Subject: Re: Berkshire Valuation v Fairfax Financial
I had brought up Fairfax simply as an entity to consider for a diversified portfolio, nothing more nothing less. I have owned the stock since the mid 1990's and the returns have been sound. The stock became a cult in the late 1990's and of course it would have made sense to sell but as is the norm I simply held on. Then we had the macro bet years when Prem literally lost his mind.

Things have changed and Fairfax in my view is underwriting and investing soundly. Insurance underwriting will be as it has, surprises will develop. But those with long term experience who have shown both successes/failures and survival at least have some evidence for the outside passive investor to monitor and use for investing or not.

I'll pull back from my further thesis of Fairfax as it is quite opposite of those here and having someone come on board writing in the parent ego state of lecturing whether it is return on equity or insurance underwriting is simply painfully boring and superficial for me to read. Obvious things may need constant re-stating, but they are not what I come to the board to read.

We can, I guess, discuss CarMax and Dollar General. CarMax has been discussed for years here and DG is on the same path. Before that we had a financial marketing firm to discuss but apparently it failed to deliver although appearing cheap and constantly got cheaper.