Cigarbutt

It looks like it's possible to release a preliminary form of 'report card" for the first semester. When reviewing a report card, one has to consider attenuating circumstances: natural endowment "I don't have an exceptional talent like my sister", circumstantial evidence "I was sick or was involved in school extra-curricular activities", pointing finger argument "My teachers are dumb", irresponsible comments "The marks paint me in an unfavorable light and are wrong", the irrelevance sensation "School sucks and I'll make it on my own anyways, a deterministic posture "There's nothing I can do about it" or as a priority value system "I work more hours to benefit my bank account, portfolio etc so I have little time to study". Looking at Arizona as a slightly biased example at this point, CV-related mortality looks like it will make it to the number three cause of deaths for the year (note: the flu deaths are reported this year at a slightly higher rate than normal and it is possible that some of those deaths may end up reclassified as CV-deaths when all is said and done). CV-related deaths will also be a significant multiple of flu deaths. Everything is relative and people can become habituated to mediocrity so a way to reframe this in a positive light is to realize that overdose deaths will lose one of the top deadly positions because of the new killer. https://azbigmedia.com/business/covid-19-cases-in-arizona-surpass-95000-in-july-55-of-total/ In the end, a report card is what it is and it can be considered as a potential opportunity to improve if you care.

Disclosure: FFH is still on my radar but involves only peripheral vision. Reported loss includes has occurred and has been reported to the company. Based on that, over time, companies have to "adjust" what they expect will happen in the future. Insurers vary in terms of the speed and extent of recognition of future potential developments. For Covid-19, Markel, for example, reported high losses in Q1 with a high component of IBNR, suggesting a pro-active stance. Others have decided to wait and see the future development before booking additional losses. What is very unusual about this virus is that 1-it is a major event (large losses expected), 2-models don't really exist as global pandemics happen only rarely and 3-unlike a hurricane or other major catastrophe, the virus event and related consequences are ongoing (uncertain duration). i think the statement made by FFH implies possibly a degree of conservatism reflecting the underlying uncertainty and long-tail nature of future claims.

You bring many good points. Remdesivir has been approved for severe cases and through an expedited pathway that will require more evaluations. This is work in progress. It's clear that this pocket of the market needs reforms (improved incentives) but just like the growing sentiment against capitalism, my opinion is to reform and not go in any direction (build on the shoulder of giants-type of thing). When looking at some areas of research, sometimes, one feels like there's a few cockroaches coming from specific areas and the way to deal with that can be costly and toxic. Sometimes, the most efficient thing to do is to move on. Personal note that may interest some: Somehow, i ended up in specific virtual groups and that results in the reception of virtual invitations to answer surveys. It pays really well. In the last months, i participated in surveys where comments needed to be made about how a drug (coming to market) should be called, spelled or even how it sounded like when pronounced. For Remdesevir, they came up with the following brand name: Veklury. i'm not sure what to think of the whole process. I wish you and your family the best. I hope your daughter and your dad and your family are OK. It’s very difficult to contain COVID-19 when someone in the family has it. Also, thank your patience going through the study results. Brandolini‘s law is very real issue here. Today was a fairly routine test (in a major teaching hospital). For a Friday, the whole place (apart from the emergency room and some other specific areas) looked as if it was 3AM in the middle of the week. It felt weird and may represent some kind of new normal. This week was busy Covid-wise. My oldest daughter's test came back negative but one worker where my second daughter works for the summer (outdoor activity center, which was already heavily impacted by the virus and related) announced that she was COVID+ which means that the entire staff (including my daughter) was laid off, the outdoor center will be closed for a while (during high season) and formal procedures have been applied for tests, quarantines etc. i guess "we" will get better at it but the potential ripple effects during the transition are real. BTW, going through a study is pretty much like going through an investment opportunity. Participating in a board like this one is similar to a peer-review process. Who knows? Maybe one day we will bet on the same horse.

As a learning exercise, i did look in some details (fundamental) at the study mentioned above and briefly at the others (more pattern recognition). There is little hope for an individual impact here but this is offered to the world. BTW, as an individual (adult and ability to consent), you are free to ingest whatever you desire and can combine it or use alternative intake routes. i just worry about the impact at the population level. The study is based on some basic biologic rationale and there is a certain body of literature supporting some of the foundations. The study reaches minimal criteria for publication in a secondary peer-reviewed journal. The negatives -the study is retrospective and observational (weak evidence to start with) -one of the main inclusion criteria was the presence of vitamin D levels previously documented which is a huge methodological problem -they had to exclude a large number of cases based on that aspect -their conclusion is based on a statistical correction of confounders which then becomes a super weak argument, given such an obvious selection bias initial condition -there is no documentation or discussion as to why (intent or indication) and when (unstandardized) vitamin D levels were measured (this has huge implications for validity) -statistical techniques to correct for confounding variables are used but, in addition to the factor mentioned above, there is a whole constellation of factors in this study that suggest a very high risk of significant residual confounding -the COVID-19 positive group came from a group of lower socio-economic status which is very difficult to control for -the study does not identify risk factors that are coherent in nature and that have been largely recognized elsewhere (suggesting manifest methodological flaws in this study) -the basic underlying finding is the following: COVID+ COVID- p value Mean vitamin D(ng/mL; 95%CI) 19.00(18.41-19.59) 20.55(20.32-20.78) 0.026 Proportion with low vitamin D level 89.90% 84.91% p<0.001 which depicts the classic risk of translating "statistically" significant findings into causality discussions and relevant clinical findings --- What is concerning (IMO) is the language used. The study has very weak methodology and setup while inflating statistical findings of very questionable value. There is a conflation of analytical conclusions that suggest that the authors were on a mission. In itself (on a scale of 0 to 100), the study has about a 0.1 to 0.01 value in defining the role of vitamin D as a "risk factor" and the study, in itself, would not add significant value in the context of a meta-analytical framework. --- This knowledge avenue is slightly better than the hydroxychloroquine alley or the bleach dead end and while it's mentioned that considerations such as affordability and benign profile should be given, it's a mental framework that can lead astray. i understand (and agree with) the relative lack of interest at the institutional level. Resources are limited and it's important to keep rational mental pathways separate from emotion centers. ---o---o--- i would suggest that people who rationally explain things (even if politely, constructively etc) can be deeply hated if one is wired a certain way. Note: the post has been edited for spelling errors (there may be one or two left but i have to go; i accompany my father-in-law (who bears very real and significant risk factors) for a test at the hospital).

More anecdotal flavor. i typically rent an apartment close to a metropolitan university that has a significant international student participation. Every year, at this time of year, the apartment is offered. Typically, there is significant pricing power and a very large number of applicants and it's possible to use a multi-layer filter process. This year: minimal "views" and zero demand. FWIW, i think this short term noise is likely to accelerate underlying trends, for the longer term. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/200709-student-housing-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-era-school-s-out-but-for-how-long-11566259 ---) back to REITs etc

-What is your definition of elderly (varies a lot according to history, developing vs developed etc)? -What is your definition of "take care of"? Through very real progress and, more recently, through medical quantitative easing, the population pyramids have changed (shape and associated risk factors) in the developed world. Although each death (especially if preventable) can be a potential tragedy, deaths in the adult developed world (age 15-59) are now quite uncommon (forgetting the new developing death of despair phenomenon in selected sub-groups). Your strategy (let's call it the slum strategy) would raise very interesting questions for the adult community in the US and elsewhere, especially in the 40 to 59 age groups (according to reported age segmented fatality rates) and especially for those going in the trenches.

It could be stronger immune systems due to living in squalor. You mean they have more cross immunity to other coronaviruses? Not necessarily cross immunity to viruses. Just a stronger immune system and a better response. If you're living in squalor you'll generally have a much better immune system and better immune response than some fat guy that drives everywhere and washes regularly. It's also a big part of the reason why there are less people with allergies in developing countries. Allergies are over reaction of immune system. Your evidence says poorer people have less immunity. Covid-19 is much more prevalent in lower income groups in US, which is shown in NYC. But that is usually explained because of crowding in smaller housing. But that is not the case in India. Slums with high crowding have lower Covid-19. Yes allergies are an over reaction of the immune system. But you're looking this in an over-simplified way. Like in any fight/battle the level of strength is not all that matters. Tactics matter a great deal as well. So the guy who grew up a (relatively) rich life in America who's mom was always there with Purell go clean the germs may have a strong immune system because he is healthy and not malnourished etc... But the Indian who grew up in squalor playing in dirt and shit with not a bar of soap in sight has an immune system that is better equipped to deal with threats because it has been exposed to so many pathogens. That's why the rich guy's immune system goes like Holy Shit! A nut, Red Alert, DEFCON 1! and the poor guy's immune system goes like, oh a nut, that looks yummy. To put this another way the rich guy's immune system is like a white guy that attends private school, goes to the gym 3 times a week to pump lift weights for 2 hours, drinks protein shakes. The poor guy's immune system is like a dirt-under-fingernails street fighter from the bad side of Jakarta. Christopher over there looks pretty impressive. But which one of the two do you want backing you in a dark alley fight? @rb I respect your opinion about squalor-induced immunity (...) because of your overall strong analytical skills but i will keep this 'evidence' at the anecdotal level (of questionable validity). @Investor20 There is a recent report from Mumbai that points to evidence going against your strong belief that ventilation should be a primary consideration: https://www.firstpost.com/health/covid-19-antibodies-found-in-57-of-mumbai-slum-residents-in-limited-serosurvey-by-niti-aayog-bmc-tifr-8651091.html When the facts change... So why such a low mortality in slums? There are many competing theories but age may be a determining factor. This is still relatively ill defined as there are many risk factors but some work shows that age (exponential rise in relative risk with age) is the primary determining factor in most cases. See page 8, figure 3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2521-4_reference.pdf What about the age profile in slums? https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Age-Classification-of-Slum-Population_tbl1_262123665 The 1967 James Bond movie You Only Live Twice is a great movie (anecdotal opinion) but, in this case, it's the 1993 spoof version You Only Live Once that wins the evidence prize.

If a doctor treated 350 of 350 patients successfully that is a good data point. A normal person when they go to a doctor, they would be interested in how many cases the doctor treated and how many were successful. How do you know how successful he would have been without it without a control group? When gathering data, there is some kind of consensus (built over a very long time and evolving) on how to discount information: From low to high value (assuming a relatively sound underlying thought process) 1-Personal anecdotes 2-Various observational studies 3-Various retrospective cohort studies with attempts to match groups 4-Various uncontrolled prospective cohort studies 5-randomized controlled prospective trials ("RCTs") 6-meta-analyses (which can efficiently combine the above 5) The growth in weight of evidence is quite exponential going from 1- to 6- and RCTs constitute the gold standard but have very significant disadvantages and limitations. For example, it would have been very difficult to "prove" a link between human lung cancer and cigarette smoking, simply relying on RCTs. When, as individual investors, we try to identify a specific investment opportunity, we will not devise an experiment, we will try to bridge the gap from 1- to 6- and maybe that's why it's hard to outperform. But such an individual endeavor does not work well in science where often progress looks painfully slow in a prospective sense. i've always thought that a researcher should see him or herself as a football lineman: working at the line of scrimmage and working for the team. A long time ago, an observer who decided to move up the weight of evidence ladder found a cure for scurvy but it took decades for the publication and application because people mostly relied on anecdotes and individual opinions. It's OK to question the role of RCTs (see below) but reverting to anecdotal evidence may bring science progress to a crawl. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3619876 It's been said that Babylonians use to "expose" the sick to the general population in order to obtain "public" comments based on individual perceptions and beliefs and, in an uncanny way, it feels the same when reading some of the news these days.

Apologies for taking precious space here but 1-taxation is an important consideration, 2-Mr. Buffett is a folksy shark, but still a shark and 3-this is soooo interesting (at least in a discussion involving anonymous participants). Actuarial analysis is a science (specific statistical techniques and fancy math) but is also an art. In addition, for reserves, a "reasonable" (many ways to define reasonable) range is submitted and management decides what value within that range to use for reporting purposes. One also has to consider that reports may be printed after verbal (and non-verbal) arguments behind closed doors and "independent" reports can be obtained. When the range is determined, actuaries do use standard techniques but historical development patterns are important (so new lines of business may require a larger range). On top of that, actuaries have the possibility to "bend the curve" (the loss payment curve which decreasing slope looks like a depleting oil well curve, somewhere between conventional and tight oil). This is interesting with all the talk these days about "flattening the curve" for the coronavirus. Anyways, actuaries can 'adjust' the previously observed payment patterns if changes are applied during the development (ie claims handling, legal strategy etc). So, all in all, the numbers can vary wildly and judgement is required. In terms of how Mr. Buffett deals with this issue (personal, corporate or population level; he may not use the same mental algorithm), here's a little discussed event that occurred in 2005 that sheds some light on the issue. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ned-8_04-cv-00460/pdf/USCOURTS-ned-8_04-cv-00460-0.pdf TL;DR version: According to the IRS, for years 1989, 1990 and 1991, BRK entered into "double dipping", meaning that it claimed deduction for debt incurred while simultaneously claiming a second round of deduction (dividends received deduction, DRD) for dividend income received on stocks held in the float portfolio. The IRS action came after somebody read a Forbes article and took three years to complete. The IRS team inferred from numerous public memos written by the Master over the years that the fundamental source of value of insurance was its float, which, like Janus, has two faces (a liability and an asset). To maintain that rule 246A had been violated, the IRS used the typical conceptual criteria (purpose or intent, and traceability). Money is fungible so good luck with that. For purpose, the IRS had to prove that it made sense for Mr. Buffett to borrow large amounts in order to buy KO for the long term. Who would consider that from reading Mr. Buffett over the years? But really to prove their point, the IRS needed to enter into a specific cranium. A key quote: "The second factor the Court relies on in reaching this conclusion is the uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Buffett, which establishes that Berkshire’s dominant purpose in incurring the indebtedness was to increase and fortify NICO’s capital base. While Mr. Buffett does not dispute that the proceeds were to be invested, his testimony establishes that he did not know how the debt proceeds were to be invested at the time Berkshire engaged in the borrowing transactions." (my bold) The IRS and the Judge (see conclusion) noted that something was going on and the Judge did make some recommendations for legislative "purposes" but the IRS sent an invoice to Omaha which was probably one page in length confirming a money transfer.

Thanks! Interesting and relevant. Isn't it great when institutions work? And now, i have a movie to watch or a book to read (The Hiding Place).

i agree with the substance of what you describe but can i submit some nuances becoz of difficulty handling the Truth (of the matter)? -Since the mid 90s, the trend in retail drug expenditure per capita in the US has disconnected from other comparable countries and an argument could be made that innovation has not relatively increased and a strong case has been fairly well established that it's the multiple on an increasingly lower marginal input that has increased. -From an investment perspective, there is nothing wrong about taking advantage of pricing power (à la See's Candies in the 70s) but there are clearly developing affordability issues at the consumer level for drugs. -Also, recently, combining Medicare, Medicaid and out-of-pocket expenses has resulted in a comfortably more (and growing) than 50% payer share for national retail prescription drugs suggesting that it may become difficult to maintain pricing power going forward. Personal note: i did not live through the private to public transition in my jurisdiction but the previous generation frequently suggested the following, after the fact: -Going through the transaction was painful (income and earnings). -After the transition, knowing how to make money remained a comparative advantage but the landscape became more hostile. -Had they known the previous two aspects, actors would have acted differently (and preemptively).

That's interesting but intricacies of property-casualty insurers' federal taxation are not exactly the topic of the day. :) Looking at many reserves triangles over the years, it seems like there is a trend. Rarely, insurers use big-bath accounting techniques and sometimes (to varying degrees, from benign to improper) insurers use the reserves account as a "supplemental" cookie jar to mitigate underwriting results (in both directions). However, usually, there seems to be consistency for companies to maintain a relatively constant pattern of either under- or over-reserving. Why is that? IMO, companies (including BRK) that tend to consistently over-reserve do so in the spirit of financial conservatism: to maintain a margin of safety in order to be ready to mitigate potential unexpected future adverse loss development. This posture has the interesting side effect of decreasing taxes paid and increasing cashflow but i don't think that's a loophole Mr. Buffett is trying to "exploit" directly. As far as the federal tax aspect is concerned (whatever the motive), over-reserving has the potential to be particularly significant in growing and long-tail lines (the temporary difference will tend to become permanent) although the IRS requires discounting of future reserves according to prescribed rates (adjusted with the 2017 Act) and established payment patterns. The IRS has slowed down in this area (please educate me if aware of recent cases) but it has been known to go after insurers that tried to escape tax (IRS perspective) when loss estimates of prior years retrospectively became apparently disconnected from reality (owned taxes to be paid with interest and with potential penalty). Despite an industry-wide impressive reserve release record (seems to be coming to an end) in the last few years, it seems like the IRS has stayed quiet (maybe because P+C insurers have not tended to be very profitable in this ultra-super-low rate environment and the IRS budget seems to be under pressure). It seems to me the IRS would hesitate to go after BRK for an over-reserving issue and Mr. Buffett likely would prefer not be tied to a potential tax-evasion issue. At times and in selected cases, it appears that some insurers will significantly increase reserves in some lines in order to secure a premium price increase through state regulators but most regulators are not dumb and this is not BRK's style.

^For the household allocation statistics, you can look at the Z.1 quarterly reports from the Federal Reserve. You can keep the calculations simple (corporate equities over total financial assets over time) but you may want to include the equity component of pension assets (note that pension assets used to have an equity to bond 30:70 pattern in the 70s and this has gradually been more or less reversed to 70:30). Mr. Buffett wrote a very interesting article in the late 70s (or early 80s?) noting that pensions manifested an unusually contrarian pattern for holders of long term funds then. But (if somebody suspected the secular downward drift in rates) an argument could be made that holding bonds made sense then but now, where can they hide, contrarian or otherwise? https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20200611/html/b101h.htm Philosophical Economics talked about this a while back and offered some explanations about the potential outlook. Imagining un updated version of the model may suggest circumstances almost similar to when Mr. Buffett wrote his 1999 article about expected expectations. http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2013/12/the-single-greatest-predictor-of-future-stock-market-returns/ Periodically, 'commentators' bring up the topic and i will include a recent one which uses a similar methodology with an update up to Q1 2020: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-single-greatest-predictor-of-future-stock-market-returns-has-a-message-for-us-from-2030-2020-06-19 The correlation has broken down to some degree in the last few years and some have suggested that the business cycle has been conquered by the printing press.. Apologies because this is not very useful for stock picking. i've been reading a book recommended by wabuffo and it seems that i was born at the wrong time, at least from that perspective.

Who knows but there may be an element of rebalancing. From the lows in 2009 to now, investor allocation to equities went from about 30-35% to 50-55%. From an overall perspective (i spent only a short time on data and the full Morningstar report) the net outflows in Q2 represent around 1 to 1.3% of the increase in value of listed us equities. So investors, in the aggregate, retained about 99% of the rise in market value into the equity market. FWIW, some expect that baby boomers (who have had lately a historically high exposure to stocks) will eventually become net sellers and maybe they will have an opportunity to unload in a Robinhood market. Not to be used as a timing tool because this time may be different but the last times that investor allocation to equities was in this high range: around 1970, around 2007 and around 1999. (?)

Concerning herd immunity, it seems that New York city is reaching this zone, with the added feature that 'adjusted' herd immunity needs to be integrated into an 'adjusted' new normal. Have you tried to do your groceries, visit somebody in a nursing home, go to a liquor stores, go downtown or use the public transits? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889320305058 The aim of the study was to correlate severity of symptoms with antibody levels (which it does well) and one of the secondary benefits from the study was to look at the general prevalence of antibodies in people living in New York city and the surrounding suburbs (one-month period from May 5, 2020 through June 5, 2020). They suggest a 44% positive seroconversion rate (although there are some methodological issues, especially concerns about selection criteria versus the notion of the general population). However, given the relative fleeting aspect of antibody presence that is being defined after CV, it's possible that studies to be published will not show higher levels of seroconversion (at least using the specific metric) even when the disease has done maximum potential damage under non or poorly controlled circumstances. And yes, a similar pattern may be occurring in the southern states and what we see is what happens in a slightly improved new normal. @Muscleman i agree that things will tend to improve. In fact, it's the basis for "treatment" for several human diseases (especially first world type) where the idea is to distract the patient until the disease follows its natural course. @Gregmal (submitted for constructive purposes) i appreciate your inputs but you (your argumentative style) remind me of some acquaintances i see occasionally (not as often these days because of distancing) and who tell me that they recently lost a few pounds. Mentally, i just notice that they just look the same and may, in fact, have gotten bigger. i must be missing part of the story. I love the US (and most Americans) and plan to locate temporarily (in a few years) during the winter months. i've looked at a few places including, for some specific reasons, Arizona. Arizona is not perfectly representative of the whole nation but they have recently reported CV death rates that result in the equivalent of yearly flu deaths every two weeks. But yeah, things are looking up. They also report (some report this in a positive light) that "only" about 50% of ventilators used in the state are venting CV patients. As of July 2020, everything can be interpreted positively but i find this statistic frankly embarrassing, if not appalling.

Lower drug prices is a noble goal and there's seems to be some kind of consensus (unusual these days) but it's also true that even if most people want to go to Heaven, nobody wants to die. The following is from 2019 (the impact of 2003 MMA is mentioned; and how to potentially circumvent it) but this has been a recurrent theme: https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Issue-Brief-Whats-the-Latest-on-Medicare-Drug-Price-Negotiations.pdf The international arbitrage is the most promising but is also the most easily 'challenged'. It seems like the drug pricing environment suffers from a similar phenomenon than relativity theory: the subset of people who understand versus the number of people who think they understand is probably small and the people that benefit from it seem to be better equipped to extract value than the team of people trying to prevent the extraction. The US drug industry is like a cartel. Cartels can result in a satisfactory compromise but don't survive well if excessive behaviors are institutionalized. The best outcome would include efforts for reasonable and self-imposed reforms but the clock is ticking. A quote from Spekulatius' link may be most revealing: "When pressed by senators, the industry executives said drug costs could be controlled only if the entire payment system was reformed". "Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true!" -Aesop’s Fables, around 260 BC

2 questions -Above, it's mentioned that the virus is (obviously) "less deadly" and this is attributed to mutation(s). My humble understanding is that some aspects of virulence have been influenced by various extrinsic factors. It has not been shown so far, (AFAIK), that genetic mutations have caused a material change in virulence. Any evidence apart from testimonies coming from acquaintances or hunches? -Herd immunity in NY is mentioned and, mathematically, this US sub-population is obviously closer to herd immunity. What has been the price to pay for that, what are the not-back-to-normal residual impacts and why would anybody want to reproduce the template across the country (even if there are now extrinsic factors that can mitigate, at least to some degree)? https://transitapp.com/coronavirus The natural history of viral spread is up and then down and it's a head scratcher as to why anybody would favor conditions that increase the spread or be complacent about results. To gamble the outcome on the potential intrinsic viral changes is reminiscent of superstitious medieval thinking and it seems like the message of enlightenment may need to be repeated once in a while. Ask not what this virus can do for you – ask what you can do for this virus. Personal note. One of my daughters (age 22 and healthy; the family lives under one roof these days) has developed symptoms compatible with COVID-19. i find it's not the fact that she may have contracted the disease that is most important and instructive, it's how she has decided to deal with the issue. We are collectively made up of individual decisions.

^Minor complementary information concerning BRK corporate tax and dividends received With the 2017 TCJA, the effective tax rate for P&C insurers, for domestic dividends: By combining the effect of the reduced DRD deduction with the lower tax rate, -on greater than 20% owned stock from 11.2% to 10.7625% -less than 20% owned stock from 14.175% to 13.125%. i wonder if tax considerations should be a primary concern for holding BRK but suspect that Mr. Buffett, in a karmic way, knows these numbers to the third decimal place.

Klarman has been bearish for 10 years. You are being way to kind to Seth Klarman He has been bearish for closer to 20 years and at some point that’s no longer called being early it’s called being wrong https://valuehunter.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/klarman_cash.pdf If you follow this line of thinking and do not think this may have a consistency component, you may want to go back 30 years: https://brianlangis.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/barrons-interview-seth-klarman-1991.pdf Hat tip to Brian Langis who, i think, is a member here. i don't want to defend Mr. Klarman and maybe his thought process is contaminated with "top" concerns but from reading him for a long time, i thought that he tended to accumulate cash when he did not find adequately priced opportunities. He has always said that he would underperform in bull markets and an argument could be made that we haven't had a true bear market for at least 40 years. To LC, the opening poster: Holding Fairfax Financial some years ago inevitably meant crossing Mr. Chanos' path and it is ironic that he comments about fraud. If you are interested, i recently came across a relevant article (it's a great time to be a crook-type of report). i will not include here as it is too politically charged and people have sometimes difficulty fleshing out the tribal component but the substance is interesting. So, if interested, just ask through a PM.

Who's pretending? A broader picture (for those who are behind, the order goes: cases -> hospitalizations -> deaths) .. ---The positives -A significant component of the rise in cases is related to higher testing -The positive tests now reveal a younger population reflecting community spread but resulting in relatively lower hospitalization and mortality (not in absolute numbers though) -The death rates and projections (see Clutch's post above) involve especially older and less productive cohorts (the "economic" argument) ---The negatives -The death rate, as standardly reported per population, in the US, are x6 for the last 28 days and x11 for the last 7 days when compared to G7 countries ex-US (that includes UK for the anti-globalist crowd) -The expected death rate going into September reveals a yearly "run rate" of a multiple of yearly flu deaths -Lately, testing rate has been going up in states that report low positivity rates but has gone down in states (eg AZ, FL, CA) that report high positivity rates which is a bizarre combination given the evolution over time and the federal nature of the organization -There will be a short term price to pay to maintain a semblance of demand and this will be funded by debt China announced that there will be a vaccine by year-end and "Mr. Liu, the Sinopharm chairman and an engineer by training, told CCTV that he had tested CNBG’s vaccine on himself in late March, before clinical trials even kicked off in China. He said that the first two phases of testing in China showed the company’s vaccines to be 100% effective and with no cases of serious side effects. “In the next step, everyone should be able to use it with peace of mind,” he said." Somehow peace is not what comes to mind when reading this. The question that concerns me at this point is related to when schools reopen (soon) in order to reap the potential benefits related to that. By definition, there will be a price to pay (morbidity and mortality) but the cost will vary and will be unevenly distributed. i think the US will come around when there will be a real crisis but it's painful to watch nonetheless.

The section on Geico (purchase of a non-controlling interest in the late 70s) is interesting. From a valuation standpoint, apart from survival risk which was significant, the price paid was very compelling using reasonable assumptions (much lower premiums base, corporate tax rate at around 48% then etc). However, the investment was unusual from the risk perspective and required (apart from a deep understanding of financials and scenarios (run off of higher risk categories, extent of policy mispricing and reserve deficiency)) an unusual activist approach. Mr. Buffett's involvement with regulators (Mr. Wallach as a key intermediate for the transition) and assessment of Mr. Jack Byrne (who was instrumental in changing the underwriting culture on a dime (walking away from unprofitable business, 48%-type policy price hikes, massive licensing of personnel) and in securing additional financing from outside investors and the reinsurance bailout by other insurers (competitors)) are not really covered in the book. Geico was more than just a numbers story. https://futureblind.com/2014/08/26/1976-buffett-letter-about-geico/

From your previous posts concerning this topic, i assume you mean the "shut down" in Australia hasn't worked or just delayed the progression of the disease at the population level. Is that it? For reference, here are some data points: 1- Average daily new Covid-19 deaths per million last 28 days last 7 days USA 2.1 2.6 Australia 0.0 0.1 2- The daily positive rate, given as a rolling 7-day average USA: 8.7% Australia: 0.5% i guess it depends through which lens you're looking at this. Recently, i came across a parallel being made between wildfire risk management and pandemics. There were allusions to primary, secondary and tertiary prevention strategies.

Actually, what has been going on in "research" (even more acutely in CV-related work) lately has become a source of heartburns, headaches, SMH movement disorder etc The story behind Pepcid and related is interesting and the recent antiviral twist is indeed food for thought: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/new-york-clinical-trial-quietly-tests-heartburn-remedy-against-coronavirus Some say it's the politicizing (oups forbidden word) of science but it's also the democratization of science as a good idea taken too far (the founding fathers had thought of that somehow). IMHO, the return (real) on investments in pharma has been disappointing for a while and financial engineering as well as marketing have taken too much importance but the democratization of science and research should come with a kit explaining how to auto-assess the person's own set of very real limitations before taking action on "ideas". Anyways, instead of fighting the Fed or fighting trends, in a spirit of: "if you can't beat them, join them", i think i'll try to get some plastic surgeons involved and act as the financial promoter. After a retrospective chart review showing that face wrinkles show a clear ominous odds risk ratio for a bad outcome after contracting CV, i will make a study that will try to show that face lifts followed by a molybdenum-based skin cream will be protective against the virus. And the Nobel Prize will be within reach..

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/australias-health-2020-data-insights/contents/summary If interested, the following takes the life insurer's point of view and has a specific section "years of life lost" near the conclusion that covers the relevant methodology (references 21, 22 and 23). https://www.swissre.com/reinsurance/life-and-health/l-h-risk-trends/unravelling-the-cost-of-lives-lost-covid-19.html Submitted in the spirit of a balanced perspective: -The years of life lost will vary from country to country and even from region to region because an older profile of deaths (higher proportion of deaths in chronic care homes) will mean a lower number of years lost. -Even if the methodology is quite solid (by controlling for various factors retrospectively), the methodology does not take into account the adverse selection problem. People at higher risk of becoming sick, getting hospitalized and eventually dying have an intrinsic set of risk factors that cannot be well delineated retrospectively, at least at this point. This suggests that the numbers mentioned likely overestimate the years lost. -Also, this needs to be considered from a quality of life point of view. Using a bottom-up perspective, a large number of people who died had very poor quality of life to start with.

How you balance oneself with others is a personal matter inasmuch the opinion is not shared in social media. :) The submitted paper has this section on page 52: "In a critical sense, who I am for another is my word,39 i.e., my expression of my self. For a relationship to have integrity (to be whole and complete), one’s word must be whole and complete. As Shakespeare said, “This above all: to thine own self be true, it must follow, as the night the day, Thou cans’t not be false to any man.”40 When one is true to one’s word (which is being true to one’s self), one cannot be but true to any man." Interestingly and as usual with this type of brain-washing activity, circular arguments and quotes taken outside of their context are used. The Shakespeare quote comes through one of his characters: Polonius, who is known for his bad judgement and hypocrisy. Also, assuming the quote has substantive value, in a Freudian slip type of way, the explanation of the quote does not correspond to the quote: cans't not be false to any man ---) cannot be true to any man! While it's possible to go through the entire paper and references, the following personal growth parody related to the main author may be sufficient: ---o---o--- To link with the FFH 2020 thread, over the last few years, i've come to conclude to an integrity drift and the last outcome from the Fibrek saga did not help: https://financialpost.com/news/fp-street/watsas-mindboggling-reasoning-in-takeover-prompts-court-award