Parsad

Nice of them to speak up, eh? Cheers! http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&data-ipsquote-timestamp=20110203&id=12870409

I am sure the Weiss crowd will only approve of Sam Antar as head of audit committee....LOL They're idiots. They went to the same school as Herb Greenberg. Cheers!

It looks like the CRTC has backed down, and the caps will be gone. Cheers!

I've known Sam for a few years now, and for those from this board that have had the privilege of speaking to him, know he's an absolute straight shooter. He's been great for Fairfax, and I can't see him not being great for Overstock.com. Glad he's on board. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Overstockcom-Announces-prnews-2464750710.html?x=0&.v=1

Agree with the general sentiment that there is differentiation in the customer base, but the base provisioning of the service is identical everywhere. By your logic, heavy users of the phone system should be charged more -- which nobody does anymore. The internet is little different from the phone system in terms of its geographic dispersal and the dispersal of routers and switches. I agree with you...it's almost at that point. But not there yet. Probably not for several more years, if not a bit longer. There are still areas of every city where there just isn't enough bandwidth. I have one of the best telephone, cable, internet packages, but it's still not fast enough. And that's because the capacity isn't there for peak hours of use. And I agree the regulation needs to be better. Either way, the world is far better off today with the technology we have than 10-20-50 years ago. I'm just amazed how humanity's mind works and the development of new technology...it's absolutely fascinating. Cheers!

Hi Omagh, I don't agree with the rates they plan on charging, but I do agree they should charge users. I would suspect with the CRTC looking into it, they will probably allow the ISP's to charge, but for a lesser fee decided by the CRTC on an annual basis. Not unlike telecommunication rates, etc. I don't want to be subsidizing the heavy users because they want their television or videos for free. Pay for use is the most equitable, although the rates should be reasonable enough to provide value to the user, and fair compensation to the service provider. I think the same should be applied to everything, including the healthcare system. Some costs for heavy users should be carried by the user. You take better care of your health, your costs are lower. You drive your car more carefully, your insurance premiums are lower. You watch less tv or download videos, your cost should be lower. Society would be better for it. Cheers!

My question was strictly about the #'s - did banks have enough capital prior to TARP to absorb their eventual losses? No. With the amount of losses that would have to be absorbed, they would not have met adequate levels of funding for their Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital. Thus their financing costs would have gone through the roof. That is if they could even get adequate financing, since there was a scarcity of capital. We were close to full blown mortgage/loan calls if bank liquidity had shrunk any further. You would have had huge runs on banks, including stalwarts like JP Morgan. They would not have been able to meet those demands and still finance their lending businesses. And we aren't even discussing counterparty liabilities that would have laid waste to many institutions. TARP was single-handedly the most successful tool implemented during the downturn. In my opinion, it is the primary reason we did not experience Great Depression 2. I don't give a rat's ass what the CEO of JPM or WFC might say about whether they needed TARP or not. They did. They would have fallen...maybe later than most, but they would have gone down. I disagree with Buffett. I don't think Berkshire would have gone down. It would have gotten hammered, but I think it would have survived...albeit with a barely operational A credit rating. Cheers!

It's really only an issue for heavy users. I'm on the internet all day and night, but I don't go on YouTube, Netflix or download very large files constantly. So it's not an issue for me. Really, I think the caps are good. Either that or go to a fee for use basis...amount of GB's of data for a set fee. That way those that are heavy users get dinged their fair share and the telecom companies can have adequate funding for their capital costs. This was the same sort of issue when the telecom companies here set caps for iPhone and Smartphone data users. Whereas unlimited plans in the U.S. are relatively cheap. I use my iPhone for a few hours each day, and I don't come close to the 500MB monthly data plan. Now if I was watching movies on my iPhone, that might be an issue, but I don't, so it doesn't bother me. Cheers!

I think the US stock market is substantially undervalued at this point. Even using a discount rate of 7% (rates are now 0%!) it still looks over 20% undervalued. Look at the Berkshire intrinsic valuator, it shows a conservative value of 100/ B share with a discount rate of 7%! At worst, we can say it's fair value but stocks don't look expensive at all. Greenspan did a very good, as scientific as you can get about the future so take it with a margin of error, analysis in his book, Age of Turbulence. His thesis was that in the 2020's, the long term bond rate would double say from 4-5% to 8-10% gradually. So even if that happens, stocks would not be particularly expensive given current prices and growth by that time. Scorpion, a discount rate of 7% is not adequate, regardless of where rates are. Use a discount rate that would be reasonable for the next 20-30 years...12-15%...even 18% if you want a significant margin of safety. There are certainly far fewer ideas that meet that 18% hurdle today, than 6 months ago, a year ago, and most certainly two years ago. I'm not completely bearish since governments can stimulate to their hearts content and keep prices going up for a while. But I'm cautious, and really looking at deeply discounted ideas. We're finding a few really good ones, but the general valuations have risen dramatically...especially for the businesses with the worst balance sheets! They've gone up multiples and there is always the possibility of another credit crunch, albeit significantly milder than the last one. Cheers!

When I see this, I get a feeling this is not going to end well. May be it is just me. No idea what will happen, but the best case scenario is that he creates a lot of wealth for himself and develops the type of reputation that I would not envy. Think Icahn versus Buffett. They both have their followers, but who would you rather be? Who would you want your children to be like? Beloved or villified? Cheers!

Although, I guess the Cleveland Cavaliers would prefer to have LeBron back...21 straight losses! First team to go from over 40 wins the previous season to 40 losses the next. Cheers!

It won't matter. The company is called Biglari Holdings. He owns all of 2% personally. Who cares about the other shareholders or franchisees! I remember that Berkshire AGM where a woman got up to ask Buffett a question, and she was apologetic and said that she only owned one B share. Buffett graciously responded "That's ok, because between the two of us, we control most of the company." Fortunately it wasn't Sardar, otherwise we would have heard "Mr. Buffett, I believe that Berkshire has too much excess capital, and I would like to forward a shareholder proposal to return some of that capital back to shareholders." Obviously, Buffett would say no, at which point a proxy fight would ensue...Buffett would be removed, Sardar would become CEO, Cooley would replace Charlie Munger, and Berkshire Hathaway would become Biglari Holdings...because most of those owners would want to sell their business to Biglari Holdings and not some insurance company. "He who thinks he can find in himself the means of doing without others is much mistaken; but he who thinks that others cannot do without him is still more mistaken." - La Rochefoucauld Cheers!

It's his way or the highway. Although I agree with uniformity across the chain. I just don't agree with driving some of your franchisees out of business. I think the coupon idea is stupid. No one has as great a promotion as "4 meals under $4" for the same quality burger, and that is the one that is really creating traffic, along with the happy hour shakes and new menu promotions like the guacamole burger, etc. You put in 25 cents of guacamole and charge a dollar more! Cheers!

Hi Oec, Yeah, I shut it down a few months after it launched. Not enough people exchanging "value investing" goods. I guess most people can already do that through Ebay & Amazon, or just by posting on here. Cheers!

I'm going to miss this guy when he's gone! Hopefully he gets better. Cheers!

Hi Nick, Just email me (cornermarketcapital@gmail.com) with the username you would like and I can change it for you. Cheers!

No, it just looks like they converted the partnerships to an advisory firm. Looks like it was to simplify the structure and have all of those partners operating solely under one firm with managed accounts, rather than Fund I, Fund II, etc. Cheers!

Steak'n Shake continues to do well. Investment gains and incentive fees boosted earnings for the quarter. Balance sheet remains solid. Cheers! http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/93859/000092189511000161/form10q07428_12222010.htm Cheers!

Well I hate it even more when a Philly fan agrees with me! ;D Regardless, I guess were both on top of the heap at the All-Star Break. Good luck to you until the playoffs, at which point I'm unfortunately going to have to spit into my palm before shaking your hand. Cheers!

Chou America Funds are now available through Charles Schwab. Cheers! Fund Beta Symbol Nasdaq Symbol Cusip Chou Eqty Oppty CHOEZ CHOEZ 170431100 Chou Incm Oppty FD CHOIZ CHOIZ 170431209

Sardar has written to the board of CAW and requested that he and Phil be added. They currently own only about 2.3% of the outstanding shares, so I don't know if it will work, as the officers and directors seem to own close to 22%! Cheers! http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/721447/000095012311006083/c11523exv1.htm http://www.ccaindustries.com/

Yup, Prem said the same thing when I talked to him. I think now with their size, and the sheer scope of their insurance business, they are in a prime position to exploit an area where alot of other people can't go. The private equity guys and hedge funds all overpay. Berkshire can't look at any business with less than $1B a year in revenue...really $5B+ if they want to make even a small dent. Markel doesn't have as much excess capital as Fairfax, nor is their team quite as wide and deep. Same with all of the other hedgies turned activist turned acquisitor. Combine that with Prem's leadership, handoff and delegate management style, honesty, integrity, ethics and long-term focus, they would be the buyer of choice for many people...particularly in Canada! Cheers!

Now that the first 25 years of Fairfax's history is complete, and they've created a formidable insurance business, is it time for the student to follow the mentor? In my opinion, I think Fairfax should now follow the Markel Ventures model and begin to acquire whole private businesses that most people would not be able to negotiate. - With Fairfax's history of "Fair & Friendly" insurance acquisitions, I think they would be the buyer of choice for private business owners who are too small for Berkshire and may not be as familiar with Markel. - They are so deep on the management front that this is a no-brainer. - Adding private businesses that aren't worried about quarterly reporting and regulatory hurdles at fair prices would diversify Fairfax's income stream. - Adding successful business owners would only strengthen Fairfax's bench. - Prem is getting older and succession will become a bigger concern over the next 10-15 years. - They have the capital and the investment team to dig up and acquire wonderful small private businesses. This is it Prem! Time to do it. Cheers!

Hopefully Prem is retiring some shares at these prices. I think they could nibble and retire a few of them here and there. Cheers!

Yup, that would be the goal. I don't think they are going to take an overly activist approach, but they will use the excess cash flows to buy other businesses. Initially, I think they will just try and get the Hooter's franchise humming. Really, if they can implement the managerial expertise at Texas Wings into the HOA restaurants, and expand it to the other Hooter's restaurants and franchisees they may acquire, then it could become a formidable restaurant chain with powerful branding. But first steps first. Cheers!