Fairfax 2026

[petec]

11 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

It was Robbert Hartog for the longest time and the most comparable to a Munger.  He was one of Prem's earliest investors, a mentor, superb businessman in his own right, and Prem really looked up to him as a friend and consigliere. 

 

Fairfax's decision making is ultimately Prem's, but unlike Berkshire, they've had a committee for a long-time that rips every idea to shreds before they pour money into it.  So all of the above played a role, including Paul Rivett for many years, Brian, Roger Lace, Tony Hamblin, now Wade and Lawrence...Francis remains an extremely close friend of Prem's and the company...amongst others.  I think Prem has enormous respect for David Johnson and a number of other directors...both those current and in the past.

 

But outside of Robbert, I don't think he's had that exact Charlie Munger type of personality sitting next to him.  Prem has such enormous belief and faith, both personally and spiritually, that he just pulls himself through whatever faces him.  He's one tough hombre!  Cheers!  

 

 

 

+1 

 

I remember a colleague talking to Steven Markel and asking what was special about Prem. The answer was: he has balls of steel.

 

And haven't we all benefited?

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, petec said:

 

+1 

 

I remember a colleague talking to Steven Markel and asking what was special about Prem. The answer was: he has balls of steel.

 

And haven't we all benefited?

 

I know Ajit Jain has enormous respect for Prem as a friend and peer as well.  I've spoken to Ajit on three separate occasions...none of them were about Berkshire...they were always about Prem and Fairfax! 

 

Side note:  Ajit is one special guy himself!  He would have been an automatic fit to run Berkshire and the absolute perfect heir to Buffett!  Not a slight to Abel...Ajit is just better at everything.

 

Buffett and Ajit would be like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant...one is the other's identical shadow.  Abel would be Shaq...terrific winner and leader...can't throw free throws!  

 

Cheers!

[SafetyinNumbers]

14 hours ago, MMM20 said:

 

Who is Prem's abominable no man? Who's his most trusted advisor? Who pushes him toward quality?

 

I'd argue it takes 3-6 people to perform the function of one Munger. 

 

Peter Clarke? Brian Bradstreet? Wade Burton? Jennifer Allen? 

 

I’m relatively new to the company but the culture seems more collaborative than Berkshire. Hamblin Watsa reminds me of my own experience on a prop desk where everyone was encouraged to speak their mind but with much better capital. The Investment Committee does their job I’m sure.

 

[Parsad]

4 minutes ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

I’m relatively new to the company but the culture seems more collaborative than Berkshire. Hamblin Watsa reminds me of my own experience on a prop desk where everyone was encouraged to speak their mind but with much better capital. The Investment Committee does their job I’m sure.

 

 

Yup...it's a team effort at Fairfax.  Always has been.  Cheers!

[mengan]

On 4/1/2026 at 3:30 AM, Maverick47 said:

In any event, run-off can’t explain any apparent reserve development in the 2025 triangle, since we’re told that neither life insurance nor run-off losses are included in it….

There's three reasons for this discrepancy.

 

1) The triangle does not consider effects of reinsurance.

2) The triangle does not consider currency effects.

3) The triangle shows individual years, not aggregate change to reserves for all prior years.

 

Add these three, and the number will likely match Prem's comments about reserve release. So Prem is using a very optimistic reading of the above triangle.

 

[mengan]

On 4/4/2026 at 3:11 PM, nwoodman said:

Pershing's advisory fee starts participating above a reference price of roughly $66, with a quarterly base fee on top.

Yuck. This clearly incentivizes stock promotion. You will likely see him running around different news channels promoting HHH. Very on point Ackman. This type of attention is in his comfort zone.

[dartmonkey]

6 hours ago, Parsad said:

I know Ajit Jain has enormous respect for Prem as a friend and

Any thoughts on why Berkshire has never owned shares of Fairfax? It would seem like a natural fit, and big enough to move the needle (a little) even for Berkshire. Why buy Chubb when they could buy Fairfax at a lower multiple? 

[SafetyinNumbers]

1 hour ago, dartmonkey said:

Any thoughts on why Berkshire has never owned shares of Fairfax? It would seem like a natural fit, and big enough to move the needle (a little) even for Berkshire. Why buy Chubb when they could buy Fairfax at a lower multiple? 

We wouldn’t know if they did unless they owned more than 10% because they wouldn’t have to file otherwise. @kodiakand I have discussed this before and I agree with him that it’s because Buffett sees Prem as real competition and doesn’t want to lower his cost of capital. If Abel can get away from that line of thinking BRK should buy as much as they can up to 1.5x BV.

[gfp]

Historically Fairfax has been too small and the shares too illiquid to be worth investing in for Berkshire.  Later when the new investment managers joined BRK and took smaller positions, FFH never showed up - but could technically have been hidden in Berkshire's disclosures - FRFHF would not show up on 13Fs as an OTC stock and FFH wouldn't show up as a foreign stock.  Fairfax has never shown up in any of Berkshire's NAIC filings but there are ways for Berkshire to hide the identity of individual investments on those filings as well (the prime example is buying shares inside "Harney Investment Trust" and similar entities formed for this purpose).  Ted or Todd could have owned an undisclosed position inside the pension funds they managed for Berkshire and it would have remained undisclosed.  I doubt it was in there but you can't prove it either way.

 

There are no 10% economic holders of Fairfax.  Even Prem, with voting control, only owns a 6.2% economic interest in FFH worth about $2.4 billion US dollars.

 

Baillie Gifford was the other large disclosed shareholder of Fairfax but had been reducing the size of their position which seems to have peaked in 2022 and my understanding is that are now below 5% and no longer need to disclose.

 

I would assume OMERS owns FFH shares but they don't own enough to disclose.  They are bigger holders of FIH percentage-wise but probably not in dollar terms.

 

Then you've got passive funds and ETFs like Vanguard Total International Stock Fund, a disclosed position by Fidelity Contrafund that is probably in the $550m range (Contrafund / Danoff were decently big sellers of FFH in 2025).

 

Long story short, there are no large owners of Fairfax and Berkshire would have a hell of a time building a position that could move the needle even if they wanted to.  I would not be surprised in the least of Warren had a small personal holding to "subscribe" to the annual report and followed the company for decades.

 

When Berkshire (I assume WEB) started buying Chubb stock they bought their first tranche at an average cost of $218.46 per share for an investment of $5.9 Billion and have added to that several times.  CB was just a much larger and more liquid stock.  (for those curious, that initial batch of CB stock purchased for $5.9 Billion is currently worth $8.934 Billion and the total CB investment at last disclose is now worth $11.32 Billion)

Edited April 18 by gfp

[SafetyinNumbers]

43 minutes ago, gfp said:

Historically Fairfax has been too small and the shares too illiquid to be worth investing in for Berkshire

I never liked this reason for not making an investment in something which is probably why my portfolio is littered with microcaps. 

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, dartmonkey said:

Any thoughts on why Berkshire has never owned shares of Fairfax? It would seem like a natural fit, and big enough to move the needle (a little) even for Berkshire. Why buy Chubb when they could buy Fairfax at a lower multiple? 

 

I think there are a few reasons.  In the early days (pre-2010), Fairfax's insurance business was seen as probably a bit inferior by Buffett.  They were not great insurers and were really only about as good as management at the time...Fairfax was like a box of chocolates, you never knew what you would get! 

 

Ajit knew about Prem's capabilities and talent, because he spoke very highly of Prem when I first met Ajit back at my third BRK AGM in 2004.  In fact, he scolded a NY suit (hedge fund/P/E guy) over some comments he made about Prem and Fairfax in front of me.  I was very happy to see that happen!  

 

So it is almost guaranteed that Buffett knew who and what Fairfax was...via the industry or Ajit...but chose not to invest in FFH.  BRK could definitely have acquired shares...for cheap...in 2003!  Anyone could have bought as much as they wanted during the hedge fund attacks right up until 2005!

 

By the time, things turned around, the GFC happened and then Andy was put in to oversee the insurance businesses, Fairfax changed dramatically over the last 10-15 years.  But Berkshire also grew massively and as gfp said, getting a 10% stake in Fairfax would not have really moved the needle.  They may have hidden the filing if they did own under 10% within their International holdings and not disclosed it.  But I've never gotten any hint or indication from anyone I know, that Berkshire owned any Fairfax.  Ajit might have owned some personally, but I've never heard that Berkshire or Buffett owned any.  We all know that Sir John Templeton, Markel, Cundill and many others have owned lots of Fairfax over the years...but not Buffett.

 

Now, today Fairfax is a very different company with a very high quality insurance business, excellent investments and the same capable team as always.  But a 10% stake will never move the needle at Berkshire and we all know that Prem will never sell Fairfax...not even to Berkshire...so they probably still don't own any.  Thus purchases like Chubb! 

 

But never say never...different views...different times...no one thought Buffett would buy nearly $70B in Apple, but he did one day.  And I suspect the liquidity issue will resolve itself the bigger and more well-known Fairfax gets.  More and more institutions and indices will add Fairfax over time...it's inevitable!  

 

Cheers!

[Duke In Shadows]

On 4/17/2026 at 9:14 AM, MMM20 said:

 

Who is Prem's abominable no man? Who's his most trusted advisor? Who pushes him toward quality?

 

I'd argue it takes 3-6 people to perform the function of one Munger. 

 

Peter Clarke? Brian Bradstreet? Wade Burton? Jennifer Allen? 

 

without a doubt his right hand man was Rick Salsberg. 

 

The setup of Ben Watsa as Chair, Peter Clarke as CEO, Wade as Head of HWIC will without a doubt be the three critical people for the future of FFH. I like all three + think they're super sharp which gives me much comfort. 

 

Had an excellent conversation with David Sokol this weekend about succession and I share his view that FFH is incredibly well setup for the future, much better than its southern cousin. Buffett almost never left Omaha. Prem spends half the year on his plane. Much different mentality and end result.

[Parsad]

19 minutes ago, Duke In Shadows said:

without a doubt his right hand man was Rick Salsberg. 

 

The setup of Ben Watsa as Chair, Peter Clarke as CEO, Wade as Head of HWIC will without a doubt be the three critical people for the future of FFH. I like all three + think they're super sharp which gives me much comfort. 

 

Had an excellent conversation with David Sokol this weekend about succession and I share his view that FFH is incredibly well setup for the future, much better than its southern cousin. Buffett almost never left Omaha. Prem spends half the year on his plane. Much different mentality and end result.

 

Yup.  Sorry Rick would be right there with Robbert Hartog!  Cheers!

[Munger_Disciple]

2 hours ago, Duke In Shadows said:

Had an excellent conversation with David Sokol this weekend about succession and I share his view that FFH is incredibly well setup for the future, much better than its southern cousin. 

 

I highly doubt Sokol said that about Berkshire. He was very complementary of Abel & Berkshire's future under him at last year's shareholder dinner. 

[Parsad]

1 minute ago, Munger_Disciple said:

 

I highly doubt Sokol said that about Berkshire. He was very complementary of Abel & Berkshire's future under him at last year's shareholder dinner. 

 

I would imagine he was just referencing the depth of the investment team under Prem compared to under Buffett.  It's pretty clear that Fairfax has the deeper bench on investments by far...especially after the departure of Todd Combs, and Buffett seemingly semi-retiring. 

 

In terms of insurance and non-insurance businesses...Berkshire has zero to worry about with their team.  It's why Abel will probably buy back a shitload of shares over time.  He'll probably allocate more capital to capex heavy businesses they own and acquire more businesses over time, rather than huge public equity investments that will probably be now made by Ted Weschler and Buffett as long as he is with us.  Cheers!

[LC]

1 hour ago, Parsad said:

He'll probably allocate more capital to capex heavy businesses

 

I agree.

I do think Greg needs to watch out for big cat risks like wildfire (and also the government response which is usually not business-friendly).

These are real risks with capex-heavy investments (BNSF, Chemicals, Power generation, etc.)

 

Especially when Berkshire is also exposed on the insurance side to cat events, so when it rains it may pour.

 

Otherwise he has the playbook lined up for him, he's a shart guy, and WB has set him up for success. 

[Maverick47]

4 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

I think there are a few reasons.  In the early days (pre-2010), Fairfax's insurance business was seen as probably a bit inferior by Buffett.  They were not great insurers and were really only about as good as management at the time...Fairfax was like a box of chocolates, you never knew what you would get! 

 

Ajit knew about Prem's capabilities and talent, because he spoke very highly of Prem when I first met Ajit back at my third BRK AGM in 2004.  In fact, he scolded a NY suit (hedge fund/P/E guy) over some comments he made about Prem and Fairfax in front of me.  I was very happy to see that happen!  

 

So it is almost guaranteed that Buffett knew who and what Fairfax was...via the industry or Ajit...but chose not to invest in FFH.  BRK could definitely have acquired shares...for cheap...in 2003!  Anyone could have bought as much as they wanted during the hedge fund attacks right up until 2005!

 

By the time, things turned around, the GFC happened and then Andy was put in to oversee the insurance businesses, Fairfax changed dramatically over the last 10-15 years.  But Berkshire also grew massively and as gfp said, getting a 10% stake in Fairfax would not have really moved the needle.  They may have hidden the filing if they did own under 10% within their International holdings and not disclosed it.  But I've never gotten any hint or indication from anyone I know, that Berkshire owned any Fairfax.  Ajit might have owned some personally, but I've never heard that Berkshire or Buffett owned any.  We all know that Sir John Templeton, Markel, Cundill and many others have owned lots of Fairfax over the years...but not Buffett.

 

Now, today Fairfax is a very different company with a very high quality insurance business, excellent investments and the same capable team as always.  But a 10% stake will never move the needle at Berkshire and we all know that Prem will never sell Fairfax...not even to Berkshire...so they probably still don't own any.  Thus purchases like Chubb! 

 

But never say never...different views...different times...no one thought Buffett would buy nearly $70B in Apple, but he did one day.  And I suspect the liquidity issue will resolve itself the bigger and more well-known Fairfax gets.  More and more institutions and indices will add Fairfax over time...it's inevitable!  

 

Cheers!

Thanks for sharing, @Parsad!  Really appreciate the color, particularly about your conversation with Ajit back in 2004!  And your assumptions about why Berkshire seems not to have pursued a major acquisition of Fairfax also ring true.

 

Buffett was historically interested in insurance companies that had both great underwriting and intelligent investment strategies.  If he could find a company that was dramatically underpriced, he might bend on the investment side of things if the underwriting was extremely strong and the market price was extremely attractive.  That would have been back in his cigar butt days when, for example, he was happy to pick up shares of small midwestern insurers that were extremely undervalued (selling for only a few times normalized annual earnings) even to the extent of advertising in local papers for local holders to sell him their shares.

 

Back sometime in the mid ‘70’s, Berkshire made acquisitions of large amounts of shares of two US insurers at roughly the same time:  GEICO and SAFECO.  In his annual report, he describes SAFECO as a much better underwriting company than those he already owned, and further commented that “their investment policies make great sense”.  
 

For GEICO, we know he was aware that a temporary problem with reserving was being addressed by new management under Jack Byrne, and from his knowledge of the company since he became aware that Ben Graham was a large holder (maybe even a director?) back in the 1950’s, he was aware of their large expense advantage over the rest of the industry.  
 

And we are aware that at some time in the 1970’s Buffett helped GEICO interview investment managers for their float, and selected Lou Simpson.

 

So with GEICO he also had both great underwriting/pricing in place, and knew that their investment policies would make great sense under Lou going forward.  Over the years, he became a trusted partner, owner of the company, such that his final acquisition of all of its shares was seen as a fair and friendly acquisition.

 

SAFECO by contrast, was not mentioned much in the next few years, and disappeared from the major investee list of Berkshire  a few years later.  
 

I happened to get my first insurance job there myself as an underwriter about a decade after it had dropped off the Berkshire investee list.  Never learned exactly why that occurred from the SAFECO side of things, but have my own guesses…first, the company’s directors were probably very suspicious of the motives of Berkshire…may have been why in the annual report introducing the buy, Buffett took a paragraph or two in the annual letter to highlight that he was NOT interested in taking control of the entire company.  I suspect that the fairly insular local directors of the company were hostile to the idea of an investor from Omaha picking up a large block of their shares, and distrusted his motives for doing so.
 

Secondly, the longtime treasurer at SAFECO who was in charge of their investment strategy retired a few years after the Berkshire share purchases,  and by the time I arrived years later, their investment policies were very much in line with the rest of the industry, focusing on bonds alone, and so no longer would have “made great sense” from Buffett’s perspective.

 

Your own observations about Fairfax would indicate that Buffett would have been somewhat skeptical of the underwriting side of things at least until 2015 or so.  And since he would have known that Prem controlled more than 40% of the voting shares, he probably knew that it would be unlikely that he would be able to consider acquiring the entire company, which probably would have been the only way he would have been interested in the company after the 2015 time frame given the size of the market cap.

 

Instead, he negotiated the purchase of all of Alleghany, in 2021 or 2022 if memory serves.  There he had the advantage of a former Berkshire exec, Joe Brandon, who had become CEO of Alleghany, and was willing to entertain a bid from Berkshire for the entire company.

 

So I think Berkshire does want to “move the needle” by either buying entire insurers that are significantly smaller than themselves, or are willing to consider less than controlling share sizes of only the very largest market cap insurers like Chubb.

Buffett probably is aware that Prem would not be open to a fair and friendly acquisition of all of Fairfax by Berkshire, and even a 10 or 20% share ownership of the company would not move the needle for Berkshire, so that probably explains the current situation.  But as you noted, one should never say never! 

Edited April 18 by Maverick47

[hasilp89]

One thing i have been thinking about was the highlighting of size and forecasting of income that Fairfax does (typically at AGM -> talking about being the xth largest company in Canada, Paying $xB in taxes (Buffett does this too), putting out $xB of income over next few years (no gaurantees).

 

On the one hand i believe it is a show of pride, highlights how much work they've done and there is a huge emphasis on bottom line growth over top line and the results speak for themselves, but on the other there's always a concern when companies focus on size and highlight it. Doesn't change my desire to own the business but I'm curious if any of the long time followers @Parsad et al. think about this and if they've seen any change in that messaging over the years.

[SafetyinNumbers]

30 minutes ago, hasilp89 said:

On the one hand i believe it is a show of pride,

Prem made it clear they are not proud, they are grateful.

 

I think they are just trying to explain to the shareholders they want to keep why they should hold on to their shares. I think the annual report did a great job doing that as well. 

[hasilp89]

10 minutes ago, SafetyinNumbers said:

Prem made it clear they are not proud, they are grateful.

You re correct, he did say that

[Parsad]

1 hour ago, hasilp89 said:

One thing i have been thinking about was the highlighting of size and forecasting of income that Fairfax does (typically at AGM -> talking about being the xth largest company in Canada, Paying $xB in taxes (Buffett does this too), putting out $xB of income over next few years (no gaurantees).

 

On the one hand i believe it is a show of pride, highlights how much work they've done and there is a huge emphasis on bottom line growth over top line and the results speak for themselves, but on the other there's always a concern when companies focus on size and highlight it. Doesn't change my desire to own the business but I'm curious if any of the long time followers @Parsad et al. think about this and if they've seen any change in that messaging over the years.

 

The messaging has been quite consistent for a long time now in terms of size, strength, returns, combined ratios, growth, etc.  Since the pandemic, the messaging has definitely become more about quality, consistency, income, the future, durability, etc. 

 

I think basically, the future Fairfax finally ran into the past messaging.  Today, you are at the point where I think Prem always wanted the company to be...strong, growing, durable, consistent, quality, reputation, team!  Big enough to take on anyone, small enough where there is a ton of time to still grow at a relatively high rate!  Cheers!

[Duke In Shadows]

Globe article on FFH backed Blue Ant Media
 

Globe and Mail - Blue Ant Media

[LC]

13 hours ago, Parsad said:

Today, you are at the point where I think Prem always wanted the company to be...strong, growing, durable, consistent, quality, reputation, team!  Big enough to take on anyone, small enough where there is a ton of time to still grow at a relatively high rate!  Cheers

 

Agreed. I am incredibly grateful to Viking, Safety, and longtime FFH owners who contributed to the knowledge base on this message board. I consider myself lucky to begin purchasing shares when I did...I haven't sold a single one, only accumulated more on pullbacks...and look to be a very long term holder. 

[JGBRK]

27 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Agreed. I am incredibly grateful to Viking, Safety, and longtime FFH owners who contributed to the knowledge base on this message board. I consider myself lucky to begin purchasing shares when I did...I haven't sold a single one, only accumulated more on pullbacks...and look to be a very long term holder. 

I too am thankful for Viking, Safety and all the others that contributed their knowledge.  I was a little late to the party; but I think it’s still early.

 

Thanks again to all.

[Viking]

2 hours ago, LC said:

 

Agreed. I am incredibly grateful to Viking, Safety, and longtime FFH owners who contributed to the knowledge base on this message board. I consider myself lucky to begin purchasing shares when I did...I haven't sold a single one, only accumulated more on pullbacks...and look to be a very long term holder. 

@LC and @JGBRK, I appreciate the comments. 

What has made Fairfax such an interesting investment over the past 5 years is it keeps morphing into something better. It has been a 5 years voyage of discovery. We all have been chronicling this amazing journey on this wonderful board. 

• 2020: Turnaround play
• 2022: Value play
• 2024: Quality play

This has important implications for investors: it requires an open mind and flexibility in both framework and thinking. The people on the board who have approached Fairfax this way have likely done very well with their investment over the past 5 years. 

'To The Man With A Hammer, Every Problem Tends To Look Like A Nail' Charlie Munger

 

Munger’s quote above describes how most people look at and value Fairfax. They have been in a straight jacket for the past 5 years and they don’t even know it. As a result they have likely missed out on one of the great investments. 

 

I think Fairfax is in the process of morphing again. This change is being driven by the soft market in insurance. 
 

What is happening? Fairfax is entering its “BRK 1980’s/1990’s” phase where capital allocation and compounding will be the primary driver of growth in economic/intrinsic value moving forward (not top line growth in the P/C insurance business). BRK delivered outstanding growth in economic/intrinsic value per share in soft insurance markets in the 1980’s and 1990’s and I suspect Fairfax will do the same in the coming years.

 

There are a lot of parallels with Fairfax today and BRK in the 1980’s/1990’s. Yes, there are also important differences. One being Fairfax is much more levered to float. Another being how it does capital allocation (different does not mean worse). Another being Fairfax is international.

But to capture the opportunity with Fairfax moving forward, investors will need to once again update their investment framework. This will allow them to better understand what is coming (fundamentals, earnings and growth in economic/intrinsic value per share). Most will not (like what has been happening the past 5 years). Actions have consequences. Each set of investors will earn their just reward. 

Edited April 20 by Viking