StubbleJumper

Please elaborate a bit about your line of thinking here, Ballinvarosig Investors, It would be much appreciated, thanks. Do I really need to go there? There is just so much wrong with what Warren Buffett is saying these days. For a start, he continues to beat the very worn drum that a basket of hedge fund, fund of funds will under perform an pre-specified index of his choosing. What's worse, is that he conflates that statement with the notion that all types of active management is bad. Not only that, but he states that in all his career (60 years plus of being in the market), that a maximum of ten people he has ever met can hope to achieve the goal of out-performing the index. It seems to me that he is in complete opposition with his previous teachings, namely that an investor with a small amount of capital has a very realistic chance of out-performing the market. John Hjorth - I take it that you are an adherent of the cult of Buffett? If you are a devotee, then may I ask, have you adopted the advice of your protegé (excuse the pun) and adopted the index strategy? From the recent statements of Buffett, I think it's fairly clear that the circle of ten people that he identified as having the ability to out-perform the market are extremely unlikely to be inhabiting this particular discussion forum. It seems to me that yourself and other adherents of Warren Buffett would do much better in your present investment strategies than to sell all your holdings and adopt index weighted holdings in the likes of Tesla and Snapchat, companies that truly represent the dynamism of American business (clearly, anything that is not American is abysmal by the standards of Buffet). Maybe I'm wrong but in referring to the 10 investors, didn't Buffett say that he only has met 10 than he could predict in ADVANCE would beat the market? That is a very different statement from saying there are only 10 people that can beat the market. I think, to add precision, it's more like: Maybe I'm wrong but in referring to the 10 investors, didn't Buffett say that he only has met 10 than he could predict in ADVANCE would beat the market, after taking into account costs? That is a very different statement from saying there are only 10 people that can beat the market. A great many individual investors can beat the market if they keep their costs low enough, which is easy to do. In fact, if I picked any random stock on the NYSE and threw all of my money into it, there's a good probability that I would beat the market (not sure if it's one-third of stocks or one-half of stocks that do better than the index because the distribution is asymmetric). I'd say that Buffett is correct. I'm not sure that I can name all ten of the guys that he had in mind. Walter Schloss has left us....I guess there's Seth Klarman. Buffett himself. And I don't know of many more that regularly and predictably thrash the index after costs. SJ

Yes, that would be true if the only ETFs were broad-market ETFs like S&P500 tracking funds. But, how much capital also flows into boutique ETFs that specialize in tech? SJ But if this is the argument, then its not about passive investing. If people invest in tech ETF instead of the broad market, its an active decision. Sure, but the same argument can be made about buying an S&P500 fund. The difference is that somebody passively invests in a fund composed of the tech sub-sector rather than the "big" sub-sector (you passively throw your money into 25 tech stocks selected by somebody else rather than 500 "big" stocks selected by somebody else). The flow of money into those ETFs arguably drives up the price of their component stocks. The more different ETFs a stock appears in, the more likely that the capital flows will disproportionately push up its price, relative to the shares of companies that appear in fewer (or no) ETFs. But, I'd say the point was interesting and possibly something that will be valuable for the future. Companies that do not appear in many (any?) ETFs might offer superior returns when the whole ETF thing lands with a thud. It's a bit of insight. So, when snooping for value, maybe in the next couple of years the best place to look will be #501+. That's a fairly big difference from the environment of the past 5 or 6 years where you could make scads of money finding large-cap value in plain sight (eg, US banks, automakers,etc). I really like his letter and I suspect that I'll read it two or three more times over the year! SJ

Yes, that would be true if the only ETFs were broad-market ETFs like S&P500 tracking funds. But, how much capital also flows into boutique ETFs that specialize in tech? My take from that part of the letter is that eventually there will be a shit-load of money to be made from companies #501 through #1000+ when the ETF craze hits the ground with a thud (as it eventually must). SJ

Not much insight in this year's letter. Just another re-hash about how "helpers" adversely affect your returns. It was a quick read and I likely won't refer back to it in the future (unlike some previous letters which I've re-read multiple times). SJ

Nothing wrong about that, if its based on BRK corporate govenanence. It could be a very good thing. If WEB's energy level or mental acuity are weakening, then we want him to concentrate what's left on the allocation of BRK's $109+ billion of cash. That's where he has a comparative advantage over almost everyone else on the planet. Let somebody else sit on the Heinz board of directors to agonize over the best way to produce ketchup and Kraft Dinner. SJ

Yep. That's about right. And it's currently about 1x when you make a couple of adjustments to BV. So, the idea of it moving to 1.2 within a year or 18 months isn't crazy. And then if BV rises ~10% after the divvy, you could see a healthy return. SJ

Sure, you might have heard that 15 years ago. But as I recall, I bought a few shares right around Martin Luther King day almost exactly 15 years ago and I paid less than cdn$100. Purchase price matters greatly. SJ

My only advice is that you need to consider the house investment in the context of the next best option. It seems like you are trying to do that by comparing the rate of return on a house to that of the stock market. I would instead encourage you to compare the rate of return on a house to that of a divorce. The house will come ahead nearly every time. ;) SJ

Surely it should trade at 1xBV if the ROE=your cost of capital? If, for example, it generates a ROE of 10% but you've got a stack of ideas that offer a 20% return, you'd pay 0.5x book. If it generates 7% and your threshold is 7%, then you'd pay 1x. Putting it another way, it is true to say that at BV the business is worth an equal amount as a going concern or liquidated, but only if the proceeds of liquidation are put into something else that generates your required rate of return. But it is not true to say that a business generating a 0% ROE, or a 2% ROE, is worth 1x BV whether it is kept going or liquidated. If the ROE is below your cost of capital then the business is only worth 1xBV if it is liquidated. If not, it is worth less. Fairfax, assuming a fair long run return on a broad basket of stocks is 7%, should trade on 1xBV if the ROE is 7%. If the ROE is higher based on operating earnings then you could argue for a higher multiple, but that's not so easy if the higher ROE is based on investing results because you can, to an extent, replicate Fairfax's investments at 1xBV. The only reason you'd pay >1xBV for investment results is if the managers had an exceptional record and you couldn't successfully replicate the portfolio. So for example, if FFH puts their $20bn of cash to work in the 2y treasury you wouldn't pay >1xBV for that - but you might pay >1xBV for the investments where they have an advantaged position as a preferred provider of capital. Oddly, therefore, 1xBV or not much higher might be the right price for FFH even if the equity compounds at 15%. It takes a bit to get my head round that but I think it's mathematically true. It's actually what I find very attractive about the stock - the likelihood that it will remain reasonably priced while compounding nicely. 1) They'll do better than ~7% ROE, which is why this thing is worth more alive than dead. But, yes, if you think that their results will be sufficiently low, then it's worth less than BV. The market is priced for FFH to perform with mediocrity. 2) You might very well pay FFH more than BV to invest in 2 year bonds because they have cost-free leverage from their float -- in fact, it's more than cost free leverage because they have every expectation of writing a CR < 100. I do not know of any way that an individual investor can replicate cost-free leverage. 3) Haven't you slightly contradicted yourself? You first (correctly) posited that if FFH's expected long-term ROE is ~7% it might actually just be worth roughly book. We can quibble about whether 7% is the exact number, but I'd say your logic reasonable. And then you close out your post by saying that if ROE is compounded by ~15% that 1x BV might be roughly right. So which is it? It strikes me that FFH is worth a great deal more than book if one truly believes all of that talk of a long-term expected ROE of 15%. SJ

Cardboard, two or three days ago, FFH was trading pretty much bang-on at book value. My heuristic for BV (or at least a BV that is mostly tangible) is that this is the point where the business as a going concern offers zero value. This is the point where, if one could liquidate the assets for a "fair price" and put the business in run-off, you'd be equally well off to do so. So, I'd say that FFH deserves to trade above book. There's plenty of room to debate about how much above book it ought to trade, but my take is that this thing is not worth more dead than alive. SJ

Fairfax's underwriting has not been a problem at all for the past 5 years or so. In 2016, they wrote a CR of 92.5, and last year they wrote 106.6 which included 13.7 points of cats. Well, cats are a fact of life and you're gonna have them from time to time, but last year was one of those unusual years like 2004 when you get hammered with one after another. You can never assume a cat-free year when you are penciling in a CR into your pro-forma statements for next year, but you can certainly pencil in 5 points instead of 14. If you go through the exercise and pencil in 5 points (or 6 or 7 if that's your preference), you end up with profitable underwriting. If you accept Prem's observation that prices are firming up in response to last year's cats, it's pretty easy to come up with a CR estimate of 95 (or lower) for 2018. This is particularly true if you hold the view that FFH tends to sandbag its reserve estimates, resulting in systematic favourable development. If you hold that belief, then you might expect to see reserve releases from Allied for at least the 2017 accident year instead of the adverse development that hit the CR in 2017. I'd say that the market is already pretty firm when FFH has every expectation of writing a 95 or lower. U/W profit of $500m should be easy to obtain, and with a bit of luck on the cats, $1b would not be bat-shit crazy. They are well positioned. SJ

I wonder if it is due to the re-opening of the share buyback window after earning release? Trading volume for FFH is low, so even at Q4's buyback pace that represented a few % of daily volume. My vague recollection is that there was a presser last year saying that FFH engaged an investing outfit somewhere to continue to do a systematic buyback even during the quiet period. Has my memory failed me? EDIT: Yes, I found it: TORONTO, Sept. 29, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (“Fairfax”) (TSX:FFH) (TSX:FFH.U) announces that, in connection with its previously announced normal course issuer bid effective September 28, 2017 (the “NCIB”), it has entered into an automatic share purchase plan (the “ASPP”) with a designated broker to allow for the purchase of its Subordinate Voting Shares under the NCIB at times when Fairfax normally would not be active in the market due to applicable regulatory restrictions or internal trading black-out periods. Before the commencement of any particular internal trading black-out period, Fairfax may, but is not required to, instruct its designated broker to make purchases of Subordinate Voting Shares under the NCIB during the ensuing black-out period in accordance with the terms of the ASPP. Such purchases will be determined by the broker in its sole discretion based on parameters established by Fairfax prior to commencement of the applicable black-out period in accordance with the terms of the ASPP and applicable Toronto Stock Exchange rules. Outside of these black-out periods, Subordinate Voting Shares will continue to be purchasable by Fairfax at its discretion under its NCIB. The ASPP commenced on September 28, 2017 and will terminate on the earliest of the date on which: (a) the maximum annual purchase limit under the NCIB has been reached; (b) the NCIB expires; or © Fairfax terminates the ASPP in accordance with its terms. The ASPP constitutes an “automatic securities purchase plan” under applicable Canadian securities laws. Fairfax is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance and investment management. For further information contact: John Varnell, Vice President, Corporate Development, at (416) 367-4941 SJ

Holy smokes! That's quite a spread. Was it just a bid-ask before this morning's bell, or was it an actual spread during the trading day? FFH does its financial reporting in US dollars, so any buybacks will be converted (if necessary) to US dollars before being disclosed in the quarterly or in a presser. But, I don't recall ever seeing any text from FFH stating whether their buybacks were done on the TSX or US markets. Do you have a presser that you recall seeing that in? SJ

Holy smokes! That's quite a spread. Was it just a bid-ask before this morning's bell, or was it an actual spread during the trading day?

Yes, FFH's own shares are amongst the best deals available in the market today. Hopefully they seize the opportunity to buy 1.5m or 2m of shares while they are trading near book. SJ

Viking, I'm not too sure what tax regime that you are working under, but there was no opportunity to do a share exchange which would have enabled a rollover to FFH shares at the ORH adjusted cost base under Canadian tax laws. Obviously, anyone could have taken the cash, paid whatever taxes were due, and then used the proceeds to buy FFH shares. On the question of whether we made money, you are right. Most of us made money despite the fact that an asset which was worth 1.3x or 1.4x BV was bought at nearly BV. Keep that in mind if in the future you are ever a minority share owner with the partner that paid you book for something that was obviously worth a great deal more. The institutional owners voted yes to the transaction, and the deep value guys got screwed. SJ

The entire foundation of value investing is paying less than IV! The sellers knew: 1) What the portfolio was invested in and 2) that the buyer had inside information. You said yourself that the sellers had a pretty good idea it was a great quarter. Matter of opinion but I am not as exercised about this as you clearly are. Not "exercised" about ORH but I also don't drink Prem's koolaid. When someone comes on the board touting all of the BS about the culture having some mystical value, I'm more than happy to set the record straight from my perspective. Buy the shares if you think they offer value, buy them for the collective brains at FFH, but don't put Prem up on a pedestal. On too many occasions he has failed to live up to the standards that he himself has set. That's okay, but the end result is that we should not take the proclaimed values as given and we should not accept that the culture is any better than that which prevails at other companies. Cheers SJ

Remind me what happened here? I don't think I paid much attention to this transaction. Oh, this one was 8 or 9 years ago when Prem wanted to take Odyssey Re private. So, right after the depths of the financial crisis when stock prices were low, he low-balled minority shareholders by offering a price that was roughly equivalent to book value for a company that was the second best sub (the best sub has generally been Fairfax Asia, or I believe it was called Falcon at the time). The interesting trick about it is that the low-ball offer came right before quarter's end and FFH characterized the offer as being something like 1.16x BV, when Prem as an insider should have known full well that ORH was shooting out the lights and its quarterly earnings were high enough to make that low-ball offer roughly equivalent to book. We all knew that ORH was shooting out the lights and was cashing in on the CDS, so we suspected we were getting screwed, but we didn't have the numbers for another 6 or 7 weeks when the quarterly came out. FFH then bumped its offer by another 8 or 9 percent, but frankly that was still a pittance for ORH (by the time we actually got our money, another quarter had elapsed but I don't recall ever seeing the quarterly report that showed an updated BV). So, read the principles of FFH's operations. It's described as "Fair and Friendly" acquisitions. What's fair and friendly about offering your partners 1.16x BV when you as an insider should have known that BV was soaring? What's fair and friendly about 1.16x BV for something like ORH to begin with? It was ridiculous, but fully legal. SJ Did minorities have a choice to accept or not? If so I'm not massively bothered by this. Personal opinion. Of course minorities accepted. Information was asymmetric. The insiders knew the value of the CDS that were being cashed out and they should have known that BV was growing at a rate of 20% annualized. Outsiders were left guessing. So, as I said, it was completely legal. But, go back and read FFH's guiding principles. There's that nice one that says that honesty and integrity will be the hallmark of their relationships. And then there's the actual name of the company, Fair and Friendly Acquisitions (Fairfax). 1) How do you feel about the fairness of offering 1.16x BV when the intrinsic value is obviously higher? 2) How do you feel about the honesty of describing a tender offer price as 1.16x BV when you, as an insider, should know that the quarter which you have pretty much finished had such good results that the actual offer was more like 1x BV? So, as far as I can tell, it certainly wasn't illegal. But, it was definitely opportunistic. Turning full circle the original post, in which the question was raised, "What's the value of FFH's culture?", I would say that the perception of the ORH buyout (to say nothing of Abitibi/Fibrek) has considerably lessened the "value" of FFH's culture. They chucked their partners under the bus and that reputation will follow them. SJ

Remind me what happened here? I don't think I paid much attention to this transaction. Oh, this one was 8 or 9 years ago when Prem wanted to take Odyssey Re private. So, right after the depths of the financial crisis when stock prices were low, he low-balled minority shareholders by offering a price that was roughly equivalent to book value for a company that was the second best sub (the best sub has generally been Fairfax Asia, or I believe it was called Falcon at the time). The interesting trick about it is that the low-ball offer came right before quarter's end and FFH characterized the offer as being something like 1.16x BV, when Prem as an insider should have known full well that ORH was shooting out the lights and its quarterly earnings were high enough to make that low-ball offer roughly equivalent to book. We all knew that ORH was shooting out the lights and was cashing in on the CDS, so we suspected we were getting screwed, but we didn't have the numbers for another 6 or 7 weeks when the quarterly came out. FFH then bumped its offer by another 8 or 9 percent, but frankly that was still a pittance for ORH (by the time we actually got our money, another quarter had elapsed but I don't recall ever seeing the quarterly report that showed an updated BV). So, read the principles of FFH's operations. It's described as "Fair and Friendly" acquisitions. What's fair and friendly about offering your partners 1.16x BV when you as an insider should have known that BV was soaring? What's fair and friendly about 1.16x BV for something like ORH to begin with? It was ridiculous, but fully legal. SJ

I think you are correct that it's an economic decision and mainly about money. Though I don't think it has anything to do with money from "eco-terrorist groups" as you put it. I think it's a lot more simple. It's that those groups realized that they have a powerful negotiating position and won't roll over anymore. So if you want their valuable product you'll have to take out your wallet and pay for it. They're probably right too. Now about non aboriginal BC people, most of their money is in very expensive real estate. In their mind the real estate prices are linked to beautiful mountains and pristine waters. Pipelines and tankers are generally pretty safe but every now and then they spill. Now I don't know what a bitumen spill would do to real estate prices. I don't think it would help them or maybe it won't do anything. But if you were one of the people of BC where so much of your wealth is ties to that one asset, why take the chance? You may be able to buy the aboriginals with a higher price but the price but the price required by people in Vancouver/Victoria areas may be uneconomical. In that case maybe it's better to route through Oregon if they're willing to take your bid. By the way, my opinion is that these pipes should be built because it's for the best. But let me invest this a bit. If this is about money as you and I think it is. Then the government jamming this thing though amounts to the government interfering in a market to set prices. It's funny that all the market, anti government people all of a sudden become big government interventionists when it comes to pipelines - is it superseding ideology, one's portfolio, or both? Also thinking more about routing through Oregon. Is that so bad? As a country we would cede the some rents and some maintenance jobs. We still get to ship our oil which is the most important bit. The rents aren't very high and the maintenance jobs are few. Tanker and pipeline spills are also real and we get to outsource those. The big risk would be that the US could shut down our pipes for whatever reason. While that risk went up slightly in the past couple of years it is still negligible in my view. So maybe we're actually getting a good deal with an Oregon route. Some musings on pipelines in general... I've been reading a lot over the past few years about dissatisfaction between land owners and pipeline owners/operators. It basically comes down to the fact that they feel that they're getting a bad deal and it's not worth it to have a pipeline on their land. If that's the case in the future pipes will have to sweeten the deal and shipping costs will rise. Now if I were a producer a pipeline is an inferior way to ship. I'd much prefer to ship by rail. Pipe's only advantage is cost. But if the price between pipe and rail should narrow, are pipes even viable in the future? I guess it depends on how much that gap narrows. But it's something to think about. Apologies about the long post, I wanted to squeeze a few extra points to make it comprehensive. The government could only be considered to be interfering in the market to set prices if those who are attempting to extract the price actually have the property rights to do so. Or, at least that's what Coase would say. Much of the noise and fury that is driving the provincial government's decisions originates from people with no affected property who are using foreign money to fund a protest campaign. The aboriginals themselves probably do have the property rights that entitle them to extract a price and they are manageable in the absence of a renegade provincial government. SJ

Yeah, I didn't want to say anything about the fairness of the Fibrek takeover or the insider trading charges that were lodged against Prem. But, suffice it to say, it wasn't a bright and shining moment for anyone involved. To be clear, I mean no criticism of Ben Watsa. He's probably a good guy, and if intelligence is genetic, he's probably been blessed with a keen intellect. No problem there. The issue is whether Ben's appointment to FFH's board is truly in shareholders' interest or whether it's simply in the Watsa family's interest. Without a doubt, spending time on that board will be educational and a valuable development opportunity for Ben. But, that's not what outside shareholders need. What we need is a bright and experienced businessperson who can contribute to the guidance of the company and provide counsel to Prem when he itches to do something wacky. Prem needs to have a couple of older, experienced guys or gals who say, "Prem, why are you doing XXXX? Does that really have a prospect to move the needle? Are you managing risk appropriately? Do you realise how the investment community will perceive this XXXX measure?" In short, I want that the board positions be used to direct the company rather than to be used as career development and training opportunity for the Watsa progeny. Similarly I want the financial resources of FFH to be used uniquely in the interests of shareholders (the term, "fiduciary duty" comes to mind) rather than for career development and training opportunities for the Watsa progeny (irrespective of how bright and talented they might be). Ben might be the greatest guy since Peter Lynch, but don't try to develop his career on my nickel, particularly when his dad has plenty of personal resources to do so. SJ

This is largely misunderstanding the issue. From what I read, the indigenous people are mostly the ones concerned with a pipeline leak. The issue almost everyone else seems to be more concerned about is a dilbit tanker leak because it's unclear how to clean it up--there's even debate on whether or not dilbit sinks, which to me seems like a pretty basic attribute. It might be Horgan just looking for excuses to say "No" when he says we ought to understand how to clean up dilbit before increasing dilbit shipments, but it actually is a real argument. Dumping 100K tonnes of a slow-degrading carcinogen in Vancouver harbor or the Georgia Strait seems likely to me to have a negative impact. That said, Stubble's post about the NEB taking responsibility for pipeline spills is reassuring (since I assume it would also apply to tanker spills). I'm not keen on the government paying private expenses, but it's certainly better than nobody paying for it. No, the first nations are not worried about a pipeline spill. They are far more intelligent than that. What's going on with the indigenous bands is that they want to make a buck from any pipeline that crosses their land, which is something that I completely understand. However, at the moment, it's far more profitable for them to accept money from foreign eco-terrorist groups than to cut a deal to actually build the pipeline. So, like all of us, the indigenous have chosen the more profitable route and trotted out the spurious excuse that a pipeline could cause a spill with grievous consequences to the land. If it were more lucrative for first nations to build a pipeline, the indigenous would suddenly say that the elders consulted the spirit world and the Great Bear and White Wolf would like the pipeline to be built. SJ

I didn't realize this had happened. Is this what you were talking about? I'm guessing not, because it isn't what you described. If you have a link to where they signed such a contract, then that certainly changes my view. (I mean, I still don't think that the government should be subsidizing businesses, but taking care of the monetary environmental costs is a big deal.) Nope, it's federal legislation. Here's the facts, taken right from the FAQ on Natural Resources Canada's website at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/infrastructure/5893#h-3-7 : 3.7 Who is liable for cleaning up a pipeline spill? If the operator is at fault, the pipeline company is completely liable for all costs to clean up a pipeline spill. In Canada, there is no limit on the amount a company may be required to pay to clean up a spill. In addition to being financially responsible for clean up, the company may also be fined or be subjected to other enforcement actions such as Board Orders and Directives or prosecution. If an incident occurs, the NEB holds the company responsible and accountable for clean-up and site remediation. The Pipeline Safety Act sets out absolute liability of $1 billion for companies operating major oil pipelines (classes and limits for other pipelines will be established in regulations). This means that companies will be automatically responsible for up to $1 billion in damages regardless of whom or what caused the incident. It is important to note that where the pipeline company is at fault or negligent, liability will remain unlimited. This extends to damages to the environment beyond the costs of clean-up and other losses. All companies operating a pipeline will be required to hold a minimum level of financial resources to ensure they can respond quickly in the event of an incident. If the operator is unwilling or unable to shoulder its responsibilities, the Government of Canada will provide the NEB with the resources to take control of spill response, cleanup and remediation, and the NEB will be authorized to recover any costs incurred from industry.

Daphne, With respect: 1) Ben was put on the board of directors when he was 35 years old. That's a joke. Look around and you'll look long and hard to find any other company that dedicates an outside board position to somebody with so little business experience and virtually no life experience. Sorry, but it's true. The fact that Prem owns about 7 percent of the economic interest of FFH doesn't mean that we should passively accept that his family members occupy board positions that should otherwise have gone to a more meritorious and experienced outsider (by the way, Ben's bio is what you would expect from a 38 year-old -- there are hundreds and hundreds of guys like him in Toronto, and thousands in NYC). 2) Prem's decisions about compensation were taken by himself. No other shareholder suggested that he cap his salary at $600k. As with many aspects of his life, Prem might be seeking inspiration from Omaha on his salary, but that was his choice. As shareholders, all we ask is that he not portray himself as a selfless servant to FFH working for a pittance, and then shift money to his family using poorly disclosed preferential contracts. Take appropriate compensation, but disclose it well. 3) Prem and his family definitely have skin in the game, which is mostly good. However, it should never be forgotten that the Watsa family economic interest in FFH is only about 7%. When Prem arranges a contract to have his son manage $50m of FFH's investments, $46m of that is OUR money and the Watsa family's economic interest is less than $4m. 4) Integrity is a matter of perception as much as reality and it is not a matter of degree. If Prem is going to hold up the culture of FFH as something that is tremendously valuable, then he should at least walk the walk. On that point, my opinion is that he has failed very badly over the past five years, particularly on the issue of modifying the terms and conditions related to his multiple voting shares. In closing, I would state simply that Prem is a big boy. This website is a well-known meeting place of FFH investors and if he has any interest on how they view FFH it's certainly not hard to find. Every quarter he holds a teleconference and is effectively given an excellent platform from which he can address any of the concerns that are raised here. SJ

As I understand it, the federal government has guaranteed any spill coverage. So, now what's the BC government's excuse? SJ