Parsad

Excellent article on corporate governance. Thanks to Shane for sending it to me! Cheers! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/the-heartbreaking-but-all-too-common-downfall-of-xyz-corp/article1847711/singlepage/#articlecontent

Guy is one of the nicest people you will ever meet! Just an absolutely terrific person. Cheers!

There's interest from a couple of producers and big labels. He's the best friend of my cousin from Seattle, and I've watched him grow up for the last ten plus years. I talked to him about four years ago, shortly after starting Corner Market Capital, about doing what he was passionate about and to find good mentors to emulate. At the time, he was just writing some music and rapping with a couple of friends. I related my own story about Buffett, Prem, Francis, Mohnish, et al. That he would find success doing something he was passionate about, but the hardest step is to just take that first one! It seems he did just that! He and my cousin were in Vancouver for the last few days staying with me, and he showed me everything he had worked on and the album he produced. He talked about the network of people he's gotten to know and how fortunate he is to be doing what he loves. That video was produced by Marty Martin, who was creative director behind Microsoft's Windows 7 video campaign...thus the high product value and quality of the video. Anyway, keep an eye out for him. I think he will do very well! Cheers!

My friend is an up and coming singer. He recently produced his first music video that has been received really well. Enjoy the video and buy his album on iTunes! Cheers!

to be fair, people like me werent usiing the word depression we were saying then, what you are saying now: That's what you were saying Smazz, but there were a number of people who thought we were headed back to the lows of 2009. Cheers!

Article on Joliet and the first Dairy Queen. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Joliet-makes-site-of-1st-apf-2017933478.html?x=0&.v=1

I was trapped in 3 different airports and forced to watch CNBC. It seems like everyone and there mom has gone crazy for stocks. I am enjoying the rally like everyone else, but believe its time to cash in some chips. Our situation in the US is improving, but our problems are real. They have been sweep under the rug in my opinion and its hard to walk around the house without tripping if you have a lumpy carpet. The Economist even ran a few articles on the Jan 1 issue questioning the recovery / bullishness. Thoughts? Well a few months ago I was arguing that we weren't headed for a Depression, when everyone else pretty much thought we were, and now I'm not nearly as optimistic as everyone is becoming. The deleveraging process is not easy, and it will take time. But the numbers clearly show that a modest recovery is occurring. How robust can a recovery get with rising commodity prices, stagnant real estate prices and high unemployment? I don't think a drop in market valuation is imminent, but I don't think 2011 will be as fruitful as 2009 and 2010. We are in a pretty conservative position in both funds. Be greedy when others are fearful, and fearful when others are greedy! Cheers!

As many around the world have started to celebrate already, Happy New Year to you all! Cheers!

The board of Fremont could be held liable for failing in their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value if they don't entertain Sardar's offer now. He's got Dunning between a rock and a hard place. If he gets it for $31, then that's a fair price. Chances are he's going to have to up it to $32-34 now that they know he is willing to pay. Cheers!

As I read the comment from Parsad, Parsad is speaking from a strategic standpoint not from a valuation standpoint. I referenced both...strategy and valuation. It's never a good idea to up the ante when you are paying fair value. Plenty of people renegotiate a purchase price, but I've never found it useful to bid up your own offer. He should go buy Kingsway Financial or some other insurance company. Fremont is a decent business but by no means a superior insurance business. While Kingsway was a lousy business, they've made a lot of progress and he could probably get it for a steal. sorry about grammar and typos in previous message - lack of sleep. I'm guessing that Philly loss to Vancouver...restless nights! ;D Point - I may be the only one outraged, but I think this is truly disgusting what FMMH's board is doing. No, I was equally outraged when Dunning used a member of Congress to guarantee job security. Although, if I was a shareholder of FMMH, I would be equally concerned about Biglari getting a hold of me now too! From the frying pan to the fryer! Cheers!

In the tech bubble fundamentals were non existent. In the real estate bubble supply vs demand balance was off. Currently gold is fundamentally sound( Us money printing) and supply is low. Supply is only low relative to speculative demand. Tim McElvaine had a terrific chart showing global gold demand and supply in his September Letter: http://mcelvaine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2010-We-are-here-30Sep.pdf Supply on a current annual basis far exceeds utilitarian demand. The current price is purely speculative based on fears with global economies. We saw what happens when fundamental supply exceeds demand with natural gas. There is no reason why gold at some time in the future will not return to a more rational level as fears diminish. In the US, we face a tough, tough dilemna. We want to provide good health care to seniors, and it comes at a giant cost (economic). Really, enough to bankrupt the nation. But how do you tell a senior that you (the government) won't pay for their life extending medications. Political suicide. Can't be done. So we rack up bigger and bigger debts. The only way out is to print more money. That is my opinion, but I don't see the alternatives. So the dollar will decline. As Prem says, when too many people start thinking the same way, that is a time for concern. I'm concerned! ;D Cheers!

Interestingly enough, B.J. Kang, the FBI Agent who really spearheaded these investigations early on, also comments on the case. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-29/u-s-prosecutors-in-new-york-charge-winifred-jiau-with-insider-trading.html

Gold is indeed in a bubble. How long and how far it goes, I don't know. Just over Christmas weekend, I found out that one of my cousin's sold some of her gold jewellry to a friend. The friend decided he wanted to create another source of income for himself, and is buying and selling gold and scrap gold. This guy has no clue what he is doing. The same sort of thing was happening right before the tech wreck and right before the collapse of the housing bubble. When the common man becomes interested in an idea, it certainly is by no means a unique idea any longer. I remember a friend who lost 80% of her nest egg by buying all sorts of bloated technology stocks in late 1999 and early 2000. I know several people in the U.S. who have lost nearly everything because they were leveraged and had several rental properties with large mortgages. Now I'm meeting alot of people, even on this board, who think that the U.S. dollar will be worth much less while gold will continue to increase. It all reeked the same at their corresponding times. But there was no convincing anyone of that. Both times there were people telling Buffett & Munger how this time it was different. Yet it wasn't. It could be three weeks, three months, or three years...I have no idea. But I think investors holding gold today will find themselves at the wrong end of the bargain. But hey, I thought "rap" was a fad twenty years ago and I've been proven wrong! ;D Cheers!

The letter was simply to force the board's hands. Either deal with us or your shareholders will eventually deal with you for not maximizing shareholder value. Now that the letter is public, Fremont will have to at the very least give an answer. There is a difference though. People sell to Buffett because they wanted to, not because Buffett kept upping the ante. Same with Fairfax...Prem will increase the price from any tender offer if he doesn't get the shares needed, but only modestly if he needs to do so. So far, BH's offer has gone from $24.50 to $29 and now where...$32...$34? If he's paying with stock, it won't matter as BH stock is overvalued. But if he pays cash, he's paying too much. Cheers!

I think this is just nuts! It's the same criticism that people had over the previous share consolidation...to get the price into triple digits, rather than create any benefit for the company. They may have removed a tiny number of shareholders holding very few shares, that's about it. This time, it looks like he's creating the dual class shares to retain control and not dilute the ownership voting structure, if they used shares to acquire other companies. Also, this letter to Fremont is ridiculous. Buffett never went in and re-negotiated an offer. He made one and that was it. Sardar is now saying that they would entertain a higher tender offer for Fremont. In effect, he's hurting the potential return to his investors. You can't mimic Buffett and expect the same returns, when you are paying up for everything you are buying. There's other insurance companies trading for cheaper and the owners would probably entertain a reasonable offer. He should just go buy one of them, instead of bidding up the price of a company where the CEO is as determined to retain control as Sardar is at BH. Cheers!

I told you my boys are coming after yours! Twenty-two years of frustration against the Flyers on home ice were demolished tonight. See you guys in the finals if you make it there, otherwise I'll say hi to Sid for ya. ;D The Cup is coming to Vancouver in 2011! Cheers!

haha. that picture is awesome. you guys(myself included) are all such nerds (in a good way, of course!). Yup, I'm one of the biggest. But those two guys in the picture are even bigger nerds! ;D Cheers!

Cheers!

Immigration Policy should not be based on charity, or political correctness. The existing citizens of a country deserve to have its government properly vet every potential legal immigrant to make sure they will not be a burden on society. If the immigrant is not skilled and has no money they will become a financial burden. Who pays the bills: free healthcare, free education, food stamps, etc, etc??? The productive citizens of the country pay the tab. How is this morally correct??? It didn't hurt the United States over the last 100 years...in fact it probably helped foster the United States' growth. It certainly hasn't hurt Canada either over the last 20-30 years, let alone the last 100. Cheers!

Lots of luck on moving to Canada. Instead of accepting immigrants who are well educated, are familiar with the culture, speak perfect English, and have a significant nest-egg of capital, we instead prefer to select refugees and family-class immigrants who often have no education, speak neither English nor French, find the culture alien, have no money and have no prospect of economic success. But, it does make us feel morally superior to select these inferior immigrants... Perhaps you should rather think of Mexico or Thailand? Wait a sec! That would probably be appropriate if you were building a country based on non-egalitarian values, but I sure as hell hope we aren't. We had a large influx of immigrants come into BC in the late 90's from Hong Kong, and while most have immensely added and built upon what was already here, there were many who brought along their spoilt brats who had no idea what the value of a dollar was or what hard work is. Many of these brats were living in monster houses, driving Ferraris and weren't working. Did they consume and drive business? Sure. Many left Hong Kong because they were concerned about the handover to China. Now that business is good and the Chinese have embraced free-market economics, many have repatriated back. Bye-bye Canada...hello China! I'm not sure there is much generational longevity in this type of immigrant. Many of the poor refugees with less than perfect English you speak of, who are eagerly optimistic about their future here when compared to where they came from, have and will continue to contribute back to society...my grandparents did, so did my parents...as well as most of the other immigrants I know of who have come here. For them, this isn't a pit-stop or a marriage of convenience. They are truly looking for a better life for themselves and their children. Usually the first generation are the ones who come here and struggle...the ones with less than stellar English and a small amount of money. The 2nd and 3rd generations usually receive higher levels of education and give back to the country far more than the first generation ever consumed. Are there bad apples? Sure. Can we do better? You betcha! But I don't want to base that decision on the dollars in their bank account or the sound of their accent. My favorite movie of all time is "It's a Wonderful Life"...how fitting, since it's shown regularly at Christmas! ;D Anyway, there is one sequence in the movie that I absolutely love, and covers what I'm discussing. The scene revolves around the protagonist, George Bailey, whose father runs the town's savings and loan. George's father has died and the town's wealthiest individual, who also happens to own the bank, says that they should close the Bailey Savings and Loan due to all of the "riff-raff" it lends to: George: Just a minute –– just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You're right when you say my father was no business man. I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I'll never know. But neither you nor anybody else can say anything against his character, because his whole life was...Why, in the twenty-five years since he and Uncle Billy started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right, Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me. But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter. And what's wrong with that? Why...Here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You...you said...What'd you say just a minute ago?...They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait! Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they...Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about...they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community." Cheers!

That is so funny! I sent that joke to all my Hab friends. Bronco...we're no slouch either. We're coming for everyone this year. We will take the cup! Forty years of futility will be forgotten. Cheers!

My memory might be incorrect, but Sanjeev didn't you object to the short selling ban? I think you reasoned that legal short selling is okay -- but my point to you is that one can't have legal short selling without a LENDER of shares. You implicitly said that LENDING is okay when you said that legal short selling is okay. Eric, When did I say short-selling was bad? What I said was that you guys lending your shares, in companies that were under attack and had numerous fail to delivers, only helped those creating the naked short sales in the first place. Your shares were lent to someone...you don't know who...and they could have simply been running reset transactions so that their fail to delivers disappeared. Take a look at the HCM/SEC case below. It's a good example of who may have been at the other end of the shares you were lending. Yes, there are numerous legitimate transactions, but I'm talking about the lending of shares of companies that were specifically targeted and heavily shorted, with numerous fail to delivers before Reg SHO was strictly enforced. Cheers! http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2009/34-60441.pdf

From what I understand some people were motivated to go the naked shorting route in order to get around the high borrowing costs... lending them shares helps bring the rate down, thus less need to naked short. That's like saying it's ok to do something unethical, because indirectly it brings down the cost for everyone. Yet what is the cost? Take a look at Fairfax...the naked shorts made it difficult for them to refinance if they needed to issue shares...same with Overstock. Dendreon was almost completely wiped out...how would that have been fair or good for society? The question is: Should investors participate in a rigged game, simply because it's legal? Obviously the answer is no. Saying yes would only compromise the integrity of the system and that hurts everyone! Cheers!

Hey, but naked short selling really doesn't exist, does it! There are certain value managers, including Buffett, that I wish did renounce the behavior of naked short selling. Instead, they just said that there are as many people guilty on the long side, which I thought was a bit of a cop-out. Wrong is wrong, and naked short-selling was just plain wrong. We never lent out our shares of Fairfax or Overstock, even though we were contacted several times by our institutions to see if we wanted to lend the shares. It was just unethical...regardless of the interest rate people were willing to pay. Unfortunately in this world, if it's legal than it's ok. I don't buy that. If it feels wrong, then it is. Simple! You don't know who was borrowing those shares, and who they were re-lending to. I didn't want to help those people in any way. Cheers!

Looks like they settled for $4.4M from a couple of the brokerages, while they keep the pressure on the others. Cheers! http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1130713/000110465910063091/a10-23820_18k.htm