Fairfax 2026

[djokovic1]

4 hours ago, Hamburg Investor said:

While I would buy FFH and not MKL today, I think such comparisons as an argument can mislead in a major way.

 

I don't think it is misleading. The point I was trying to show is the long term compounding rate of Markel and Fairfax are markedly different over long time periods (and interestingly very similar to their hurdle rates 10% vs 15%). Of course there will be periods where Fairfax outperformed (last 5 years) and vice versa underperformed (2010-2020).  And understanding why the underperformance happened and will it be (not) repeated is key for my personal conviction in FFH.

 

The main point out of that is that structurally, for me Fairfax has a much better setup than Markel to compound at higher rates due to the investment leverage. Of course, leverage can work in reverse if investments underperform but it's a risk I am happy to take with them over the long term (especially in a 3-5%+ interest rate environment). The biggest uncontrollable risk that I see for Fairfax is if we go to sub 2% rates again (not likely but it’s a scenario where their earnings power will be much lower). 

My vantage point is quite different than yours where Fairfax is a double digit but much smaller % of the portfolio than yours (and likely others on the board), and I don't find Markel and Berkshire very compelling relative to my opportunity set. But with your view point and a much higher allocation to FFH and the good P&C insurers in general, then of course completely agree, shouldn't go all in on Fairfax and makes sense to diversify.

 

Edited March 5 by djokovic1

[Viking]

2 hours ago, Munger_Disciple said:

 

I would add insurance exposure to the middle east as well to the potential short-term negatives. Hopefully, there is a "war exclusion" clause in the policies written. 

 

@Munger_Disciple, yes, Fairfax does have a big insurance business in the Gulf region. There could well be an impact in the short run. This might also create a hard market moving forward. Which would benefit Fairfax over the medium term. The volatility may also result in more companies deciding the exit the business (like when AXA sold its sizeable insurance business in the region to GIG in 2020) - presenting an opportunity for GIG to grow by acquisition. Bottom line, assessing the impact often comes down to the timeframe one uses. It is very counterintuitive.

 

A good example might by Brit/Lloyds. That was a terrible business during Covid and the immediate years after. And the past couple of years, Brit has been printing money. Short term negative. Medium term positive. (At least that is how it looks to me from a very high level.)

Edited March 5 by Viking

[Viking]

1 hour ago, djokovic1 said:

 

I don't think it is misleading. The point I was trying to show is the long term compounding rate of Markel and Fairfax are markedly different over long time periods (and interestingly very similar to their hurdle rates 10% vs 15%). Of course there will be periods where Fairfax outperformed (last 5 years) and vice versa underperformed (2010-2020).  And understanding why the underperformance happened and will it be (not) repeated is key for my personal conviction in FFH.

 

The main point out of that is that structurally, for me Fairfax has a much better setup than Markel to compound at higher rates due to the investment leverage. Of course, leverage can work in reverse if investments underperform but it's a risk I am happy to take with them over the long term (especially in a 3-5%+ interest rate environment). The biggest uncontrollable risk that I see for Fairfax is if we go to sub 2% rates again (not likely but it’s a scenario where their earnings power will be much lower). 

My vantage point is quite different than yours where Fairfax is a double digit but much smaller % of the portfolio than yours (and likely others on the board), and I don't find Markel and Berkshire very compelling relative to my opportunity set. But with your view point and a much higher allocation to FFH and the good P&C insurers in general, then of course completely agree, shouldn't go all in on Fairfax and makes sense to diversify.

 

@djokovic1, I agree with your logic. 

 

Fairfax's 10 year return is much better than Markel's. But during the first 5 years of the period Fairfax had four large headwinds:

1. Equity hedges - removed end of 2016
2. Short positions - final short removed end of 2020
3. CPI hedges - ended 2017
4. Portfolio was stuffed with shitty equity holdings (Fairfax Africa, APR Energy, Farmers Edge, Boat Rocker etc)

The first three items resulted in a cumulative annual expense of $500 million from 2016 to 2020. My rough guess is #4 resulted in another annual expense of @$100 million from 2016 to 2025.  

 

It's actually much worse than this - and that is because of something called opportunity cost. It is kind of like compounding working in reverse. 

 

Bottom line, the 4 items listed above significantly impaired the performance of Fairfax's investment portfolio from 2016 to 2020 (the first 5 year period). The fact Fairfax has delivered a 14.7% CAGR over 10 years is amazing. 

 

What this means is Fairfax performance the past 5 years (2021 to 2025) has been much, much better than what it was from 2016 to 2020 (and what the 10 year average tells us). And that makes sense... a $500 million annual expense was eliminated. And as of today, the 'shitty' equity holdings have (mostly) been fixed. This eliminates another annual expense.

 

And compounding is being allowed to work its magic - on the whole equity portfolio (not just a part of it).

 

Invert 

 

What if the opposite had happened?

 

Let's reverse the 5 year performance for Fairfax . Let's pretend what happened in 2016-2020 actually happened 2021 to 2025.  And what happened 2021 to 2025 actually happened from 2016 to 2020.

 

I would not own the stock today.

 

Of course, the lesson is (partly) that sequence of returns (and the why) matters a great deal for investors. At least it does for me. Looking at a 10 year CAGR is useful. But it must be done with context - especially for a company like Fairfax that has changed so much over a 10 year period.

 

This also explains why I continue to monitor Fairfax so closely. My eyes are wide open. (No different from any other concentrated position.)

 

-----------

 

Edited March 5 by Viking

[Crip1]

1 hour ago, Hamburg Investor said:

We seem to be invested relatively similar. 4 times more FFH than MKL and BRK.

 

What‘s your rational in holding all three? Is  it the combination of float investing, relatively high investment into equity (in contradt to other insurers investing more into bonds), value approach and honesty of management, decentralization, culture, diversification/serial acquirer?

 

To me, that similarities define their moats and outperformance.

 

Well, it's kind of a long story, in two parts.

 

The first part started almost 33 years ago when I met the woman who became my wife. Her dad worked for Shand Evanston which had been purchased by Markel years before. Needless to say that I have received an immeasurable level of knowledge and wisdom from my father-in-law over the years as he was the one who introduced me to insurance companies as investments, and some guy from Omaha named Warren. We've owned all three companies for decades. The allocation between the three has varied somewhat over the years as I owned more MKL than the others for a long while, and more BRK for a little while as well. Simply said, the notion of profitable underwriting and prudent float investing resonated with me instantly, and has ever since. Insurance is far more inside of my circle of competence compared to Tech, Energy, Retail or damned near anything else. The currently outsized Fairfax position is due in large part to the share price appreciation over the past 5-6 years and my being a net buyer during this run. Normally being this concentrated in a single company is not something that I like, but I'm more comfortable with my Fairfax holdings than really anything else I own.

 

The other part is the "Crip Inc" business plan. The company "business" is owning fractional shares of other businesses. If you recall Look-Through earnings outlined in Berkshire's Owners Manual, I calculate Crip Inc.'s earnings by multiplying EPS by shares owned at the end of each quarter. Between FFH, BRK and MKL which, combined, represent roughly 40% of our investable net worth, we are earning about 75% of our combined salary, which is enough to retire at the end of this year. The rest of the 60% is in cash, 401Ks and other investments which add to Crip Inc. earnings. So, yes, we can cover all the basics with FFH, BRK and MKL leaving the rest of our earnings to afford us some "Nice-to-haves" like travel. It's also for any unforeseen expenses that will undoubtedly come about as the wife and I age and, of course to reinvest in Crip Inc. The advantage of thinking this way is that day-to-day fluctuations are of minimal if any concern.

-Crip

[djokovic1]

7 hours ago, Crip1 said:

Well, it's kind of a long story, in two parts.

Lovely story Crip! Thanks for sharing. 

[Parsad]

8 hours ago, Crip1 said:

 

Well, it's kind of a long story, in two parts.

 

The first part started almost 33 years ago when I met the woman who became my wife. Her dad worked for Shand Evanston which had been purchased by Markel years before. Needless to say that I have received an immeasurable level of knowledge and wisdom from my father-in-law over the years as he was the one who introduced me to insurance companies as investments, and some guy from Omaha named Warren. We've owned all three companies for decades. The allocation between the three has varied somewhat over the years as I owned more MKL than the others for a long while, and more BRK for a little while as well. Simply said, the notion of profitable underwriting and prudent float investing resonated with me instantly, and has ever since. Insurance is far more inside of my circle of competence compared to Tech, Energy, Retail or damned near anything else. The currently outsized Fairfax position is due in large part to the share price appreciation over the past 5-6 years and my being a net buyer during this run. Normally being this concentrated in a single company is not something that I like, but I'm more comfortable with my Fairfax holdings than really anything else I own.

 

The other part is the "Crip Inc" business plan. The company "business" is owning fractional shares of other businesses. If you recall Look-Through earnings outlined in Berkshire's Owners Manual, I calculate Crip Inc.'s earnings by multiplying EPS by shares owned at the end of each quarter. Between FFH, BRK and MKL which, combined, represent roughly 40% of our investable net worth, we are earning about 75% of our combined salary, which is enough to retire at the end of this year. The rest of the 60% is in cash, 401Ks and other investments which add to Crip Inc. earnings. So, yes, we can cover all the basics with FFH, BRK and MKL leaving the rest of our earnings to afford us some "Nice-to-haves" like travel. It's also for any unforeseen expenses that will undoubtedly come about as the wife and I age and, of course to reinvest in Crip Inc. The advantage of thinking this way is that day-to-day fluctuations are of minimal if any concern.

-Crip

 

Yup, I think that's a great strategy and obviously has worked!  I follow something similar as well.  Any one of those three businesses, including a combination of all three, creates a diversified, leveraged (while risk-managed), portfolio.  And they still manage to not be entirely correlated.  Lastly, you can trust the management of all three of them and you pay zero fees!  Cheers!

[Maverick47]

8 hours ago, Crip1 said:

The other part is the "Crip Inc" business plan. The company "business" is owning fractional shares of other businesses. If you recall Look-Through earnings outlined in Berkshire's Owners Manual, I calculate Crip Inc.'s earnings by multiplying EPS by shares owned at the end of each quarter. Between FFH, BRK and MKL which, combined, represent roughly 40% of our investable net worth, we are earning about 75% of our combined salary, which is enough to retire at the end of this year. The rest of the 60% is in cash, 401Ks and other investments which add to Crip Inc. earnings. So, yes, we can cover all the basics with FFH, BRK and MKL leaving the rest of our earnings to afford us some "Nice-to-haves" like travel. It's also for any unforeseen expenses that will undoubtedly come about as the wife and I age and, of course to reinvest in Crip Inc. The advantage of thinking this way is that day-to-day fluctuations are of minimal if any concern.

Really appreciate this, @Crip1!  I retired a few years ago myself, and will adopt this look-through earnings view for the Maverick family.  As you note, it should minimize the emotional impact of day-to-day market fluctuations.  While this hasn’t been much of a concern for me personally, I do manage the retirement accounts of other family members as well who require handholding when market values drop.  I will encourage them to frame their own retirement accounts using this approach also.

[Hamburg Investor]

12 hours ago, Crip1 said:

Well, it's kind of a long story, in two parts.

 

4 hours ago, Parsad said:

We've owned all three companies for decades. The allocation between the three has varied somewhat over the years as I owned more MKL than the others for a long while, and more BRK for a little while as well. Simply said, the notion of profitable underwriting and prudent float investing resonated with me instantly, and has ever since. Insurance is far more inside of my circle of competence compared to Tech, Energy, Retail or damned near anything else. The currently outsized Fairfax position is due in large part to the share price appreciation over the past 5-6 years and my being a net buyer during this run. Normally being this concentrated in a single company is not something that I like, but I'm more comfortable with my Fairfax holdings than really anything else I own.

Thank you very much, @Crip1! That resonates a lot with me. I bought my first BRK share in 2007. That was the first time I had really invested after a few very early, very small attempts with only a few hundred Euro (before that, I simply didn't had any money to invest, but I read a lot about investing in the 2000s, as it fascinated me). Buffett inspired me greatly, which is why BRK was my first investment. MKL/FFH followed in around 2012, but only as very small positions in the beginning. After a (very successful) foray into the world of momentum investing (but only combined with strong balance sheets!), I then switched to long-term compounding/quality GARP; and I expanded BRK, MKL and FFH more and more through reallocations, although the other investments performed better over the first years, but weren't as safe from my point of view. In recent years, FFH's run has been to which I now have 65% in the three, whereas previously the three were rather below-average performers.

Anyway, that concentration wasn't planned, but now I think I just became a focus investor...  

[Hamburg Investor]

4 hours ago, Parsad said:

Yup, I think that's a great strategy and obviously has worked!  I follow something similar as well.  Any one of those three businesses, including a combination of all three, creates a diversified, leveraged (while risk-managed), portfolio.  And they still manage to not be entirely correlated.  Lastly, you can trust the management of all three of them and you pay zero fees!  Cheers!

In Germany we are not able so easily to put together savings of several people or family members in one basket. But I assist some relatives and now some of them have a combination of these three.

It's interesting that we all came to similar conclusions. At least for me.

In Germany you are kind of a bit of an oddball if you're interested in money and stocks in your spare time. That's why I love this forum and the input and exchange with you all even more. Thanks!

[Saluki]

43 minutes ago, Hamburg Investor said:

In Germany we are not able so easily to put together savings of several people or family members in one basket. But I assist some relatives and now some of them have a combination of these three.

It's interesting that we all came to similar conclusions. At least for me.

In Germany you are kind of a bit of an oddball if you're interested in money and stocks in your spare time. That's why I love this forum and the input and exchange with you all even more. Thanks!

 

Seth Godin said that this is a shorthand way to describe what culture is : "people like us, do things like this". Opening all your windows once a day in the middle of winters would make you an oddball in other parts of world, but it's perfectly normal in Germany (my grandmother did this, and even as a child I found it odd). 

 

I find it very odd that lots of people will watch sports (that they don't play) and memorize sports statistics for free, but won't listen to conference calls or think about earnings when it pays very well. Maybe talking about will normalize it and more people will catch on? Maybe reframing it would help? A younger Warren Buffett was explaining what he does to a reporter and he said [paraphrasing] "imagine you are working on a story, and the story is 'what is X company really worth' and you do a lot of research for your story. That is investing". It's also re-framing something. 

 

The good thing about the internet is that even if your hobby is very obscure (collecting vintage model trains, or making canoes by hand) you can find your tribe online. I found this site by accident when an investor I met told me about it at a conference when I mentioned Fairfax. It has helped me by letting me bounce ideas off of people and letting them poke holes in something or mention something I overlooked or was mistaken about. 

My process involves turning over as many rocks as possible to see if anything good is underneath, but no one has a monopoly on good ideas and I sometimes find great ideas (like Vitesse Energy or Taylor Devices) that weren't on my radar. So this site has been great for me, and I laugh when I think about the guy who sent hate mail to the founder because he thought asking $50 to join a membership site was a ripoff. 

[Hamburg Investor]

14 hours ago, djokovic1 said:

I don't think it is misleading.

10 years:
Markel: Absolute return: 163%, 10.2% CAGR
FFH: Absolute return: 5%, 0.5% CAGR (that's with dividends included, as I now see)

18 years: 
Markel: Absolute return: 397%, 9.3% CAGR
FFH: Absolute return: 443%, 9.8% CAGR

 

"Misleading" clearly did not refer to the result of your explanations (which I agree with; FFH is likely to be the better performer in terms of intrinsic value development for future returns), but to the method you used to derive it.

What are the numbers above and why are they so different to yours?
They are showing the results with the same logic you applied, but with a different starting date. The end point is always end of 2020 and the starting date end of 2010 or end of 2002 (as you see, the chart isn't reaching further back). So the only difference: The starting and the end point. Yes, they were not chosen at random. I simply took the point where the two curves intersected for the first time. I could have taken pretty much any starting point between 2009 and 2019 and any ending point between 2019 and 2022, and Markel would have looked better.

(BTW 1 : Being a longterm shareholder of both I have a vivid memory, that MKL was a way better performer than FFH in the 2010s, when watching the share price development. And I am happy that I have not made my investing decisions on the share price development back than - but on analyzing the company. BTW 2: Even looking at the decisions made by FFH management compared to MKL, or on the Combined Ratio or the equity decisions, I could have easily kicked FFH out of my portfolio somewhere in the mid 2010s. MKL seemed to be the way better business when comparing Management decisions until 2016/2020.)

 

On 3/4/2026 at 11:50 PM, djokovic1 said:

And here is the dividend adjusted share price comparison for 10 and 20 years for the 2. Surprisingly close to their hurdle rates! It's not even in the same ball park over long time horizons. Which horse would you pay much more for? It's pretty clear.

On 3/4/2026 at 11:50 PM, djokovic1 said:

10 year:

Markel: Absolute return: 132%, 8.8% CAGR

FFH: Absolute return: 294%, 14.7% CAGR

 

20 year: 

 

Markel: Absolute return: 469%, 9.1% CAGR

FFH: Absolute return: 1648%, 15.4% CAGR

"Misleading" referred to the method, and I just wanted to say two things: 
1. You intend that it's no coincidence that they are closed to their hurdle rates - but it is (otherwise why would you ask us to give an estimate of "which horse to pay more"?). So I don't agree with your argument here. It is simply a coincidence that Mr. Market currently roughly reflects the hurdle rates here. Even for long periods of time, this picture can look completely different, even the opposite; and that is exactly what you see when you take other periods as my example shows.
2. Investment decisions should not be made by comparing share prices - even if it's 10 or 20 years you are looking at. But with your subsequent question about which one we would pay more for ("Which horse..."), you are implying that we should decide for either MKL or FFH on that basis. However, in my opinion, this is generally not something one should ever do (unless one is a momentum investor doing that systematically). Share price is simply not a good guide, growth of intrinsic value is much better.

So after all, isn't FFH comparing to MKL a perfect case that shows how little you can read about what's the better investment by comparative conclusions from the share price evolution even over loooong periods of time alone? 

 

 

And, to put it quite plainly: You've completely won me over with all the other arguments you made (FFH having much more float, etc.)!

 

[MMM20]

1 hour ago, Hamburg Investor said:

In Germany you are kind of a bit of an oddball if you're interested in money and stocks in your spare time. That's why I love this forum and the input and exchange with you all even more. Thanks!

 

The dream of the internet is still alive on COBF... 

[Hamburg Investor]

1 minute ago, MMM20 said:

The dream of the internet is still alive on COBF... 

You are so right... With all this AI things happening today, one could very quickly forget this very, very old aspect of the internet. I am very happy to be the dinosaur in this sense. Please feel free taking me as your example. Cheers!

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, Hamburg Investor said:

You are so right... With all this AI things happening today, one could very quickly forget this very, very old aspect of the internet. I am very happy to be the dinosaur in this sense. Please feel free taking me as your example. Cheers!

 

Hey, that's my line!    Cheers!

[djokovic1]

2 hours ago, Hamburg Investor said:

So after all, isn't FFH comparing to MKL a perfect case that shows how little you can read about what's the better investment by comparative conclusions from the share price evolution even over loooong periods of time alone? 

I agree with a lot you say. Share price movements incorporate multiple which is random but over 20 years shouldn’t matter that much. A better comparison would be book value per share because that is fundamental value creation. The biggest reason for my confidence is I understand why 2010-2020 was so lean (as Viking showed) and very likely to not be repeated.

 

I still stand by my assessment that Fairfax is miles ahead as an investment opportunity today compared to Markel or Berkshire (it’s not close)! And stand by my assessment that Fairfax will compound book value at higher rates than Markel and Berkshire in the future. 

 

 

Edited March 6 by djokovic1

[SafetyinNumbers]

1 hour ago, djokovic1 said:

The biggest reason for my confidence is I understand why 2010-2020 was so lean (as Viking showed) and very likely to not be repeated.

I think an under appreciated reason for the underperformance during this period was because they starter doing significant influence and control positions in the insurance subsidiary portfolio which by the nature of the accounting recognizes losses immediately and defers gains. This makes the equity returns look worse than they are. Much like FIH, now that these investments have had more time to season, the gains are being recognized as assets are monetized. 

[SafetyinNumbers]

Fairfax bought back ~107k shares and cancelled ~101k shares in February. Presumably the buying continues this month at these bargain prices. The most they have paid is C$2475 back in December. 
 

[Hoodlum]

6 minutes ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

Fairfax bought back ~107k shares and cancelled ~101k shares in February. Presumably the buying continues this month at these bargain prices. The most they have paid is C$2475 back in December. 
 

 

Am I understanding correctly that Fairfax did not buy back any shares between 2/11 and 2/24.  

[Crip1]

10 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Yup, I think that's a great strategy and obviously has worked!  I follow something similar as well.  Any one of those three businesses, including a combination of all three, creates a diversified, leveraged (while risk-managed), portfolio.  And they still manage to not be entirely correlated.  Lastly, you can trust the management of all three of them and you pay zero fees!  Cheers!

One other part of the story was surfing the web one random day and finding the Stockhouse message board (not well known south of the border here). Had I not found that, chances are I would not have known about the old MSN Message board and, of course, Corner of BRK/FFH. I've said this before, but had it not been for Cardboard and BSilly, among others, I may not have held my FFH position. I've been really fortunate.

 

-Crip

[mananainvesting]

I asked ChatGPT to do a deep research. I uploaded Annual Reports(2022 to 2024)/10-K/Latest earnings release of $MKL and $FFH. Asked it to compute the intrinsic value per share of Markel and Fairfax using the same methodology that Markel uses (Orange + Blue earnings). I haven't double checked the data but the intrinsic value of Fairfax came really close to where I have it. 


I have attached the Pdf incase anyone is interested. 

 

Intrinsic Value Per Share for Markel and Fairfax Using Markel’s Orange and Blue Framework 2022–2025.pdf

Edited March 6 by mananainvesting
Errors and Clarification

[Hamburg Investor]

2 hours ago, djokovic1 said:

The biggest reason for my confidence is I understand why 2010-2020 was so lean (as Viking showed) and very likely to not be repeated.

 

I still stand by my assessment that Fairfax is miles ahead as an investment opportunity today compared to Markel or Berkshire (it’s not close)! And stand by my assessment that Fairfax will compound book value at higher rates than Markel and Berkshire in the future. 

Agree with everything you write. Otherwise I wouldn’t hold 45% of my portfolio in FFH and only 10% in BRK and another 10% in MKL.

[Hamburg Investor]

3 hours ago, mananainvesting said:

I asked ChatGPT to do a deep research. I uploaded Annual Reports(2022 to 2024)/10-K/Latest earnings release of $MKL and $FFH. Asked it to compute the intrinsic value per share of Markel and Fairfax using the same methodology that Markel uses (Orange + Blue earnings). I haven't double checked the data but the intrinsic value of Fairfax came really close to where I have it. 


I

Thank you very much; what a great idea!

So at todays valuation and applying 2025 numbers, MKL ($1983) has a roughly 25% discount to IV and FFH ($1638) even a bit over 50% to IV  (I used the $3348 from the pdf). 

So taking into account the IV numbers of the "orange and blue concept" of Tom Gayner - when would both be fully valued?

1. If MKL would rise 33% tomorrow to a pb ratio of 1.8 (BVPS is $1476 end of 2025) it would be fully valued.
2. FFH (BVPS $1260) could more than double tomorrow to a pb ratio of 2.7 for full valuation. 

Although I am much more happy with todays valuations, I think paying those prices at full value tomorrow an investor would still outperform the market (at least over the very long run) with both; and the chances are a bit better, when buying FFH.

As Buffett said: "It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.”

I think both are wonderful companies, while Fairfax seems even a bit more wonderful.

But wait: Is the price of MKL and FFH fair? No - it's below IV. So we could change Buffetts cite a bit (and I hope he would agree  )

"It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a wonderful price than buying the same wonderful company at a fair price." 

Imagine that: Paying double todays price for FFH and MKLs price rising a third, FFH would still be (much) cheaper than MKL. At least for everyone who thinks FFH IV to grow faster. 

Edited March 6 by Hamburg Investor

[Maverick47]

3 hours ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

Fairfax bought back ~107k shares and cancelled ~101k shares in February. Presumably the buying continues this month at these bargain prices. The most they have paid is C$2475 back in December. 
 

Really gratifying to seem them taking advantage of current prices.

[Haryana]

Letter is out 

FFH_Fairfax-Financials-Shareholders-Letter-2025-with-attachments-092704.pdf

 

[Hoodlum]

I remember there were previous questions on the employee stock plan.  I don't remember this being shared previously.

 

Fairfax also has an Employee Stock Ownership Plan that is available to essentially every employee in the company. The plan offers each employee the opportunity to take up to 10% of their salary annually in Fairfax shares. The company will automatically match 30% and then if certain targets are met (primarily underwriting profit), the company matches an additional 20%. The participation rates differ by company but generally for our large companies, we have a participation rate of approximately 60% and it has been increasing over time. 

 

Edited March 6 by Hoodlum