Parsad

No, it's only a certain subsection of the industry. The ones that cow-tow to their hedge fund cronies, or want to eventually be proven right on something they wrote about 7 years ago, since most journalists are shitty businesspeople and investors...think Fabrice Taylor running Frank magazine into the ground in 9 months! He should have probably tried running a hot-dog cart first! ;D Cheers!

Reagan wanted lower taxes and lower spending, other than defense. Congress refused. Reagan went to the American people to get them to push their Congressperson. Congress still refused to cut spending but did strike a deal with Reagan to lower taxes. The economy grew as did the deficit. Are you saying you want Democrats to take ownership of the deficit or the growth? You can't have it both ways. Cheers! You're the one who wants it both ways...I'm not attributing any administration's success or failure to congress or the senate, but to their own administration. You want Clinton's success attributed to a republican-house, but not the other way around. Don't try and fit the facts to your own argument. The facts are the facts when viewed using a specific window or criteria...democratic presidents and their administrations have been more fiscally responsible than republicans. Whether they were good negotiators and compromised, cow-towed to the opposite party's control, or showed backbone to have their agenda passed...the numbers are the numbers. Cheers!

Judge backtracks on claims she brought forward against BAC two years ago...could be big! Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-26/bofa-wins-on-standing-of-countrywide-securities-investors.html?cmpid=yhoo

Republican "president". Singular, not plural. Eisenhower did it in 1956,1957, and 1960. He raised the tax rate to 92%. You are correct that there is one Republican President - Eisenhower. All three of his balanced budgets were under Democratic controlled Congress. There are two Democrat Presidents (Truman and Clinton). Truman had three budget surplus years (two of which were under Republican Congressional control the third was Democrat) and Clinton had two (both under a Republican Congress). By President it is 5-3 Democrats. By Congressional control it is 4-4. I would also note Republicans have balanced the budget when in control of Congress 4 out of 12 years since WW2. When Democrats are in control it has been 4 out of 46 years. I am not trying to be harsh, but to say that "liberals actually have more balanced budgets" is to either purposely mislead or to be ignorant of the truth. Are Republicans going to give credit then to Democrats for the Reagan era, as much of his presidency was under a democratically-controlled House? Of course not. You attribute it to Reagan...the great communicator! You can't have it both ways. Cheers!

I didn't read the article, so I may be off base, but the writer may have referred to the '93 budget under a Democrat majority. That would just show that the writer is a poor writer too. To reference legislation from six years prior to balancing the budget is irrelevant. Regardless Presidents don't balance budgets. It is primarily Congress that does. President's send Congress a budget proposal that they can either work from or ignore. Ultimately it is Congress that writes the budget. Thus the writer's whole analysis is based on a flawed premise. I think you are deconstructing the article too finely. The President and his administration create and submit the proposal to Congress...where it may be adjusted, passed or voted down. It also has to go through the Senate. But are you also going to give credit to the secretary and staff who had to type it up, the courier who delivered it, as well as the economists who came up with the numbers? Every time a budget is passed, a deficit or surplus reported on, it is almost always universally attributed to the President and his/her administration. To say anything else is just deflection. Cheers!

I thought Carney did an amazing job, and I was sad to hear that he was leaving. Cheers!

...Also, linking to an article that is not credible does not support your argument. The writer attributes the 2009 deficit to Bush. Bush cannot be responsible for Obama's stimulus. It also makes Bush fully responsible for TARP (yet liberals want to give Obama the credit for saving the economy and the auto bailout)... So out of all of those charts and evidence, these are the only two issues you came up with? Are you saying the rest of the charts and comments were correct? Fiscal restraint is lost on both parties. The reason for the rise of the Tea Party was that the Republicans lost their way. They would argue that Bush spent like a Democrat. When the liberal solution to a $1 trillion deficit is an $80 billion tax increase, it is hard to take them seriously as the party of fiscal restraint. The Tea Party wasn't the problem. It was the fringe that they attracted, who somehow devolved it into a sideshow carny act...with men telling women how they should treat their bodies...always a winning idea! Ron Paul felt like an outsider in the new Tea Party. I think you have a better chance of the government doing the right thing now, with the fringe licking their wounds and on the outside, then if they were left to tear up the country from the inside. Thank God...yes, I'm eliciting gratitude to an entity I don't believe in...simply because something or someone allowed the U.S. to step away from the possiblity that the freaks and nutjobs would be running the country! Cheers!

I like the last bit: "Are there other investments out there? Yes. Better than what's in the fund today? No." Do you think settling with MBIA may have negative consequences for BofA beyond the billion or two in extra money they will have to hand over to MBIA? I wonder if BofA will have to revise up their loss estimates for a lot of other outstanding litigation and add to reserves significantly. That was a good line indeed. I personally don't think it will have much if any negative consequences for BAC. I am long both BAC and MBI and think it's one of the rare cases where it's a win win for both. It's not often that you find such a David and Goliath situation where a loss by one party is such a gain for the other, but doesn't really cause damage to itself and in fact may help by delivering some "clarity" (to the extent that ever actually exists). I'm not really the right person to be asking this question though in terms of the specifics of BAC's loss reserves. I don't focus on the precise numbers. While a billion here or there is real money, in terms of the "story" it really doesn't matter to me. BAC is, in my view, in a relatively unique situation in that they just need to put these matters behind them. Whether this matter or some other matter costs them a little more doesn't seem to matter. The key to me is that the wagons have circled around the problems. It's not like it was even a year or 2 ago when the problems seemed endless. In general, they have their arms wrapped arond it and it's just a matter of executing. That's a big change. They seem to be on the path to clearing up their issues and moving to the next phase of things. Yes, I agree I think it would be win-win. For BAC it is a drop in the bucket and gets litigation behind them...more clarity for markets. For MBIA it is survival...nuff said! Cheers!

You do realize Berkshire is made up mostly of operating businesses now at this stage? That many of those businesses require enormous amounts of capital, which ultimately do employ tens of thousands, and probably hundreds of thousands over the next 10-15 years. How is expansion in MAE or the largest order of private jets in history at Netjets, not as effective as anyone else at creating jobs and wealth for this country? Berkshire is one of the largest public company employers in the world...that has a net wealth effect that trickles down ten fold. Cheers! And one of the biggest reasons for that is taxes! If citizens are clamouring to pay down the national debt, that isn't going to happen by itself. The funny thing is that conservatives always cry for reduced taxes to generate GDP through investment, yet liberals actually have more balanced budgets and higher GDP during their tenure historically. Fiscal restraint is actually lost on the grand old party when you look at the numbers. http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/05/democrats-v-republicans-debt-and.html I don't see Apple firing anyone because taxes may go up! That's old school rhetoric we always hear...they were the ones pushing for lower taxes for the last fifteen years, and they are the ones fighting any tax increases going forward. Yet the actual per capita wealth of those who will be most likely to carry a larger tax burden if Obama has his way, were the ones who actually made out the best over the last 15 years as well. Well, it's time to pay the piper! Cheers!

You do realize Berkshire is made up mostly of operating businesses now at this stage? That many of those businesses require enormous amounts of capital, which ultimately do employ tens of thousands, and probably hundreds of thousands over the next 10-15 years. How is expansion in MAE or the largest order of private jets in history at Netjets, not as effective as anyone else at creating jobs and wealth for this country? Berkshire is one of the largest public company employers in the world...that has a net wealth effect that trickles down ten fold. Cheers!

@SamAntar NYTimes: New Breed of SAC Capital Hire Is at Center of Insider Trading Case http://nyti.ms/Sk5fYi @SamAntar Memo to Mathew Martoma: Don't get fooled by your high paid lawyers. They will defend you to your last dollar. Give up Steve Cohen. @SamAntar Memo to Mathew Martoma: Your lawyers are selling you hope. They won't spend time in prison for your lack of cooperation with the Feds. @SamAntar Memo to Mathew Martoma: No amount of money is worth ten plus years in federal prison. Ask any inmate. Wow, Sam is the rat that everyone always knew he was. He's turning on the hedgies himself...trying to distance himself now! Cheers!

Not a very good or accurate article on Mohnish's investment in Chesapeake, but I thought I would still post it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ycharts/2012/11/24/whats-buffett-disciple-pabrai-doing-in-messy-chesapeake-stock/?partner=yahootix Cheers!

Here's another hack job article by Gretchen Morgenson on Fairfax and the IRS ruling regarding their past purchase of Odyssey Re shares from Bank of America. Fairfax's transaction was reported to the IRS by one of the hedge funds shorting it, who may end up with a "whistleblower" reward if the IRS decides to reopen the case and levy any fines. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/business/years-later-the-irs-questions-a-tax-deal.html?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0 So these assholes collude and naked short the stock, using unethical conduct and non-public information, and then report Fairfax to the IRS to possibly receive a reward. I love how U.S. securities regulators work! Fairfax sues their biggest target, who has bred a culture of deception, illegal trading and ill-gotten gains, yet they win the lawsuit against them and one of their minions can possible receive "whistleblower" payments. Geez! Cheers!

The inaugural Crohn's & Colitis Foundation "ICE Gala" in BC was a complete success! Led by the CCFC's Alison Obrecht, we raised over $100,000 for the Foundation. The food was terrific, and the live & silent auctions went very well. Thank you to everyone who donated, supported or attended the gala! The video "Lee's Story", which was first shown by Dr. Kevin Glasgow at our dinner this year, was also shown at the Vancouver gala. Lee's mother, Mimi Greenspoon was in attendance. She runs the Toronto gala which raised over $900,000 this year...something we aspire to get to at some point! I was about 15-16 when I first started listening to Canadian rock legends "54-40". They had just been signed by Warner Bros and had put out their first album. They were one of the formative bands I listened to during my teenage years and into college. For some reason, I had never made it to one of their concerts, so it was ironic that I finally saw them live over 25 years later at a CCFC event. An organization that I have come to strongly support, only after our friend JoAnn Butler passed away...who I only met because of my meeting with Prem Watsa and Francis Chou...who I only met after meeting Buffett! The chain of events in my life since that first meeting with Buffett constantly leaves me with a sense of gratitude and wonderment. My whole family attended...my Mom, brother, sister-in-law, her mother, Alnesh and a bunch of friends. "54-50" played for almost two hours! As the evening progressed, the 200 attendees whittled down to about 30 of us, and we were all going on stage and singing with the band. At that point, the band started really getting into it, as it was like doing a tiny backyard performance. They brought their equipment down to the dance floor, playing and singing amongst us, handing the mic off to each of us to finish a chorus! I've been to large rock concerts and those held in smaller, intimate venues...this was crazy...here I was singing and dancing with friends and family right around Neil Osbourne and the rest of "54-40!" For those of you in the U.S. who may not be familiar with them, they became pretty big on the college scene, but never took off mainstream in the U.S. One U.S. band covered one of their songs though and became superstars selling tens of millions of albums over time...Hootie and the Blowfish...go figure! Alot of people know "The Tragically Hip" as one of Canada's biggest bands, but "54-40" were better and more consistent...just never blew up around the world. Anyway, it was a terrific night, and I've included some pictures. Hopefully, more of you will be able to attend the next one! Cheers!

Divided loyalty is what will stop him. Is he more loyal to FFH shareholders who are bleeding capital from this purchase, or is he more loyal to his colleagues on the RIMM board? Personally, I was happier when it was 100% clear who he was working for. SJ How are interests not aligned? RIMM is a big investment for Fairfax and he's CEO of Fairfax and steps in to help RIMM. Thus if he helps RIMM, he helps Fairfax. The RIMM investment is a sunk cost. How do you get as much of your investment out of it now is the question, and that is why Prem is in there...at best he saves it, at worst some damage control. It's clear who he is working for as he is not CEO of RIMM. Cheers! As I don't hold shares of RIMM or FFH (or really follow them, other than what I read on here) I have a question. Any board fees that Prem earns, who gets them? Do they go into Prem's pocket, or, are they going into FFH as revenue, since the only reason he is on the board, is due to his role in FFH? Or, does he work on the RIMM board for free? Was Warren Buffett's director fees at Coca-cola going into his pockets or Berkshire's general coffers? Also, are their fees greater than their compensation or ownership at their respective companies, or significantly less? In Prem's case, his salary, dividends and ownership interest are all far higher than any compensation he receives from RIMM...not even close on any of those three metrics. In Buffett's case, his Coca-cola director's fee was greater than his salary from Berkshire...would you say that Buffett was compromised in any manner when he served on Coca-cola's board? The stick you guys are trying to carry is a bar held so high that hardly any CEO could pass muster over a long career...even Buffett would have failed the director's fee challenge. Cheers!

Divided loyalty is what will stop him. Is he more loyal to FFH shareholders who are bleeding capital from this purchase, or is he more loyal to his colleagues on the RIMM board? Personally, I was happier when it was 100% clear who he was working for. SJ How are interests not aligned? RIMM is a big investment for Fairfax and he's CEO of Fairfax and steps in to help RIMM. Thus if he helps RIMM, he helps Fairfax. The RIMM investment is a sunk cost. How do you get as much of your investment out of it now is the question, and that is why Prem is in there...at best he saves it, at worst some damage control. It's clear who he is working for as he is not CEO of RIMM. Cheers!

No, he definitely did not join to sell near-term. Otherwise he would not have joined the board. He's in this for the long-haul...whatever the final outcome. Cheers!

More on this from the NY Times: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49938192 Cheers!

They opened the first Cabela's in Washington a couple of years ago, and I went in there. As a Canadian proponent of gun control, I've never felt more uncomfortable in my life! That is until I put that sweet 9mm Remington in my hand...I kid, I kid! ;D Say no to guns. Cheers!

I don't know what else we can do to get Moore back to posting. We pulled out Sophia Vergara, as well as "Baramit". What else can we do? Cheers!

It's pretty good. It's a comedy though really, not some Oscar-winning drama or anything. I wouldn't rent it though. If you have it on Netflix or something, that's probably better. One of my favorite movies regarding stocks or the markets is "Trading Places", and I think the underlying social commentary was pretty darn good. It's a Christmas movie too, so it's always on around this time of year. Probably the best role Dan Akroyd ever had. Cheers! Check out "Margin Call" which is a fairly recent movie. Pretty good imo. Yes, "Margin Call" was quite good. Hell of a lot better than "Wall Street 2"...what a disappointment that was! "Too Big to Fail" was actually quite good too. Cheers!

Hope our U.S. boardmembers enjoy their stuffed turkeys today...or tofurkey's for our vegetarian boardmembers! ;D Cheers!

They had Romney in the news the other day. A photograph of him pumping his own gas...he looked exhausted. Already the Obama Administration is having a negative wealth effect on the 1%! ;D Cheers!

It's pretty good. It's a comedy though really, not some Oscar-winning drama or anything. I wouldn't rent it though. If you have it on Netflix or something, that's probably better. One of my favorite movies regarding stocks or the markets is "Trading Places", and I think the underlying social commentary was pretty darn good. It's a Christmas movie too, so it's always on around this time of year. Probably the best role Dan Akroyd ever had. Cheers!

No idea. He's just not posting as much right now. Cheers! Actually, I just checked...he's definitely lurking...just not posting. Moore, stop your lurking...you know you've got stuff to say! ;D It seems as though a bunch of our "Red State" board members are still licking their wounds and staying on the sidelines. Hopefully, they come back once the fiscal cliff is averted. Cheers!