Xerxes

They did float a bond some months ago. So they are just moving the liability (or however you want to describe it) at corporate level.

Richard, thanks for your thoughts. agree with the first paragraph … but … you say “expansionary wars” I agree but I would add countries that are constantly in interfering in other affairs + that. Economical wars and economic subjugation is the same as expansionary wars (to me). Just because Kremlin annexes and the modern West doesn’t and chooses to kill babies silently through economic choking, it does not mean one’ foreign interference is intellectually superior or better. If I had to chose a modern analogy, events leading to WW1 is a better fit than WW2. The world was largely isolated leading to WW2. Whereas now just like right before WW1 we were coming off a multi decade globalization where parties were big trading partners. Talking to Russians does not mean appeasement. It means talking. Think of it this way. Is West militant’ dominance equivalent to then-West military in the 1930s ? Lastly, you say chamberlain era is the most relevant because it was the most expansionary. I am sorry but we are taking about Europeans governments of 1930s and 40s that ran vast colonial empires. You cannot take a snapshot AFTER West established its “baseline” and call any deviation from it as “expansionary” by others. I like and agree with your last two paragraphs

dude. You misread the post on Azov. Thanks @bizaro86 Also it is not so much about Ukraine vs Sudan. It is about acknowledging that while nuclear deterrence reduce conflicts in Europe, that “geopolitical energy” between the two titans had to be discharged in the rest of the world through proxy wars, coup d’états, constant interference in other affairs. On and on and on. How many millions died in Korea, East Asia, Middle East in the wars that came. I couldn’t care less if it was Washington or Moscow. They both let it rip.

dude we have +3,000 years of human history worth of wars and conflict. Surely there are other analogies than the over-used Chamberlain/Munich. Or just assess the situation on its own merit. When Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in the 50s (or 60s) you know what the western capital said. =>>> Munich, Chamberlain. The same bogeyman has been used everytime West is trying to make a point. In reality what it does it takes away from the evil that the Nazi brought to this world and normalizes it.

Cubsfan apologies if sometimes my post seem aggressive. When I write passion takes over. Nothing against you. That being said my sandbox is the whole world (and not just North America and Western Europe). It is great that nuclear deterrence has prevented what we always had in Europe, that is recurring and continuous wars, but nothing is for free. The cost was the playground of the titans being expanded into proxy wars, shadow wars everywhere else. So what is the lesson here. Nuclear proliferation is great for national security and maintaining the peace and not becoming part of titans playground. On Balkans, the federation of Yugoslavia had largely disintegrated in the early 80s, so while the 90s war can be viewed as civil war, the federation had largely gone by the time Serbia started to throw it weight around. But agreed nothing like 2022. edit: clarification.

I don’t know all the details but there seem to be a lot of laissez-fair attitude from Western government in helping to get out their citizens out of Sudan, in this most recent upheaval. Contrast that with Ukraine in 2022. if you folks see me be critical in this thread, it is because there is a systematic bias depending on the colour of skin of the victims. It is almost as if the Westerners (people and government) got bored of watching Netflix in 2022 and decided that they need to know where Ukraine is on the map. We got legions of clueless people turned experts. Not a bad thing in of itself, but a bad thing when their heads go back straight in the sand, if the “geopolitical story” no longer fuel their Tolkien-like fantasies. As far as the argument that this is important because it is Europe and Europe has not wars. BS. And what was the Balkans in the 1990s ? Europe has seen perhaps less destruction in the past sixty years (than the rest of the world) simply because of awesome deterrent power of the atomic bombs keeping the Reds at bay. Not because of perceived greatness of Western politicians or some sort of Anglo-European greatness. In fact the descent of Iron Curtain and the nuclear deterrence in Europe largely meant that “kinetic geopolitical energy” being capped in Europe had to discharge itself as proxy wars in East Asia, Middle East, South America, with millions being slayed and their lives uprooted because of Soviet Union and U.S. couldn’t go head to head directly. Now think of the arrogance of Westerners who somehow see themselves and Europe as sacred, because apparently they’re no land war in Europe since the dawn of mankind. And therefore Ukraine is so special.

It is one thing to debate the “what should we do” side of the discussion. These are legitimate discussion based on legitimate concerns. it is another matter, to always conclude (or use as leverage in an argument) that it is “Germany 1930s again. Don’t you see it”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law BTW Russian state does that as well in its own propaganda. Kiev is ran by the Azov regiment.

To add further: Despite all that is being said, West ever desire is the dismantling of the Slavic super-state. That temptation and urge comes and goes. But it is always there since the dawn of Peter the Great.

In the 2022 letter this year, Prem actually adds interest + dividend AND retained earning. And gets to +3% yield on the whole portfolio. so to be fair, if we are looking at interest AND dividend (as oppose to just interest) and comparing with the market bond yield, we do need to include the whole of earning on common stocks. (distributed or not).

Ahhhh the bogeyman is being invoked again. The “veto” that ends all discussion. I hope you guys do realize that there had to be a Munich and a Chamberlain so that there could be a Churchill and with it a strategic shift. Prey tell what would have happened if Chamberlain had done the reverse at Munich. Two scenarios: - Hitler’ bluff would have been called. But war would have postponed, but only delayed to another catalyst. Possibly the very same 1939. But now Chamberlain would have been a much stronger political position in London. After all he resisted Hitler but war was inevitable. Leaving no venue for Churchill to be the anti-Chamberlain. - War would have started then (earlier) vs. then it did in 1939. But same as above Hitler would be facing a politically strong Chamberlain. The lion. We needed to have Chamberlain so that we could have Churchill, the anti-thesis. If not the powers be would have concluded perhaps confrontation with Hitler is not the right way. We tried that and it didn’t work. Edit: greetings from Tokyo

"... I can tell you, this is 2023, 24, 25 ... we have extended our term by buying treasury bonds in the last 2-3 months ... so we are confident that we will have $1.5B in interest & dividend income in 23, 24 and 25, by buying about 80% of our fixed-income portfolio in government bonds etc." Above is the statement from Prem W. during AGM. So if the size of the fixed-income portfolio is $38 billion based on Dec 2022 data, of that $9B was in cash and short-term treasury bills and $29B in bonds. So 76% of that portfolio in treasury bonds. Today, based on the comment from the AGM, about 80% of that is now in bonds. So $30B vs. $7B in in cash and short-term treasury bills (assuming $38B as constant). @TwoCitiesCapital If you measure $1.5B as yield against the $38 fixed-income portfolio (as oppose to $52B), the yield looks better at 3.94%

Understood. Thanks. On aid to Ukraine, I guess we will see. Japan and Germany were truly unique. The same “command and control” culture that got them into a world war, and the fact that they were subjugated (I.e. unconditional surrender) helped them re-jig their economy and reboot just as the doctor ordered. Korea was an interesting case. Most of the heavy industries that supported the Japanese war machine in the 30s and 40s was located in the northern side of peninsula. So after the second war, the Reds were well endowed when compared to the southern portion of peninsula. That means the U.S. funding that you have alluded to had them going from a much lower base ! So there was a “catch up part to North” to it as well

It might be me missing something. Was not aware that Korea rebuilt was funded by U.S. post-WW2. That explains the ever-presence of 2nd infantry division there for decades now, to keep an eye on investment.

We are not talking about the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan. Taiwan was also an economic miracle (and so was Singapore) and they nothing to do with U.S. funding and rebuilding and such. Same for Korea.

I like the “spin-off” analogy. that said, the only reason there is a prosperous South Korea is because there was a North Korea. Not to say that in an alternate universe, a combined Korea would not have been in prosperous staring in the 1950s. Many things could have happened in the absence of North Korea. The whole west leaning peninsula could have succumbed to communism not through military arms but the spread of ideology that feeds on struggling economies. So a rising South Korea was in reaction to a militarized North Korea. Without North we could not have the South we had. if Russia was not so autocratic, there would be no Ukraine trying so hard to westernized and be so different. same can be said about Taiwan. A fall of Maoism could have led to many alternatives scenarios, one of which could have been a total fragmentation of China and back to the warlordism of 1920s. China needs a strong hand to wield the hammer and mold it into one entity. Both Mao and Chian Kai Shek had that in them. But it was never guaranteed to happen.

Word on the street is that Prem Watsa will reveal tomorrow at AGM the “handle” he uses when he posts on Corner Berkshire & Fairfax.

Finish reading this book. Some more interesting passages : memories of war:

Taiwan was largely a dictatorship until not long ago. We just don’t know how it would have turned out. You cannot just change one parameter (Mao loses; Chiang Kai Shek wins), skip the Taiwan of 1970s, 80s and project the democratic Taiwan of the 2000s on a continental scale. Et Voila ! That said on current administration in Beijing, I agree that wisdom is lacking. Here is a quote from Deng about their dispute with Japan on few islands: “Our generation is not wise enough to find common language on this question,” … “Our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all.” Deng Xiaoping in 1978

Great episodes on the air side of the conflict. For those interested in platforms in general, MIG31s with their long-range look-down AWACS killer missiles seemed to have found a use in the war. Picking targets afar down below, while the S400 forces the defender’ air assets to stay low, making them easier prey. I think after Desert Storm, and U.S. doctrine in achieving air supremacy, collectively we have been “brainwashed” into thinking that is always the case. Clearly not. The air war here has been one of attritional contest with the defenders hugely disadvantaged, not only numerically, while the aggressor keeping most of its air assets out of reach and out of conflict zone except as launch platforms. https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/aviation-weeks-check-6-podcast/id840308131?i=1000608661749

It took roughly 12 years or so from inception to 1996-97 for the book value to get to $US 90 per share. What took 12 years will be added in one day with a stroke of a pen in terms of IFRS adjustments.

Tanks-a-lot: A portfolio of call options is now in the money

i should be there next week. 4 night tokyo 3 nights in Kyoto 3 nights in Hiroshima couple of days unallocated. let me know if there was a specific restaurant that is not to be missed

Not sure where this goes, but in the recent Amazon letter to shareholders, he presents the four bullets criteria for an investment case. There are many and wide varieties of criteria, I think this is a good one also to apply it when investing in public securities, broad-stroke kind of. The "we" being the company whose public securities one is contemplating to purchase. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy’s 2022 Letter to Shareholders (aboutamazon.com) - If we were successful, could it be big and have a reasonable return on invested capital? - Is the opportunity being well-served today? - Do we have a differentiated approach? - And, do we have competence in that area? And if not, can we acquire it quickly?

Say what you want about Trump, at least you know it comes from the heart. No bullshit, unlike all of these latte-sipping morons.

There you go: The back end of the episode on GE, starting mark 42 minute, where he talks about Zaslov and Brian Roberts. Something to do Reverse Morris Trust requirement that ends in April 2024. The World According To Boyar Podcast - Value Investing Podcast (boyarvaluegroup.com)