but he does come across as arrogant/entitled. My perspective, living in the city where the Curry's are from is that Steph didn't used to be like that, not sure if it was that he got knocked down a couple of pegs after not getting any offers to play college basketball except at Davidson and maybe a few smaller schools around the area. That's what they said about MJ...about Kobe...LeBron. If they are good, then they must be assholes...granted, MJ was an asshole. Could be his actual personality is shining through now? Great article on Curry from a few years back...neither of us have ever met him, so I would put stock in the opinion of those that actually know him and coach him: https://nypost.com/2016/01/30/humility-brash-arrogance-inside-dual-mind-of-stephen-curry/ But let's not pretend he's some guy from humble roots: He's the child of a wealthy NBA player, he attended one of the best private schools in the city growing up, and he's grown up not really ever wanting for anything. That analogy would indicate that half of the people on this message board are assholes. My father's family was one of the wealthiest families in Fiji back in the 1930's and 1940's. My Dad grew up being able to walk into a department store and buy a shirt or anything he wanted, and simply put it on the family's credit...he never wanted for anything. Then he immigrated to Canada when he was 21 with his mother, father, sister who was 9 and a brother who was 3. His father died two years later and they had nothing...my Dad raised his brother and sister, worked three jobs as a new immigrant and kept the family intact. He was probably the most privileged of children growing up as a teenage, and then worked his arse off for the next 25 years in Canada. Anyone who knew him marveled at his humility, friendship, tenacity and love of family. So, you cannot judge someone simply by their family. Warren Buffett never wanted for anything either...except for a mother who gave a damn. But I think most people would agree that Buffett is very humble. But ultimately, we're all outsiders projecting our experience and bias on someone we've never met. You are correct...fans often do that. But, I'm basing my opinion on how: - He never denigrates his team mates, even when they make crucial mistakes. - He willingly took a back seat to KD if that means winning. - Draymond, Klay and Igoudala would die for the guy...in fact Igoudala said he would do anything and everything to maintain Curry's legacy...not KD, Curry. - When KD got hurt, Curry carried him to the dressing room with Igoudala. - Curry never takes cheap shots at his opponents. Cheers!

I have trouble sometimes separating myself from disliking someone because they're good and dislike someone for a valid reason. I've always disliked Curry because of how he carries himself on the court and the way he struts. But.....maybe that's just how he stays loose, in kind of a relaxed focus way. He's in the moment during the play but when the whistle stops the play he loosens up and relaxes. Klay is all business all the time, whistle or no whistle he's ready. One thing this series taught me is how much I do like and respect Curry and Klay and I must have only disliked them because they're good. Draymond is still a dick though. That won't ever change. Yeah, it's not a strut. He stays loose that way for shooting, and he plays like he's played since he was a young kid...just go out there and have fun. And in press conferences he likes to keep the discussions to the game or his team mates...he doesn't like talking about himself. So what people assume is arrogance or cockiness is just him trying not to denigrate his opponents, keep the limelight off himself, and focus on enjoying his career and games. He's won two MVP's and nearly beat the Raptors without his bash brother (Thompson) hurting badly, while Durant is out for the next 10 months at least...he didn't pout after the loss and walk off the court like we've seen many players do in the playoffs, but went around and congratulated all of his opponents and team-mates. His mentor and consultant is Steve Nash, while his coach is Steve Kerr...both great point guards of their generation...Curry is the heir to both. With Draymond, you just wish he would keep quiet and play, but it's the fire in him that makes him such a great defender and clutch player. There are no championships in Golden State without Curry, Thompson and Green...he's the type of player you need in the playoffs. Cheers!

Steph Curry is probably one of the most humble players in basketball. He puts all of his team-mates ahead of himself and all he cares about is winning rings. To characterize him as an arrogant POS is ridiculous! Cheers!

I'm a Warriors fan as well...but also Canadian...so it was win-win for me either way. The first evolution of basketball in Canada was after Steve Nash won two MVP's and changed what Canadian basketball looks like...why a number of the top draft picks are now Canadian. This will take it another step...probably bring a team back to Vancouver, continued development of Basketball Canada at the high school and college level. Cheers!

Sanj, a money market first broke the buck in 1994. While you were more right than Biglari, it had already happened not too long before. Let me clarify...the 1st retail money market fund to break the buck. The 1994 break was institutional. And when I was talking to Sardar, I wasn't talking about one money market fund...but half the market. It just didn't happen because the Fed stepped in, in a big way, otherwise it would have been hell. Klarman talked quite a bit about how index funds were a fad back in...1991! Will markets (and indices) have a large drawdown sometime in the future? Yes. I'm not saying they are a fad. I'm saying it can create a systemic issue, and when you have that type of problem, it creates a panic. Systemic issues by their very nature take a long-time to fester and appear. Look, we still aren't sure why the Nasdaq drops a 1000 points in a day...accidental trade, derivatives, algorithmic trading...we still don't know. Will active managers, as a group, do better during that downturn or subsequent upturn? Highly unlikely. Agree. Will a few do a lot better during the downturn? Highly likely. Agree. Will those few who did well during the downturn do better than an unmanaged index over, say, 20 years? Pretty unlikely. Will there be a few (some lucky, some truly skilled) that beat an unmanaged index over that same time? Pretty likely. This is where I disagree. Good, active managers don't suddenly become idiots. For example, Francis is not an idiot...Buffett over the last five years is not an idiot. The number of diminishing brain cells in their head didn't suddenly start compounding at an increasing rate. If I had to guess, active managers will continue to struggle. That is what one would expect as markets get more mature and more efficient. The average investment manager should be paid less than a teacher since the teacher actually adds value. Agree on active managers struggling. Are markets getting more mature and efficient, or are we creating systemic anomalies over long periods? I hate that Buffett and Munger quote on teachers being paid more than money managers. It's amazing that they keep throwing it out there, since it is so hypocritical. Their legacy is built on money management...that is what they are known for. Not teaching, not engineering, not innovation...you can't be the Pope and then tell all the Catholics of the world that practicing your religion was ok for you, but not any of them. I'm not saying John Bogle wasn't Jesus and brought investors into the light. I'm just saying that too many practicing that religion could create problems in the system...not permanent, but a problem. Cheers!

Not a problem for those companies not in the index, other than undervaluation for long periods...I'm buying those like hamburgers at half price. It will be a problem for the broad market included in the indices at some point, and could create a panic. Cheers! I must be missing something, but I don’t see a lot of stock being 50% off, just because they are not in an index. Besides, isn’t almost any stock in some kind of passive index, like the various Russel indexes? The only inefficiency I can see is that with the float being weighed rather than market cap, owner operators are systematically underrepresented. In todays world we have derivatives, and 'aligned' incentives Much of the loss on the underlying shares in the index would be offset by index gains on leveraged index puts. There might be a modest index net loss, but there isn't going to be anything major. 'Cause if a material portion of your firms revenue is from index investors ... you will see to it that they do not experience any major loss. SD I remember how in 1999 people used to say that markets wouldn't drop that dramatically or derivatives were not the ticking timebomb that they were...but Buffett, Prem and others did. I remember having a conversation back in 2001 with Sardar and Phil Cooley in Omaha about how I thought money market funds could drop in value and break the $1.00 mark. It wasn't an original idea by me, but one that made sense to me after listening to Larry Sarbit talk about it could happen. Sardar went on some long tangent about how the amount of money market redemptions on a daily basis were far below what the daily trading volume of treasury bills were, so it would be unlikely that it could happen. I remember having conversations with people about how the U.S. housing market was not going to go bust in 2007, and mortgaged backed securities were not the issue that a handful of people thought they were. I remember people talking about Vancouver's real estate market like it would go up forever and they could not remember what happened back in 1981 when prices fell 30-40% as interest rates rose. The one thing I know for sure...when you have large amounts of capital drifting into a specific strategy, and that capital starts to make up a fairly significant percentage of available capital, you start to create bubbles where panic will surely arrive at some point in time. Seth Klarman sees it...I see it happening...a handful of others see it happening. But it could go on for a long time before a panic happens. All I know is that value investing works and capital should always go to where the greatest values are relative to intrinsic value. I cannot believe that the optimum utilization of capital is in indices when half the world is going there. Cheers! I

Not a problem for those companies not in the index, other than undervaluation for long periods...I'm buying those like hamburgers at half price. It will be a problem for the broad market included in the indices at some point, and could create a panic. Cheers!

I think one day this is going to be a very big problem that no one is paying attention to. Yes, the average investor who can stay the course and average in over time will do well by index investing. But I think when markets tank, investors tend to show the underlying psychology of leeming behavior. Over time, the stocks in the indices will be overvalued by a considerable amount...we are seeing it already where there are huge undervaluations in stocks that aren't part of the indices. This exclusion, combined with the psychology of markets, will create a problem as institutional and retail investors flee the same stocks in search of liquidity. You will only need one singular moment of panic for this to happen. Cheers!

Congratulations to the Raptors! Can you please control Drake! :) Cheers!

Yes, correct. Really obscure stuff in the past...at this year's meeting, he did say it would be very specific unique arbitrage opportunities. He said that opportunities are much lower today to do this than say 10-20-30 years ago. Cheers! That’s interesting to me for a number of reasons: 1. In the not too distant past I’ve heard him say it might actually be easier now cause information is easier to access. 2. He seems to have switched his stance a little. Before when people asked him to speak on this subject he’d talk about finding super cheap small companies and going long the stock. Now it seems he thinks arbs are more inefficient. 3. I assume that for him to have an opinion in this he must be looking in that area from time to time. I like the idea that Buffett loves this stuff so much that he’s still taking an occasional peak at these tiny obscure situations, even as an old billionaire philanthropist who has no reason to care. By the way, does anybody me have a transcript or audio/video of this? Thanks in advance. 1. Yes, easier information, but definitely not easier. So much competition and the competitors are acting very quickly. In the old days, you read through numerous guides and reports...you didn't run screens, you had to create the data from everything you read. 2. Yes, you are correct. In the past, he would have done 50% annualized with small sums by targetting small companies. He cannot do that now, even with small sums...too much competition. 3. What else is he going to do with his time? :) Plus find a few little gem opportunities for the grandkids accounts! Cheers!

I've followed Buffett for over 20 years now. I thought the same as you when he first mentioned 50% annualized with small sums...and I was there when he said it. But he's been asked this a couple of other times and he's always said yes...50% annualized. And I heard him as clear as a bell say the same thing again this year with a little more detail. And he also said essentially that Charlie was doing better than 50% a year in his early days before the Munger Partnership through his real estate investments and deals. It is a stunning number, but they've both said now on numerous occasions that they could do that pretty easily with very small sums...although harder now than in the past. Cheers!

Dave Bonham, CFO for Fairfax, tragically passed away on the weekend. Our condolences to Dave's family and the Fairfax team! https://www.fairfax.ca/news/press-releases/press-release-details/2019/Executive-Announcements/default.aspx

Yes, correct. Really obscure stuff in the past...at this year's meeting, he did say it would be very specific unique arbitrage opportunities. He said that opportunities are much lower today to do this than say 10-20-30 years ago. Cheers!

He was fairly specific now and in the past. He said if he was managing small sums ($1M), he could achieve 50% annualized returns no problem for a little while. Once it got closer to 1B, things would start to slow down. So he was talking about small investors and only achieving that 50% annualized return for say a decade or slightly more...not over 30-50 years or anything. In the past, he said there were many ways to make the 50%, but today, it would be based on unique arbitrage opportunities and he said he knows of a few ways, but he won't say. That's when Charlie said or you could do what Li Lu did...create and find opportunities to make money. Buffett then turned to Charlie and said, Charlie weren't you doing certain real estate deals in your early days which were generating close to 50%? And Charlie said yes. So, both of them think gifted (1 in 5,000-10,000) investors could do 50% a year with small sums. On this message board, we know of 3-4 people who did that over a decade or so. There are probably another 20 or so who did well over 20%-30% over a decade as well. Cheers!

Rich Handler, CEO of Jefferies (formerly Leucadia), has a timeless list of 100 Things for college grads, but are completely applicable to anyone. Cheers! http://www.jefferies.com/Letters/Pages/1568

CC delinquencies are up, but from everything I've read LOC's, mortgages, etc are being paid on time and are manageable both in the U.S. and Canada. It's certainly worth keeping an eye on, as mortgage renewals come up and rates at some point continue to go higher. I would guess that budgets are strained, but not at a breaking point yet...so you are seeing delinquencies in credit cards increasing rather than secured loans like auto, mortgage or LOC's. You have near full employment with competitive wages available again in both countries, so households are managing inflation, increased rates, etc. It's highly unlikely that the economy will tank going into an election year as well...Trump will do everything he can to get votes and keep the economy running hot. Cheers!

One more near the end of the meeting...when asked about why See's never became as big as Mars or Hershey. Again, after an expansive answer by Warren, Charlie responds: "We've failed at growing See's like you've failed at winning the Nobel Prize and immortality! It's just too hard for us!" Cheers!

When asked about building a circle of competence, after a lovely long answer by Buffett, Charlie responds: "There is an advantage in specialization. No one wants a doctor who is half dentist and half proctologist!" Classic! Cheers!

So I just ignore it, and focus on whether I think 95% and 7% are achievable (probably and probably not, respectively) and whether I'd be happy owning Fairfax at the current price if the ROE was say 10% over the long haul (yes with bells on). Pete I’m really surprise that you think FFH will probably not achieve 7% investment returns. Long term it’s less than a S&P500 index. I’m more septic about 95% CR when the loss from catastrophes are include That's 7% across the whole portfolio, ~70% of which has to be invested in fixed income for regulatory reasons (quite rightly). 7% was very doable when treasuries yielded 5%. Much harder now - the extra work the equities have to do is far greater. As far as I know, they aren't required to have 70% in fixed income for regulatory reasons...where did you get that from? I think they could do 7% no problem long-term, as long as Brian Bradstreet is also there. They will have to find someone as gifted as Brian to join Hamblin-Watsa. I don't think they can rely on the young guys they have there already, because it's not something you just can learn...like picking equities, there is an art to fixed income as well. Brian is one of the best...Francis is damn good...but I don't know how much depth there is at Hamblin-Watsa on the fixed income side. It's a project they need to work on over the next 2-3 years. Find that guy! Cheers!

No gift cards from Toys'r Us, but they gave out hundreds and hundreds of toys! Beggars can't be choosers! The crowds seems a touch smaller than last year...or they spaced out the booths better, because it was less crowded. The energy of shareholders was very palpable this year and it seemed like my first visit to Berkshire in 2001! Our dinner was amazing again...with Rob Ruffin and Tim McElvaine giving great presentations and then Fairfax putting up two terrific panels with Jeff Stacey moderating. I will be starting a semi-annual podcast called "Pabrai and Chewster!" An hour each time with just Francis and Mohnish going at it, and Francis talking about how great a deal Stonestreet was and then Mohnish talking about how he had Francis pay all of the legal bills! Hilarious! I remember telling shareholders back in 2006 that we may not quite understand how big Fairfax Asia could get...I'm saying it again about Fairfax India and Fairfax Africa! The snowball is starting to roll! Cheers!

Last night to get your tickets if you haven't. We have to give the final number to the hotel tomorrow morning, so please get your tickets in the next few hours if you haven't. Thanks! Sanjeev

We've talked about his on occasion and read it in other papers, but here is another one from the Bank of International Settlements. The low interest rate environment continues to create distortions. Cheers! https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1809g.htm