StevieV

Where do you get the idea that they could sell PR for $200+ million? Chinese partner would presumably want a sale given that Obsidian isn't putting any money into the asset.

I agree with KKR. I would not put BRK on the list given the question. For BRK, I'm assuming we aren't taking a strict view of earnings, but more of a pick-your-value growth metric. Almost guarantee 10%+/year on average? I definitely would not say that. If I had to put an over/under on BRK for the next 10 years, I'd probably pick 9%. I wouldn't argue if someone said 10%, but that is more of a 50-50 proposition. Guaranteed 10+ - no way.

Well, me too.

I'd much rather that Fairfax keep their promise to avoid shorting and avoid any more disastrous short losses. Tempting situations like ARK puts would seem similar to what has gotten them in trouble in the past. I think simply avoiding shorts altogether is the right solution and also believe it is very important that they stick to their statements on the matter.

Thanks Spek and aws. Seems like there is at least some precedent.

There are definitely confounding factors, but at this point, the burden should be to show the interventions are effective. Given the costs of lockdowns, there should be large and obvious benefits. Where are they? Not in NY. Not in NJ. Not in MA. We shut down schools and there doesn't seem to be evidence that they are a significant spreader. Huge cost for many kids and families. Shouldn't we require at least pretty good evidence? Happens time after time that doom is predicted if the "right" policies aren't enacted, and it doesn't happen. The president called out Texas and Mississippi when the lifted mask mandates. Called it "Neanderthal Thinking." If that's correct, if the policy is so terrible and backwards, then why haven't we seen it (see link below)? Why hasn't removing the mandate led to bad results? I'm open to changing my mind, but this is how it has seemed to go through the whole thing. Best I can tell, policy choices matter much less than many people think. Maybe people like doing something. Maybe an illusion of control. IM on Twitter: "The President of the United States when Texas and Mississippi announced they were lifting mask mandates: That’s “Neanderthal thinking” Reality 5 weeks later: Hospitalizations in enlightened, progressive masked states Michigan, New York & New Jersey are 164% higher https://t.co/OsK3UztPza" / Twitter

As I read Gregmal's post, he is saying there is no clear correlation between lockdowns and mortality from COVID. He pointed to three states with high mortality rates and high lockdown rates (I haven't checked Gregmal's work to confirm, but I believe he is correct with at least NJ and NY). When I look at the numbers, I can see no obvious pattern. Lockdowns are a huge and costly action, not just monetary cost, but human cost. Such drastic action should only be taken if there is a big benefit. Lockdowns mean high unemployment. Small businesses shutting down. It means kids not going to school in person. That is going to have a negative effect on many kids for years, especially those who were already struggling to get by in school. Many people have been isolated and depressed. I expect a number of lives have been lost directly related to the lockdowns and overall an unfortunately high bit of misery.

I'd love to see BRK add a large holding like this, but my first reaction is that it seems very unlikely. Medline has hired GS. I assume they are chumming the waters by mentioning the PE firms. Also mention a price target of $30B. I don't know anything about Medline's financials other than the Wikipedia article says they did $11B in sales in 2018. Only one number, but I'd guess $30B is a rich price. Has anyone hired GS or similar to explore a sale and then ended up with BRK? I don't know. I wouldn't think so, but am open to correction. BRK seems to basically stick to their word about not getting into auctions. I guess the best hope for an acquisition of these guys would entail Medline establishing some type of price range based on the GS work, and then Medline using that estimate to take a price to BRK. Obviously, they'd only to that instead of an auction if they felt pretty strongly about being owned by BRK. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. I don't think this company announces the GS news and then ultimately goes to BRK. ----------- OT: For a company the size of Medline, the Wikipedia page devoted an unusually large amount of space to a $15,000 labor claim. About half of the entry for the $30B company was related to the $15,000 payout.

On GS/MS estimate updates, is there a pattern to when they have updated their estimates in the past?

Nice podcast appearance Safety.

I'll beat a dead horse with BB earnings report this afternoon.  BB run-up was a gift for those who took advantage and sold.

Wasn't Fauci specifically guided by the administration to play down Covid? And if people don't want to believe Fauci, how about every other health minister in every other developed country tackling the problem? Cheers! As I said upthread, I think there is good reason to be skeptical of health officials. They are subject to the influences of money, power, politics, condescension and plain old mistakes, and they've been wrong plenty. I don't dismiss what health officials and organizations say, but nor do I simply accept whatever they say without question. I think they've given people plenty of reason to view their pronouncements with at least a certain amount of skepticism.

That's right. First, Fauci said there was no reason to be walking around with a mask. He didn't say, please save medical masks for health care professionals. He didn't say, please only use cloth masks. He didn't say that we have to initially prioritize healthcare workers. He said, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. They may make you feel a bit better, but ... Then, the CDC made a mask recommendation. Then Fauci started recommending masks and gave the mask shortage explanation, which was different than the "no reason" rationale that he originally gave. Obviously, he now says that masks are useful. I.e., there is a reason to wear masks. His statements definitely changed. The quotes speak for themselves. Some people suggest that Fauci was being dishonest at first to preserve masks for healthcare workers. Maybe so. But, if so, when am I supposed to take Dr. Fauci at his word and when should I assume he is lying.

There was a mask shortage a year ago. Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder. It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game. "Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder." - That is only part of what Fauci and others said. The surgeon general said - "STOP BUYING MASKS" .. "They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching #Coronavirus ..." Fauci said in March 2020 - "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face." Fauci and the surgeon general's comments went well beyond simply stating that masks should be reserved for medical personnel. They definitely changed their public statements on masks. Maybe they changed their minds. Maybe something else. Regardless, it is not a gotcha to point out that their public statements on masks changed. That's what happened.

We shouldn’t be skeptical of health officials, drug companies and government? Huh. The same group that gave us trans fats for a couple decades. The group that touted the widespread use of opioids. The same group that has brought the public to unprecedented levels of obesity. Health officials like Dr. Fauci who caused a panic that HIV could be spread by routine contact. Like Niall Ferguson, an expert whose models are never right and can’t follow his own rules. Officials like Dr. Rachel Levine who sent COVID patients back to nursing homes, while taking their own mother out. Authorities that harmfully put too many people on ventilators early in the pandemic. We shouldn’t question it when officials say that Georgia and Florida’s actions were going to lead to disaster. We shouldn’t question lockdowns and masks though prior to the pandemic it was common consensus that neither should be part of the response to a pandemic like COVID. Even though you have to squint to try to see the effects of either among the states. Who isn’t changing their mind with evidence? How about people who want to keep schools closed even though children aren’t at particular risks and schools haven’t been shown to be big spreaders. CDC officials who say 3 feet of distancing is fine until teacher unions tell them they need to recant and say 6 feet. People who won’t even give any press to the only controlled real-world mask study we have. If you want to argue that people should take the vaccine, that is one thing. To suggest that skepticism is unwarranted and a bad thing, I can't disagree more.