Parsad

New article this morning on Fairfax's investment in Abitibi. I have to go through Fairfax's old annual reports, but this is going to be a very interesting debtor-in-possession case study to watch, and probably the largest Fairfax has ever been involved with relative to its size. The largest newsprint manufacturer in North America, and can it be made profitable again in an industry in decline? Definitely one that the business schools need to watch and see how it unfolds. Cheers! http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/GAM.20090417.RABINEXT17ART1939/GIStory/

I think people will fill you guys in shortly, but we had Sam Mitchell, Francis Chou, Brian Bradstreet and Wayne Cadwallader come to our dinner. Brian was the surprise guest and stayed till well past 10:30 pm! Everyone had a fantastic time, and I can't thank the guys who came out and Fairfax enough for everything! I'll fill in some more details when I get back to Vancouver on Thursday night, including pictures from the dinner. Cheers!

No, it still doesn't open. I wonder if it is the hotel's ethernet connection that is somehow not able to connect. Cheers!

Are any of you guys having difficulty getting to Berkshire's website? Every time I try and go there, internet explorer tells me that it cannot display the webpage. Cheers!

No, but I would just bring your proxy card or your brokerage statement just in case. I've never had to present anything. Cheers!

Wells won't have any problems right now. The spreads are just too wide when paying deposits and lending funds. That spread will narrow over time, and then you may see some headwinds. But at the moment, they are at historic margins and banks will do very well this year. Cheers!

Stupid! Just plain dumb! I'm sure Massachusetts has their target at 9% annually. Cheers!

We bought a ton! We were so overweighted in financial stocks, that we sold our WFC shares at $17 after an 80% gain in two weeks...but we've still got our options. We bought heavily into financials through the end of February and the beginning of March. Cheers!

Looks like the SEC will try and implement some short-selling curbs. I'm not so concerned about short-selling as I am about naked short-selling, which is the real problem. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYOyiufVeHdY&refer=home

Anybody know anything about this guy Bob Dhillon, who runs Mainstreet Equity Corp. Somebody gave me a copy of a local community magazine saying this guy was the "first Sikh billionaire". I've read a few articles, seen a couple of videos of him on the internet, and read their annual and quarterly report. He seems like he's completely full of shit. This thing is so leveraged it makes the U.S. real estate companies look conservative. They've been losing money for the last few years. Mainstreet has a market cap of $96M, while equity is only $15M. They've got $355M in debt! I took a quick look at the most recent proxy circular, and this guy is milking the company for what he can in compensation, related party transactions and his termination clauses ensure he's taken care of for three years. I'm surprised that there are a few people related to the Richard Ivey School of Business on his board of directors. Something smells fishy here! Cheers!

Gurufocus does an interview with Mr. Eveillard. Cheers! http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=52565

Oldye, Just email me at sanjeevparsad@shaw.ca . Will you be there for the dinner? Thanks!

Thanks very much Mark! We'll see you next year.

With less than a week to go, we have 41 guests coming to the dinner this year. To date, the list of attendees includes: - Sanjeev P. - Alnesh M. - Andrew C. - Paul R. - Eric A. - Jim B. - Yuriy B. - Brian B. - Feidhlim B. - Stephen C. - Stephen C. (Crip) - Jordan C. - Marc C. - Vahe D. - James E. - Gregory F. - Stuart F. - Stephane G. - Leon G. - David H. - Simon H. - Gary H. - Tom J. - Charles K. - Alex K. - Stephen K. - William M. (possibly a guest) - Stefaan M. (possibly a guest) - Eng-Chuan O. - John P. - Norm R. - Al R. - E. San Pedro - Keith S. - Jeff S. (uncertain) - Nicholas S. - G. Van Arsdell - Jack W. - Ilya Z. If you haven't already given me your RSVP for the shareholder's dinner, then please do so. If you may be bringing a guest or were "uncertain", please let me know for sure over the next day or two. Details for the dinner are below: For the fourth year in a row, we will be holding a Fairfax Financial Shareholder's Dinner in Toronto. About nine people showed up the first year, and last year we had about 30 shareholders attend. For the last three years, Sam Mitchell and Francis Chou have graciously attended, where they have entertained questions from shareholders for over an hour. Many attendees left with sage advice that served them well through the volatility of 2008! Fairfax Financial Shareholder's Dinner Tuesday April 14, 2009 Joe Badali's 156 Front Street West Toronto, Ontario (416)977-3064 Drinks: 6:30pm-7:00pm Dinner: 7:00pm-9:00pm RSVP: sanjeevparsad@shaw.ca Cheers!

Wade may actually be able to work for free now anyway! ;D I'm sure he's done very well for himself since he's been at Cundill. Cheers!

Wade is very good as well. Pretty amazing how talented that pool is and it will get deeper over time. Prem has a very good eye for talent! Cheers!

I believe that is an April Fool's joke, but the actual Primerica business model is very much in line with other multi-level marketing businesses. Berkshire already owns one...The Pampered Chef. I think much of the negativity around Primerica is due to the cult-like sales force and their efforts, and the comments from many of their competitors. But the ROE at Primerica is around 17-18% historically, and the upper management is actually full of fantastic leaders. How do I know? I used to have a mutual fund and insurance business through them. I was terrible at it...the sales side...but I learned what I liked and disliked about the financial industry through them. It was directly through them that I understood what an awful business the mutual fund industry is, as far as the individual consumer is concerned. As well as the incestuous relationship between fund companies, their dealers and brokers. It's why I ended up going on my own and starting my own company and funds. I've always thought that Primerica was actually the jewel in the Citi crown, as well as the Smith Barney investment bank business. Before Primerica, there were alot of really crappy whole life and universal life policies floating around. The industry realized that and made their product more competitive. I think it would be an ideal business for Berkshire to own, but I would hope that their funds would become an in-house value product. Cheers!

Hi Rk, That's been on hold for a few months now...they are going quarter by quarter and seeing how the credit markets are. The three parties still want to consummate the deal, and they are under contract, but spreads are just so wide that financing is very, very expensive. A few months earlier and this deal would have closed with no problem. Until credit markets start to loosen, financing is not cost-effective. Cheers!

Eric, You need to take a break from posting. Stop for a week and then come back. You are totally overreacting to something. No one here gives a heck what this discussion is about...neither what you are saying, nor what I am saying. They are here to discuss investing, and this is a waste of energy from everyone's perspective. At this moment, your emotions are obscuring that. As I've already said, all I was trying to do was get you to stop the arguments between you, Oec and Jack. They've stopped, but you keep going. If there is a missing post, or I've said anything to insult your standing with your peers here, I apologize. This is not my usual self...normally you would be gone by now, because the sheer amount of time spent on this is not what this forum is about. I'm asking you to do something different than what you are currently doing. Take a break, and come back. Thanks.

Eric, That quote you are referring to, it is very possible that I did delete it as I was trying to end the running argument you, Jack and Oec were in at that point. Thus I posted to leave it and move on to the next topic. But you didn't, and eventually you messaged Jack. On several occasions I've asked you now to leave the subject alone, yet you continue to post on it. Notice how neither Jack, nor Oec continue the discussion. If you've taken offense by anything any of us have done or said, then I apologize. I don't know exactly what anyone else's intentions were, but I was simply trying to get you guys to stop. Then you suggested that I was picking on you. If you think that was the case, then once again...I apologize. That being said, if you decide to leave, then that is completely your choice. Everyone is a grown adult here. People have to act with a certain level of maturity. To let things go. I think everyone appreciates your efforts and posts. I think there is alot we can learn from one another. Good luck to you! Cheers!

Thanks Smazz! I just found a way to lock topics. Cheers!

The word "using" is exactly the word I used publicly before the two of you called me out for contacted him offline. Therefore, in no way was I attempting some underhanded campaign offline. It was merely using the precise word that I used publicly in a message to OEC. It is exactly because of my high ethical standards that I am trying to clear this up -- it bothers me that your first instinct was to mistake me for a lowlife. It truly bothers me! That wouldn't be the case if I was guilty of malice. Dude, you shouldn't have contacted him regarding that stuff in the first place. This is a friggin' message board for God's sake. You're like 40 years old like me. Why would you bother asking him that? Incidentally, I didn't call you out. Jack posted the original perplexed post, and I just made a comment that all users should debate with each other in the open: Folks, The PM service is there, but please do not use it to contact others after a debate. You clarify positions in the open board and say what you have to say. The private message system is there for people to network only. Thanks! You then decided to pursue the issue. And I'm almost certain you will have something to say after this post as well. If not, then great we can all move on to the next topic. Cheers!

Lest I be misunderstood, I'm asking him to post it because now you are saying I was bashing somebody. People can compare what I said privately to what I said publicly and determine for themselves whether you are right that I am being malicious. Eric, bashing may be a bit strong, but you were clearly suggesting that Oec was using Jack, and then asking Jack how he felt about it. It's just not a useful way to spend your time is it? It's just a pointless exercise that won't give you any satisfaction, and serves no value to anyone. Anyway, here is the original message you sent to Jack, which I requested a copy of last night, due to his original perplexed post. Please let's move on from this whole subject. At the same time, I would also ask Jack to just tone down the posts. Some of your posts come across a bit acrimonious...if not a bit hostile. Thanks! Jack, You spent a good amount of ink explaining to me that OEC wasn't being hostile. He let you continue with this for quite some time. In the end, he basically capitulated and said "yeah, but considering how hostile your 'sandbox' comment was, you can't complain about my comments". This is essentially him saying, "sure it was hostile but I didn't cast the first stone". The explanation of the sandbox misunderstanding by nodnub confirms that it would indeed have pissed him off... prior to that, I was wondering what could possibly be wrong with this guy. Then at the end he thanked you for backing him up! It sounds to me like he was intentially getting his digs in due to a perceived slight about kiddie play in a sandbox, but let you go on and on about how proper his intentions were. Did this make you feel used? That's all I want to know. I'd be pretty annoyed if I defended somebody for a long time, only for him to admit guilt in the end. Your mileage may vary. - Eric

Afraid I'm going to disagree with you in saying I lacked "common sense". What is the name of that feature again? Dude! You contacted him privately to bash another member. In that you are asking him if he felt used by the other boardmember. That may not having anything to do with common sense, but it sure as hell was immature. Leave it alone. Like I said, next topic please. Thanks.

Sanjeev, I've re-read the Terms of Use, and there's nothing in it that clarifies the terms of using PM. As long as the PM follows the terms of use for the general board (no vulgar, hostile, SPAM, etc...), I think it should be used for anything that the sender deems private. Kawikho, just because something isn't in the Terms of Use, doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate one's actions. Eric didn't say anything particularly negative or bizarre, but I'm asking that people use the PM feature for positive exchanges rather than negative. Otherwise, the feature gets turned off across the board. Cheers!