Markel is a good long-term hold; trading at 1.2x book value with improving loss ratios and conservative but potentially bolder buybacks supports future performance.

Markle is a name we know very well. Is it the next Berkshire Hathaway? no. I mean, I think it's an attractive investment. I believe there is only one Berkshire Hathaway. I think Markle has a bright future ahead of her, but I don't want to be disingenuous and say that she is...

I know that's good for headlines and stuff, but she isn't .

You have a company whose shares are trading at 1.2 times their book value, and it is a company that has significantly missed the insurance market over the past two years. She wasn't good at writing insurance documents, which is a problem for any insurance company, but it seems she's starting to improve.

Yes, they have a new person in charge of this task, and so far the initial results look very promising. The ratio of losses to profits is decreasing.

It is run by Tom Gaynor, who has been somewhat conservative in share buybacks. I think he will be bolder in the future. Otherwise, I think Markle and Jana will make things very difficult for them.

So, I think there are a lot of positive aspects. I think it could be a company where you can hold shares for a long time and achieve good performance. Will it become like Berkshire Hathaway? No , but it might be a good stock.

How did they miss the tough insurance market ? What happened there? I mean, they didn't do a good job of developing their business, you know, in issuing insurance policies. They did not improve the number of documents they intended to issue.

They entered the reinsurance field, and it was disastrous. As you know , the only department that performed well was the international department, which is the area from which the new manager comes.

So, they missed the train, and that's the reality.

But in the future, if they can reduce their loss ratio, which is essentially their profit margin, thus increasing their profit margin, they may perform well in the long run, especially if they repurchase their shares at 1.2 times their book value.

In addition, they own industrial companies and financial assets. They have a stock portfolio that has performed reasonably well , and ironically, or perhaps not ironically, Berkshire is their largest investment. So, there is a lot they like about this name.

I just think it's unfair to compare it to almost any other company and say it's going to be the next Berkshire Hathaway. But I think investors should take a deeper look.

How has Markle's stock traded compared to its book value over the past years ? I believe they all passed 2020, as their value fell below their book value. Yes, and I believe that historically the price-to-earnings ratio was 1.7 or 1.8 times its book value.

Yes, the price-to-earnings ratio was rather high most of the time , compared to Berkshire and Fairfax.

But the book value of their shares is a bit misleading. I do n't want to say it's misleading, but they have other types of businesses. Therefore, it is difficult to necessarily consider book value as the optimal multiple, but if you can buy a profitable insurance company at 1.2 times its book value, and be able to increase insurance premiums over the next two years, I think you will achieve good results.

Do you think you will see an increase in the company's value, or is it just a fair value with good underlying growth? I think you can't rely solely on doubling profits. That may be possible, but I believe that operational performance will improve, and the overall situation will improve, which will lead to an increase in the company's value.

But I don't think that's the only criterion. You should have a good business that will continue to improve or perform excellently.

If you are a long-term owner, and they manage capital rationally, you wish every day that the value of the company would decrease. As long as they are buying stocks, they haven't done it quickly enough, but yes.

But if you have money to invest, you want your stake to decrease until you are fully invested in the company.

How old is Tom Gaynor? I think it was in the late sixties, maybe I'm wrong. Is this correct? I think it's smaller than that. I think he might say: I do n't want to give him extra years.

Ah, but now...they've also appointed him...oh, the interesting thing is that Markle is not a controlled company . Markle...the last of the three...is 63 years old.

Ah, it's not a controlled company. I believe Steve Markle has just left the board, and Tom is now chairman and CEO. I generally don't like these situations, but that's the reality.

Someone might buy this company. Well, I don't know who, but as I understand it, Japanese insurance companies, or rather conglomerates and insurance companies, have a strong desire to acquire American insurance companies.

Is this the investment hypothesis? No, but if the shares remain low, no one knows what will happen, but some may mistakenly think that the Markle family controls this company, which is not true .

If you would like to get some free reports, I believe they are available on Madison Square Garden Sports and Markel.