Parsad

I would not be surprised if it was BYD, as Munger also has a huge portion of his wealth invested in it. But I still don't understand BYD and cannot fathom putting that much into it. Cheers!

LOL! Nice. By the way, I don't think it's DELL either, because he told me I'm going to take it up the butt on that one...to put it nicely! ;D Cheers!

$700M deal...$5.40 per common, and $4.40 per warrant. Will work out very well for Fairfax! http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/thebrick-leonsfurnishing-idUSL3E8MC0Z720121112?feedType=RSS&feedName=mergersNews&rpc=43 Cheers!

Both Indirectinvestor and I tried to pry it out of him over dinner, but to no avail. Indirect thinks it is a company that some of you would be familiar with, and in fact it has been discussed in the "Investment Ideas" board...yes, I know that doesn't really narrow it...but he's pretty confident that is it. I on the other hand can't see that being the idea, but have no idea what it is...I don't think it is BAC, even though BAC makes up a very significant portion of the Pabrai Funds. Go to work my minions! ;D Try and give it a guess, and eventually we'll see who had the correct answer. Cheers!

The bulk of his net worth, and pretty much all of the incentive fees he has earned over the years, is in the funds, but Mohnish had money before starting the funds too. Also, I believe he and his wife have retirement accounts outside of the funds, and any college funds/trusts for his children are outside of the funds. So that is probably the capital he refers to when he talks about his family's investments. But for all intents and purposes, I would guess at least 80% of his money is tied up in the funds...interests are definitely aligned with partners. Cheers!

Jaime Dimon interview on CNBC. Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/49762930

So a couple of updates regarding the events around Fairfax's AGM next April. First, many of you will be happy to know that Dr. George Athanassakos is doing his conference again this year. It will the morning and afternoon before the Fairfax AGM, and is tentatively set of the Fairmont Royal York. George will release details later, and you will be able to find them on the Ivey site: http://www.bengrahaminvesting.ca/Outreach/conferences.htm Second, NormR's pre-dinner event will be held also at the Royal York. We have the Railcar Bar set aside specifically for his event, and the new name of the annual pre-dinner going forward is "Norm's Fairfax Cocktail"! Details will follow as we get closer to the event. Lastly, our Fairfax Financial Shareholder's Dinner has moved from the Tudor Rooms to the Ballroom on the Mezzanine Level, as the Royal York was able to create space and fit us into that room. Tickets are selling quick, so make sure you get yours. Cheers!

Thanks to Shai for the link to the article: http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/11/08/warren-buffett-read-all-about-him/ [amazonsearch]Tap Dancing to Work[/amazonsearch] [amazonsearch]The Oracle Speaks: Warren Buffett in His Own Words[/amazonsearch] Cheers!

It wasn't the short-selling or being wrong. I couldn't care about that. It was the unethical way he went around spreading misinformation in the media, calling large shareholders, feeding information to hedge funds, etc...60 negative articles by Peter Eavis in a 9-month span? Herb Greenberg, Fabrice Taylor and others he pushed to write stories? John Gwynn releasing analyst reports early to shorts? It was coordinated and he was the prime individual in the whole thing...initiated, instigated and fueled. Cheers!

You're probably correct. Notice the change in tone of both parties already. Cheers!

He was also calling large shareholders telling them to sell their shares, feeding information to numerous journalists who would write hack stories, and was alledgedly dismissed from one of the firms he worked for. http://www.deepcapture.com/introducing-john-hempton-the-plunderer-from-down-under/ http://www.deepcapture.com/the-word-on-thestreetcom/ Peter Eavis features prominently in several documents acquired through discovery in the Fairfax case. The earliest mention of him appears in an email dated July 10, 2002, in which John Hempton told Rocker employee Monty Montgomery “I have Peter interested” in his belief that Fairfax Financial was a fraud. Later, short selling hedge fund manager Jim Chanos refers to Eavis as John Hempton’s “guy”. I guess it's ok to just excuse someone's unethical, borderline criminal activites, if he writes a great blog and has great returns on his fund for two years. Cheers!

Fairfax is going into the real estate business with some flair! I think they should just acquire all of KW and bring Bill McMorrow in house. I hope Bill comes to our dinner this year, because I think our guests are going to have plenty of questions. Cheers!

To 12 states so far. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/got-sauvignon-amazon-com-starts-154703077.html;_ylt=AkLG7goDrLZ0A537KldMqf6iuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTRwNHMza2hkBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIFRvcCBTdG9yaWVzIG1peGVkIGxpc3QEcGtnAzliMjA5NDJjLWFkODYtMzI0ZC1hODNhLTA4MDQ3MTBhNDBkNQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDTWVkaWFCTGlzdE1peGVkTFBDQVRlbXAEdmVyA2IwMWVhZTAwLTI5YmItMTFlMi1iZjlmLWFmZjcwYmQwNzAyOQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

As suggested by finetrader. Commodities (and the worst one like ATPG and I sold OSTK for this crap) And VXX Doh! Alertmeipp...after everything we've been through, you sold OSTK? Don't worry, we all have rough years, but it's a marathon, not a sprint...except for Ericopoly who will be out of the game in 2015! Cheers!

What a friggin' joke! He's one of the speakers at the Spring VIC in Vegas. That distaste from listening to Chanos and Herb Greenberg at the first VIC call Fairfax a fraud, just came back...I've never attended since, and never will. Cheers!

A chip off the old block! I agree...Munger is probably very proud. Cheers!

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return. Schloss is clearly a superinvestor. It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return. Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor. By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well. Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player. So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other? Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined. By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc. What is average, good and great to you guys??? This doesn't look too super. :P http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX That's exactly what I said above Paul: If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category! If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category. Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors. Cheers! In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour. If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours? The argument just doesn't jive. I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin. Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients: - If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? - They pull money right at the bottom almost every time! - They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough! - They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments). - We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent! That being said, I love the business. I love what I do. And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital! Cheers! Ah, I didn't read enough into your definitions there. My bad. You bring up some valid points with regulation, client redemptions, etc. So, you guys think that Buffett, who coined the term, would consider this guy along the lines of his crew? Most of the guys he was talking about were at 10%+ vs the index. Personally, I think we throw the term around too much. "Superinvestor" should be something special. I'm too passionate about this stuff, I think. haha I would argue that if you are working a ton and you didn't beat the market by a really good amount (say 5%), you are the opposite of a superinvestor. Hard work means squat if you can't beat an index that you play in after fees. And you better do it be a good amount if people are gonna call you super. If I started a fund and just invested in a small cap value etf and didn't tell anyone, I would be called a superinvestor too. For what it's worth, I would say this guy is a really good investor. Not exactly great, or super though. Put it this way. Van Den Berg's record is almost as good as Peter Cundill's, and Buffett said that the type of manager that they would look for at Berkshire would be like Cundill. So are they superinvestors? You'd have to ask Buffett. Are they great investors, good enough for Berkshire, and probably outperform 99% of fund managers over the long-term...most definitely! Cheers!

That's what Ben Graham did, and that's what I'm hoping to do myself! ;D Cheers! I hope you skip the part about dating your dead son's gf. :P No kids...it's all good! Cheers!

That's what Ben Graham did, and that's what I'm hoping to do myself! ;D Cheers!

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return. Schloss is clearly a superinvestor. It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return. Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor. By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well. Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player. So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other? Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined. By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc. What is average, good and great to you guys??? This doesn't look too super. :P http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX That's exactly what I said above Paul: If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category! If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category. Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors. Cheers! In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour. If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours? The argument just doesn't jive. I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin. Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients: - If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? - They pull money right at the bottom almost every time! - They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough! - They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments). - We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent! That being said, I love the business. I love what I do. And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital! Cheers!

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return. Schloss is clearly a superinvestor. It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return. Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor. By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well. Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player. Yeah, I don't think Kraven could have explained that any simpler. If I buy the Denver Broncos, does that make me one of the greatest quarterbacks ever like Peyton Manning? If I invest in Berkshire Hathaway, does that make me a superinvestor like Buffett, because I achieved the same results as him? Big, big difference! If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category! If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category. Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors. Cheers!

Hi A_Hamilton, Yup, I received your payment. You are good to go! Cheers!

Yeah, Racemize that must be it. Click on the arrow and that section will reappear. Cheers!

Should be just under your username when you are logged in: "Hello (username)" Show unread posts since last visit. Show new replies to your posts. Both the unread posts and new replies should highlight when you hover over them, and then link you if you click on them. Nothing has changed and no recent updates. Cheers!

It's not that he doesn't like Jack Welch. He's just interjecting in a debate and trying to enlighten...kind of like how everyone on here does! ;D Cheers!