Parsad

Always interesting to see what brands or businesses have become extinguished, while some remain within cult-like status among small groups. Cheers! http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/10-brand-names-gone-but-not-forgotten-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6846398

How fitting that Buffett acquires the Omaha World-Herald. After years of reading it, watching copies of it distributed to his shareholders on AGM day, and numerous articles of his successes documented in it, who else would make sense to buy and preserve the paper than the greatest investor of all time...a hometown boy who built his fortune delivering it! Buffett's life comes full circle. Extraordinary...simply extraordinary. Cheers!

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I was being sarcastic. Oh! ;D Cheers!

The article is here: http://tinyurl.com/8y9we5b They all pretty much got taken down a notch. I suspect BAC knew they were possibly going to be downgraded with everyone else, thus the sale of almost all of their stake in China Construction Bank. Cheers!

Mr. Parsad, if you turn this thread into a debate about LVLT, who is going to ban you to The Island of Misfit Toys? By the way, that's on television tonight. My favorite line is "Bumbles bounce!" Cheers!

I don't know about Boucher, but all I can say is that Prem and Wilbur Ross won't sit idly by if the bank is put in any sort of jeopardy by mismanagement. Who knows, they may already be working on replacing Boucher or adding directors to the board. We don't know, so these are probably questions people can ask at the AGM or dinner. Cheers!

Many of you have heard of the Jetman, but here he is now flying in formation with Breitlings pilots. Very cool, and once again, amazing what humanity can dream up. Cheers! http://www.jetman.com/?page_id=24

Carl, last time I checked LVLT was down too! Maybe the shoe shine boys should stick to shoe shining. ;D Cheers!

They are still saving, just not at the pace immediately after the contraction. Low interest rates, combined with lower commodity prices, also suggest that pressure on the consumer has stabilized. Even in a low-interest rate environment, there is some stagflationary effect on the consumer due to higher taxes and frictional costs, but they are reducing their debt levels while increasing savings. If all the consumer did was save, then we would be facing greater headwinds like Japan with contraction in private sector job creation. Instead, we are facing the opposite situation...the private sector is hiring in droves. Not enough to fully impact unemployment yet, but it is getting better slowly. In regards to debt declining due to defaults and writeoffs, it doesn't matter. Whether the consumer pays or institutions pay, it comes out of the economy. Financial institutions have been conservative in their loan loss provisions. They have the capacity to absorb some of those loan losses with their balance sheets as strong as they are. The consumer is in more of a fragile state, as their greatest source of equity, their homes, have dropped 50% in value. If I had to choose whose debt load decreases at the moment, I would choose the consumers...be it through default, writeoffs, restructuring or payment. The sooner they deleverage, the better it is for the economy long-term, and in particular, for the housing market and housing related industries. Cheers!

I guess Prem and his IT team need to add another tab in the "Corporate" section on their website that says "Non-Insurance Companies"! I want to see William Ashley and Prime on there. ;D Probably add a couple more booths for them at the AGM as well. Cheers!

Consumer debt has fallen for 12 consecutive quarters. Daniel Gross writes a good article showing how consumers are, one way or another, tackling the accumulated excesses from the past. Cheers! http://tinyurl.com/6m2d4yw

I would just like to add a word of caution about this offer. Unless you know of it's legitimacy, please do not subscribe to the offerring, as it asks for plenty of personal information and a direct transfer of your shares to the Computershare account. Be very, very careful! Cheers!

Yes, a fantastic interview with Guy! One of the nicest and most eloquent investors you will ever meet. Cheers!

I would agree. Cheers!

HRJ Capital, run by two former San Francisco 49'ers stars, is being investigated by the SEC. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/sec-said-to-investigate-firm-run-by-49er-legends-lott-barton.html

Yup, as I said, they settled for some piddly amount. They just wanted their pound of flesh because they got outbid. Two entire non-insurance businesses now within Fairfax. Keep them coming Prem! We'll have plenty of questions at the dinner and AGM. ;D Cheers!

There are a few other differences: - The housing market was also valued about 75-100% higher than it presently is. - Financial institutions were leverage 15-1, not including off-balance sheet leverage. - Consumers were net spenders, now net savers. - Jobs were leaving the U.S...now they are slowly returning. - Cash balances within corporations was a fraction of what they hold today. - Correlated risk between financial institutions was enormous...now somewhat regulated within the U.S. - Oversight of largest financial institutions in the U.S. is heavily monitored. Lots of issues to be dealt with, but the U.S. is in far better shape than many of its counterparts. Europe on the other hand is going through exactly what the U.S. went through in 2008, and they work far slower with more hands tied. They will need to take a lesson from Bernanke, Geithner & Paulson. Cheers!

A step in the right direction. They need more provisions to hold each other accountable, and not a strategy that would take months to implement. Cheers! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577062592535969680.html

The shops were overflowing in Vancouver too! So many retailers here tried to hold their own Black Friday sale. Cheers!

Wouldn't that imply diworsification for the company? In the case of Dell, it is already in storage, services, service & networking, software, mobility and desktop PC's and sells all of that to Large enterprises, SME's, government and consumers. Seems like adding even more would only detoriate margins that are being built up right now or would make the company lose focus on what it is doing best. How is it not agreeable then to simply invest excess capital in your own company at such valuations. Am I missing something obvious here? Let me know, I appreciate the replies a lot! No, that's usually the excuse boards and shareholders use, because there are plenty of examples of good companies buying shrimp farming businesses...think Coca-cola! But the ultimate job of any CEO is to generate the best returns possible for shareholders by managing the business soundly, ethically and honestly. No where in that mandate does it say they cannot enter other lines of business. Look at what Markel is doing, or Fairfax...or how about Marmon, the Tisch Family, etc. Eventually, large scale businesses like Dell or Microsoft are going to either run out of options, or run into brick walls in regards to their own niche. So either you buy back shares, pay a dividend, enter new lines of business or allocate capital into totally different industries where you have a much better return on invested capital. All those optiions should be considered, and capital allocated to where the best risk/reward comes from...not simply fall back on share buybacks and dividends. Cheers!

I don't know anything of significance about Sears Holding so I can't comment there. What would you suggest Dell does with $16b in cash & investments (would be $18b+ without buybacks from this year. Even more if you at the last few years) if they can't find an opportunity? A dividend? At these valuations share buybacks just seem more tax efficient to me. They are only deploying what is coming in and the pile of cash stays about the same. If needed there will still be plenty of cash left for an opportunity (that may never come?). If I'm correct you have a position in MSFT. Do you agree with their buybacks? Just to get an idea of where you are at. I'm one of the few guys who thinks that if the corporate CEO doesn't have alot of opportunities in their own niche, and they seem like reasonably smart guys, then they should look at buying other businesses. You allocate the capital to where it generates the greatest return. But that would be too sensible a thing to do, and most boards and shareholders would scoff at the idea. Instead they want to issue tax inefficient dividends or share buybacks when the discount in the price isn't adequate. Well, we don't want them throwing money at just anything, and if they can't find anything better, they should just buy back their own company's shares...goes the argument. Not my cup of tea! Cheers!

Moore, thanks for the response, but my question was a rhetorical one. ;D Cheers!

In other words, Cara is not going to match the offer from Fairfax. They will settle for some piddly amount instead. Happens all the time. Cheers!

BAC may top JPM's investment bank revenues brought in during the 4th quarter. Cheers! http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=59eff117-cd9e-429c-9df0-be2424390c59

...to buy cocoa futures! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-24/chocolate-binge-topping-100-billion-boosts-cocoa-after-slump-commodities.html You get hedge funds popping up to go long or short on just about anything...be it Target, drinking water, other hedge funds...how long before we see this one. Incidentally, how the hell do these guys raise money for such things anyway? It's hard enough raising money for just a plain, old, vanilla hedge fund! ;D Cheers!