MKL 是一只值得长期持有的标的；当前市净率为 1.2 倍，承保业绩改善与资本配置为其良好表现提供支撑。

There are two competitors in the arena. One of them, I think, is Markle, whom I took a closer look at, Jonathan. I think great days await Markle. But I don't want to be deceptive and say that it is.

I know that's good for headlines and such, but it's not .

You have a company that is being sold for 1.2 times its book value, which has missed out on a strong insurance market over the past two years. They were not skilled at issuing insurance documents, which is a problem for an insurance company.

But it seems they are changing course. However, they have a new person in charge of this, and so far the initial results look very promising. The percentage of combined losses is decreasing.

Or there is an active investor involved, Jana Partners, who are putting forward proposals that I think make some sense and some are less so, but he should ... The company is run by Tom Jenner.

He was rather stingy with his share buybacks. I think that in the future, he will be a little more aggressive. And if he does n't, I think Markle...will make their lives very unpleasant.

So, I think there are a lot of things I like. I think it could be a company you could keep for a long time and achieve very good performance. Will it be Berkshire Hathaway? No, but it might be a good stock.

How did they miss out on the strong insurance market ? What happened there? I mean, they haven't made a good effort to expand the issuance of insurance policies. They did not do well in increasing the volume of documents they were going to issue.

They entered the reinsurance business , which was a disaster. As you know, the only department that performed well was the international department, which is where the new person came from.

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

Or, to move forward, if they can reduce that aggregate percentage, which is essentially their profit margin, or which will increase their profit margin. Or they can perform very well over time, especially if they repurchase the shares at 1.2 times their book value.

In addition, they own industrial companies and some financial assets. They have a fairly good stock portfolio , and ironically, that's how it is. Or perhaps it's not paradoxical, as Berkshire Hathaway is their largest investment firm.

So, there are things...there's a lot to admire about this name. I think it's unfair to compare almost any company and say that it will be the next Berkshire Hathaway. But I think investors should take a closer look.

That was my question. How did trading perform relative to book value during the past period? I think they all went through 2020 and became less than their book value. Much less than the book value.

Yes, and I believe historically they are at 1.7 or 1.8 times book value. It was always slightly more expensive most of the time compared to Berkshire and Fairfax.

But the book value for them, I don't want to say it's misleading, but they have all these other types of business there. Therefore, it is difficult to necessarily consider book value as the correct multiplier, but if you can buy a profitable insurance company at 1.2 times book value and it can increase insurance premiums over the next two years, I think you will do well .

Do you think we will see an expansion in valuation there, or is this the fair value and you are just getting good underlying growth ? I believe you can never rely solely on the expansion of complications.

Ah, that would be the case, but I think you'll simply get better operational performance, you know , and better, and I think you'll get better morale, which will lead to a higher rating, but I do n't think you can rely on that as the sole factor.

You must have a good job that will continue to improve or continue to perform brilliantly and excellently.

How old is he? If you are a long-term owner and they are allocating capital rationally, you pray every day when you wake up that the price will go down to be cheaper. As long as they repurchase the shares.

Ah, you know, they weren't doing it aggressively enough, but yes. Ah, but if you have money to invest, then yes, you want your holdings to decrease until you are fully invested in the company.

How old is Tom Gaynor? I think it was in the late, perhaps I'm wrong, late sixties. Does this seem almost true? I think it is, I think it is smaller than that. I think it might be something like yes.

I do n't want to add any more years to it. Ah, it is, um, but, it is now, they also named it, oh, what is interesting is that Markel is not a controlled company either.

Um, Mark, in the last three years, is 63 years old. I mean, this, as you know, is within a five-year timeframe. Ah, sorry Tom, if you're listening. I, I, did not mean, did not mean to make you bigger than you are .

Um, it's not a controlled company . Ah, I think Steve Markel has just left the board, and Tom is now chairman and chief executive. I generally don't like these kinds of situations, but that's the reality.

But someone might buy this company. Um, you know, I don't know who, but you know, from what I understand, Japanese insurance companies, in conglomerates and insurance companies, have a big appetite for American insurance companies .

So, is this the investment thesis? No, but if stocks stay low , you never know. Yes, that's what will happen, but people might mistakenly think that this company is controlled by the Markel family.