dwy000

This was the writeup that got me interested to start with! Longterminvestor - as always, thanks for the thorough and detailed info. Great to hear from an inside expert. The part i keep struggling with is what exactly you are buying with all these mid sized businesses. As you mention, this is an elevator asset business and the best producers will go out on their own pretty easily - and probably take their best accounts with them. When they get big enough they sell out for a premium and the cycle starts over again. If you stop making acquisitions it seems the business will gradually dissipate as producers move on. Yes there is organic growth but I assume most of that is during the non-compete period and while selling owners are still engaged. Is there any benefit to the client from dealing with a BRO or an AJG instead of the smaller family firm? I would imagine definitely at the large end where you need specialization of product expertise and diversity of insurers. But it feels like there is a point where market share of the big guys caps out and the dissipation of business to the new entrants splitting out is equal to the amount of business being acquired. Is this accurate? Are we close to that point? Where does the market share of the top 10 cap out in the industry? Is this why they're all looking overseas? Thanks again for all the color!!

This is great color @longterminvestor! I'm trying to do a bit of a deeper dive on BRO and must admit all the Florida insurance stories are concerning - although I'm continuing to see it as more of a risk for property owners through premium increases than for the broker side (which actually benefits). Let's assume BRO has about 25% of revenue risk in Florida (higher than above due to the out of state initiated coverage, and probably reducing as they seem to be expanding in the UK market faster than US). What exactly is the risk here for BRO? Is it Citizen's reducing commission rates? Reduced coverage as prices grow fast? A new state funded insurer getting stood up to take on additional risk that will bypass or cut commissions from brokers like BRO? Secondly, do you have any color on the acquisition side? If BRO alone has acquired over 600 companies in the past 30 years and they are one of many acquisitive public brokers, and now private equity is scooping them up for inflated prices, what is the outlook? How many small brokers can possibly be left that are of size to warrant acquisition that moves the needle? Where are all these small firms coming from - is it brokers leaving BRO, AJG etc to go out on their own knowing they'll get bought at a premium? Would love to get more of your input. Despite my wife looking at me like I'm nuts when I say this is a really interesting industry, from an investment perspective I love these FCF, acquisitive machines that fly under the radar screen because it causes people's eyes to glaze over. Thanks!!

Just reading some of the summaries of the deal it looks like the PGA made out like a bandit. They got rid of a competitor, got rid of the litigation, got a minority partner who will put up a ton of sponsorship cash, and retain ultimate control of the sport. PGA keeps the non-profit holding company and has majority of the Board of the operating company that will run not only the PGA events but also the LIV events. I'm actually struggling to understand what LIV got out of this.

I was referring to the fact that if you can't get the savings from bundling home and auto (because you don't offer home anymore) the auto side is likely to see volumes suffer quite a bit so it's not just the one p4oduct line that will shrink. At some point you simply can't put unrealistic caps on free market participants and not see the consumer suffer.

I hope.youre not speaking from personal experience!!! With bundling savings of auto policies this would imply SF is almost pulling out of California altogether. I would guess this is a major public statement largely to pressure regulators to allow price increases.

Anyone with any understanding of 3rd grade economics knows price controls are stupid policy. Capping the price of a product who's price is rising due to limited supply only makes the problem worse. I equate it to giving an alcoholic a drink. It stops the shakes for very short time but makes the problem worse in the long run. But politicians rarely look out past the next election.

It's always a risk as politicians seek to curry short term favor even though it causes long term harm. I think NYC learned their lesson this in the 80's as rent control led to the opposite reaction from the goal - it drove rents up even further for non-rent controlled as nobody would move from rent controlled apartments and landlords wouldn't repair rent-controlled apartments. Most of it got phased out as a failed experiment. But I'm sure there will always be someone holding it up as a solution.

There has always been a massive turnover in NYC population and always will. If you are between 20 and 40, single, ambitious and competitive there us no other city in the world that comes close to NYC (maybe London). People flock to it because if you can make it there....As you get older, get married, have kids and want a work life balance you move out - first to the burbs and Connecticut, then further afield. It's been the case for 100 years and I can't see anything changing it.

It will never ever be resolved. It's the age old adage that my right to swing my arm extends to the tip of your nose. My calling someone fat is, to me, just factual, but to a fat person might be an aggregious insult. Both are correct and now both are deeply offended. Has it gone way too far? Absolutely!!!! Nobody but the most extreme would suggest otherwise. But if there's no definitive line and just personal opinion (not to mention ever changing societal norms) it's always going to be a nasty discussion.

I overlap the issues (maybe wrongly) because I'm old enuf to remember the exact same arguments about gay people 20-30 years ago. It was a choice. They were groomed into it. It's scientifically wrong. They just want attention. Etc. Etc. The gender reassignment clinics probably is just reacting to the increased demand. And a lot of that comes from increased acceptance. Plastic surgery, tattoo parlors and weed shops have exploded over the past 30 years too.

Well I think the one thing we all agree is that schools should not be indoctrinating or sexualizing kids - from either side. If as an adult you decide that you want to be the opposite sex and go through years and years of hormones and whatever else it takes to get the surgery, then you must feel very, very strongly about it and more power to you. None of my business. But hating those people for what must be agonizing process and telling them they are wrong is crossing the personal freedom line for me.

Who said that? So I'm assuming you would be fully supportive if your kid came out as gay? Well thats good at least.

You're right, my bad. You and Castanza both come up as purple circles.

What are you going to do if your kid comes out as gay?

And i've stated multiple times that I agree gender reassignment surgery should wait until your older. No issue with that.

The group pointed to stress from being a minority group with related discrimination, bullying and non acceptance as the reason for the high suicide attempt rate, not from dissatisfaction with their ability to be a man or woman. I want kids to feel accepted and normal regardless of who they are. Not told they are freaks and rejected by both society and their families and driven to suicide because of who they are. What happened to your live and let live from a couple of posts ago?

I don't disagree with this. Anything non-conforming is going to be adopted by youth movements and the more traditional society hates it the cooler it becomes. Then there's the "experimental" factor in youths. Heck, if every girl who experimented with another girl in college was shunned, Vassar would close down. Remember when tattoos were extreme and alternative? And that darn rock and roll music! It's when something becomes completely accepted by society that youth moves on to the next thing. They just love to shock. But shocking your parents and actually being trans are two different things. I strongly doubt anyone is getting gender reassignment surgery just to be cool. And ironically, the more accepting society becomes of it, the less alternative and cool it becomes.

Bud Light insulting their customer base and giving a promo can to an influencer are two different things. The backlash is firmly directed at the promo can not the insults of frat boys. Nobody "chooses" to be gay or trans over a natural inclination to be straight because it's cool. It's not like being a vegan. The fact that suicide rates are higher amongst trans doesn't mean the answer is to tell them not to be who they are. It's because society is not accepting of it. That same study indicated that 1/3 of those were rejected by their families for being trans. I'm firmly in favor of protecting children. And that means that if my kid ends up being gay or trans they know that I will still love them and not make them feel like a freak for it.

Quite the opposite! I firmly believe in live and let live. Which is why I have no problem with gay or trans people. I have big issues with sexualizing kids or forcing beliefs (sexual, religious, political etc) on someone else. And that's regardless of which side it comes from. Which is again why I'm confused at the Bud Light kerfuffle. That person just posted a promo can on their social media. It harms nobody but Kid Rock (who's music I actually like!) decides that requires taking a rifle to Bud Light????? And now a boycott? Why? What happened to live and let live?

I actually agree with all of this.

20 years ago people said the exact same thing about gay people that you are saying about trans people. And, again, the sexualization of kids is an issue regardless of who is doing it - and there is no way to prove that it is disproportionately gay vs straight. You seem to be doing a lot of research on an issue that doesn't affect you otherwise. I'm sure your browser history is just "research" right?

Not because they regret the surgery! Because society hates them. Less than 1% have regrets about the surgery and a portion of those are temporary. The question is why you hate them? I'd bet you never heard of the Bud Light person until they got a promo can but now are sworn off Bud Light. What are you scared of? You can't convince people to be gay or trans.

And there we get to the real heart of your argument. You think gay and trans harms society. You can't teach people to be gay or not. And you can't teach them to be trans. If watching the Bud Light girl causes your kid to be gay, guess what? They were there already!!! Hating people for who they are and want to be because it makes you uncomfortable (but otherwise doesn't affect you whatsoever) is a far, far worse example for your kids than saying we love you no matter what.

When you combine it as a one issue, the common thread is not liking gay people. You need to look at each issue independently. I completely agree that trans females shouldn't play sports against other females. That's just fair and common sense and will sort itself out (with a lot of noise). I don't know what "teaching" trans in class is or who is doing it. Acknowledging that gay people exist and that you aren't a deviant for having feelings towards your own gender seems more healthy than denying it. You can't "teach" people to be gay. And you certainly can't "teach" them to be trans. They're going to be what they are regardless of what gets taught in school and it's just a question. Of whether you want them to hate themselves or not. Surgery shouldn't be allowed until over 16. But it's WAY blown out of proportion for the numbers. It's not like thousands of straight kids are being forced to convert and indoctrinated (like say...in Sunday school).

So the thousands of kids molested by priests (admitted by the chirch) are just numbers in line with the population but "it happens more than you think" without any stats is an epidemic? I suspect it happens at equal rates whether gay or straight. The issue you seem to have is when the person doing it is gay, when the issue should be regardless of of sexual preference. The suicides by trans people are much more likely related to people treating them like freaks and not being accepted than regretting their change. Just look at the blowback with Bud Light. That person did nothing but accept a promo can of beer and suddenly there's a boycott. For what? Who are they harming?