cwericb

No argument there at all, but many people always use portrait/vertical to shoot everything - particularly videos.

Re: shooting video and pictures in vertical mode instead of horizontal... “It's a consequence of using the phone in portrait mode 95% of the time for almost every other task on the phone.” Yes, I realize this, but are people’s minds stuck in neutral? I mean really, if you are taking a picture or shooting video - turn the phone around it is not a complicated procedure. I guess that is what separates someone who takes photographs from someone who is simply trying to document something - but really do people put no thought into the end product? The funny part of this is that people will complain about picture quality and then shoot vertical and reduce the size and quality of their photo by about 50%. Go figure? As Crip says: This drives me absolutely crazy.

Agree with what Cageyone says. Why would anyone who wants decent photos use a phone? I have a pocket Fuji with an SD card that I often cary and a Panasonic FZ-70 for more serious photos. But a phone camera is only for when you don't have anything else and just want a quick shot. PS. Why is ist that almost everyone shoots video from their phone in verticle mode rather than horizontal?? Jeez its not rocket science that screens are formatted horizontally. Sorry, just a pet peeve.

You don't mean those Rolling Stones. Everyone knew those guys would never see 30. Sex, drugs, rock n’ roll and hard livin’ would surly kill them all in their 20's. Oh wait, they are still alive? Must all be in a nursing home by now. What? They’re still touring? Can’t be. They must all be in their 70's. Wonder if they eat sugar? They surely tried everything else :)

Fully agree with Parsad and Green King Why on earth whould anyone expect Prem to be right on every single investment, every single time? He may be one of the best investors out there - but he doesn’t have a crystal ball. And as has said before, he may have his reasons for investing in SD that are vastly different from yours. He may well be delighted to be see SD’s drop in price. As far as the Fibrek saga is concerned, there are differing opinions on it and there those here that are probably better equipped to give a critique on it than I, but the story and opinions are well reflected on the threads on this board. It is a good dose of reality for anyone that sees Prem as some warm, fuzzy, sweet little old guy who doesn’t have a ruthless bone in his body. It is a true “cautionary tale” for those who invest alongside with Fairfax. Investing in tandem with FFH is not necessarily a great idea. He may have ulterior motives for investing that are not only different than ours, but may be directly opposite to our goals. And, ‘long term’ in their eyes could be decades. If I invest in a company that Fairfax has invested in like Blackberry, it it only makes me look more closely. (kfh227 - probably right on about BBRY) PS: as for “Rule #1: Don’t lose money”. Horse Apples! That’s a nice “goal” but if anyone has been able to put that into practice 100% of the time they must be invested in GIC’s at 1%.

"even I have never had a stock pick go to zero" Oops, wish I could say that :) Okay Lucky, if you want an education in understanding how Fairfax operates, see if you can find an old share price chart for a company originally named SFK Pulp, later called Fibrek. Go back to the prices in the mid to late 2000's and then read the 47 pages on “SFK Pulp” in our board here: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/fairfax-financial/sfk-pulp/ Then follow that up with the 72 pages on “Resolute Forest Products Commences Takeover bid of Fibrek” http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/resolute-forest-products-commences-takeover-bid-of-fibrek/ Or perhaps just the last 72 pages if you are in a hurry.

That brings up a very valid concern that I have about Fairfax. What happens to Fairfax if we get hit with a couple of huge catastrophic events? Actually that should probably read "When". But that is probably a subject for a thread of its own if someone wants to pose the question.

I find it ironic that over the past year or so some people think Watsa’s investments in Blackberry, Sandridge, deflation hedges, etc, etc have been terrible, terrible investments. The financing of the acquisition of Brit is all wrong and the fact that Fairfax issues a dividend is a terrible move that makes no sense. However, people said the same things about his Credit Default Swaps back a few years ago. But then they paid off big time helped make FFH into what it is today. When Watsa doubled down on Blackberry at around seven bucks it was the dumbest, stupidest thing ever! Obviously the company would be toast within a few months. But now it’s pushing $14 and is looking better every day. Inflation was about to take hold and those hedges were going to cost a fortune, but I haven't heard much complaining about the hedges lately. And SD? Well who knows? But what investor or group is right all the time? Some times these things take years to pay off and some never do. But these combined “mistakes” don’t seem to have hurt the share price which has risen by 17% in the U.S. and 29% in Canada in just four months. Don’t get me wrong. Criticism is healthy. But I think we should not expect Fairfax’s performance to be 100% right, 100% of the time, and to have their investment strategy clearly obvious to everyone immediately. Sometimes these guys do these investments for reasons that fit into an overall plan that is not so clear to us mere mortals. So my take on all of these “mistakes” is to not get fixated on their individual investments and just look at their overall progress. PS. One rule that many of us here have learned over the years. Be very, very careful of buying into any company in which Fairfax invests. Their objectives and timeline are unlikely to be in line with yours.

I agree 100% with what Watcher just said and to add to that... This dividend debate has appeared in numerous threads over the past few years and there may be a certain basic misunderstanding on this subject as several posters are not Canadians. Fairfax is a Canadian company. Aside from Canadian’s Registered Retirement Savings Plans, where dividends and capital gains are sheltered, we also have certain tax advantages that apply to dividends from Canadian companies. 1. Canadian tax payers receive a tax credit that applies to dividends earned from Canadian companies. 2. Canadians also have Tax Free Savings Accounts. In a TFSA we can invest a certain amount in a company like Fairfax and pay not taxes on dividends or capital gains. Between the dividend and 30% increase in the Canadian share price in the past few months, this has worked well. Also I would like to point out that no one here is offering anyone advice on owning shares in Fairfax. It is simply a question of why own shares in a company if you disagree adamantly with one of their basic methods of operation? I think that a good number of shareholders actually agree with Fairfax issuing dividends instead of paying huge salaries and bonuses. Senior management gets exactly the same compensation as every other shareholder and thereby provides the ultimate incentive for performance. Also this Brit acquisition may pay off in other ways as it will probably raise awareness of Fairfax as a world class player in the insurance industry.

You know this is really simple. If I disagreed so adamently with the way a company was run, I wouldn't be invested in the company. There are many of other companies out there that don't offer dividends and pay their execs salaries of millions of dollars plus obscene bonuses and then when the companies get in trouble they fire the execs and pay them even more to leave. Long ago Fairfax made the dicision to operate in a different and a very transparent way. The policy set 15 years ago is ultimately fair to all. As far as the Brit deal is concearned I get the feeling that it was something that came about very quickly and FFH handled it in a way they decided was best. If you don't trust or don't like the way management operates, why would you be invested?

Over time, all the Canadian banks are pretty much the same. For every customer that RBC pi$$es off and loses, they pick up another customer that one of the other banks pi$$ed off.

What about RBC & DS?

In general Prem is attempting to make all Fairfax shareholders partners in the company. How many other CEO's have not taken a raise in 15 years? While some here have posed very good reasons for not paying dividends, Fairfax is an exception.

In no way am I suggesting that FFH management is, or should be, offering a dividend in an attempt to increase share price. I was only commenting on what exists. The fact that they DO offer a dividend makes the shares attractive to a wider range of investors. For instance there are any number of dividend funds out there who’s sole purpose is to invest in dividend paying stocks. I don’t know of any funds that purposely do not invest in dividend stocks. A lot of individual investors operate the same way. That is where the law of supply and demand comes in. The more people who want to invest in FFH, the more upward pressure on the share price. I believe that for many years Prem Watsa has been taking the same $600,000 yearly salary. That is a mere pittance (note: not to me!) in comparison to CEO’s of other companies the size of Fairfax. But management has chosen to offer a dividend rather than put themselves in a position whereby they must sell off shares every year to supplement their income. If they did not do this can you imagine the outcry that would follow every time Watsa sold shares in Fairfax? The same principle works for a lot of longtime smaller Fairfax shareholders who have a lot of their money tied up in Fairfax and do not want to have to liquidate shares every year for income. Others may not agree, but I am just fine with Prem taking his $600 K salary rather than soaking the company for untold millions every year. Essentially he gets paid the same as all of the other shareholders. That’s incentive and I am fine with that.

Munger, it is simply supply and demand. There are some investors who will not buy non-dividend stocks. Therefore if you don’t pay a dividend, you reduce the demand for those stocks by that number of investors. If you reduce the demand you tend to reduce the price. It has nothing to do with Markel, Birkshire or anyone else, it is simply the law of supply and demand. And yes there may be someone out there who will not buy dividend paying stocks, but has it stopped any of the people here that are complaining about the dividend?

I also suspect that dividends create demand, thereby increasing stock price. Some investors shy away from non-dividend paying stocks.

If I am right, it is just about exactly six years since the new board started.

"Yeah, sorry about that - I had an early transcript which said "is expensive". It's been corrected since!" Well thanks for clarifying that. Jeez, I was wondering what he was thinking.

Partner, I remember that Sanjeev went out to lunch one day and the stock price jumped, but how about refreshing the story for the newbies and the others of us who's memories are not as good as they used to be?

Congrats. You could be right about today's announcemnet but the fourth quarter results has likely had an impact. but another very nice day for shareholders.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned how there frequently seems to be a delayed reaction whenever FFH posts good results and based on that I bought in at about $510 a few days after third quarter results were posted. I believe Ericopoly did as well. The price jumped immediately afterwards. Some criticised that post, but now several days after the fourth quarter results were posted investors again seem to have a delayed reaction. FFH only eased up slightly but so far today it's jumped about $50 CDN.

Not really a fair comparrison. What happens if your stock drops by 50% and you lose your job? What happens if your stock drops by 50% and you do not have the funds to buy more? What happens if your stock drops to zero or close to it by bad management? Further, if your house drops and you lose your job, you still have to live somewhere. That is the difference. You are still going to have to pay either rent or mortgage payments. And, one other thing. Even in bankruptcies, few people lose their homes today.

“I fit in here. A decade ago, I could have afforded to purchase a home with cash on the west side of Vancouver. However, I rented instead. This allowed me to get aggressive in wealth building, both in investing and starting a business.” That is not the scenario I was comparing. Very few have the cash to buy a home in Vancouver. That is not the same as comparing a mortgaged home to renting. Yes, with cash you can compound it through investments. But the average person does not have that cash to invest, nor can he borrow it without collateral. He has to live somewhere and for most the choice is to either rent or buy. There also seems to be an assumption on this thread that all Canadians live in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto or Montreal. Certainly prices in those cities are high. But the combined populations of those cities represents only one third of the Canadian population - two thirds of us live elsewhere where prices may not be as unreasonable. The extreme, of course is Vancouver. And it seems that people here frequently tend to reference Vancouver in their examples. In comparison to the rest of the country Vancouver seems dysfunctional when it comes to housing prices. But those prices are driven by a lot of unique factors not shared by most of the rest of the country. Vancouver prices are double the average and perhaps three or four times the price of many other areas of the country so it is a rather unique example. Now for those who believe that investments in the market and home ownership are essentially the same thing, try living in your investments. As I said previously, if home prices drop substantially, you still have a place to live. Perhaps the difference here is that I am talking about the average person, not wealthy, successful investors. Personally, home ownership has worked out well for me over the years. But I have never looked at my house as an investment, it is my home.

Yeah you missed my point. I’m suggesting that today’s prices may not be as out of line historically as they appear. A much higher percentage of today’s mortgage payment go towards actually paying down the debt.

Consider this 1. For those who have been renting over the past few years rather than owning - as of today, how has that worked out for you financially? 2. Do not apply principals of investing to home ownership. If the value of your shares drop by 50% tomorrow, half of your money is gone. Gone, disappeared, poof. If the price of your home drops by 50% tomorrow, you still have a place to live, its value to you is the same as it was yesterday. The drop in price is only a number. ... Is housing really more expensive than it was in the past? Years ago I paid a mortgage as high as 17.5% - and others paid higher. At that time you could pay your mortgage every month for five years and at the end of that period you had only reduced your total amount owing by a few hundred dollars. Nearly all of your payments went to pay interest. And that was with 20 year amortization rates. Today the reverse is true, most of your payments are going against the debt itself.