Parsad

Congratulations! It's a good way to put your ideas together and to track your thought process over time. Cheers!

What expected return over the next 5 or 10 years would make you consider FFH? What are some of these better opportunities and what are their expected returns? At a $455 CDN average cost, I expect Fairfax to return 15-22% annualized over the next 3 years...so it will hit $700-850 CDN conservatively over the next three years. Holding beyond that isn't a concern...but if markets go sideways, I'm comfortable enough to hang on longer and continue to add if it remains at a significant discount. Personally, in this market, I see fewer and fewer opportunities as good. If you think you know of some, please share. Cheers! Parsad, you are too conservative! (all numbers in US$). Fairfax stated objective is to compound bv at 15%. BV at 12/31/20 was $478, if compounded for the next three years it increases as follows: Yr 1 $550, Yr 2 $632, yr 3 $727. After three years the multiple should revert towards the historical mean ~1.2x bv (if they execute at 15% growth the multiple could well be significantly greater than 1.2). At a multiple of 1.0 and BV of $727 = share price of $727, at a multiple of 1.2 = a share price of $872. If they fail to execute at this level then the long-term investment thesis is gone. I sense that they are better positioned now than in recent history and hopefully have learnt from their mistakes. The bottom line for me is (and always has been) that they have an uncanny knack of staying defensive enough to weather the storm(s). I think this is sometimes overlooked! I think you guys misunderstood my assumptions. I'm not saying Fairfax will compound book value at 15-22% annually. The move to book value has nothing to do with any compounded return by Fairfax. So $478 USD, probably closer to $510 USD after the 1st Quarter, means a CDN price of roughly $653 if the company's stock price reverts to book value. Add a 8% growth rate in 2021...$653 CDN * 1.08 = $705 CDN...add a 8% growth rate in 2022...$705 CDN * 1.08 = $761CDN...finally add a 8% return for 2024...$761 CDN * 1.08 = about $822 CDN. Based on insurance pricing where it is, the investments turning around, and the fact that Fairfax is writing at a 93 CR already...means that they can achieve 8% return on book value without reaching for yield. Average investment results combined with continued underwriting and existing leverage...8% compounded on book is quite conservative based on their abilities and history. And my assumptions are that it is only priced at book value...not a premium, nor do they do better than average with investments. Cheers!

What expected return over the next 5 or 10 years would make you consider FFH? What are some of these better opportunities and what are their expected returns? At a $455 CDN average cost, I expect Fairfax to return 15-22% annualized over the next 3 years...so it will hit $700-850 CDN conservatively over the next three years. Holding beyond that isn't a concern...but if markets go sideways, I'm comfortable enough to hang on longer and continue to add if it remains at a significant discount. Personally, in this market, I see fewer and fewer opportunities as good. If you think you know of some, please share. Cheers!

In fairness to Prem, the insurance companies did have an outstanding year and the investments are almost all performing well. Security prices might not be, but the underlying companies (which is what Prem is referring to) largely are. All those answers about the rear view. I’m talking about the present, about what is written in the 2020 annual report. We had a bad year and Prem is not candid about it. That is why he didn’t convince me that the futur will be different. On what basis did we have a bad year? The stock market valued certain assets at certain levels as it always does. On that basis, maybe. But did the insurance subs have a bad year? Did any of the big investments have a bad year operationally (ie, in the way that matters?). You’re absolutely right about the short. But as one example, if you’d told me that Atlas would have sailed through the most aggressive recession in history the way it did, I’d have laughed at you. And I own it. Yet it did. Who cares whether the stock (and therefore Fairfax’s BV) reflects that yet? I really don’t mean to get at you. But I think Fairfax had a spectacular year, all told. It went into the first global financial pandemic in 100 years overlevered and with a raft of cyclical holdings. It came out with cash, rising book value, and an underlying CR of 93%. Works for me. I think reporting combined ratio ex-one time events is really disingenuous. Literally the reason why people buy insurance is to protect from one time events. If you exclude them, of course your CR is going to look great. Their investment performance is great if you exclude the mistakes too, but that's just not how it works. I think reporting the CR with and without one time events helps with understanding. You’ll notice I quoted the CR excluding covid losses but including other cat losses. That seems fair to me, given that I have no evidence that another pandemic is likely to happen on any sensible timeframe (unlike, say, hurricanes). Actually, I think Prem's reporting of insurance losses is a more accurate way to explain what the insurance businesses are doing. If he reported only the actual number, including one-time catastrophe losses, you would have a hard time knowing if the insurance business underwriting is actually getting better. Remember when we would get hit with the huge one-time hurricanes etc, back in 2003, and we'd see a combined ratio of like 114. How do you compare the underwriting of the insurers between now and then, if you don't have the pro-forma numbers showing what the CR is without the one-time loss? Back then, if you removed the one-time losses, we were still writing at like 103...with higher interest rates and dividend income! Today we're writing at 93 with very low interest rates and dividend income! Cheers! By the way, my explanation actually brings up a fantastic point...something that is going to be very important over the next few years. For insurers, there are really three things they can do to improve performance...write better policies and price them correctly; reduce expenses; generate more investment income. We saw this in Japan, and Prem and Brian had a front-row seat for it. But insurers have little choice but to write better policies, which will be hard for many who have annual business relations to maintain, so they will have to cut expenses or reach for yield now. This is a dangerous game for insurers. If we thought insurance was a tough business over the last 20 years, it suddenly became extraordinarily difficult when essentially one of the legs of the stool gets kicked out from underneath. Stability for insurers will become more precarious as they write bad business or reach for yield. This is where discipline will benefit the likes of Berkshire, Fairfax, Markel, etc. Cheers!

In fairness to Prem, the insurance companies did have an outstanding year and the investments are almost all performing well. Security prices might not be, but the underlying companies (which is what Prem is referring to) largely are. All those answers about the rear view. I’m talking about the present, about what is written in the 2020 annual report. We had a bad year and Prem is not candid about it. That is why he didn’t convince me that the futur will be different. On what basis did we have a bad year? The stock market valued certain assets at certain levels as it always does. On that basis, maybe. But did the insurance subs have a bad year? Did any of the big investments have a bad year operationally (ie, in the way that matters?). You’re absolutely right about the short. But as one example, if you’d told me that Atlas would have sailed through the most aggressive recession in history the way it did, I’d have laughed at you. And I own it. Yet it did. Who cares whether the stock (and therefore Fairfax’s BV) reflects that yet? I really don’t mean to get at you. But I think Fairfax had a spectacular year, all told. It went into the first global financial pandemic in 100 years overlevered and with a raft of cyclical holdings. It came out with cash, rising book value, and an underlying CR of 93%. Works for me. I think reporting combined ratio ex-one time events is really disingenuous. Literally the reason why people buy insurance is to protect from one time events. If you exclude them, of course your CR is going to look great. Their investment performance is great if you exclude the mistakes too, but that's just not how it works. I think reporting the CR with and without one time events helps with understanding. You’ll notice I quoted the CR excluding covid losses but including other cat losses. That seems fair to me, given that I have no evidence that another pandemic is likely to happen on any sensible timeframe (unlike, say, hurricanes). Actually, I think Prem's reporting of insurance losses is a more accurate way to explain what the insurance businesses are doing. If he reported only the actual number, including one-time catastrophe losses, you would have a hard time knowing if the insurance business underwriting is actually getting better. Remember when we would get hit with the huge one-time hurricanes etc, back in 2003, and we'd see a combined ratio of like 114. How do you compare the underwriting of the insurers between now and then, if you don't have the pro-forma numbers showing what the CR is without the one-time loss? Back then, if you removed the one-time losses, we were still writing at like 103...with higher interest rates and dividend income! Today we're writing at 93 with very low interest rates and dividend income! Cheers!

There's definitely truth to that logic....but what if you dont want to have to be that active? In that case you should just buy a 30%+ position in Berkshire Hathaway, short some ARK stuff and then go on vacation for 6 weeks and not worry about anything! Trust me, I did it! Yeah, that works too. Cheers!

Sorry, I should rephrase that...I mean it means nothing relative to the potential return of the investment. The criticisms are valid, but relative to it being a good investment or not are irrelevant. Cheers!

I know most people hate Overstock.com and former CEO Patrick Byrne. But I have made more money in my investing life from Overstock.com than any other investment. Not holding it for the long-term, but simply buying it when it looked dirt cheap, and selling it when it got to fair value...and often combining it with LEAPs, so my results were crazy! This year, another hated stock that I've made a killing on was Wells Fargo. Everyone hates Wells, and they often point to Warren selling his stake as a good reason not to buy. But not only did I buy a ton of Wells at $19, I bought a ton of Jan 22 $27.50 LEAPs for dirt cheap. It's up threefold already and I expect it to go up another 100% before I sell later this year...can't exercise them all! Another stock hated, that I bought this year was Biglari Holdings...bought at $48 and sold at $120. I don't like Sardar and I don't like the company...but it was dirt cheap! For you folks who hate Fairfax or think it's a the usual value trap...I bought a ton between $390 and $520 CDN. I will hold it in my taxable accounts unlike BH, but I will sell most of it in my non-taxable accounts when it goes over 1.1 times book. So you don't have to like Prem or Fairfax, you don't have to disparage the business, you don't have to tell us how you got out of the stock 10 years ago...I'm here to make money, so your opinion means nothing! Cheers!

Yes, but your BTC holdings can fluctuate anywhere from 2%-25% on any given day as well! No stability...how do you reconcile its utility as a fiat currency? Cheers!

Maybe you should ask yourself what it is that Square, Visa, PayPal, and other payment processors who are expanding the use of digital currencies must see since they're the experts. It's not just a couple of guys on a forum telling you this stuff. The industry is rapidly moving that direction. We can talk til we're blue in the face to get you to understand what it is and that it has value - or you can just look what the experts are doing. Acquiring crypto and developing crypto solutions... The reason the transactions aren’t instant is because of regulation. The government is trying to prevent criminal activity. That alone should sound serious alarm bells. They must have skipped the criminal activity part https://perspectives.dtcc.com/articles/leading-the-industry-to-accelerated-settlement Q: Why stop at T+1 or T+½? Why not go to real-time settlement? A: Real-time settlement is a simple technical solution but a very complicated market structure change. While the industry should continue to aspire to real-time, it is more pragmatic to reduce the settlement cycle in stages to capture the benefits faster. With real-time settlement in today’s market structure, the entire industry – clients, brokers, investors – loses the liquidity and risk-mitigating benefit of netting, and that is particularly critical during times of heightened volatility and volume. For example, on a typical trading day, NSCC processes an average of about $1.7 trillion in equities transactions. The multilateral netting process reduces that number by about 98%, and the total value settled is around $38 billion. Netting allows brokerages to transfer that $38 billion between parties only once at the end of the day. In a real-time settlement scenario, netting is not possible and trillions of dollars in cash and securities must move through the financial system on a continual basis throughout the trading day. This creates massive market and capital inefficiencies, increases credit and operational risks, and increases costs between trading parties, possibly undermining the stability of the markets. Accelerating settlement requires careful consideration, industry coordination, and a balanced approach so settlement can be achieved as close to the trade as possible (for example, T+1 or T+½), without creating capital inefficiencies and introducing new, unintended market risks, such as eliminating the enormous benefits and cost savings of multilateral netting. I'm very confused. Why are you guys referencing settlement times for equity securities? I can quite easily transfer small dollar amounts of my money to another individual today, instantly. Anything large has limitations and takes more time, due to regulations. What am I missing? You're missing that no settlement happens INSTANTLY in today's financial system. Not for securities. Not for cash. ACH takes 3-5 business days. Stocks take 2 business days to settle. Wires can still take a few hours and cost $. Even solutions like Venmo that seem instantaneous take a few days for cash to reach your account. The only solutions where cash moves "instantly" are solutions where a liquidity provider is giving you their cash while they wait for the cash you transferred to arrive (like trading Schwab allowing me to trade my cash deposit immediately or paying a fee to use an ATM). Cash does NOT move instantly in today's system - this is a result of the plumbing and structure and not of government regulation. Also, securities will exist as tokens and be traded on a blockchain in the future as well. Maybe on a chain such as Ethereum. Companies will issue shares directly to the blockchain and be able to buy-back and remove them. You will be able to see in real time how many shares exist. You will also be able to trade them almost instantly without 3rd party involvement. This I can understand, and I see the value. Why does this mean Bitcoin is worth $50,000 though? Even if real-time settlements don’t happen, it sure seems like they do to me as the consumer. Why does better plumbing, that I don’t even see, make Bitcoin worth $50,000? That was just an aside. But you won't be buying 25 shares of Amazon with $USD, value will be stored in BTC not cash. I don't see that happening unless the world loses faith in the U.S. economy. I just see USD being executed electronically though blockchain technology, so that you have secure, instant transactions. BTC will go the way of trading stamps. Cheers!

Contrary to what my writings may be perceived as, I'm a firm believer in cryptocurrencies. But not this first batch that are essentially unsupported by anything but demand. The next generation created by nation states, corporations as large as nation states, financial exchanges, credit card companies will set up the next wave of crypto, and there will be clear winners and losers from that. And the general population will start to adopt some of those currencies. Cash will no longer exist in 20-40 years other than as a collectible. Cheers!

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!