StevieV

Thanks Spek and aws. Seems like there is at least some precedent.

There are definitely confounding factors, but at this point, the burden should be to show the interventions are effective. Given the costs of lockdowns, there should be large and obvious benefits. Where are they? Not in NY. Not in NJ. Not in MA. We shut down schools and there doesn't seem to be evidence that they are a significant spreader. Huge cost for many kids and families. Shouldn't we require at least pretty good evidence? Happens time after time that doom is predicted if the "right" policies aren't enacted, and it doesn't happen. The president called out Texas and Mississippi when the lifted mask mandates. Called it "Neanderthal Thinking." If that's correct, if the policy is so terrible and backwards, then why haven't we seen it (see link below)? Why hasn't removing the mandate led to bad results? I'm open to changing my mind, but this is how it has seemed to go through the whole thing. Best I can tell, policy choices matter much less than many people think. Maybe people like doing something. Maybe an illusion of control. IM on Twitter: "The President of the United States when Texas and Mississippi announced they were lifting mask mandates: That’s “Neanderthal thinking” Reality 5 weeks later: Hospitalizations in enlightened, progressive masked states Michigan, New York & New Jersey are 164% higher https://t.co/OsK3UztPza" / Twitter

As I read Gregmal's post, he is saying there is no clear correlation between lockdowns and mortality from COVID. He pointed to three states with high mortality rates and high lockdown rates (I haven't checked Gregmal's work to confirm, but I believe he is correct with at least NJ and NY). When I look at the numbers, I can see no obvious pattern. Lockdowns are a huge and costly action, not just monetary cost, but human cost. Such drastic action should only be taken if there is a big benefit. Lockdowns mean high unemployment. Small businesses shutting down. It means kids not going to school in person. That is going to have a negative effect on many kids for years, especially those who were already struggling to get by in school. Many people have been isolated and depressed. I expect a number of lives have been lost directly related to the lockdowns and overall an unfortunately high bit of misery.

I'd love to see BRK add a large holding like this, but my first reaction is that it seems very unlikely. Medline has hired GS. I assume they are chumming the waters by mentioning the PE firms. Also mention a price target of $30B. I don't know anything about Medline's financials other than the Wikipedia article says they did $11B in sales in 2018. Only one number, but I'd guess $30B is a rich price. Has anyone hired GS or similar to explore a sale and then ended up with BRK? I don't know. I wouldn't think so, but am open to correction. BRK seems to basically stick to their word about not getting into auctions. I guess the best hope for an acquisition of these guys would entail Medline establishing some type of price range based on the GS work, and then Medline using that estimate to take a price to BRK. Obviously, they'd only to that instead of an auction if they felt pretty strongly about being owned by BRK. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. I don't think this company announces the GS news and then ultimately goes to BRK. ----------- OT: For a company the size of Medline, the Wikipedia page devoted an unusually large amount of space to a $15,000 labor claim. About half of the entry for the $30B company was related to the $15,000 payout.

I'll beat a dead horse with BB earnings report this afternoon.  BB run-up was a gift for those who took advantage and sold.

Wasn't Fauci specifically guided by the administration to play down Covid? And if people don't want to believe Fauci, how about every other health minister in every other developed country tackling the problem? Cheers! As I said upthread, I think there is good reason to be skeptical of health officials. They are subject to the influences of money, power, politics, condescension and plain old mistakes, and they've been wrong plenty. I don't dismiss what health officials and organizations say, but nor do I simply accept whatever they say without question. I think they've given people plenty of reason to view their pronouncements with at least a certain amount of skepticism.

That's right. First, Fauci said there was no reason to be walking around with a mask. He didn't say, please save medical masks for health care professionals. He didn't say, please only use cloth masks. He didn't say that we have to initially prioritize healthcare workers. He said, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. They may make you feel a bit better, but ... Then, the CDC made a mask recommendation. Then Fauci started recommending masks and gave the mask shortage explanation, which was different than the "no reason" rationale that he originally gave. Obviously, he now says that masks are useful. I.e., there is a reason to wear masks. His statements definitely changed. The quotes speak for themselves. Some people suggest that Fauci was being dishonest at first to preserve masks for healthcare workers. Maybe so. But, if so, when am I supposed to take Dr. Fauci at his word and when should I assume he is lying.

There was a mask shortage a year ago. Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder. It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game. "Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder." - That is only part of what Fauci and others said. The surgeon general said - "STOP BUYING MASKS" .. "They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching #Coronavirus ..." Fauci said in March 2020 - "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face." Fauci and the surgeon general's comments went well beyond simply stating that masks should be reserved for medical personnel. They definitely changed their public statements on masks. Maybe they changed their minds. Maybe something else. Regardless, it is not a gotcha to point out that their public statements on masks changed. That's what happened.

We shouldn’t be skeptical of health officials, drug companies and government? Huh. The same group that gave us trans fats for a couple decades. The group that touted the widespread use of opioids. The same group that has brought the public to unprecedented levels of obesity. Health officials like Dr. Fauci who caused a panic that HIV could be spread by routine contact. Like Niall Ferguson, an expert whose models are never right and can’t follow his own rules. Officials like Dr. Rachel Levine who sent COVID patients back to nursing homes, while taking their own mother out. Authorities that harmfully put too many people on ventilators early in the pandemic. We shouldn’t question it when officials say that Georgia and Florida’s actions were going to lead to disaster. We shouldn’t question lockdowns and masks though prior to the pandemic it was common consensus that neither should be part of the response to a pandemic like COVID. Even though you have to squint to try to see the effects of either among the states. Who isn’t changing their mind with evidence? How about people who want to keep schools closed even though children aren’t at particular risks and schools haven’t been shown to be big spreaders. CDC officials who say 3 feet of distancing is fine until teacher unions tell them they need to recant and say 6 feet. People who won’t even give any press to the only controlled real-world mask study we have. If you want to argue that people should take the vaccine, that is one thing. To suggest that skepticism is unwarranted and a bad thing, I can't disagree more.

Unfortunately, it's not as straightforward as this. The book Freakonomics outlined the results when Sweden (I think it Sweden) tried to drum up support for where to build a nuclear energy facility. First pass was that ~60% of the population said they wouldn't mind living near the facility, but the government wanted greater support so offered a monetary incentive to drum up more support. The result? The % of the population that supported living near the facility decreased dramatically. Why? 1) It's hypothesized that more people were motivated by patriotism and doing the right thing for their country which took a back seat when a monetary incentive was introduced. Maybe you're more willing to accept a potentially bad outcome if you know it's for the good of your country versus if you were simply paid $100 to do so. 2) It introduces the potential for trying to "game" the system. Obviously the gov't wanted more support than 60%, so maybe they'll offer MORE money if you withhold your support on the first offer (or first few offers). Either way, it's not as simple as saying "pay the people and you'll get more people to do it". In this example, I'll be getting the vaccine because I feel it is the right thing to do and not because I'm scared of having coronavirus (probably already had it TBH given how many people I know have). Ultimately, that is a stronger incentive for me than if the government offered to pay me $50 or $100 to do so. I hadn't thought of it until these posts, but I definitely could imagine a relatively small monetary incentive having the opposite effect. I'm not sure it is either 1 or 2, but the monetary offer making people more suspect. Why do they think they have to pay me $100? Also, maybe people start to weigh the money against the perceived risk/give. Taking the nuclear power plant - what, they think I'll risk my safety for $100? They think I can be bought for $50? No way.

I guess I am in your camp, but I think the risk/contrary view is quite simple. Given the past decade, what should give an investor confidence about any of these things? Take your number (3) - no artificial restraints on investments. I'm not sure that is the case. It is very much unclear that any of the BB position was sold. Why not? Everyone here was jumping up and pounding the table to monetize. Fairfax was certainly aware. If they didn't monetize, I'd guess it was some type of artificial, shareholder unfriendly, self-imposed restraint on dumping the BB position. How about (4) - Fairfax was done shorting, but managed to lose a cool $704 million in 2020 in short equity positions. More than 6% of the current market cap. Just a massive amount well after they realized that it isn't something they should be doing. Basically, they've managed to screw things up in the recent past. How can one be certain they won't screw things up in the future, perhaps in new and unforeseen ways?

Viking: "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." Parsad: "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." The reality is that Fairfax has been a horrible place for shareholders for the last decade. The USD share price at closing on Friday was $409. That is lower than 5-years ago. I see only one opportunity over the last 5 years to have added at a lower price than now - that was 2020. I don't see any great entries over the last 10 years even with perfect hindsight. Just looking at the chart, it looks to me like even a perfect entry in 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 or 2010 would have produced returns that lagged the S&P 500, probably badly. If anybody wants to point me to the good entry opportunities during those years, I invite them to do so. Viking mentioned that an investor who bought Fairfax in March 2020 would be doing great. I think March is probably the wrong month. Depending upon when one bought in March, they could be doing well, but Fairfax didn't bottom until May, well after the general market. It also didn't start recovering until after the market. I'd say the best time to buy Fairfax was the end of October 2020. But, who cares? I lack clairvoyance and, if I were clairvoyant, could have done a lot better than buying Fairfax last year. Lots of things have done well since March of last year. Nothing special about Fairfax, which has trailed the S&P badly over the last year (since last March). One can be bullish on Fairfax going forward given the improvement in insurance and, hopefully, leaving shorts behind. However, it is silly to sugarcoat the past decade. It has been, without reservation, terrible. Terrible over any time frame, with or without dollar-cost-averaging, terrible whenever someone bought their position (minus a couple months in 2020). It is simply untrue to suggest otherwise. I appreciate both Viking's and Parsad's postings on Fairfax, but denying the reality of Fairfax's stock performance doesn't do anyone any good.

I think dumping the airlines was pretty simple. They were all in big trouble, but bailed out by the government. Relying on whims of government assistance isn't part of BRK's investment philosophy. So, they dumped them. Makes sense to me. I don't have any criticism of that move.

From the headlines, it doesn't seem like they totally killed the deal today. Why not? Isn't the management a big problem? Failed to execute a sale for more than 4 years and apparently created no value over that time as they claim that is still the best deal. I don't know how there could be a much clearer case for the CEO losing his job, but he remains.

Didn't mean to imply the short would be BB. I am interested in BB. Also, separately, interested in any short equity.

I am not listening live. If there is anything about BB or the short position, I would be interested. As posted now pretty-far upthread, there was an outstanding unrealized short equity gain at the end of 2020. I think that has to mean a short was still open.

What was said?

Did they say that the shorts are fully closed out? $175 million in short equity unrealized gains as of year-end according to one of the charts in the release. Unrealized = active as of year end, right?

Nice job so far Safety. Price has risen a good bit so far this year, but as you mention, risk has gone down substantially. There is still a lot of upside left, but without some of the larger risks. Refinancing closes on Feb 10th. My comments assume that everything with that and the tender go smoothly, which is what I am expecting.

I agree that the circumstances make a difference. Fairfax could use the cash AND the move in BB's share price isn't based on a huge change in the prospects for the business OR a sober re-assessment by the market. Even if you Prem/Fairfax think BB's future is very bright, there's no reason they couldn't trim their holdings and keep some for this bright future. They could also have sold and buy back shares back later if and when the frenzy is over. I don't own BB directly and don't have an independent view of what price it should trade at.

Liquidity has been there. 365 million shares of BB traded yesterday

They had to have started selling today if they hadn't already. The company may have been surprised on Monday to see BB's stock trading so high. By today, they'd have to have discussed it and made a plan. That plan must have included selling at some of the prices reached today. That's how I see it at least.

If you are wondering whether it is possible to sell into the rally, AMC took the opportunity to shore up the balance sheet. https://seekingalpha.com/pr/18167918-amc-completes-market-equity-program . Wonder if they'll sell some more shares. Anyway, clearly didn't kill the rally. I remain very curious about how Fairfax is handling. My guess is that they started to sell a portion of their stake on Monday and have continued to sell at a measured pace into the rally. If they didn't start selling Monday, then they had to have today. If not today, what could their sell price possibly be? $40, $50? I don't think it's that high.

It will be very interesting to see what Fairfax does or has done. Given the trading action in BB and other names, who knows where BB's share price will go and how fast. It could be $40 or $50 next week. That would normally seem preposterous, but now, not so much. So long as Prem and Fairfax have some rational plan and explanation, that is fine with me. It is unlikely that they pick the top. If it goes to $40, it would be hard to complain if they trimmed the position at $15, $18 or $20. On the other hand, as the price goes higher, the argument for holding the full position grows weaker.

You'll feel differently when it hits $50 on Friday ;) $50? I thought it was going to $100.