Parsad

It's usually at such depths, when investors start to reconsider their investment in Fairfax, when it is ultimately gets rewarded. That being said, there are a handful of things that investors need to understand about Fairfax currently and going forward: - It is no longer really just an insurance company...so any portfolio decisions made are going to have a significant impact...BB, Recipe, SSW, India, Africa, etc. - It's insurance division is far superior to the insurance companies it owned in the past...this is more comparable to Berkshire now...well run, consistent, quality insurers. - Prem has handed over significant responsibilities to others now...the team at Hamblin-Watsa is considerably different and will continue to change when Brian is gone...so results will be different over the next 20 years...equity decisions could be actually better, but I would expect bond/fixed income investments will be worse. - Leadership is young outside of the old core guard...if they picked the team right, this could actually be a better investment than Fairfax itself was over the last decade, so you could be making a big mistake...Paul Rivett is as capable as Prem as a leader. - As long as they get most of it right, the natural asset/equity leverage and long-term float will provide great returns to shareholders...so they don't have to shoot for the moon, just get 4% on the whole portfolio and write 100% CR. - They are now the go to buyer in Canada for assets, alongside Brookfield, and their reputation gets them offers that many other investors wouldn't get. - You don't need to put everything into Fairfax...if you have time to manage assets yourself, you can probably put part with them, part with someone else, and manage a portion yourself...as long as they are not overlapping strategies. Cheers!

+1! Totally agree. Cheers!

There won't be any smog as electric cars become more and more prevalent. Also, the reason test shops are closing is because cars are getting to be extremely efficient and they tend to produce low emissions as they age, rather than burning oil...just better quality...which I don't see deteriorating going forward, but the exact opposite. Cheers!

The problem is that this all comes down to the whole notion that everyone deserves an education (meaning college/university), a home, a job, etc...entitlement! There used to be a time when people would save up for all of these things...or at least a significant portion of it. Hardly anyone puts down 20% now on their first home, but they all believe they should own one. So many students borrow for college...instead of working part/full-time and paying for it as they study. I see parents buying their teenagers cars, putting away money for college, but they don't even plan and save for their own retirement. If you want something, go work, save for it and then buy it or get it. Don't borrow unless you have a growing asset behind it. A communications degree isn't going to guarantee a growing job! Alot of this is bloody common sense is it not? Cheers!

Using about every cliche about the Millennial generation there is. My sample size is small, but from the handful of millennials I als I know from work, no fits this description. As for the student loan bailout, it’s inevitable, imo. Once the millennial generation puts their mark on the political landscape, it’s only a matter of time. Ah, Greg was a grumpy, 65-year old senior when he came out of his mother's womb, so I would take that all with a grain of salt...especially on the $9 avocado toast...it's more like $15 everywhere! That being said, the stats don't lie, and they do show that Millennials are struggling on a broad basis. So maybe not your immediate peer group, but certainly the age category. And truth is that is natural since they come out of school with debt, carry mortgage debt, credit card debt and auto loans as they build their young careers. But the sheer weight is enormous for this age category compared to Boomers, Gen X & Y, etc at the same age. Cheers!

Millennials are struggling with their debt load...in particular student loans, auto loans and credit cards. In fact, delinquencies on student loans are getting dire: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loans-debt-grow-193708816.html I would expect a bailout of some sort in the next Presidential term. Cheers!

+1! Yup, a bunch of as*holes will sleep better tonight. Hope they investigate this! Cheers!

I've had to deal with this on at least four separate occasions in the last 20 years. I sat them down, put all of the information I had gathered in front of them, and helped them figure out options to deal with it...not once did I suggest to bring the capital to me to invest. That way, I cleared my conscience of what I know, helped a friend/client deal with a potential investment timebomb, provided them solutions or options, and never made it about not investing with me. You won't believe the results. Only in one instance did they actually do anything about their portfolio. Three let it ride with the advisor...one brought it over to me to manage. Of the three that let it ride with the advisor...one who was put in an inappropriate annuity ended up ok and got their money back at the end of the annuity...one who was letting their cousin invest their portfolio at a local brokerage kept losing huge sums each year in penny stocks...and the last one who put it in an inappropriate, ill-liquid investment ended up having to let it ride because they could not redeem, and ended up losing 75% of their RRSP. Cheers!

Should not have taken the money out in the first place...for personal use! That's one of the biggest no-no's. Mistakes are one thing...this was a calculated decision to use partner capital to cover personal expenses. Cheers!

Former Bank of Canada Governor and Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, is favorite to lead IMF. Cheers! https://finance.yahoo.com/news/christine-lagarde-imf-replacement-mark-carney-050000686.html

I'm sure the British thought the Patriots/Rebels were lefties when they sought independence...thank goodness for lefties! Cheers! No one is stopping them from leaving and colonizing somewhere else! Most of the lefties run all of the tech companies...you would be left with only Twitter. And you would have nothing to ever watch again on television other than Fox News and 100 Huntley. Cheers!

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!