Fairfax 2026

[vinod1]

A minor change.

 

Appointments:

• Andy Barnard - Chairman - Fairfax Insurance Group (was President)
• Brian Young - President - Fairfax Insurance Group (was CEO Odyssey)
• Carl Overy - CEO – Odyssey
• Jennifer Allen - Chief Business Officer (was CFO)
• Amy Sherk – CFO
• Christine Magee - Fairfax Board
• Mr. Amitabh Kant - Senior Advisor
• Viking - Head of Investor Relations

[Parsad]

$15 USD dividend...same as last year.  Cheers!

 

https://www.fairfax.ca/press-releases/fairfax-declares-annual-dividend-01-05-2026/

[Hoodlum]

@Viking  Those are amazing details you have provided.  The two that really stood out to me were the 443% underwriting profit increase per share over the past 6 years, along with the 30.6% CAGR ($10.1B total gain) for top 10 equities over the past 5 years.  Absolutely incredible!

Edited January 5 by Hoodlum

[dartmonkey]

7 hours ago, Viking said:

Top 10 Holdings: 5-Year Return

• Total Shareholder return: $10.1 billion (242%)
• 5-year CAGR ~30.6%

Again, not a typo.

 

Are you surprised? 

There is an important survivor effect in play here, since the top 10 holdings are very often the ones that have done well. Blackberry would have been a top-10 holding in 2020 for instance, but because it is down a lot, it is no longer top 10, and so it isn't counted. Doesn't change the fact that the equity investments have done spectacularly well in the last 5 years, but this is not the best way to show it.

[Viking]

@dartmonkey, Blackberry is a great example of Fairfax cutting its weeds over the past 5 years - of a significant amount of capital being shifted to better opportunities (first the $500M debenture and more recently common stock).

 

My math says Fairfax's investment in BlackBerry was down about $122M over the 5 years from Dec 31, 2020 to Dec 31, 2025. That deserves to be on the top 10 list of the most impactful equity holdings (total return delivered) of the last 5 years? 

 

A loss of $122 million is a rounding error compared to a $10.1 billion gain. 

----------

Blackberry was a big investment for Fairfax at Dec 31, 2020. But largely because of the debenture of $330M (reduced from $500M to $330M Sept 2020). Importantly, Fairfax did not lose any money on the debenture. In fact it delivered a small return (interest payments). In Nov 2023 it was reduced to $150 million and in February 2024 it was fully repaid.

----------

BlackBerry common stock has not performed well over the past 5 years. But the total loss of $122 million is a small amount. And Fairfax has been selling the common in Q2 and Q3 2025.

 

Edited January 6 by Viking

[Viking]

Fairfax has had many poor performing equity holdings over the past 5 years - mostly the shitty stuff they bought from 2014-2017. I have written extensively in the past about this group of stocks (Fairfax Africa, APR Energy, Farmers Edge, Boat Rocker etc).

 

I view what has happened over the past 5 years with this group of underperforming stocks as a good news story... every one is an example of Fairfax cutting its weeds. Yes, there have been big write downs over the years. And it has taken years. But it appears the holdings have largely been 'fixed.' Regardless, the gains of the top 10 equity 'winners' dwarf the losses from the 'losers.'

 

My goal with putting together the top 10 list was to provide perspective. The gains have been massive. The losses modest. The net result partly explains why Fairfax has been able to deliver such exceptional performance over the past 5 years. 'Winning big' is a super important part of the emerging Fairfax story that is not understood by most investors today.

Edited January 6 by Viking

[steph]

Thank you Viking for all the amazing work you put into this and especially for sharing it with us.  It is very helpfull.  I wish you all an amazing 2026!

[UK]

1 hour ago, steph said:

Thank you Viking for all the amazing work you put into this and especially for sharing it with us.  It is very helpfull.  I wish you all an amazing 2026!

+1

[73 Reds]

9 hours ago, Viking said:

Fairfax has had many poor performing equity holdings over the past 5 years - mostly the shitty stuff they bought from 2014-2017. I have written extensively in the past about this group of stocks (Fairfax Africa, APR Energy, Farmers Edge, Boat Rocker etc).

 

I view what has happened over the past 5 years with this group of underperforming stocks as a good news story... every one is an example of Fairfax cutting its weeds. Yes, there have been big write downs over the years. And it has taken years. But it appears the holdings have largely been 'fixed.' Regardless, the gains of the top 10 equity 'winners' dwarf the losses from the 'losers.'

 

My goal with putting together the top 10 list was to provide perspective. The gains have been massive. The losses modest. The net result partly explains why Fairfax has been able to deliver such exceptional performance over the past 5 years. 'Winning big' is a super important part of the emerging Fairfax story that is not understood by most investors today.

@Viking, why do you think Fairfax has been so slow to recognize failed investments?  If there is one stark difference between Prem and Buffett it is that Buffett is quick to cut bait with stocks he believes were mistakes or not living up to expectations.  

[villainx]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

Buffett is quick to cut bait with stocks he believes were mistakes or not living up to expectations.  

 

I don't think this is wholly accurate, but I'm mainly basing it on the airline purchases, which ... may be true or politically tinged cut.  Or TSMC.

 

 

[73 Reds]

Just now, villainx said:

 

I don't think this is wholly accurate, but I'm mainly basing it on the airline purchases, which ... may be true or politically tinged cut.  Or TSMC.

 

 

@villainx you're right, but oil stocks (not OXY), IBM and others were sold relatively quickly and even some of Buffett's "mistakes" were actually profitable for Berkshire.

[Viking]

4 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

@Viking, why do you think Fairfax has been so slow to recognize failed investments?  If there is one stark difference between Prem and Buffett it is that Buffett is quick to cut bait with stocks he believes were mistakes or not living up to expectations.  

@73 Reds, this is a great question and one that I have thought about quite a bit. 

• Proponents of the ‘old’ investment framework likely didn’t think they had a problem. 
• The shift to the new investment framework took time (years). It probably wasn’t a ‘switch.’ Success is a powerful tonic.
• Too much trust/loyalty: this is a weakness in a decentralized company.
• Fair and friendly: Fairfax wants to be viewed as a good partner. Not one that runs at the first sign of trouble. 
• We have incomplete information, especially the private investments. As a result, our understanding is going to inaccurate. 

Bottom line, I am not sure. But i am very happy with where the company is today. 
 

I do think they are moving quicker on problems today (both insurance and investments). I think there has also been a culture shift - expectations are higher (in terms of performance). Poorly managed/performing units likely really stand out today within the company (and not in a good way).
 

And to be clear, Fairfax will have some clunker type investments moving forward. That is the normal way of things.

Edited January 6 by Viking

[djokovic1]

Thanks for your detailed analysis as usual @Viking

I think we are set up for a monster Q4 given the equity performance and reserve releases. A long way above consensus estimates which are crazily low given a lot of that EPS is locked in w.r.t known investment return on both equity and FI.
 

Looking forward to 2026 and beyond with Fairfax!

[73 Reds]

42 minutes ago, Viking said:

@73 Reds, this is a great question and one that I have thought about quite a bit. 

• Proponents of the ‘old’ investment framework likely didn’t think they had a problem. 
• The shift to the new investment framework took time (years). It probably wasn’t a ‘switch.’ Success is a powerful tonic.
• Too much trust/loyalty: this is a weakness in a decentralized company.
• Fair and friendly: Fairfax wants to be viewed as a good partner. Not one that runs at the first sign of trouble. 
• We have incomplete information, especially the private investments. As a result, our understanding is going to inaccurate. 

Bottom line, I am not sure. But i am very happy with where the company is today. 
 

I do think they are moving quicker on problems today (both insurance and investments). I think there has also been a culture shift - expectations are higher (in terms of performance). Poorly managed/performing units likely really stand out today within the company (and not in a good way).
 

And to be clear, Fairfax will have some clunker type investments moving forward. That is the normal way of things.

I would expect the clunkers to be few and far between from here on out.  The reason is simple; Fairfax is small enough and has no constraints so as to be able to pick out the best of the best.  That said UA gives me pause.  When the World is literally your oyster, is that the best they could find?  But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; there must be a lot there we just don't know.   

[SafetyinNumbers]

41 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

I would expect the clunkers to be few and far between from here on out.  The reason is simple; Fairfax is small enough and has no constraints so as to be able to pick out the best of the best.  That said UA gives me pause.  When the World is literally your oyster, is that the best they could find?  But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; there must be a lot there we just don't know.   

It seems like BDT has a relationship with the CEO/founder so presumably whatever they are telling Fairfax has made them decide it’s worth a bet. I think expecting them to be wrong a third of the time is fair. 

[dartmonkey]

14 hours ago, Viking said:

@dartmonkey, Blackberry is a great example of Fairfax cutting its weeds over the past 5 years - of a significant amount of capital being shifted to better opportunities (first the $500M debenture and more recently common stock).

 

My math says Fairfax's investment in BlackBerry was down about $122M over the 5 years from Dec 31, 2020 to Dec 31, 2025. That deserves to be on the top 10 list of the most impactful equity holdings (total return delivered) of the last 5 years? 

 

A loss of $122 million is a rounding error compared to a $10.1 billion gain. 

----------

Blackberry was a big investment for Fairfax at Dec 31, 2020. But largely because of the debenture of $330M (reduced from $500M to $330M Sept 2020). Importantly, Fairfax did not lose any money on the debenture. In fact it delivered a small return (interest payments). In Nov 2023 it was reduced to $150 million and in February 2024 it was fully repaid.

----------

BlackBerry common stock has not performed well over the past 5 years. But the total loss of $122 million is a small amount. And Fairfax has been selling the common in Q2 and Q3 2025.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I don't seem to be making my point very clear. You said that Fairfax's top 10 holdings have done great over the last 5 years, and I am just saying that if you take any portfolio manager's top 10 holdiongs, they are quite likely to have done great over the last 5 years, just because having done great MAKES them a top 10 holding. A better test of how well their biggest investments have done over the last 10 years is not to take 2025's top 10, but rather taking 2020's top 10.

 

These would be, from the 2020 annual report:

 

Atlas (now Poseidon) US$979m

Eurobank $800m

Fairfax India $402m

Quess $356m

Blackberry $298m

Recipe $293m

CIB $290m

Exco $238m

Stelco $231m

Kennedy Wilson $230m

 

This would include Blackberry just because it was a big investment then. The fact that it is now only worth $134m means that it is now insignificant to results going forward, but it wasn't insignificant in 2020.

 

[Viking]

38 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

I would expect the clunkers to be few and far between from here on out.  The reason is simple; Fairfax is small enough and has no constraints so as to be able to pick out the best of the best.  That said UA gives me pause.  When the World is literally your oyster, is that the best they could find?  But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; there must be a lot there we just don't know.   

 

All three of my kids played rep sports. I managed lots of teams and bought lots of team apparel over the years. Under Armour was the brand of choice for the coaches and kids. There was a lot of brand value there. Not sure about today. It is exceedingly hard to turn around a public company - much easier if it is private. Perhaps that is the endgame with partners. There might also be an interesting angle with Peak Achievement and Under Armour. IF the business can get righted it will be a multi bagger. Bottom line, UA is a tiny position.     

[KFRCanuk]

12 minutes ago, Viking said:

There might also be an interesting angle with Peak Achievement and Under Armour. IF the business can get righted it will be a multi bagger. 

That somewhat reminds me of The Brick and Leon's deal FFH did 13 years ago.

[Viking]

18 minutes ago, dartmonkey said:

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I don't seem to be making my point very clear. You said that Fairfax's top 10 holdings have done great over the last 5 years, and I am just saying that if you take any portfolio manager's top 10 holdiongs, they are quite likely to have done great over the last 5 years, just because having done great MAKES them a top 10 holding. A better test of how well their biggest investments have done over the last 10 years is not to take 2025's top 10, but rather taking 2020's top 10.

 

These would be, from the 2020 annual report:

 

Atlas (now Poseidon) US$979m

Eurobank $800m

Fairfax India $402m

Quess $356m

Blackberry $298m

Recipe $293m

CIB $290m

Exco $238m

Stelco $231m

Kennedy Wilson $230m

 

This would include Blackberry just because it was a big investment then. The fact that it is now only worth $134m means that it is now insignificant to results going forward, but it wasn't insignificant in 2020.

 

@dartmonkey, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. I think we are solving for two different problems. My focus was:

1.) only publicly traded holdings - not private.

2.) the holdings that have had the largest impact on Fairfax's business performance (impact on earnings) over the past 5 years.

 

I could have included Season/Atlas up to the point it was taken private. I thought about Blackberry, but decided to not include it given its minor impact on earnings and the fact Fairfax exited the debenture (which represented the majority of the investment).

 

Bottom line, there are many different ways to look at Fairfax's equity holdings. What I put together was an analysis that I found helpful. Of course, there is no 'right way.'

 

Also, lots of my stuff is directional in nature - it is not meant to be precise (although I do try). My goal is to be directionally right rather than precisely wrong. 

Edited January 6 by Viking

[Hektor]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

@73 Reds, this is a great question and one that I have thought about quite a bit. 

• Proponents of the ‘old’ investment framework likely didn’t think they had a problem. 
• The shift to the new investment framework took time (years). It probably wasn’t a ‘switch.’ Success is a powerful tonic.
• Too much trust/loyalty: this is a weakness in a decentralized company.
• Fair and friendly: Fairfax wants to be viewed as a good partner. Not one that runs at the first sign of trouble. 
• We have incomplete information, especially the private investments. As a result, our understanding is going to inaccurate. 

Bottom line, I am not sure. But i am very happy with where the company is today. 
 

I do think they are moving quicker on problems today (both insurance and investments). I think there has also been a culture shift - expectations are higher (in terms of performance). Poorly managed/performing units likely really stand out today within the company (and not in a good way).
 

And to be clear, Fairfax will have some clunker type investments moving forward. That is the normal way of things.

@Viking @73 Reds I also feel that in the past FFH invested in "turn around" situations. They might have mistaken persistent structural flaws for solvable problems, causing them to wait longer for recoveries that never materialized. This commitment to "turnaround" investments often led to over-patience, resulting in them holding failing positions long after the original problems proved insurmountable.

[vinod1]

16 minutes ago, Hektor said:

@Viking @73 Reds I also feel that in the past FFH invested in "turn around" situations. They might have mistaken persistent structural flaws for solvable problems, causing them to wait longer for recoveries that never materialized. This commitment to "turnaround" investments often led to over-patience, resulting in them holding failing positions long after the original problems proved insurmountable.

 

Prem has mentioned in the past that they expect 3 out of 5 positions to work out. They were and continue to be probabilistic investors.

 

When you are playing 60% odds, there are going to be periods when you are going to suck followed by periods of outstanding performance. 

 

Are we in just such an outperforming period or like Viking says they have "fixed" their approach?

 

What exactly was "wrong" about their investment process before that got fixed? Throwing in the towel a decade after the investment (Blackberry), does not exactly look like they changed or "fixed" their approach. It is just a natural conclusion.

 

I am more of the belief that we are in a period where macro conditions helping Fairfax investments. I am sure they improved their investment process as any good investor would do, but do not see anything that is radically different in their common stock/bond/preferred investments.

 

One area they did change was when buying insurance companies, they did move to quality. I do not see a similar change in their common stock investments. 

 

Vinod

 

[MMM20]

On 12/29/2025 at 8:14 PM, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

I had the exact same thought today 

 

But seeing as it was a republished article, I figured I'd give it a little grace and wait for Q1 earnings to trim from the shares I added in the October/November drawdown. 

 

https://iansbnr.com/vote-for-the-insurance-ceo-of-the-quarter-century/

 

Maybe I'll wait until Prem is the favorite in these sorts of polls rather than getting left off the list. 

[Viking]

24 minutes ago, vinod1 said:

 

Prem has mentioned in the past that they expect 3 out of 5 positions to work out. They were and continue to be probabilistic investors.

 

When you are playing 60% odds, there are going to be periods when you are going to suck followed by periods of outstanding performance. 

 

Are we in just such an outperforming period or like Viking says they have "fixed" their approach?

 

What exactly was "wrong" about their investment process before that got fixed? Throwing in the towel a decade after the investment (Blackberry), does not exactly look like they changed or "fixed" their approach. It is just a natural conclusion.

 

I am more of the belief that we are in a period where macro conditions helping Fairfax investments. I am sure they improved their investment process as any good investor would do, but do not see anything that is radically different in their common stock/bond/preferred investments.

 

One area they did change was when buying insurance companies, they did move to quality. I do not see a similar change in their common stock investments. 

 

Vinod

 

@vinod1, I think if you look at specific investments it becomes relatively easy to see the changes that Fairfax has made in their approach. I see three things they changed:

• The importance of management/CEO/partners when making a large investment
• The financial condition of the company - strength of the balance sheet.
• Profitability.

Prior to 2018, Fairfax was littered with company's that scored low on all three metrics. 

 

Today, most of Fairfax's large positions score well on all three metrics. I don't think that is happenstance (luck). I think it is by design - i.e. Fairfax changed their internal framework.

 

New purchases have been much better. And 'keeper' holdings have been forced to get with the new program - be run by strong management teams, have a solid balance sheet and be profitable. Fairfax is operating at a completely different level today. And this new framework is becoming embedded in their culture. 

 

I could be completely wrong. I don't think so - the evidence looks too compelling (to me anyways).  

Edited January 6 by Viking

[SafetyinNumbers]

I think most investors would be served to not project their investment style on Hamblin Watsa. 
 

Historic returns were very strong pre 2010 and unsurprisingly declined with interest rates. Now that interests are more normal returns are up. If they can stay above 6% (about 8% for the equity portfolio) one can see how ROE can stay above 15%.

 

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

26 minutes ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

I think most investors would be served to not project their investment style on Hamblin Watsa. 
 

Historic returns were very strong pre 2010 and unsurprisingly declined with interest rates. Now that interests are more normal returns are up. If they can stay above 6% (about 8% for the equity portfolio) one can see how ROE can stay above 15%.

 

 

 

 

+1