Parsad

Friedman suggested that inflation could be controlled by the use of monetary and fiscal policy and the amount of cash flowing in the system. He indicated that if the flood gates had been opened in 1929, the Great Depression would not have lasted as long, because lack of liquidity was the main cause of exacerbating the Depression. Bernanke and Geithner's experiment with quantitative easing proved that Friedman was correct. I've never really been a Friedman fan, but so far it's proven correct both on quantitative easing and tightening. I never imagined the soft landings we've witnessed. That's why many investors like Prem, Seth Klarman, etc got it wrong and were in such a defensive position. Cheers!

You guys are fretting over a minor blip that has nothing to do with Sleep Country. I've been adding to my FFH holdings...first time since 2020! Cheers!

Debt burden isn't lower...only interest payments. A lot of those stats are headed in the wrong direction. We don't want to let them get too far. Cheers!

I think shareholders don't understand the extent of what could have occurred during that 2009/2010 period and the decade after. They keep hammering the point that Prem made poor investments and the equity hedges were destructive to shareholder value during that period. But anyone who clearly remembers it, should also remember that we were on the verge of a catastrophe that might have turned out worse than the Great Depression...if you can imagine that! Fairfax was positioned for Japan post 1989...not a lost decade but a lost generation! Everything understood within economics suggested that monetary and fiscal policy would not have any significant effect and basically the world would have to work through the problem over time...decades possibly! Lo' and behold, quantitative easing combined with loose monetary policy and massive injections of capital, unclogged the illiquidity gumming up the works. Keynes was wrong and Milton Friedman was proven somewhat correct. Now, what if Keynes was right and it didn't work? Even Bernanke and Geithner were still doubtful it would work when they suggested it, but there wasn't really any other choice available. Then that lost decade for FFH would have been a period of capital preservation while virtually every other company in the world, including Berkshire, would have taken a massive hit to equity. So you live and learn! History told Prem that this was a shitstorm of epic proportions. Yet, some brave decisions by global officials avoided what would have been unimaginable economic devastation. Now suddenly you look like a fool, yet all you were doing was trying to protect your investors. Cheers!

Although if you are retired and need to drawdown on your capital annually, that September 1929 and March 2000 ones are going to hurt like a mother-effer! Cheers!

I agree with you as well. The potential tax implications have to be included in the decision if the assets are in a taxable account. Cheers!

+1! Cheers!

+1! This is exactly the way to look at investing. Never fall in love with a security...it comes down to the income it is generating for you. Markets are there to serve you, not the investor being beholden to markets! Cheers!

I'm like a horn dog when volatility hits like this...over 50% cash and waiting for another fat pitch! Cheers!

+1! Cheers!

C'mon! Tonight's episode of House of Dragons was just stellar. One of the best episodes ever of any of the GOT-themed stories! If you are a fan, you are going to love it! Cheers!

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240725957346/en/AM-Best-Revises-Outlooks-to-Positive-for-Members-of-Stonetrust-Insurance-Group Cheers!

Problem is that the lawyers will argue what is the appropriate holding period then? Day-traders and algorithmic traders would have a hissy fit if any sort of minimum holding period was instituted. They would essentially be out of business if the holding period was set at 24-48 hours...let alone anything longer. So that will never happen. If they aren't held to that standard, then why should other traders, including hedge fund managers, be held to such a standard. So it ends up being that increased disclosure is the only thing really possible, so that there is as much transparency as possible for the public. Cheers!

If they are long and have a substantial position, they are required to file. Short sellers are not required to produce any SEC disclosure. I have no problem with short-selling if they were required to file their positions and sales. Should also be no anonymity just like for longs. I also agree that pump and dump longs should be fined or charged as well...but it's hard to prove that sales timing isn't coincidental rather than intended. Cheers!

+1! It's just the nature of the beast. Cheers!

+1! But it seems like after almost every other decision, the COBF board questions the sanity and decisions of Hamblin-Watsa! I think it's the Buffett comparison syndrome. We want to see Prem acquire all of Jack in the Box or Lululemon, not a mattress company...unless it's comparable to Nebraska Furniture Mart! Cheers!

Sleep Country USA was acquired by Sleep Train almost 20 years ago...both owned by Mattress Firm which played with bankruptcy in 2018...so the markets as similar as they may seem, are quite different. Sleep Country Canada didn't grow as rapidly as Mattress Firm and has been managed by Christine McGee for almost 25 years. She's done a great job of building the company. It's a very well known brand/company in Canada and everyone knows the jingle...which was shared by Sleep Country USA. So a similar business model, but completely different results over the long-term! In regards to sleeping more...I certainly do, but I can't speak for everyone else! Cheers!

It's actually quite a good, durable business, making money on a consistent basis...which is something we don't see Fairfax invest in all of the time. Would I have been happier if they just put the money into a few undervalued public securities in the U.S.? Probably. I can see them growing this for a few years and then selling it to someone like Leon's for twice its current value when the economy and consumer spending normalize. Unlike Berkshire, not all of Fairfax's positions are permanent. They are more opportunistic and their strength lies in insurance and buying/selling assets. Cheers!

It was a good acquisition, but they paid fair value. For years, shareholders have been complaining about them paying too little for turnarounds and lesser quality companies, and then living with the consequences when they don't do that well. Now when they pay fair value for a good company, the bitching starts all over again on why they paid so much. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Cheers!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/24/tech/crowdstrike-outage-cost-cause/index.html Losses are now going to be over $5B...that's kind of what I expected. Fairfax may take a little hit here, but business interruption insurance losses tend to drag out for years. Cheers!

I sometimes just google old names of investment managers/friends to see what they are up to and this came up as the #1 item when I searched for Allan's name: https://investmentfraudlawyers.com/unmasked-allen-mechams-sneaky-moves-with-southeast-investments-exposed/ I emailed the law firm and told them I'm pretty sure they are confusing two different people, since one is named "Allan" and the other is named "Allen". If I was Allan, I would look at suing these guys for defamation or being really stupid with ChatGPT when writing their articles! Morons! Cheers!

It's also better managed than similar companies in the U.S. It's not a game-changing acquisition, but it's not a bad one. The price seems fair to both parties...not a steal on either side. Cheers!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/21/business/crowdstrike-outage-cost/index.html They are estimating a billion in losses, but I can't see how it isn't 3-4 times that amount when you include all of the business loss claims. Cheers!

Should be good for FFH's Poseidon investment renewals or new contracts. Cheers!

Done! Cheers!