Carson Block: Well, I mean, rather than going for the bare minimum that IFRS requires, I mean, why not provide transparent, enhanced disclosure to be very investor friendly? I mean, that’s, obviously, you can do the bare minimum, but why leave it there?

Prem Watsa: So, Mr. Block, just for your information, we’ve taken a lot of time to go through the allegations you’ve made. We’ve made the point very clearly that we will not tolerate false and misleading information. That’s the reason we’ve taken time to explain all of that to our shareholders. And so we appreciate your question. Next question, please.

This response is fine, although I would have liked it more if he had just said that Fairfax had responded to all the accusations, and that its book value marks meet the standards of IFRS reporting and are validated by its external accountants, but that for competitive reasons, the company does not publicly disclose details beyond legal requirements, just like all its competitors who also do not provide such details on every transaction. No need to say they won’t tolerate such questions - they have done more than tolerate them, they have reviewed their accounting and answered all the questions patiently and thoroughly, and there is no advantage to the company or to its shareholders for them to reveal even more.

But anyways, I guess the market has pretty much spoken, discounting the Muddy Waters accusations.

But given the positive financials for the quarter, I am a bit surprised the share price remains at around $1000 US now, with the company plausibly expecting $150 earnings for both 2024 and 2025. $1000 is about 1.1x book, compared to Berkshire’s ~ 1.5x likely year end book, but book value gives no credit to Fairfax for its relatively huge float, and with combined ratios solidly under 100 now, I think today’s price is still a great opportunity for Fairfax to use its cash flooding in to substantially reduce its share count.