cwericb

bizaro86 you might be interested in this from the CIBC website: “The Bank Act requires banks to inform customers in plain language that coercive tied selling is illegal. To comply with the law, CIBC has created this booklet to help you understand coercive tied selling. ... Coercive tied selling is illegal and is prohibited under Section 459.1 of the Bank Act. More specifically, it is against the law for a bank to "impose undue pressure on, or coerce, a person to obtain a product or service from a particular person, including the bank and any of its affiliates, as a condition for obtaining another product or service from the bank". You cannot be unduly pressured to buy a product or service that you don't want from a bank or one of its affiliates, to obtain another bank product or service.” https://www.cibc.com/en/legal/tied-selling.html PS: All Canadian banks are required to publish the above statement.

NOTE: This thread started exactly FIVE years ago warning of the imminent collapse of the Canadian housing market. Consider those people on this thread who made a decision back then to rent instead of buy because they were sure the “housing bubble” was about to burst. Had they bought five years ago, or four or even three years ago, their - non-taxable - capital gain would have been substantial. But instead they have helped make their landlords wealthy. Contrary to what some may say, buying a house is NOT like buying stocks or most other investments. Different rules apply. If the value of your house drops by 30% you still have your home and a roof over your head. You also have time to sit and wait out housing market corrections. If it takes 10 years, so what, you have just paid off that much more of your mortgage. And at what 3%? Too many people confuse Canadian housing pricing with what happened in the US. That is comparing apples to oranges. Canadian mortgages are not non-recourse mortgages like the US. You can’t just give the bank your keys and walk away. Most Canadian mortgages have either a high ration down payment or are insured by the Canadian government through CMHC. There are also stringent requirements to obtain mortgages in Canada unlike the lunacy we saw south of the border. Are prices are too high in Canada? Well if you believe in the law of supply and demand they obviously are not. Will they correct? Perhaps - in some areas. Also, too many people confuse Vancouver and Toronto as being Canada. There is a lot more to this Country than a couple of cities.

Can't answer your question, wondering the same. One would think it should have some impact though. While this is irrelevant, in the past this stock has at one time paid out half its share price (or more) in a special dividend and shortly after paid out 1/3 of its share price as a special dividend. Great company with the very best quality holdings.

Oh I feel the same as you, although I have been a little frustrated that the market has undervalued it. I have owned it since the Royal Trust/Gentra days - 1993ish. As far as Brookfield’s deal is concerned, this is the second time they have tried. The last time their offer was found to be seriously lacking - much to their embarrassment. I had heard that one of the institutional investors was dragging their feet saying the offer was too low. I am quite content to stay for the long run but if the offer is accepted I think I will put the funds into one of the other Brookfield companies.

valueinvestor Sometimes I feel that I am the only guy here that has BOX.UN. Like you, it is a mojor holding and I have been in it for a very long time through various names and I have done well. I see that it may be another six weeks before we get the results of the formal valuation of Brookfield’s offer. Are you waiting this out or reducing now? Think I will probably hang in. Portfolio by size: FFH. - Fairfax Financial BOX.UN - Brookfield Canada Office Prop RY - Royal Bank ALS - Altius Minerals CKI - Clarke PWT - Penn West Petroleum BB - Blackberry MTL - Mullen Group CHK - Chesapeake Energy Corp. POE - Pan Orient Energy Corp. ADV - Alderon Iron Ore Corp

This could work very well. Anyone not familiar with Altius can check the ALS thread under Investment Ideas. http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/t.als/altius-minerals-corporation?postid=25889554

I think this house insurance analogy isn't that good though. Ignoring that it is required for most people since they have a mortgage, house insurance is a typically prudent thing to do, that almost everyone does. They also do it consistently. They don't decide, this year, no insurance! And then next year I'll insure half my house. And the year after that all of the house. And then later I'll insure more than the value of my house. And a few years later, no more insurance. Okay, as Richard says. I used to have life insurance, but I have chosen to believe it is no longer necessary. Things change. Thus, if the leverage alone caused hedging to be necessary: 1) other companies with similar leverage would also be hedging their portfolio completely, and 2) FFH could not continually change the hedging amount between 0 and 125% based on factors other than the leverage itself. No one said it was necessary, it was a choice. Other companies also did not buy CDS 10 years ago either. Thus, my point is that the argument "the hedges are required because of the leverage" is not plausible, because 1) it was not required by others; and 2) the fluctuations in hedges were not tied to their leverage, but instead to their macro views. The hedges are there because they had an expectation of some particular scenario to happen, which they've changed their mind on. Not necessarily an expectation. I didn’t buy life insurance because I had an expectation I would die. And no one said they were "required", they felt it was a prudent choice at the time. If we are sticking with some kind of house insurance, it would be buying flood insurance in an area that doesn't flood based on a reason that changes and no one else participates in. As per the example of the Credit Default Swaps above Richard's example also has a lot more consistency than Fairfax--his was based on the amount of money he had saved. In contrast, at one point Fairfax tried to say that they would let the hedges roll off naturally, but then they changed their mind and increased to over 100% and then reduced it completely, again not based on leverage, but their changing macro views. I would be disappointed if management were not flexible enough to change its mind when they felt it necessary. Circumstances change. No one has a crystal ball.

And, by the way, the insurance on my house is not required either, it is a choice. It is a hedge against my home burning down. Perhaps there may be a difference between hedging and insurance, hedging certainly can be and often is, used as insurance.

Criticizing Fairfax for hedging is like criticizing someone for buying fire insurance on their home. Then, five years later when the house hasn’t burned down they get criticized for wasting money on buying fire insurance. With 20/20 hindsight they say that the insurance obviously wasn’t needed because the house didn’t burn down. If memory serves me right, Prem initially stated the hedges were taken out as protection for a portion of their float. After all, they are in the insurance industry.

Thanks augustabound. Greyhounds are certainly a different animal, calm, affectionate, smart. As I said Apache was a racer, placed in the first three in half of his 60 races before he broke a leg. Fortunately he was well cared for. He is now on his second career as a St. John’s Ambulance Therapy Dog and loves it. https://www.facebook.com/Apache-RF-Apache-1748393585420852/ Anyone interested in more info on Greyhounds, feel free to PM me.

A little over one year ago we adopted former racing greyhound - Apache. He is the most amazing animal. Sometimes I think there must be a human hiding inside him. If you are thinking of getting a companion, check out your local greyhound adoption agency. You have to apply, have your home inspected, supply references, take a short course and pass a test. Apache is now on his second career as a St John's Ambulance Therapy Dog visiting senior's homes and university students. Apache even has his own Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/Apache-RF-Apache-1748393585420852/

Agree. We are in the mists of a historic political tsunami, the magnitude of which we will probably never see again. It is the main topic of discussion around the world, and the affect of the power shift on businesses everywhere will be profound. It's so interwoven into every institution, that to think that it can be ignored is unrealistic. +1. For good or ill this is the topic of conversation just about everywhere right now. Agree. Does anyone really believe that politics do not have an impact on investments? Especially with what is going on in Washington presently? We seem to be watching a democratic (small "d") revolution in the way the most influential nation in the world is being run. One would have to be rather naive not to think that will have an effect on markets.

"General Discussion: Feel free to talk about anything and everything on this board" "Topic: Question For Those That Voted For Trump" With all due respect, I find it ironic that some posters here are calling for this thread to be locked. The title is clearly political. Why would you read? Why would you post? Are you in favour of censorship? Why stifle free expression of opinions? No one here is forced to click, read or comment on this or any thread. Yes, the subject may be divisive, but on the other hand it does tend to reveal the thought processes of posters on which one might rely for investment opinions.

Value^2 is the pet board troll. Sometimes we humour him so he thinks we appreciate his 'brilliant' comments.

Make Canada Great Again! YES! And Donald Trump will do that as he drives skilled people out of the U.S.

Donald is making poorly thought through decisions, with no concern for consequences. In business and in life he could simply walk away from those poor decisions. The leader of a country does not have that luxury. “Every night, every comedy show on the planet lampooning the Donald, and all of them getting progressively more ambitious.” DT is a narcissist. Watch as this develops into paranoia.

The Donald’s biggest problem is that he was born with a golden spoon in his mouth with a large helping of entitlement. Because of that, it seems that DT has never had to cope with the consequences of his bad decisions. When he made bad decisions in business, he just walked away and let the businesses go under. It will be the consequences of, and the retaliations for those bad decisions that will lead to his undoing. He is way in over his head and probably will never learn that a president can’t shoot from the hip as one may do in private business and then just walk away from your failures.

I hate to harp on this subject, but if Trump is so detached from reality that he doesn’t understand that instituting a 20% tax on Mexican imports would make Americans, not Mexicans pay for his wall than how dumb is this guy?

Still haven't had an answer to the question I posted earlier: Can someone explain to me how slapping a 20% import duty on Mexican goods coming into the US is going to collect money from Mexico to pay for the wall? “The White House on Thursday said President Donald Trump is considering a 20% tax on imports from Mexico to pay for a southern border wall ...” Now I’m certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed, and obviously I am missing something because I thought that if an import tax was placed on imports from Mexico then U.S. taxpayers would have to pay those taxes.

This stuff just gets surreal. Can someone explain to me how slapping a 20% import duty on Mexican goods coming into the US is going to collect money from Mexico to pay for the wall? Compared to the United States, Mexico is a small and very poor country. Why is Trump constantly trying to bully Mexico? He obviously dislikes Mexicans as was plainly evidenced by his remarks when he tried to influence the court decision on his Trump University scam. And of course he wants to blow 10-15 BILLION of US taxpayers dollars on a (and how do you say this without snickering) 2,000 long mile "great wall". Should it ever be built - which it will not - it would become a monument to stupidity likely known by future generations as "Trump's Folly". Then he wants to start a trade war with Mexico which is one of the US's best trading partners. And in doing these things I am sure he has managed to insult every single Mexican citizen. Yeah, I think he will make a great president and diplomat.

And PS. I am not a Trump fan. I do not like him. I think he is a dangerous buffoon. However, I hope to be proven wrong and I sincerely hope he becomes one of the greatest presidents ever. But like him or not, he is the democratically - elected - president - of - the - USA and to those of us didn't support him, give him a freaking chance before criticizing and protesting against him. Three months, six months, a year, from now if he is screwing up (bigly) then go out and protest or whatever. But for crying out loud wait and see what the guy can accomplish before trying to pull the rug out from under him. That's my 2 cents worth.

“... the board would be much improved if political discussions were aggressively moderated. You're right that political events can have effects. But that is not close to what is being discussed here. Most of the posts in this thread have absolutely nothing to do with investing. They are attacks on either politicians or other posters.” Seriously?? Really?? Why would anyone say this? Furthermore, it is not the “board” that is involved in political discussion. Of the thousands of threads on this board, there might be a handful that are directly involved in political discussion. Furthermore, the catagory says: “General Discussion - Feel free to talk about anything and everything on this board.” Isn’t that plain English? There are thousands of threads on the board. No one is compelled to read or involve themselves in any discussion. Sure we often disagree, and sometimes heatedly, but isn’t that what makes a “discussion”. What makes you think our discussions should be censored? Should discussions on FFH and BRK perhaps be censored for negative comments? The value of this board is centered around discussions of the positives and negatives of specific subjects. But if you don't want to be involved in a political discussion, why would you click a title that says “Question For Those That Voted For Trump”? Why on earth would you not expect there the thread just might be a little political ? The election results were controversial, Donald trump is controversial, so why wouldn't any discussion involve some controversy? This is not a children's board. We are adults having adult discussions and the idea that we should have our discussions censored by someone is really just a little over the top.

If anyone thinks this is mainly a political discussion board than they have likely been drawn to certain specific threads involving politics, rather than the board overall. Having said that, one might keep in mind that politics in the U.S. has taken a major turn in politics that can and will have a substantial impact on markets both in the U.S. and around the world.

I tend to get frustrated with those who complain about FFH because I believe they actually do know what they are doing. But no one is right every time on all things. I have a large percentage of my portfolio in Fairfax and have been that way for about 10 years and I am quite satisfied. Yes, I had to grit my teeth in the recent slide but when I look at my portfolio as a whole it was pretty well evened out by my other holdings - holdings that I probably wouldn’t have owned if not for my belief that FFH offered some protection on the downside. Petec and I are on the same page “Then again, a big position in FFH was what gave me the confidence to have the rest of the portfolio in stuff that has gone up recently, so the position has done its job for me.” And again when you says: “The hedges were always justifiable IMHO based on 1) long term equity valuations (even if they were dead wrong) and 2) protecting a levered company (they were insurance and were repeatedly explained as such)” The last part of this quote is 100% correct and yet many investors still couldn’t seem to grasp this no matter how often and clearly it was stated. In general, over the past years when markets went down, FFH went up, when markets went up, FFH slid, maintained or went up. It has also provided me with a balance against Canadian dollar depreciation. To me, Fairfax has been insurance of another kind.

Haha, I was thinking that Cardboard. :) While I find DT's methods and rhetoric offensive I am all for giving him a chance to see how he handles the next 4 years and sincerely hope he is able to convert me to a fan. This is why I was very much against the protests that were spreading across the country. The guy was voted in democratically so those who were protesting against him need to suck it up and see what he is actually going to do in the coming months before complaining about it.