Parsad

Strata insurance jumped 100% to 700% in British Columbia...auto insurance increased last year by 25%, but will see a slight decrease this year (BC auto insurance is for the most part a public entity). Cheers!

Fairfax from this base forward will probably do better than Berkshire long-term. Just based on the discount it is trading at, and the size advantage it holds in terms of the universe of investments it can look at. I think WFC will do nearly as well over the next 4-5 years as FFH. Cheers!

What the heck are you talking about? They just went through the pandemic, plus a fairly high catastrophe loss season, and the insurance operations still hit a 98.5% CR. They have tons of cash to deploy, debt/equity is very manageable and they can issue a few hundred million in new long-term debt at cheap rates to repay the revolver if they need to. The shares they are buying back are accretive when bought under book value, and if they achieve a 3% return on their portfolio plus a return to book, you are looking at a 150%-175% return over the next 4-5 years. Cheers!

What can you sell but not buy? Your Character. I think it a matter of personal honor that a person pays back what they promise to pay back. If she does not pay it back, and especially if she can afford it, then it is very dishonorable to default on the debt she promised to pay back. It is irrelevant who else defaults and when. It was 100% her personal choice to buy that specific car and her choice to deal with a certain dealer. And if one really looks through who she is defaulting to - there are probably some widows who own the debt in their portfolios and 401ks etc. There are other human beings on the other side of transactions - not just legal constructs called corporations. Ultimately it is people not paying back other people money they promised to pay back. I applaud people like DooDiligence who take the honorable course (especially when it is tough) and the businesses who are run conservatively and don't default on their obligations even when they can. And for personal interest - I think people who can own up to their mistakes of personal choices and not blame others for everything do much, much better than others the long run. Those are the types that Buffett and Munger and quality individuals want to be associated with. I fully agree with that, but didn't Buffett's own sister file for bankruptcy at one point? The laws are there for a reason. As long as individuals are acting within the law, and fulfilling any judgements meted out against them through the courts, they are still acting within the law. Cheers!

No. I would 100% be shocked if the dividend was cut or not paid this year. I think insurance results will be good. Cheers!

That list isn't truly accurate. Vancouver is one of the most desirable, livable cities in the world...constantly ranked in the top 5, let alone top 10...and it sits 69th. Banglore is much cleaner than Delhi, more modern and is the high-tech hub of India. Cheers!

Domestic flights are returning somewhat to normal. So they hit 70M users a couple of years later than expected. You lose 2 years of profitability, but that airport is state of the art, with fantastic retail space, and Fairfax has the rights to develop the land around it. I've seen the airport and toured it first hand...it will prove to be one of the best investments Fairfax made long-term. And Banglore as an IT hub isn't going anywhere...it's also become one of the more desirable cities to live and work in...not dissimilar to San Jose. Cheers!

Article on value stocks: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/value-stocks-worst-for-100-years-11603116927?siteid=yhoof2 Cheers!

I said it would be gone in the new incarnation of the site...which is taking alot longer than I expected. I think it's only fair now to continue running the Politics section until a week after the election is over. I expect the site to be ready for December 1st, so that would be about right to let people finish venting. You won't see it again once the new site is active, and all politics chatter will be removed. Cheers!

Hahaha he has my vote. Great story SD! +1! Cheers!

Yes, at the prices they are buying...tangible book or less. But it doesn't work when you buy them back like Eddie Lampert did with Sears! ;D Cheers!

You got it Sharper! The irony of all of this is, what if this granny makes all of her obligations on the car, but the dealer goes under and doesn't back it's obligations, service contracts, warranties, etc. No one is going to go after them on her behalf...just another corporate bankruptcy! Cheers!

The aim here is not to focus on a specific case (somebody's relative) but i would respectfully submit that you are playing with words here. The person who walks away from a debt contract is, in essence, breaking the law. Specifically, the person is breaking the contract which has provisions to efficiently deal with the default. If the person considers that he or she is legally right (according to established rules) to consider the contract void for some reason, a case has to be made. Good luck with that in this specific case. Whether you consider this a moral or an economic failure is a personal opinion but there are rules and rules, until proven otherwise, cannot be broken. However, the issue raises questions about the rules. Debt is a social construction, has become widespread and private debt has become criminalized to a high degree with potential for exploitation. Law moves very slowly and changes may take longer to achieve than the maturity of the car loan. And having an opinion, in itself, does not break the law. What I am saying that defaulting on a loan agreement is breaking the law. If you enter into a lawful agreement, a signed commitment to repay a loan and then you break that commitment, then you are breaking the law. As Cigarbutt put it: "The person who walks away from a debt contract is, in essence, breaking the law." There isn't really any ambiguity about it. If you break a lawful agreement, you are breaking the law. Try it and see what happens. Many years ago during my university years, I worked as Deputy Sheriff in our county. Had a guy who ran up a number of debts with local merchants and then he attempted to skip the province. There is a process called a "Bailable Writ" that can be issued if a debtor is suspected of leaving the jurisdiction to escape debt. In this case the Bailable Writ was issued. I served that Writ, arrested the guy, and promptly dropped him off at our local crowbar hotel where he resided until his pending court appearance. Aside from the morals of not paying your bills there are definitely legal ramifications. I fully agree with you both...but it is a civil case, not criminal. The law has protections for borrowers as much as the law protects the contract on behalf of the lender. Morality is in a constant state of flux...it's ok for Trump to default as a SITTING President, but some old granny defaults and she is not living up to moral obligations. I'm on the side of enforcing contracts, but I also know people get themselves into unfair contracts as well...call it being naive, stupid or whatever else, but individuals make mistakes. In an ideal world, I would expect people to live up to all contracts...legal, verbal, etc. But we don't live in an ideal world. Shit happens, people live in cardboard boxes, babies die! Cheers!

Thanks! Yes, that helps. Cheers!

Defaulting on a loan agreement is NOT within the law. Of course it is within the law. That's why the law allows recourse for lenders and protections for borrowers. Cheers!

From what I remember at least two of the stocks were BAC and WFC...USB and the bond were maybe in there, but I'm certain BAC and WFC were two of the securities. It's been 11 years! Cheers!

That's ridiculous! People default on all sorts of loans and due to various circumstances. I'm not going to judge what an individual chooses to do and is within the law. Credit reports are there for people to know what type of borrower they are dealing with, and contracts are there for buyers to understand what their obligations are and what recourse there could be against them if they default. If two parties understand their risks, work within the law, they have remedies available to them. I shake my head when consumers do stupid things, but at the same time, the system and laws are in place, as long as they are acting within that system...no one can light a candle saying morality is dead! Individuals, corporations, organizations, institutions all take advantage of the loopholes! Close the damn loopholes! Cheers!

Wabuffo, I thought I remembered when Charlie moved the whole portfolio from T-bills into WFC, BAC and COST during the financial crisis in 2009. A few years later, the portfolio had gone from like $30M to $80M. Was it not COST...what was the 3rd stock then? Today, Daily Journal is probably one of the best capitalized media business' with over $200M in investments. Maybe Buffett should have done this with the Washington Post Company. Cheers!

Charlie also thinks banks will do very well going forward, as 99% of the assets are in banks. Cheers! Sorry, I should have phrased that as 99% of U.S. assets are in banks. He loved Costco, but they've sold their position in that, while holding the banks. Cheers!

Charlie also thinks banks will do very well going forward, as 99% of the assets are in banks. Cheers!

I was being facetious. Note the "old bag" part. ;D Cheers!

I can hear people screaming...well what if you want to be a teacher...maybe teacher's should be paid more than plumbers! ;D Not that I disagree, but it is what it is. If you want to make money, don't be a frickin' teacher. If you want to work with kids and mold their little brains, then you're going to have to suck it up and accept gratitude as some of your compensation. Plus you get two months off in the summer! Cheers!

Also what about online companies that don't pay their fair share of taxes...Amazon, I'm looking at you? No taxes on $11B in profit, plus a frickin' $129M rebate from the government in 2018! It's because they operate within a loophole in the law. And we all celebrate Jeff Bezos for dominating all of retail, or Elon Musk for only losing $10B over the last 6 years until 2020! Why, because they've created shareholder value and made more people rich, than the people they've screwed over using loopholes. This poor old lady has probably done most things the right way her whole life, and now she is being persecuted because she made a bad car purchase and her grandson suggested walking away from the loan. She hasn't even agreed to it and we're thumbing our noses at her lack of morality, character and that she still has a roof over her head. What a frickin' old bag! Cheers!

I commend you on that. I think all students should pay some portion, if not all, of their education. It forces them to decide...is this really what I want and feel good about it once paid. But just because tuition prices go up, doesn't mean everyone has to be a student or get a student loan. If you cannot afford to go, or earn the money to go, then there are always other options...cheaper local universities/colleges, trade schools, entrepreneurship, interning, sales, self-taught skills, moving to another country with cheaper schools and cost of living, etc. But if you decide to pay $100K or $200K for tuition and you get student loans (a contract) to do so, that isn't my frickin' responsibility and I don't want to have to pay for it. Cheers!

Also, regarding this point. Why is it that a rich person who buys or leases their car through their personal company can default on that loan with virtually no repercussion other than repossession and collections...rarely goes to judgement? Or for that matter, someone with no real assets in their personal company, but buys a car through their company and files corporate bankruptcy? In many of those cases, the car goes back to the auto dealer, but with no real assets or income, there is no other repercussion...very likely not even a hit to the company owner's credit report. Cheers!