Parsad

I've met Wayne a number of times at the Fairfax AGM and in Toronto. He's always pretty good with fans...but if you ask him how his Dad is...his eyes and personality would suddenly light up and he would gratefully engage you. They were extremely close! Cheers to the Great One...Walter Gretzky! His son was pretty good too!

Sorry! I thought everyone could just post on this thread after it comes out and everyone has read it. Cheers!

Does it come out tomorrow or next week? Cheers!

I've met Warren a few times, as have many others, so I'll leave those stories for them to share...mine aren't particularly unusual except the very first time I met him. I've met Ajit Jain a couple of times in Omaha, and also in Toronto. He's been one of the the most pleasant people I've ever met all three times! I would love to see him lead Berkshire! I've also met Charlie a couple of times...always nice, but relatively quiet...there is a story I would like to share about Charlie: During the 2013 AGM, Alnesh, myself and a couple of friends were driving out of Regency Shopping Center in Omaha, where Borsheims is as many of you know. We were stopped at the light on a fairly busy road, and Charlie drove up next to us in a Toyota Camry and was waiting to turn right. I'm not sure if his blindness is worse in his left or right eye, but he stopped for a few seconds and then turned right into oncoming traffic. All of us were screaming "Charlie lookout" as two cars came to a screeching halt just barely stopping before crashing into the back of Charlie's car. It looked like it was going to be really bad! He kept driving like he owned the road, while all us were sweating and gasping as we thought we had almost watched the demise of Berkshire's vice-chairman! I've got one story about Bill Gates as well: At another AGM, I was outside of a private party that Buffett, Munger, Gates all attend at the Omaha Marriott. There was no way I was getting in, certainly not on the guest list, and then I noticed Bill Gates behind me looking for the party. I guided him to the party and he thanked me...but I still didn't get past the guest list! The last one is not terribly exciting, but I had your hopes up! Cheers!

Likewise, couldn't disagree more with the notion that Warren should focus his communications on excogitations about the future. Those who want discussions of Snowflake and explorations of the future development of Berkshire are in the wrong place. Read through the 50-plus letters and it is apparent what Warren tries to do/likes to do with these letters and with his Berkshire-specific communications in general. There are people who would like him to do quarterly conference calls, to discuss current investments with more depth (why did you investor in this?). I mean the most glaring omission would be the dearth of Apple discussion right? They have $120 billion in the company but he did not even review basic thoughts of the business, its moat, its value, etc. Essentially the only substantive discussion of Apple was an empirical description of its buybacks. So it may be reasonable to expect a discussion, at least a minimal one, of this $120 billion investment....BUT that is not the kind of thing he generally does. That is as a part of Berkshire as much as GEICO. Also the nature of annual report documents and letters is to review the past. That is their essential function - they are concerned with what has happened to get to this point. I do believe Warren is addressing the future though by addressing the past. These letters and Warren's Berkshire-specific communications shape and cement the culture and character that he intends to endure at Berkshire into the future. Reading through 50-plus years of Berkshire letters and the way he discusses the companies they've purchased, how those companies were built, the way the Buffett Partnership became Berkshire - and how that indelibly shaped the present, and he hopes future-Berkshire, is a powerful message to Greg, Ted, Todd and their successors. The communication has been so clear and the transmission of values through these communications so powerful, for instance, that if Greg immediately started quarterly conference calls after he takes over - then every single long-time Berkshire shareholder that I know of would revolt. That is because of Warren's clear communication in these letters. I fully agree with this sentiment. You can tell he's preparing his shareholders/partners for the future without Buffett & Munger. I had not seen the Berkshire site since last year, and I only now saw the Past, Present & Future letter written by Warren and one by Charlie. Clearly, they are preparing their goodbyes (hopefully still years and years away) and preparing the past, present and future shareholders. Charlie and Warren will be together again at the AGM, with Ajit Jain and Greg Abel (the vice-chairmen) available for questions as well. I hope if this is the slow, careful transition that it is, maybe we'll start to get Warren's annual letter, as well as smaller annual letters from both Ajit Jain and Greg Abel...but probably not, as that would be tipping the hand about who gets called to bat in the future. Cheers!

In the long run, we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes Clutch, I suspect Keynes would agree with your sentiment and belief. That being said, when we are investing, we are generally talking about events occurring in the next 5-10-50 years out at best. You suggested that these pieces of paper have no real ownership. Yet, we know that is not true. Stocks - Buffett would completely disagree with you here. They are pieces of businesses, including the underlying assets within those businesses. If you own enough pieces of paper, you directly control the assets. So, as long as the businesses are operating and generating cash flow, and the balance sheet is reasonable, the pieces of paper have some real value. Bonds/Loans - We've seen enough examples where owning the bonds of a business, mean you own the actual business...especially if it defaults. So they are backed. Currency - backed by nation state assets and tax revenues. Yes, a dictator could step in and change everything, but how often does that happen in stable, developed governments and economies...so while possible, the probabilities generally fall outside of the 5-10-50 year realm. Hard Assets - generally some utilitarian purpose supports the underlying value...whether it is land, commodities, etc. Bit Coin/Crypto in present form - nothing backing it in most cases. Gold is anonymous, whereas Bitcoin no longer is. When you transact in gold the transaction is over, with Bitcoin there must be a network maintained in order to maintain the function. Bitcoin is useful for very large transactions or transactions across borders. I see Bitcoin as an entirely separate asset class. It is not money, it is closer to art or collectibles than it is to gold. I agree it is a separate asset class presently...frankly not even akin to tulips, let alone art or collectibles. Art and collectibles have a historical pedigree and scarcity that gives it a value. People desire to own art and collectibles...you admire art...you drink wine...you drive antique/collectible cars...you marvel at the technical wonders of antique rifles...you listen to music...you play instruments. So while the utility isn't as apparent as commodities or precious metals, there is still an underlying utility. There is absolutely nothing utilitarian behind current crypto. There will be one day...but not behind the stuff we see out there now. And when that stuff comes, this current crop will generally be worthless. Remember Blue Chip Stamps! Cheers!

I think this is completely incorrect. Most currencies are backed by tax revenues and the country's assets. Gold has a utilitarian purpose, as does silver and virtually all other precious metals and commodities. Bitcoin has nothing at all supporting it other than demand as you say...as did tulips. I would dare say that tulips at least served some purpose in gardens. Bitcoin as it presently stands has no value whatsoever! Will crypto replace cash...almost certainly over time. But it will be supported by something...most likely large recurring cash flows from multi-national companies that are the size of small nations or digital currency issued by nations. Bitcoin isn't that digital currency...not now anyways...and alot of speculators will lose alot of money! Cheers!

The ledger technology can be adapted for any digital currency, not only BTC or the existing batch of crypto. So that technology is the backbone of crypto and what is important. BTC itself has no value...similar to internet stocks 20 years ago with no supporting cash flow or earnings. BTC is inflated by speculation and demand...nothing backing or supporting it...it will eventually turn into nothing! Most of the money being "invested" in crypto will be lost by their owners. Cheers!

Most of the major media companies and tech companies post whole articles...not just links. I don't think you should have to pay for links, but if you're cutting and pasting, or copying whole articles, yeah...I think they should be paying the writers or owners of the content. Cheers!

This was pretty good ;D Gave me a good laugh and was actually quite catchy. Does anyone else find it ironic that during a period of intense government control and essentially total compliance by the population, that an "asset" which is reliant on stripping the government of power is the investment of choice? Until now we've all had to accept the abuses inherent with fiat currency, and all we could do was swap one fiat for another - the meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Now there's a real choice, and at all times - the fiat currency is always the safety net. The alternative to BTC is a global digital RESERVE currency - & elimination of USD reserve currency status. Today, central banks either get their collective sh1te together - and offer it (soon), or BTC becomes the RESERVE currency of choice. But it couldn't happen, had BTC not been invented by anarchists. All good. SD I still don't understand the fundamental functionality behind current cryptocurrencies including BTC. With fiat currency, you have tax revenues and public assets that support the currency. With gold/silver/etc you have actual utility value that increases with inflation over time. There is nothing supporting bitcoin except the increase in universality...but at one time tulips were just as universal as currency. This is going to end the same way...probably when well-endowed companies, sovereign funds, nation states create their own digital/crypto currency. Cheers! By the way, don't think that I don't believe in crypto or digital currencies, just not the current ones and how they are supported. I was way ahead of most people on this, because I bought into blockchain technology when Patrick Byrne was buying up companies years ago...just not a proponent of the current crop of crypto. I can see someone like Apple issuing their own crypto and backing it with their cash flows as they become larger and larger. I can see universal use of blockchain technology. I just don't see BTC being the winner...I see it as the AOL or tulip of this new "paradigm". Don't trade your shares of Berkshire for BTC! Remember Time Warner? Cheers!

Didn’t Elon Musk say Tesla price was too high at one point too? Yes. Back in like May 2020 when the price was like 1/5 of what it is today. BTC to the ?????? Does Musk own BTC because he believes it is a fundamental replacement for currency/hard assets? Or does he own it because he can now tap into the $100B market of potential Tesla buyers that make their money illegally and could not buy Teslas because they didn't want to show cash. That's alot of Teslas that he can now sell that other car companies can't because they don't accept BTC. The buyer pays in BTC and then sells the Tesla for cash to others...instantly laundered money for the buyer and Tesla sells a shitload of new Teslas. At some point, governments will crack down on BTC. They have to get their cut somehow...a BTC/crypto tax is coming! Cheers!

This was pretty good ;D Gave me a good laugh and was actually quite catchy. Does anyone else find it ironic that during a period of intense government control and essentially total compliance by the population, that an "asset" which is reliant on stripping the government of power is the investment of choice? Until now we've all had to accept the abuses inherent with fiat currency, and all we could do was swap one fiat for another - the meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Now there's a real choice, and at all times - the fiat currency is always the safety net. The alternative to BTC is a global digital RESERVE currency - & elimination of USD reserve currency status. Today, central banks either get their collective sh1te together - and offer it (soon), or BTC becomes the RESERVE currency of choice. But it couldn't happen, had BTC not been invented by anarchists. All good. SD I still don't understand the fundamental functionality behind current cryptocurrencies including BTC. With fiat currency, you have tax revenues and public assets that support the currency. With gold/silver/etc you have actual utility value that increases with inflation over time. There is nothing supporting bitcoin except the increase in universality...but at one time tulips were just as universal as currency. This is going to end the same way...probably when well-endowed companies, sovereign funds, nation states create their own digital/crypto currency. Cheers!

Every Tom, Dick and Harry is asking me about crypto now...GME and TSLA don't seem interesting to them anymore. Every time the subject comes up, I smirk reflexively out of disgust, and I keep hoping I didn't offend the person asking the question. I also don't want to engage them, so I just say "Yeessss...." I remember the last time this happened 2-3 years ago in these numbers, Bitcoin fell from $28K to $6K. I'm expecting something similar again, as I don't think we are in a new era! Cheers!

Sardar paid a premium to get his own debt from Fortress...smart play by Fortress to acquire the debt...but let's see what the courts say. I'm not sure BH has a real case here, but if they were in negotiations, Fortress may have received certain privileged information. I'm sure they'll just come to some sort of settlement over time. Cheers!

This This play, which he only held for 1 day, was a 5x and more importantly helped him build goodwill with the next generation of investors. These are the investors who will be buying his holding company when it goes public. It was a smart business move that communicated to retail investors "I'm on your side." Really? Even Chamath wasn't thinking that far ahead or communicating that. Either he'll disappear 10 years from now or he'll be huge. There's no middle ground here with him. We've seen these shows before...they go one way or the other. Cheers!

I don't think that would be necessary. For example, he made it pretty clear at different times what stocks he was concentrating in...BAC & GM warrants, later Fiat, recently Micron Technology...I think an investor could have done very well just picking and choosing a few of Mohnish's more concentrated bets. Probably better than the overall portfolio in fact. That being said, I've only bought BAC at the same time as Mohnish...got into Fiat more for the dividends and special dividends (basically missed the whole Ferrari spinoff)...and didn't invest in Micron. Overall, alot of my ideas don't overlap with Mohnish's...I'm more of a plain, vanilla value investor...he usually takes a very holistic approach to an idea (I wouldn't always call it value). Cheers!

If you are a pure value investor, buying spawners doesn't work. Because generally spawners at some point in their early life will have inexplainable valuations that are generally too high for a value investor to justify. This is really more along the lines of thinking of Phil Fisher or Munger...buy disruptive or good businesses and hold them for long periods of time like BYD, COST, Geico, etc. I'm not sure the average investor who bases decisions around fundamentals could adhere to this...for example if I had something valued at 80 times earnings or 10-15 times cash flow, there is no way I would hold on. Mohnish is a constant learning machine and he tries to incorporate every great, new idea that he reads about...checklist, portfolio sizing, spawners, etc...but I find it's a hard and inconsistent way to invest. The sane intellectual framework of value investing fits me just fine and it doesn't change year to year...regardless of what the world is doing, what algorithms they are using, or what new fangled idea they may have! Cheers!

What sorts of claims do you anticipate? Property damage from frozen pipes, business interruption, or something else? Those types of claims can definitely accumulate, but I guess I really hadn't considered the possibility that the property damage would rival a modest hurricane. SJ It will only push premium pricing higher and prolong the bull market in reinsurance. Cheers!

No one could have done that role other than Jeff Bridges...maybe Matthew McConaughey...but that's it! Cheers!

Could very well be CVX...could also have been XOM. Both were quite low and attractive around the end of October. Cheers!

Foreign stock positions are not included in the 13F, so they may have added to positions in Europe, India, South America, etc during the market downturn. Cheers!

Yes, but his girlfriend is absolutely smoking hot and smart too! Cheers!

What was said? Rough version: Called in and told him he needed to step away, he wasn't paying attention anymore, and had lost his touch. Continued by saying that Prem didn't understand any of the companies he was investing in and wasn't doing any detailed analysis on microeconomics, his partners agreed but were Canadian so too nice to tell him, and the bankers were cowards not asking hard questions because Canada doesn't have enough good companies. Sounds like Sanjeev. Kidding!!! Ha ha!! I'm listening to the call now. Let me see who this twat was! Cheers! Don't know who it was, but you could tell that they have very little understanding about how much analysis goes on at Fairfax when selecting investments. I'm probably one of a very few handful of people who has actually seen the internal workings and spoken to all of the analysts, portfolio managers, core group in detail over the years, and does not work for the company. This guy has no idea what he is talking about! Cheers! I have no doubt that you are right. Or more accurately I flipping hope you are right! But in fairness to the questioner, Prem's explanation of his investments is always highly simplistic, and usually revolves around people not microeconomics. We think John Chen is great!!! We believe in Blackberry!!! We bought Exxon on a 10% dividend yield!!! You can get away with that when you're knocking it out of the park, but you have to assume people will question your thinking when you're not. In my view it would do Prem no harm to adopt a more structured, numbers-based approach to explaining his investment theses. 90% of people wouldn't understand. Buffett says he writes his letters in a way so that his sisters could understand what he's investing in. The other issue is that if you say TOO MUCH, then shareholders linger on every tiny word you've said. For example, Prem's said he won't short again...no matter how great the opportunity, or perhaps necessary to protect statutory surplus?! Investors would be jumping all over him again if he shorts. So it's a balancing act between enough information and not too much information. If people really want to know the depth of their analysis and thought process, come to our annual dinner in Toronto. They get very deep into it where they can, especially past holdings. Cheers!

ZM. Cheers!

Did you guys catch the bit on they are investing in mortgages? Did I hear that correctly? Was it mortgage or mortgage related bonds...? Low interest rates, are they looking for yield. Cheers!