Fairfax 2024

[Crip1]

3 minutes ago, gfp said:

 

What?  I don't understand any of that.  Volume is approaching 60,000 shares for Fairfax at mid-day.  There is a buyer like me for every seller.  Far more than $1.2 million worth of stock is changing hands

Are you seeing that volume on TSE?

[gfp]

3 minutes ago, Crip1 said:

Are you seeing that volume on TSE?

 

That is combined volume for both listings.  TSE volume was over 50k shares last I checked

edit: bloomberg is showing TSE volume over 74k shares presently 

Edited August 2 by gfp

[valuesource]

4 minutes ago, gfp said:

 

That is combined volume for both listings.  TSE volume was over 50k shares last I checked

edit: bloomberg is showing TSE volume over 74k shares presently 

Volume:  TMX - 45,554  All Toronto Mkts (98% Alpha, Chix, Pure, NEO) 63,175  FRFHF OTC - 5,302

[gfp]

Thanks - I guess bloomberg was reporting what the Toronto Stock Exchange calls "consolidated volume" - which is now  over 84k shares

https://money.tmx.com/en/quote/FFH

[Crip1]

16 minutes ago, gfp said:

Thanks - I guess bloomberg was reporting what the Toronto Stock Exchange calls "consolidated volume" - which is now  over 84k shares

https://money.tmx.com/en/quote/FFH

I stand corrected.

 

All the same, with 84K shares traded, that means about $90M of shares traded have resulted in excess of a $1B market cap hit.

 

-Crip

[dartmonkey]

2 hours ago, cwericb said:

 

 

So bottom line, the Court found that the price paid by Fairfax should have been only 60% higher rather than double?

 

Yes. Courts do sometimes make judgments I don't agree with, but the judgment by 2 different judges that Fairfax supported a transfer of these Fibrek shares at a price that was beneath fair value (half of fair value or 2/3, according to the appellate judge), does mean you have a point.

 

On the other hand, I think one could make a strong argument that it was hard to know exactly how much these shares were worth, and the $1 price, which included a premium, was accepted by the majority of minority shareholders. I can see how this would be disappointing and even infuriating, if I were a minority shareholder who thought it was worth much more, but I don't see why Fairfax should pay more than it has to for those minority shares.

 

And given that this was not even an acquisition, but rather a purchase of Fibrek by Resolute, Fairfax had an incentive to price the shares higher, not lower. A low Fibrek share price was a benefit to Resolute, but not to Fairfax itself. Or am I misunderstanding the incentives here?  

[dartmonkey]

3 hours ago, Malmqky said:

No...go take a look at the rest of the market today

 

I just increased my stake from 36% to 39%. I love the idea of paying the same price that shares were trading for in March, despite now knowing that we have 2 blowout quarters, almost all the big associated investments are doing brilliantly, share repurchases are steaming ahead, and share prices are close to book. And this is DESPITE the repurchases, which tend to make the price:book ratio higher. I think Mr Market is very likely to swing back to a more reasonable (higher price) when he sobers up.

[Haryana]

4 hours ago, dartmonkey said:

Yes and no. The initial ruling did double the share price, from $1 to $1.99, and found much to criticize with Resolute and Fairfax. But the case was appealed, and much of the appeal was allowed, with sale price adjusted down closer to the original $1 offered, from $1.99 to $1.597. The appeal judge found that the judge of the appealed ruling had committed numerous errors, for instance not considering the fact that the $1 price already included a premium, and ignoring the fact that a large majority of minority shareholders had accepted the $1 offered. The appeal judge also found that much of the criticism of the purchaser (Resolute) and the shareholders with which it had signed lock-up agreements (Fairfax) was unfounded.

 

Ruling here: https://courdappelduquebec.ca/en/judgments/details/fixation-des-actions-de-fibrek-inc/

 

It is a good thing for Fairfax shareholders that making 'fair and friendly' offers does not extend to offering a price so high that no minority shareholders object to it. 

 

Appreciated information on Appeal. Most people know just about derogatory news from a lower court.

 

A minority of the minority shareholders can always find reason to complain even if Fairfax saved them.

 

Fairfax actually made those companies survive otherwise they would have gone bankrupt much earlier.

 

Remember this guy who was complaining in advance that Fairfax may buyout the Blackberry too cheap.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/concerned-shareholder-urges-blackberry-board-to-guard-against-unfair-buyout-bids-and-oppose-watsa-as-director-as-board-considers-strategic-alternatives-301858167.html

"Based on comparative values of companies like CrowdStrike and CyberArk, it is not overly optimistic to project BlackBerry's stock price to be $15-$25/share in the next 12-18 months if John Chen and his team can achieve their realistic projections." 

[cwericb]

Re: Fibrek takeover, it seems pretty simple:

 

1) Shareholders of Fibrek took Fairfax to court because Fairfax underpaid shareholders.

2) The initial Court ruling found that Fairfax should have paid shareholders 100% more than they paid.

3) The appeal court found that Fairfax should have paid 60% more then Fairfax paid.

4) Not one, but two courts both found that Fairfax substantially underpaid Fibrek shareholders - and NOT by small percentages.

 

Bottom line, Fairfax grossly underpaid shareholders for their shares and that to me, seems neither Fair nor Friendly.

 

For some background: https://thecobf.com/forum/search/?q=fibrek&quick=1&updated_after=any&sortby=relevancy&search_in=titles

 

 

 

[SafetyinNumbers]

54 minutes ago, cwericb said:

Re: Fibrek takeover, it seems pretty simple:

 

1) Shareholders of Fibrek took Fairfax to court because Fairfax underpaid shareholders.

2) The initial Court ruling found that Fairfax should have paid shareholders 100% more than they paid.

3) The appeal court found that Fairfax should have paid 60% more then Fairfax paid.

4) Not one, but two courts both found that Fairfax substantially underpaid Fibrek shareholders - and NOT by small percentages.

 

Bottom line, Fairfax grossly underpaid shareholders for their shares and that to me, seems neither Fair nor Friendly.

 

For some background: https://thecobf.com/forum/search/?q=fibrek&quick=1&updated_after=any&sortby=relevancy&search_in=titles

 

 

 

I thought Resolute was the acquirer. FFH may have valued it badly but the minority shareholders were the marginal buyers and sellers. They set the price on which the premium was paid.

 

When a stock trades below for intrinsic value for a long period, its holders start thinking the market is efficient. It continues to be a problem for stocks that don’t screen well as most shareholders and Boards do premium analysis to determine the fairness of an acquisition value. 

[cwericb]

19 minutes ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

I thought Resolute was the acquirer. FFH may have valued it badly but the minority shareholders were the marginal buyers and sellers. They set the price on which the premium was paid.

 

When a stock trades below for intrinsic value for a long period, its holders start thinking the market is efficient. It continues to be a problem for stocks that don’t screen well as most shareholders and Boards do premium analysis to determine the fairness of an acquisition value. 

 

Yes you are correct in that, my bad, but it was Prem calling the shots. If I remember correctly there was a lot more to this whole mess than meets the eye. But I have a lousy memory and can't be bothered to read all the old posts on the matter so I will let the court judgments speak for themselves.

[SafetyinNumbers]

2 minutes ago, cwericb said:

 

Yes you are correct in that, my bad, but it was Prem calling the shots. If I remember correctly there was a lot more to this whole mess than meets the eye. But I have a lousy memory and can't be bothered to read all the old posts on the matter so I will let the court judgments speak for themselves.

I’m not close to the situation but I have personal experience in how journalists and courts interpret data differently from practitioners.

 

I assumed the stock was trading poorly and the company needed capital but the cost of capital was too high so when Resolute stepped up they agreed to a lockup. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

The judges valuation is like a lot of value investor valuations, irrelevant, unless someone is willing to write a cheque.
 

I know I have lost a lot money betting on what things should be worth only to watch them trade for years below that. 

 

 

 

[cwericb]

13 minutes ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

I’m not close to the situation but I have personal experience in how journalists and courts interpret data differently from practitioners.

 

I assumed the stock was trading poorly and the company needed capital but the cost of capital was too high so when Resolute stepped up they agreed to a lockup. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

The judges valuation is like a lot of value investor valuations, irrelevant, unless someone is willing to write a cheque.
 

I know I have lost a lot money betting on what things should be worth only to watch them trade for years below that. 

 

 

 

 

 

The best way to get a feel for the details of the Fibrek deal would be to scan through some of the posts on the board at the time  https://thecobf.com/forum/search/?q=fibrek&quick=1&updated_after=any&sortby=relevancy&search_in=titles

[Viking]

Perhaps the most important thing we learned from Fairfax's Q2 results (and subsequent conference call) concerned stock buybacks.

 

Summary: Over the past 6.5 years, the size and profitability of Fairfax has increased dramatically. Fairfax has also been aggressively buying back a significant number of shares at a very low valuation. As a result, Fairfax shareholders now own 20% more of Fairfax’s much larger and much more profitable P/C insurance / investment operation. And it appears the company is putting its foot on the stock buyback accelerator...

 

The big picture

 

Three factors drive stock returns over the long term:

• Earnings
• Multiple
• Shares outstanding

The last factor is often ignored by investors.

 

Capital allocation

 

Capital allocation is the most important function of a management team and stock buybacks are one of many options that are available.

 

Share buybacks can be very beneficial for shareholders if they are done in a responsible manner (purchased at attractive prices) and sustained over many years.

 

It is counterintuitive, but for long term shareholders a low share price can be a big benefit - if the company is buying back shares and in a significant quantity. Especially if it persists for years.  

 

How does Fairfax approach buybacks?

 

Prem laid out Fairfax’s strategy regarding share buybacks in the 2018 annual report:

 

“I mentioned to you last year that we are focused on buying back our shares over the next ten years as and when we get the opportunity to do so at attractive prices. Henry Singleton from Teledyne was our hero as he reduced shares outstanding from approximately 88 million to 12 million over about 15 years.” Prem Watsa – Fairfax 2018AR

 

Fairfax approaches share buybacks from the framework of a value investor: buy back shares when they are cheap and back up the truck when they are really cheap.

 

What has Fairfax been doing in recent years?

 

Fairfax’s year-end ‘effective shares outstanding’ peaked in 2017 at 27.75 million. Fairfax issued a total of 7.2 million shares in 2015, 2016 and 2017 to help fund its aggressive international expansion in insurance. The new shares were issued at an average price of about $462/share.

 

At June 30, 2024, the ‘effective shares outstanding’ at Fairfax had fallen to 22.2 million shares. Over the last 6.5 years (2018-Q2 2024), Fairfax has reduced its share count by approximately 5.57 million shares or 20.1%.  The average price paid to buy back shares was about $575/share.

 

That is a significant reduction in shares outstanding. 

 

Did Fairfax get good value with its buybacks?

• The average price paid for the shares repurchased by Fairfax over the past 6.5 years is slightly higher than the price that shares were issued at from 2015-2017. 
• Fairfax’s book value at June 30, 2024 was $980/share.
• Fairfax’s intrinsic value is well above its book value. 

Fairfax has been able to buy back a significant number of shares at a very attractive average price – at a significant discount to book value and intrinsic value. 

 

Is Fairfax done with buybacks?

 

In 1H 2024, Fairfax reduced effective share outstanding by 820,000 shares or 3.6%. That is significantly more than the average for the past 6.5 years of 3.1% (that is the annual increase). So far in 2024, Fairfax is buying back stock at 2 times the average pace from the past 6.5 years.

 

Why is the pace of buybacks picking up?

 

Likely for three key reasons:

1. Robust cash generation: Fairfax is generating an enormous amount of free cash flow.
2. The hard market in P/C insurance is slowing: The P/C insurance companies no longer need capital to grow. In fact, the opposite is happening – the P/C insurance businesses are generating excess capital, which is being sent to Fairfax. 
3. Cheap stock: Fairfax’s stock trades at a big discount to its intrinsic value (and peers). 

For the stock repurchased in 1H 2024, Fairfax has paid an average price of $1,098/share. This price is a slight premium to current book value ($980/share). Importantly, book value does not include the following:

• “At June 30, 2024 the excess of fair value over carrying value of investments in non-insurance associates and consolidated non-insurance subsidiaries was $1,514.5 million.” This is about $68/share pre-tax. 
• “The company's current estimated pre-tax gain on sale of its holdings of approximately 13 million common shares of Stelco is approximately Cdn$531 million (US$390 million)…” 

Bottom line, in 2024 Fairfax has been buying back shares at around 1x 2024 year-end ‘adjusted’ book value (if we include the two items above). That is great value.

 

On Fairfax’s Q2 conference call, Peter Clarke suggested that Fairfax would continue to be aggressive with stock buybacks. 

 

Over the past 6.5 years, the size and profitability of Fairfax has increased dramatically. Fairfax has also been aggressively buying back a significant number of shares at a very low valuation. As a result, Fairfax shareholders now own 20% more of Fairfax’s much larger and much more profitable P/C insurance/investment operation. 

 

This is just another example of the outstanding job the management team at Fairfax has done when it comes to capital allocation. 

   

Edited August 3 by Viking

[Gamma78]

On 8/3/2024 at 11:04 PM, Viking said:

Perhaps the most important thing we learned from Fairfax's Q2 results (and subsequent conference call) concerned stock buybacks.

 

Summary: Over the past 6.5 years, the size and profitability of Fairfax has increased dramatically. Fairfax has also been aggressively buying back a significant number of shares at a very low valuation. As a result, Fairfax shareholders now own 20% more of Fairfax’s much larger and much more profitable P/C insurance / investment operation. And it appears the company is putting its foot on the stock buyback accelerator...

 

The big picture

 

Three factors drive stock returns over the long term:

• Earnings
• Multiple
• Shares outstanding

The last factor is often ignored by investors.

 

Capital allocation

 

Capital allocation is the most important function of a management team and stock buybacks are one of many options that are available.

 

Share buybacks can be very beneficial for shareholders if they are done in a responsible manner (purchased at attractive prices) and sustained over many years.

 

It is counterintuitive, but for long term shareholders a low share price can be a big benefit - if the company is buying back shares and in a significant quantity. Especially if it persists for years.  

 

How does Fairfax approach buybacks?

 

Prem laid out Fairfax’s strategy regarding share buybacks in the 2018 annual report:

 

“I mentioned to you last year that we are focused on buying back our shares over the next ten years as and when we get the opportunity to do so at attractive prices. Henry Singleton from Teledyne was our hero as he reduced shares outstanding from approximately 88 million to 12 million over about 15 years.” Prem Watsa – Fairfax 2018AR

 

Fairfax approaches share buybacks from the framework of a value investor: buy back shares when they are cheap and back up the truck when they are really cheap.

 

What has Fairfax been doing in recent years?

 

Fairfax’s year-end ‘effective shares outstanding’ peaked in 2017 at 27.75 million. Fairfax issued a total of 7.2 million shares in 2015, 2016 and 2017 to help fund its aggressive international expansion in insurance. The new shares were issued at an average price of about $462/share.

 

At June 30, 2024, the ‘effective shares outstanding’ at Fairfax had fallen to 22.2 million shares. Over the last 6.5 years (2018-Q2 2024), Fairfax has reduced its share count by approximately 5.57 million shares or 20.1%.  The average price paid to buy back shares was about $575/share.

 

That is a significant reduction in shares outstanding. 

 

Did Fairfax get good value with its buybacks?

• The average price paid for the shares repurchased by Fairfax over the past 6.5 years is slightly higher than the price that shares were issued at from 2015-2017. 
• Fairfax’s book value at June 30, 2024 was $980/share.
• Fairfax’s intrinsic value is well above its book value. 

Fairfax has been able to buy back a significant number of shares at a very attractive average price – at a significant discount to book value and intrinsic value. 

 

Is Fairfax done with buybacks?

 

In 1H 2024, Fairfax reduced effective share outstanding by 820,000 shares or 3.6%. That is significantly more than the average for the past 6.5 years of 3.1% (that is the annual increase). So far in 2024, Fairfax is buying back stock at 2 times the average pace from the past 6.5 years.

 

Why is the pace of buybacks picking up?

 

Likely for three key reasons:

1. Robust cash generation: Fairfax is generating an enormous amount of free cash flow.
2. The hard market in P/C insurance is slowing: The P/C insurance companies no longer need capital to grow. In fact, the opposite is happening – the P/C insurance businesses are generating excess capital, which is being sent to Fairfax. 
3. Cheap stock: Fairfax’s stock trades at a big discount to its intrinsic value (and peers). 

For the stock repurchased in 1H 2024, Fairfax has paid an average price of $1,098/share. This price is a slight premium to current book value ($980/share). Importantly, book value does not include the following:

• “At June 30, 2024 the excess of fair value over carrying value of investments in non-insurance associates and consolidated non-insurance subsidiaries was $1,514.5 million.” This is about $68/share pre-tax. 
• “The company's current estimated pre-tax gain on sale of its holdings of approximately 13 million common shares of Stelco is approximately Cdn$531 million (US$390 million)…” 

Bottom line, in 2024 Fairfax has been buying back shares at around 1x 2024 year-end ‘adjusted’ book value (if we include the two items above). That is great value.

 

On Fairfax’s Q2 conference call, Peter Clarke suggested that Fairfax would continue to be aggressive with stock buybacks. 

 

Over the past 6.5 years, the size and profitability of Fairfax has increased dramatically. Fairfax has also been aggressively buying back a significant number of shares at a very low valuation. As a result, Fairfax shareholders now own 20% more of Fairfax’s much larger and much more profitable P/C insurance/investment operation. 

 

This is just another example of the outstanding job the management team at Fairfax has done when it comes to capital allocation. 

   

 

 

Looks like markets are in for a little bit of a storm - I really really hope Fairfax takes advantage of this bigly. 

You don't get too many chances like this. 

 

 

 

[Xerxes]

On 8/3/2024 at 5:04 PM, Viking said:

 

   

As an astrix, the 2024Q2 number of 820,000 does include 275,000 repurchase from Prem Watsa. 
 

It shouldn’t make a difference, as a buyback is a buyback. But I do wonder if the cadence will be different in Q3 and Q4. 

[Mystery Guest]

On 1/22/2024 at 7:45 PM, Thrifty3000 said:

Selling an asset to buy a cheaper asset is a perfectly logical thing to do (assuming you’ve rationally factored in taxes and relative risks).

 

It sounds like you’re overly influenced by price, which will make investing very uncomfortable at times. I recommend focusing more attention on learning how to appraise the value of a business. The more confidently you can estimate how much a business is worth to a rational buyer the less emotionally-attached to prices you’ll become.

 

A trick that has been incredibly helpful for me… I created a spreadsheet where I track MY portion of the look through earnings from my equity investments. So, for example, If I have 100 shares of Fairfax and I estimate the normal earnings to be $150 per share then in my spreadsheet I would show MY total Fairfax earnings as $15,000. If I have 1,000 shares of BRK and assume $25 per share of look through earnings then I would add $25,000 to my spreadsheet. With Fairfax and BRK combined I would have $40,000 of earnings. (I look at those earnings almost like my salary. I want my “salary” to be big, steady and growing over time.) Notice I haven’t mentioned stock price, because my number one priority is the quality and growth potential of MY earnings. With that mentality, if I can at anytime sell all my Fairfax and BRK shares to buy assets producing significantly more than that $40,000 of look through earnings then I am happy to do it. I treat that like getting a pay raise - which is fun and motivating. This approach helps ensure that the only way I can confidently sell one asset for another is if I’m confident in my analysis and able to transact at attractive prices.

This is Brilliant... trading price is only relevant to the question; can I capture a bigger revenue stream with my hard earned dollar than my current position   

[Thrifty3000]

3 hours ago, Mystery Guest said:

This is Brilliant... trading price is only relevant to the question; can I capture a bigger revenue stream with my hard earned dollar than my current position   

 

Aww shucks... Thanks!

[Mystery Guest]

3 hours ago, Thrifty3000 said:

 

Aww shucks... Thanks!

last night at a bar b Q i sat next to an 82 year old retiree who has his entire portfolio on a spreadsheet on his phone ... "see this the dip 97, my broker wanted me to sell ...I told him buy ! and had to convince him ... "  you make your money buying on the dips ... you can explain this to everybody who needs to know ...but only some of them get it ... 

[Parsad]

6 hours ago, Mystery Guest said:

This is Brilliant... trading price is only relevant to the question; can I capture a bigger revenue stream with my hard earned dollar than my current position   

 

+1!  This is exactly the way to look at investing.  Never fall in love with a security...it comes down to the income it is generating for you.  Markets are there to serve you, not the investor being beholden to markets!  Cheers!

[Maverick47]

On 8/3/2024 at 2:04 PM, Viking said:

Over the past 6.5 years, the size and profitability of Fairfax has increased dramatically. Fairfax has also been aggressively buying back a significant number of shares at a very low valuation. As a result, Fairfax shareholders now own 20% more of Fairfax’s much larger and much more profitable P/C insurance/investment operation. 

Thanks, @Viking, for pointing out the magnitude of the share count reduction.  At 20.1%, it is becoming material.  On a per share basis, each remaining share that we own now owns more than 20% more of the company’s earnings than we would have owned had the share count remain unchanged.  
 

All else being equal, the estimated increase in the portion of the company’s earnings controlled by surviving shares can be calculated as (1/(1-share count reduction)) -1.

 

Assuming a 20% share count reduction, the estimated increase in per share earnings would be (1/0.8) -1 = 25%.

 

A 10% reduction would lead to only an 11.1% increase.

 

Just for fun, let’s examine a Henry Singleton Teledyne share count reduction of 88%:

 

That produces an increase in per share earnings of (1/0.12) -1 = 733%.

 

I’m gaining an appreciation for capital allocators who choose to opportunistically buy back their own company’s shares when they sell for below intrinsic value, because that just makes the above estimates higher!

[Parsad]

On 8/2/2024 at 8:35 AM, dartmonkey said:

Yes the Fibrek case was neither fair nor friendly. But you don't have to take my word for it. Large shareholders sued Fairfax, took the matter to court and won. The Court found that the take over price was neither fair, nor friendly, nor legal. 

 

 

 

Yes and no. The initial ruling did double the share price, from $1 to $1.99, and found much to criticize with Resolute and Fairfax. But the case was appealed, and much of the appeal was allowed, with sale price adjusted down closer to the original $1 offered, from $1.99 to $1.597. The appeal judge found that the judge of the appealed ruling had committed numerous errors, for instance not considering the fact that the $1 price already included a premium, and ignoring the fact that a large majority of minority shareholders had accepted the $1 offered. The appeal judge also found that much of the criticism of the purchaser (Resolute) and the shareholders with which it had signed lock-up agreements (Fairfax) was unfounded.

 

Ruling here: https://courdappelduquebec.ca/en/judgments/details/fixation-des-actions-de-fibrek-inc/

 

Excerpt: Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court fixing the fair value of the shares under s. 190(15) of the Canada Business Corporations Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44). Allowed in part.

 

In the context of a hostile take-over bid, the application was filed after certain shareholders exercised their right to dissent pursuant to s. 190 of the Canada Business Corporations Act. To determine the fair value of the shares, the trial judge used as a starting point the value of a bid competing with the accepted take-over bid ($1.40), to which he added $0.27 to account for synergies arising from the transaction and $0.40 representing the added value of a lucrative Hydro-Québec contract. The judge then subtracted $0.08 per share for environmental liabilities identified after the assets were taken over, for a final value of $1.99 per share. In addition to contesting this value on appeal, the purchaser of the majority of Fibrek Holding Inc.’s common shares argues that the judge erred in adding the additional indemnity under art. 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec (S.Q. 1991, c. 64) to the amount payable.

 

The judge committed certain palpable and overriding errors. First, he should not have disregarded the value of the purchaser’s offer as a starting point for the analysis. Without being the sole relevant factor, market value is a reliable indicator of the fair value of shares. The purchaser’s offer, however, included a premium over the price at which the shares were trading on the market. Further, a large majority of the shareholders, holding 115 million shares, had accepted it. Also, the judge’s criticism of the conduct of the purchaser and the shareholders with whom it had signed hard lock-up agreements for 46% of the outstanding shares was unfounded, although it is true that this made it practically impossible to put a competing bid over the 50% approval mark.

The judge also committed a reviewable error by using a competing bid as the starting price. Indeed, it was nearly impossible for such an offer to materialize, given the conditions attached to it. Moreover, in the context where both the purchaser’s offer and the competing bid included consideration payable in shares, he ought to have taken into account the significant drop in the value of those shares on the valuation date, which he failed to do. He also committed many errors by adding the value of the synergies arising from the transaction to the competing bid, namely because that led him to conduct a hypothetical auction rather than use objective evidence. Although the added premium for the Hydro-Québec contract was somewhat speculative, there is no reason to intervene in this respect on appeal. In conclusion, by updating the purchaser’s offer as at the valuation date, by adding the value of the Hydro-Québec contract and subtracting the environmental liabilities, the Court fixes the value at $1.5973 per share. 

 

 

It is a good thing for Fairfax shareholders that making 'fair and friendly' offers does not extend to offering a price so high that no minority shareholders object to it. 

+1!  Cheers!

[benchmark]

5 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

+1!  This is exactly the way to look at investing.  Never fall in love with a security...it comes down to the income it is generating for you.  Markets are there to serve you, not the investor being beholden to markets!  Cheers!

I agree in principle. However, in practice, the tax implication on the capital gains have made me twiddle my thumbs  

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, benchmark said:

I agree in principle. However, in practice, the tax implication on the capital gains have made me twiddle my thumbs  

 

I agree with you as well.  The potential tax implications have to be included in the decision if the assets are in a taxable account.  Cheers!

[Kizion]

17 hours ago, Mystery Guest said:

This is Brilliant... trading price is only relevant to the question; can I capture a bigger revenue stream with my hard earned dollar than my current position   

 

Do I oversimplify by concluding that you just look at P/E ratio (and it's potential to evolve positively)? 

Edited August 6 by Kizion