Fairfax India new issue

[villainx]

37 minutes ago, hobbit said:

I don't think you'll see anyone who's got minimum of share price or book value.

 

I assume this statement is true?

 

 

[Txvestor]

On 12/22/2025 at 7:53 AM, jbwent63 said:

While it may seem the FIH directors are under invested, do any of them have stakes in FFH of size, and therefore indirectly hold more shares of FIH than is disclosed in the FIH proxy statement? For example Ben and Prem... (Note, I haven't looked at the FFH proxy to tell, just making a general comment about indirect ownership that is possible).

That would be even worse. As they would actually have more interest in the incentive fee than the performance of the company on whose board they sit. 

[Txvestor]

On 12/22/2025 at 8:03 AM, hardcorevalue said:

I do trust FFH to do the right thing but Isn't part of the issue the potential conflicts with the parent? 

 

How does that help?

 

Also, FIH Isn't even a dominant asset on their balance sheet. the priority mentally would still be FFH, not FIH.

 

As long as they don't do a take under which they have been known to do. Thats the bigger risk here to waiting. 

[Munger_Disciple]

5 hours ago, Txvestor said:

As long as they don't do a take under which they have been known to do. Thats the bigger risk here to waiting. 

 

+1

 

It's better to align oneself with the GP rather than the LP. Incentives matter! As you said, Fairfax had done take-unders before. 

Edited December 23, 2025 by Munger_Disciple

[Txvestor]

21 hours ago, CoGreenwich&Laight said:

its always incentives. 

its not about the pop. its about the implied value of BIAL, particularly given its prospects. The pop if it happens is an outcome.

Well they have the incentive of a lower share price because they can take their incentive fee in shares of the company and increase ownership by a larger percentage that way. Even thought I think they felt so bad they took the last one in cash. 

[djokovic1]

4 hours ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

I think the conclusion is incorrect. The market likes stocks that screen well and holdcos don’t. It’s a market structure issue.

 

I would like to add a bit of nuance or different perspective to this topic.

The market love's particular holdco's which are serial acquirers -> Sweden was were they originated (B&B, Lifco, Lagercrantz, etc), and you have some great Canadian one's too (CSU, Terravest). 

These are also holdco's and they usually trade at a premium valuation, 20x EBITA and 30-40x earnings.  So what is different about FIH, Prosus, Exor etc. 

 

The main difference for the second group is that the value is tied to their assets (i.e NAV) and not their cashflows (unlike serial acquirers). So yes maybe they don't screen well but also they don't have the ability to solve their own problems of a low valuation by buying back their own stock (unless they start selling assets) which a serial acquirer can do if that is the best use of their capital if the valuation is low. Additionally, I think a factor may be that investor's have a shorter time horizon than before. So if you have a 10 year horizon, you are not bothered by the FIH discount, but few people do have that long a time horizon (even I don't).

[CoGreenwich&Laight]

2 hours ago, Txvestor said:

Well they have the incentive of a lower share price because they can take their incentive fee in shares of the company and increase ownership by a larger percentage that way. Even thought I think they felt so bad they took the last one in cash. 

Other than the poor performance actual and relative of bvps, share price, and particularly relative to their own objective of 15% net cagr, this is all you need to know about why there is a discount to nav, thats it.  Never mind their refusal to correct performance, incentive structures, and lack of shareholder friendly action. 

 

And on the takeunder comments...it doesnt have to be in one shot as with their previous escapades. This structure is better. Its already in play...they bought shares in 2022 i think it was, while getting fees...so in this case we pay for the takeunder as it unfolds in slow motion over an extended period of shareholder fatigue...they're average cost already is below $0.00. This is the ultimate takeunder, its paid for. These are facts, real numbers, not made up. You can paint any other picture you want, its the case, even if its not preconceived as i believe it wasnt.

 

We can continue to watch it unfold while living in denial, hope and hype. Or, we can try to shift the narrative and discuss this with mgmt, the Board or the press. One of the comments on the X post by BW of latest podcast of BIAL is a request to do a share buyback. There are many who are dissatisfied, who support a buyback as the most important use of capital, on this board and off it. We should form a group and present our case. Both number of shareholders, and number of shares is important. PW is the largest individual shareholder at ~320K shares. I can speak for 222,600. If we get more than PW, another 100k, they should give our rep an audience. If theres anyone up for this constructivist action do let me know. People who want to remain confidential can. 

[SafetyinNumbers]

14 minutes ago, djokovic1 said:

 

I would like to add a bit of nuance or different perspective to this topic.

The market love's particular holdco's which are serial acquirers -> Sweden was were they originated (B&B, Lifco, Lagercrantz, etc), and you have some great Canadian one's too (CSU, Terravest). 

These are also holdco's and they usually trade at a premium valuation, 20x EBITA and 30-40x earnings.  So what is different about FIH, Prosus, Exor etc. 

 

The main difference for the second group is that the value is tied to their assets (i.e NAV) and not their cashflows (unlike serial acquirers). So yes maybe they don't screen well but also they don't have the ability to solve their own problems of a low valuation by buying back their own stock (unless they start selling assets) which a serial acquirer can do if that is the best use of their capital if the valuation is low. Additionally, I think a factor may be that investor's have a shorter time horizon than before. So if you have a 10 year horizon, you are not bothered by the FIH discount, but few people do have that long a time horizon (even I don't).

If FIH consolidated all of its holdings it would likely trade at a different multiple. The holdcos with premium valuations are rollups and consolidate their holdings. They are eligible for ETFs and adored by quant funds. Again it comes back to market structure. 

[SafetyinNumbers]

I think the take under talk is nonsense because of the much worse capital treatment for the insurance companies. Also just because a take under is proposed doesn’t mean shareholders have to accept it. They usually do because they want to avoid a drawdown after experiencing a takeover premium. 

[SafetyinNumbers]

20 minutes ago, CoGreenwich&Laight said:

We can continue to watch it unfold while living in denial, hope and hype. Or, we can try to shift the narrative and discuss this with mgmt, the Board or the press. One of the comments on the X post by BW of latest podcast of BIAL is a request to do a share buyback. There are many who are dissatisfied, who support a buyback as the most important use of capital, on this board and off it. We should form a group and present our case. Both number of shareholders, and number of shares is important. PW is the largest individual shareholder at ~320K shares. I can speak for 222,600. If we get more than PW, another 100k, they should give our rep an audience. If theres anyone up for this constructivist action do let me know. People who want to remain confidential can.

Go talk to OMERS. They have 20m shares.

[villainx]

37 minutes ago, CoGreenwich&Laight said:

We can continue to watch it unfold while living in denial, hope and hype.

 

I assume there will be rerating after catalyst, either Anchorage IPO or IDBI decision (win or lose).

 

 

[djokovic1]

28 minutes ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

They are eligible for ETFs and adored by quant funds. Again it comes back to market structure. 

I know atleast 10 of them at premium valuations and not in any etf and too small for quant funds to be bothered so I don’t think the market structure is the main issue

[CoGreenwich&Laight]

7 minutes ago, villainx said:

 

I assume there will be rerating after catalyst, either Anchorage IPO or IDBI decision (win or lose).

 

 

We shall see, but if there is a rerating, it wont be to the new bvps.  The shares will still trade at a discount, so the paid-for-by-shareholders chinese torture takeunder will continue.

[Crip1]

1 hour ago, CoGreenwich&Laight said:

We shall see, but if there is a rerating, it wont be to the new bvps.  The shares will still trade at a discount, so the paid-for-by-shareholders chinese torture takeunder will continue.

I am starting to be a little wary of your postings.

 

You've been on this message board for less than a month and have posted more than 30 times on FIH, most of which is highly critical of management and have not posted anything else on any other part of this board. Then, recently, the criticism seems to have turned into a combination of pessimism (see above) and rabble-rousing activism. Fully acknowledged and understood that criticism, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing and I am not disagreeing with everything you are saying, but when I put everything together, it causes one to consider that the goal is to start grass-roots activism rather than constructive discussion of FIH. As stated above, I am less than happy with my results over the time I've owned this, and I do feel management can and should do more to realize shareholder value in terms of share price. It has not gotten to the point that I'm looking to exit the position, yet, but that's my plan if I find a better investment.

 

Trust me, I am not one who has "twitter muscles" and see zero benefit of getting into a beef on a message board, especially this one which has had, over the years, very, very few of those. That's not my goal. It's that I'm feeling that there's an ultimate goal here that is beyond objective discussion of the merits of this investment.

 

-Crip

[hobbit]

What I find amusing is that some investors say that the sole purpose of FIH existing is to pay fees to FFH but simultaneously  the same people are wary of a take under by FFH. Which way is it 

[hobbit]

7 hours ago, Madpawn said:

When is this transcript from? 

2022

[villainx]

31 minutes ago, Crip1 said:

Trust me, I am not one who has "twitter muscles" and see zero benefit of getting into a beef on a message board

 

So no Politcal Posts?  =P

 

 

[LC]

5 hours ago, CoGreenwich&Laight said:

And on the takeunder comments...it doesnt have to be in one shot as with their previous escapades. This structure is better. Its already in play...they bought shares in 2022 i think it was, while getting fees...so in this case we pay for the takeunder as it unfolds in slow motion over an extended period of shareholder fatigue...they're average cost already is below $0.00. This is the ultimate takeunder, its paid for

 

I am not an expert on the history of how parent has taken the incentive fee over the years, but this seems like very fair criticism - curious how "bulls" respond to this?

[villainx]

38 minutes ago, LC said:

 

I am not an expert on the history of how parent has taken the incentive fee over the years, but this seems like very fair criticism - curious how "bulls" respond to this?

 

That there is an incentive fee?  Or that incentive fee is paid while shares are at discount to BV?  Or while taking an incentive fee they manager is also buying shares?

 

 

[Hektor]

14 hours ago, Crip1 said:

I am starting to be a little wary of your postings.

 

You've been on this message board for less than a month and have posted more than 30 times on FIH, most of which is highly critical of management and have not posted anything else on any other part of this board. Then, recently, the criticism seems to have turned into a combination of pessimism (see above) and rabble-rousing activism. Fully acknowledged and understood that criticism, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing and I am not disagreeing with everything you are saying, but when I put everything together, it causes one to consider that the goal is to start grass-roots activism rather than constructive discussion of FIH. As stated above, I am less than happy with my results over the time I've owned this, and I do feel management can and should do more to realize shareholder value in terms of share price. It has not gotten to the point that I'm looking to exit the position, yet, but that's my plan if I find a better investment.

 

Trust me, I am not one who has "twitter muscles" and see zero benefit of getting into a beef on a message board, especially this one which has had, over the years, very, very few of those. That's not my goal. It's that I'm feeling that there's an ultimate goal here that is beyond objective discussion of the merits of this investment.

 

-Crip

+1

[SafetyinNumbers]

16 hours ago, djokovic1 said:

I know atleast 10 of them at premium valuations and not in any etf and too small for quant funds to be bothered so I don’t think the market structure is the main issue

Can you list them? I’m surprised that there are so many closed end funds that trade at premiums to listed NAV. 

[djokovic1]

16 hours ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

The holdcos with premium valuations are rollups and consolidate their holdings. They are eligible for ETFs and adored by quant funds. Again it comes back to market structure. 

Here are some examples of rollups that trade at premium valuation (20x EBITDA+) and not in an ETF etc (way too small for that).

NGTG (Japan), Software Circle, Chapters Group, Lindbergh, Teqnion....can give more if you want  

 

But I know the reason investors pay up for these type of companies is because they generate a lot of free cash flow and consistently re-deploy into M&A to grow. So its different from FIH, Prosus, Exor which do not have the same cash flow generating ability, i.e they are more akin to an investment holdco (at least that's what I see when I look at FIH's Cash from ops).

So I think its more the reason above that investors treat it differently rather than market structure. 

[SafetyinNumbers]

15 minutes ago, djokovic1 said:

So I think its more the reason above that investors treat it differently rather than market structure. 

I think we just disagree about what market structure entails. These companies screen well and that’s what quants like. 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

15 hours ago, hobbit said:

What I find amusing is that some investors say that the sole purpose of FIH existing is to pay fees to FFH but simultaneously  the same people are wary of a take under by FFH. Which way is it 

 

Exactly. 

 

Or that the reason for Fairfax's discount is all of the private investments - but if it was all public investments they'd also argue for a discount due to the ability to recreate the portfolio. 

 

The fact that there are so many people so unhappy with everything, and FIH can do nothing right in their eyes, is precisely why I added 50% to my position recently. We have to be pretty close to peak pessimism IMO. 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

12 hours ago, LC said:

 

I am not an expert on the history of how parent has taken the incentive fee over the years, but this seems like very fair criticism - curious how "bulls" respond to this?

 

I don't deny the economics of Fairfax growing book value giving them shares leading to larger control. 

 

But FIH buying shares back with its own money (or rather - it's shareholders') accomplishes the same thing and that is exactly what people are arguing for. 

 

I'm not sure there is a way to fix the threat that Fairfax exerts too much control while also wanting Fairfax to own shares and to be incentivized by value per share. 

 

1 hour ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

Can you list them? I’m surprised that there are so many closed end funds that trade at premiums to listed NAV. 

 

There are websites you can look through for CEFs at discounts AND premiums. Most fixed income CEFS trade at a premium when rates are dropping ...and a discount when they're rising due to the additional leverage giving them above average yields.