cwericb

"Disappointment" or impatience? Some time ago Prem Watsa clearly warned all of us that future results would be "lumpy" while building the company to where it is today. And that is exactly what happened. So I am not sure it is fair to criticize them for not concentrating on the price of their shares while doing that. The proof, as the old saying goes "is in the pudding" and the 'pudding' is the 300% share price increase we have seen in the past 3 years. Also it would seem a little disingenuous to look at Fairfax's performance during that 10 year period in isolation. Put things into perspective. During that same 10 year period, Fairfax actually outperformed the Canadian stock market. I guess in short, as one of those who stuck with Fairfax during those ten years, I have not been disappointed. Frustrated at times for sure, but in the end, not dissappointed.

With all due respect SJ, I think you are cherry picking dates. Let's compare apples to apples. If you want to take the January 2010 share price of $392, then we should take the January 2020 share price of $585. So if one bought FFH in January 2010, his holdings would have increased by $193/share - or by 50% ten years later. But add in the $100 from accumulated dividends and we get a total return of $293/share for a total return of 75%. But, if my figures are correct, during the same period the TSX Composite Index rose by only 45%. So during "the lost decade", Fairfax actually exceeded the performance of the TSX. But Fairfax wasn't exactly sleeping during the decade. They were building a company that from January 2021 to January 2024 produced a phenomenal share price increase of 300% in just 3 years. So I certainly wouldn't consider the decade as 'lost'. Two quotes come to mind: "Patience is a virtue" - William Langland "Results will be lumpy" - Prem Watsa

Yup, well aware of that chart as a long term investor in Fairfax (since 2007) who has yet to sell a share. But what has bugged me over the years was all the bitching and complaining on here about "Fairfax's lost decade" and the poor decisions FFH had made (hedges). So I am just wondering where that "lost decade" is on this chart? Furthermore, one might suggest that this "lost decade" (if such a thing existed) was actually time well spent framing the company into what it is today. Also, what some here may not realize, is that over the years there were several times when markets tanked, yet Fairfax share price stayed constant or actually increased balancing off shareholder's losses in the rest of their portfolios and helping shareholders sleep at night. Just my humble two cents worth.

Luca, let's face it, any of the thousands of members can say they have XXX million shares no matter how many shares they actually control, so it really only takes a couple of posters to say they control 100,000,000 shares to throw the numbers way off. You have no way of knowing if they even have any shares at all in the company. And that's just members of the board never mind guests, who may enjoy screwing with the numbers.

55.1% Fairfax, 2.3% Fairfax India. Relative to my stock portfolio.

Just my personal opinion, and I have said this before, but I think a 10 or 20 to one stock split would open up Fairfax to a whole lot of smaller investors and I also believe it would have an immediate positive impact on share price. However it is probably not in the cards, perhaps due to misplaced ego? Share price for Canadian banks split every so often and mostly run in the $75 - $150 range, so why shouldn't Fairfax? I have not seen any negative effect on the banks. Most small investors eventually become larger investors, but when one single share runs in the $1,500 range one would expect that a lot of people just give Fairfax a pass. With a share price in that range it makes it difficult for the little guy to adjust his holdings up and down because you have to do it in $1500 increments. A split would also make it easier for an investor to divide their Fairfax holdings between their different accounts - TFSA, RRSP, RESP, etc. I bought my first Fairfax shares at around $200, but if the shares were in the $1,500 range at that time I am not so sure I would be a shareholder today. A lot of people on this board hold Berkshire shares, there probably would be a lot fewer shareholders here if there were no ".B" shares. Doesn't the same principle apply?

Bottom line here, right after the MW report was released there were several posters who did not regularly post on this board, if ever, and who crawled out of the woodwork who argued that MW was a very reputable firm and were legitimately exposing the shady practices of Fairfax. One could go back and supply quotes, but why bother.

Alright, I know most of you guys are probably way too polite to point this out but I’m not, so here goes.... I am sure that some here noticed a sudden influx of new posters on this board immediately after Carson Block came out with his ill-informed garbage about Fairfax. Seemed like these new posters just couldn’t restrain themselves in pointing out that Muddy Waters / Carson Block had confirmed and exposed their ‘suspicions’ that obviously there was something shifty about Fairfax. Carson Block was beyond reproach and a force to be reckoned with. Some suggested that the $160 share price drop was only just the beginning. One even suggested he wanted nothing to do with FFH as the price drop had a ways to go yet. Well, if their appearance was driven by jealousy from not buying FFH sooner, it seems their error was compounded by not taking advantage of that substantial and very temporary dip. Unfortunately, as Fairfax once again set new highs, the rest of us will just have to bite the bullet and put up with the fact that ... well ... we will have to pay more income tax on our Fairfax profits. Meanwhile Mr. Block's insights remain ... let's say, Muddy.

I agree, I doubt they would have the balls to actually confront Fairfax on the facts. However. I believe at the last quarterly meeting only one question was received and recent meetings haven’t drawn a lot of interest from analysts. Fairfax has built up a bit of an image of being just a boring old insurance company so perhaps MW has done us a favour. Because, the MW report has actually focused a lot of international attention on Fairfax right before the annual meeting. As BNN said “...the whole saga makes the company’s next earnings report, scheduled for Friday of this week, a must-read. So, we will.” As Oscar Wilde put it: “There's only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”

Putting things in perspective, isn't share price presently back to where FFH was about three weeks ago?

I was wondering the same as he previously admitted he didn't know much about Fairfax - which I found surprising given the name of this board and the fact that he has been a member for a couple of years. He seems to have formed a snap opinion of Fairfax based simply on the MW report. There is a wealth of information on these pages if he really wanted to offer an educated and informed opinion on the subject. It is always good to see contrary opinions, but when they are obviously and admittedly ill informed then they serve little purpose.

Thank you. Ditto this.

Many Fairfax shareholders are now concerned about FFH being overweight in their portfolios. Obviously the reason we are overweight is primarily due to the excellent performance of the share price. Unless one believes Fairfax shares are going to suddenly reverse direction, being overweight is not necessarily a bad thing. I have owned shares in Fairfax for 17 years, not sold a share and added over time. Looking back over the years, yes there have been periods when the market surged and FFH shares did not. But people tend to forget that there were also quite a few periods when the market nosedived while FFH shares surged or maintained their value, and that often helped me sleep at night. I am just a dumb average joe and by no means a sophisticated investor. Had I traded in and out of Fairfax over the years, there is no way I would have been able to predict when to have bought and sold to my advantage. So for me at least, I am not going to sell my shares simply because the company is doing so well. JMHO

New high ($1302) this morning and high volume (nearly 200,000 shares traded). So far.

YES! Great little company and stellar results. Acquired this in 2020 @ $11-12 and today sitting around $44. Up nearly 50% in the last 5-6 months.

Stock portfolio: Not including dividends which probably add a couple of percentage points to the numbers. 2021: + 33.9% 2022: + 15.0% 2023: + 27.1% Biggest loser: ALS.TO Altius Mineral Resurces, Down 17% & I am holding way too much. Biggest contributors: FFH.TO - Fairfax Financial +52% ARTL.TO - SNC Lavalin +79% TVK.TO - Terravest Industries + 60% Biggest surprise: The number of board members who have not been invested in Fairfax given the coverage on this board.

Yes, but only the 'No" team hopes the other side wins.

I voted 'NO', only because I have concerns about future climate change and how that will impact the industry - and I too, am a little afraid to anger the investment gods. Of course 'No' is the safe answer because I hope I am wrong and that the industry and Fairfax will find ways to cope with climate change and potential future disasters that may occur. However, since FFH is now about 55% of my stock portfolio, I am still reluctant to lighten up and am confident that Fairfax will continue to produce satisfactory results. Even if it misses that $2000 mark by a bit I wouldn't be too disappointed I am just a small investor compared to many here, but I first looked at Fairfax back in 2006. I followed it closely on the predecessors to this board (Thanks Sanjeev!) and made my first venture into the markets with a substantial (to me) purchase of Fairfax in 2007 at about $220/share. AND, at the time kicking myself that I didn't buy earlier when it was about half that price. Seems to me one of the posters I followed closely back in the early days was Crip (above and thanks) and a surprisingly high number of others that are still around here today. I have yet to sell a share and have added throughout the years and only stopped because it is uncomfortably overweight in my portfolio. My biggest concern at this point is the Capital Gains Tax should I ever decide to sell. Ouch - but a nice problem to have I guess.

Some days it must suck to be Brett ............. SA Analysis <account@seekingalpha.com> Sat, Nov 4, 1:44 AM (1 day ago) Fairfax Financial: Q3 2023 Results Indicate Banner Year Ahead

"He's chasing prices down and chasing them up instead of leading them down and leading them up. Following his piece targets is no different then looking at a chart of what has already happened it seems. " AND... He gets PAID for his brilliant prognostications? I guess, we mere mortals, are obviously not as bright as he is because he knows so much more about Fairfax than most of the members of this board - who, by the way, actually have money invested in the company. It is kind of comical as to how his original projections were so far out of wack that when when he was likely forced to adjust upwards, he does it in such a begrudging manner. One has to wonder if someone in management at Morningstar had a little word with him.

To add a little colour to Haryana’s post... Aug. 1, SQ was about $80. Sept 19, SQ was about $50. Horn lowered his target from $98 to $83. Yesterday SQ closed at $42.64.

Yup!

For those who don’t follow Canadian news, you might find this interesting (concerning?). There is a history of tension between Canada and India dating back to at least the Air India bombing in 1985 which killed 329 people, most of whom were Canadians. Recently relations have deteriorated to a such a low point that Trudeau and Modi were barely on speaking terms at the recent G20 meetings in New Delhi. The concern here is that while Prem Watsa and Prime Minister Modi supposedly have a good relationship, one might be concerned as to the impact these heightened tensions between the two countries may have on Canadian firms like Fairfax who are doing business in India. Here are a couple of news quotes from the past few days that illustrate just how bad relations between the two countries have become. ................................................ CTV News Toronto, September 11/23... Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi conveyed strong concerns about protests in Canada against India to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the sidelines of the G20 summit in New Delhi, according a statement by India. New Delhi has been long sensitive to Sikh protesters in Canada. In June, India criticized Canada for allowing a float in a parade depicting the 1984 assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her bodyguards, perceived to be glorification of violence by Sikh separatists. “They are promoting secessionism and inciting violence against Indian diplomats, damaging diplomatic premises and threatening the Indian community in Canada and their places of worship," the Indian statement said. Relations between India and Canada remain tense, and Ottawa this month paused talks on a proposed trade treaty with India, just three months after the two nations said they aimed to seal an initial agreement this year. Modi, who held bilateral meetings with many world leaders during the G20 summit, did not hold one with Trudeau. Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984 by two Sikh bodyguards after she allowed the storming of the holiest Sikh temple in northern India, aiming to flush out Sikh separatists who demanded an independent homeland to be known as Khalistan. Canada has the highest population of Sikhs outside their home state of Punjab in India, and the country has been the site of many protests that have irked India. Canada will always defend "freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and peaceful protest," Trudeau said at a press conference in New Delhi. "At the same time as we are always there to prevent violence, to push back against hatred," he said, adding that the actions of the few "do not represent the entire community or Canada." Then, a few days ago... “OTTAWA, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Canada said on Monday that it was "actively pursuing credible allegations" linking Indian government agents to the murder of a Sikh separatist leader in British Columbia in June, dealing a further blow to diplomatic ties between the countries. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in an emergency statement to the House of Commons that any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen was "an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty". And now in this morning’s headlines... India suspends visas for Canadian nationals as diplomatic spat deepens.

But.... We all assume Putin was behind the death of Prigozhion. But what if Putin was in fact NOT responsible the crash? What if the crash was caused by a small bomb planted by the Ukrainians? Prigozhion has repeatedly and publically called out the incompetence of the Russian Army. Would not the Ukrainians rather contend with an incompetent Russian Army than the more sucessful Wagner Group? Eliminating Prigozhion and his top people helps to derisk the likelihood that his private army will lead another advance on the Ukraine and leaves the incompetent Russian Army leadership in charge of the war. As a side benefit, blaming it on Putin just reinforces his bad reputation throughout the rest of the world. Food for thought?

Given past history one would think this would be unlikely. Been there, done that.