TwoCitiesCapital

The P/L - less financing fees - is settled either monthly or quarterly (I can't recall which). All of the profits they've made have already been booked and taxes paid except the most recent 1- or 3-month period. Typically, either party could end the contract at any given settlement date. Fairfax has the option to discontinue the swaps basically at any time. Depends on what your objective is - minimize taxes or maximize exposure to your own shares. The TRS allow exposure to the Fairfax shares with only 10-20% of the required notional paid. The other 80-90% can buy more shares....but yes, you'll pay more taxes.

The hard part is the logic makes sense, but it's not uncommon for new index additions to underperform while new index exclusions outperform which defies the logic. People front run news. I agree, but ultimately the impact might be too small to notice. For instance, suppose in 2027 we average 1.7x book, and in 2028 we average 1.8x book, and in 2029 we average 1.9x book. But they're averages - so there will be plenty of time above, and below, those levels through daily variations in share price. It wouldnt be crazy to think we could be at 1.7x and 1.9x at varying times in both 2027 and 2029. So are you even going to notice the rising multiple? Is it going to be a trend you can trade? Or should we just ignore the average multiple and focus on earnings, earnings growth, and trajectory? I think the latter is going to be more meaningful and we can simply ignore any supposed fluctuation in the multiple unless if it trades beyond the edges of reasonability.

For some of us, there's Bitcoin. For others, there's nature's pocket.

President Trump every time he sees a member of Congress insider trading: "You're lucky I'm president." President Trump to every oil and defense executive: "You're lucky I'm President" President Trump to every criminal he pardons after they donate to his campaign: "You're lucky I'm President" President Trump to his kids every time he passes them government contracts: "You're lucky I'm President".

So....Europe is getting its own NSA? Or have they stopped doing that in the US? Because this is sooooo 2013

And Bitcoin is A LOT easier to get a hold of than a second passport.... This has happened in every bear market. And hash rate falls as high cost miners capitulate. It hasn't marked the end of Bitcoin in the past - it marked the end of the bear market. And the secular, multi-year trend is still up even if you get these blips of has reduction. As pointed out previously, despite the 50% decrease in BTC price AND the 2024 halving AND the rush to AI compute - there remains more hashrate today than 12- or 24- months ago even if it's below the October high. They've run simulations where they'll allowed autonomous AI agents to determine how they'd beat want to store and make payments. In those studies, ~50% of autonomous AI agents landed on using BTC at a multi-year store of value without any direction, input, or suggestion. All other options made up the remaining 50% with no single one coming close to BTCs dominance. Stablecoins where the preferred rails for micro-payments by ~50% of the AI agents. The future is crypto/digital.

....yes. Gold came out of the ground backing currencies and that's what gives it value. Or biblical societies were directed by God to mine it and that is what gives it value in 2026. /Sarcasm I'm not even certain its correct to characterize this as a "second order question", but obviously the above is ridiculous and you haven't stopped to ask yourself why gold had value, why biblical societies used it, how the world collectively landed on it's use independently of one another and how it ended up backing the USD to begin with. But that's ok. You don't care about stores of value or economic theory or why it's important to have a stable money - so probably not worth your time to ask those questions.

"total failure" 'sToNkS'

By removing a stipulation of a minimum threshold of time, all you're saying is that "anything that can go down can't be a store of value" which would exclude everything....gold, t-bills, USD. Because it IS possible to have an unrealized loss in any of those items after the point the of acquiring. Having a reasonable minimum threshold for a period of time we're measuring the storing of value across allows for that natural variation in each while still holding them accountable to inflation resistance over an intermediate/longer term. Gold is highly volatile. It was up 50+% at points last year and is down 25+% from that peak. Obviously it wasn't a "store of value" for anyone who bought int he last 2-3 months...but its intended to be a "long term" store of value. Not a store of value over 2-3 months. And over rolling 5- or 10-year periods, it tends to do a decent job. Bitcoin isn't any different - but is more volatile at this time given the emerging nature of the technology, the perfect inelasticity of its protocol, and the lack of understanding of it by market participants/speculators. Like Gold - any short-term period can deviate from that "store" narrative. But over rolling 3- or 5-year periods (cuz rolling 10- doesn't provide much observation yet...) it has worked pretty well over the majority of those varying time periods.

Lol @ interest in the bank How much has that paid over the last 15-years compounded? I'd love for you to do the math. Meanwhile, good money vs bad money in pictures 2018 drop felt large. It barely registers on the graph. 2022 felt large - now looks rather small. 2026 feels large - and in 10-years will look like 2018. The lack of any sort of intellectual rigor or honesty here to simply set up straw men arguments is absurd Fiat is "bad" money by most any monetary definition of the things that define what makes money. 1) Acceptability/Fungibility? Take a look at global reserve. Becoming less and less acceptable by the year for the last 20-30 years. 2) Divisibility? Had to convert to digital to be competitive. 3) Durability? Paper money wastes away. Digital money transactions can be reversed/deleted/cancelled. 4) portability? You ever tried to carry 50-100k of cash? Again, have to convert to digital and still get bank limits, fees, permission/censorship, and delays in processing as a result. 5) scarcity? Don't hold your breathe. They print billions daily out of thin air. I'll take the non-inflationary, permissionless,fast, cheap, self-custodied real deal all day.

"Tells me everything I need to know" that you're ignoring the entirety of economic theory and historical observations of people spending 'bad' money before 'good' money.

I've transferred value on the BTC network on many occasions. But never to dispose of it. The network exists. The transfer protocol exists. The fees are low. The settlement near instantaneous. I didn't wait 90 minutes, pay a $20 fee, nor seek permission to spend my own money when doing it. I don't need Porsche to accept a payment for a new engine to prove that concept for me. It would strengthen the medium of exchange argument of Porsche accepted it, but we're still not there yet... And bears would ignore it even if Porsche did just like you're ignoring it that Ferrari does. People can't even agree that it's a store of value which is still step #1. We're still early and there's plenty of time for it to be adopted as a medium of exchange and unit of account next.

I've long since said it will be 1) a store of a value before it becomes 2) a widely accepted medium of exchange. Secondly, if you believe one money is rapidly becoming worthless and another is gaining in value rapidly, why would you ever get rid of the rapidly appreciating one just to prove a point to anonymous strangers on the Internet who will find a way to ignore it even if you did? 3) Buckeye made fun of Ferrari accepting BTC above as if it isn't an important use case. Here, you're making fun of me/Porsche for Porsch not/me not attempting. Bears don't get it both ways. Either a car company accepting it ilfor a large purchase is a meaningful metric, or is not, but you don't get to use both acceptance and non-acceptance as bearish arguments for BTC use cases

Reads story about debit transaction failing, getting permission from bank for debit transaction, it still failing, arranging wire transaction, paying fee, and still having to wait 90 minutes only to conclude it was Bitcoin that was problematic because I'didn't desire, nor attempt, to use it What an upside down world we live in... To everyone else reading this, on either side of the debate, is it just me or are the bearish arguments against just getting really weak and poorly supported?