Xerxes

** shushshsh ** I guess we are in the q-u-i-e-t period before earning release

Lockheed needs to re-assess its 5-year plan. I will post if there are any interesting podcast/articles from AW on this. Stock down 10%

If someone truly believes the "“collection” of very good asset allocators" theory, they ought to have a significant % of their wealth in FFH and for the long-haul, because that "collection" by definition diversifies away the top man risk, and one is outsourcing to Prem Watsa who in turn is outsourcing to that "collection". And you need time and space for the whole thing to play itself out and for that BV to grow and compound. If one is playing the "closet-the-discount" to BV trade, as most people are doing here, than that "collection of great asset allocator theory" is largely irrelevant, since BV is where it is right now, and you are just riding the closing toward it.

Exxon is reporting this week i believe. Had own it pre-Covid, have added it throughout 2020. if i read correctly expectation is that they will book around $4 billion in earning compared to last year's Q3, which was around minus $600 million. The power of operating leverage. I would push back on the comments oil futures vs. oil companies. The assumption is that people would buy the likes of Exxon, to capture the rally in prices. Sure, there is a subset of investors going for that, but a lot of investor owns Chevron and the Exxon's of the world as a long-term play on infrastructure. Now it is true we are no longer in the secular bull market in oil as we were in the 90s and the BRIC rally of early 2000s, but it does not make the un-investable either.

Life After Goldman: Front Row With Lloyd Blankfein - Bloomberg fantastic interview

I have not seen it yet (although have the read the books several time) so my opinion on the adaptation is of no value, just because i have not seen it. Just as a side note: David Lynch work also had a four-hour running extended edition that came years later of the theatrical release. And people who have seen both, usually don't recall the difference from the theatrical version (which you should be gauging Villeneuve work against) and the extended edition. On Jackson's adaptation of LOTR, i think context is important. LOTR trilogy (super-packed in a 3 year release) came at the turn of the century, 9/11, wars, dot.com bust, bear market etc. And it is my belief that it created an outlet for people to remove themselves from their worry etc. And there was no competition when LOTR came out, since George Lucas went all Jar Jar Binks with the prequals. To this day, when i go hiking with people, i hear the analogies between Hobbits gone on an adventure and hiking. Right away you know which generation they are from: the generation that saw LOTR live in the theaters. Sure, Jackson's adaptation was (i think) fantastic. I was studying my mechanical engineering undergrad those years. And I very proudly went to watch The Two Towers on the matinee show right after it came out, while have a major 3-hour long end of the semester final exam on fluid mechanics in the afternoon of the same day. I got a C+. Didnt bother me. But what if Peter Jackson's adaptation of LOTR came today in 2021 in this very crowded fantasy/sci market. Will that leave you with all fond nostalgia for the next 20 years, till say 2040. The answer is no. Peter Jackson has been riding the bull market on low interest rate for the past 20 years. It came at the right time. For instance, the adaptation of the Hobbits did not leave people with the same nostalgia. Same director, same book author (yes yes totally different book, but does your average movie goer knows this), and with the benefit of an enlarged fan base and with Dr Strange as Smaug the Dragon. I puked when I saw the part 3 of Hobbits, and did not watch it again until about 10 years later and puked again. The original LOTR, i had it memorized line by line. ---------- On Dune, I thought this was interesting. Earlier above i pointed to parallel with middle eastern history and the novel. Some how i failed to make that connection between Paul Atriedes and Lawrence of Arabia. Looks like Villeneuve is also a big fan of Lawrence of Arabia.

Last Nov Q3 results send the stock price on a rally from deep sleep. It is possible that the samething will happen here and the window might get shut. Looking to add to FFH in 2022 in CAD terms ... as i am planning to get out of FIH and flip the US dollars to Exor.

Spek, Have you tried reading the Game of Thrones books ... or Tolkien's original LOTR. They are no different than the original Dune book. I agree that Dune Book 2 and onward, it drags and gets more philosophical.

i would disagree with that. (the acquired taste part). It has all the elements to make it an engaging story upfront. What has been working to its disadvantage has been the Lynch movie in the 1980s. If people were exposed to Dune for the first time by watching that movie, that makes it acquired taste. Given Lynch's style. I would add though in making the Harkonnens, Villeneuve probably borrowed a lot of 'brutalist' like style from Lynch. As an interesting anecdote: Dune was written in the time when OPEC held sway over the oil market. So spice is really oil and CHOAM in the Dune universe was really OPEC and interested parties. The Empty Quarter described by Frank Herbert in the book are not dissimilar to the Empty Quarter in Saudi Arabia. The Mud'adib is really Mehdi. The Sardaukar, the emperor's elite crack troops in Dune, trained on the harsh prison planet of Selesu Sedunus, are probably modelled after the famed Ottoman imperial guards, the vaunted janissaries, who were a slave army. When the emperor comes to Dune to deal with the situation, this is probably no different than when Ottoman send their armies to Arabia in the 19th century to quell the rebellion from the first house of Saud (which ended with their leader brought back to Istanbul and beheaded). The current line sitting on the throne in Riyad is the 3rd incarnation of House of Saud, and to this day they see Turkey as an imperial oppressor. In the book Dune that ends differently. So Dune has enough analogies to real history to make it an amazing movie and highly adaptable (far adaptable than Foundation). If today's audience could keep track of all different warring houses in Game of Thrones (itself modelled on War of Roses and rise of Tudors in England), they can keep track of 3 houses and the few warring factions in the Dune universe. The issue is that Peter Lynch version in the 1980s created a data point that to this day has biased people's opinion (and possibly Warner Brothers) if Dune can really made in a movie. I should add that 'adaptability into a movie' breaks down with Book 2 (Dune Messiah) and Book 3 (Children of Dune). Book 4 (forget it). Books 2, 3, 4, 5 and Book 6 can be made into a short TV series, based on the flagship first book set by Villeneuve.

Just went through another grueling session of watching Foundation. I am becoming more and more irritated by this so-called adaptation of Foundation on Apple TV+. Villeneuve should have been the one making this series for Apple TV+. Maybe it is just me but i loved his work on Blade Runner. Have not seen Dune, but it will be epic !!! Sadly, i found it that Warner Brothers have not green lighted Dune part 2 (and it has not been back to back filmed like Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy). Who the hell is running Warner Brothers !!! In this day and age of chasing eyeballs, free money and bidding up valuable franchise, that says something about Warner Brothers ability to comprehend how huge Dune could be for them with Villeneuve at the helm. Foundation has been more or less turned into Star Trek as far as i am concerned. With the Emperor (i am sorry is that The Empire) going on-away mission on distant planets to meet locals without violating prime directive (ala Cap Picard). I will give it till end of season and will cancel my Apple TV+. I just hope Prime's new Lord of The Ring series (whenever that comes), wont be grueling like Foundation.

I do not have any comments on the real-estate, but if memory serves, Amazon obliterated Toy' R Us side that is based in the U.S. The Canadian operation was profitable, but was being used by the parent U.S.-based Toy' R Us to subsidies its losses in the U.S. So, when FFH bought the Canadian side of the business, they bought a profitable business.

I actually like the Naspers analogy and it might apply Atlas as well, if it goes multi-fold from here [big if]. [sarcasm starts] What we need now is validation of Digit by Masayoshi Son plunging in by throwing money at it [sarcasm ends]

For me, Lewis best performance will always be Lt. Winters in Band of Brothers. PS: I am about to finish off Billions season 5. Funny how suddenly mid-season they were wearing masks or the lead actor shaved off his beard. I guess different production period before and after Covid.

I did listened to the podcast on the AcquirerMultiple. Sounded very interesting. Can someone who read the book can confirm if the book offer some historical anecdote about specific P/E companies and/or specific deal (i enjoy reading history), or is it just one those broad strokes at looking at long term return and showcasing that S&P500 did better etc. etc.

10 Rings (Marvel movie) -- done Sopranos prequel -- done 007 Dune Foundation Trilogy -- on-going Eternal (Marvel movie) Spiderman multiverse (Marvel movie) Dexter Narcos Mexico Season 3 Mandalorian (no clue on release date) Billions (part 2 of the last season ?) Succession (new season ?) Expanse Season 6 Yellowstone Season 4

I finished watching Expanse Season 5. The best scene in the season, where the Martian Admiral talks about .... guess who ? Xerxes.

Recorded only 1 week ago, with half of it on a children book. The other half, the analyst backward circa 2016-17-18 opinion on FFH. Talking about the usual market timing and comparing the Buffett of the north with Buffett. The only right statement is that FFH is a blackbox and that you never know. This guy needs to do some homework. John O'Connell discusses Fairfax Financial - Video - BNN (bnnbloomberg.ca)

thank you. The real hero of this Greek tragedy is the collapsing bond yield from 37% to 1%. Whoever locked-in those distressed bonds at +30% and rode them all the way to 1-3% must be laughing all the way to the Eurobank. The aggregate sum of these Greek investments seem to be as big as (or bigger) than Fairfax India's market capitalization. In another time and place, this Hellenistic basket of investments would have been formally called "Fairfax Greece", if their deeper involvement was in fact pre-planned as oppose to a initial desire to repeat the Bank of Ireland trade, which then grinded them and morphed into a deeper involvement.

Glass half-full: You folks are being overly pessimistic, maybe, just maybe, the Blackberry executive-gentleman thinks Blackberry has good potential, but also maybe he has been watching YouTube Motely Fool videos on the diversification. So, to kind of hedge his bet, he decided to sell his Blackberry shares and re-direct those funds into buying an undervalued Fairfax itself at a good price, thereby holding Blackberry indirectly.

I was not even aware of BAM's legacy investment in the lumber until earlier this year. But it didn't matter, as it was layered under a growing and a very successful asset management business. Agreed that the Resolute is irrelevant in a grand scheme of things. But irritates the hell out of me. The point i was trying to convey is that, if you are an institutional investment manager who is recommending BAM or its subs as investment to your boss or some sort of committee, you have a framework to work with. Something to latch on or chew on. You can try to sell that internally. It may or may not pass, but you can try. With FFH or BRK*, you have no such framework, because everything is based on Tesla-like leap of faith. How can you sell that to your boss. Unless its market value drops by a huge margin of safety below BV, than that becomes a story to sell to your boss as a reversion to the mean trade. But that is it. It ends there. Of course, for retail investors that opaqueness is the opportunity. But one that needs to be hedged by a fair amount of Amazon and Google (in my case). * i am adding BRK so that i am being fair; when you buy BRK as a professional investment manager, basically what you are saying is that, i have outsourced to Omaha

Welcome MMM20 The highlight of your post Joey Levin from IAC on different conference calls had described IAC as a portfolio of call options. Perhaps there is a bit of that here as well.

While i disagree on some/many Gregmal posts on FFH and Prem, and without commenting specifically on BB itself (which i dont know more than an anybody else), ... i would say that in Gregmal's defense, his comments on the situation are probably no different folks talking about Charlie Munger and Alibaba in the other thread. I dont think anyone in the Daily Journal or Alibaba thread has anything but respect for Charlie Munger. But they are looking at it from a life cycle point of view, and great investors like everything else or everyone else have a life cycle, when they think about other things at different stage of their career/life etc. Gregmal is just more vocal about it.

Putting my SJ's hat on: great news for Fairfax India's majority owner: Fairfax Financial. I am learning.

But then they held on the other old-economy names ... I think that is one of the reason why institutional investors stay away from FFH, unless there is a huge margin of safety (i.e. mean reversion). Not because they don't believe Prem Watsa's ability but just that they cannot wrap their heads around what framework Prem Watsa is using to decide when to sell or buy. Think of endless discussion in this very forum about BB and resolute. Institutional investors dont have that problem with say Brookfield. The BAM folks are showing themselves savvy investors using clear framework and speaking clear language that the investor base understand. That framework allows institutional investors to feel comfortable with BAM or BX and the like. Even if it is all optics or smoke and mirror. The investor base feel comfortable that at least they know where they stand (even if they are not in the stock). With Berkshire and Fairfax, the investor would be literally outsourcing all that to the founder-CEO-operator and taking a leap of faith.

Cheers Perhaps we will see each other in Toronto for the AGM. Whether the discount narrows or not, I'll buy you a drink for all the work you have done. The only difference I would say between CDS and Digit is that the former was cold hard cash that got realized. Digit will likely be unrealized gain for a long time even after its IPO. If Prem sells a portion of Digit, I would really question why Digit (a fast growing tech) deserves a trim and not Resolute (a lumbering sawmill) .