Parsad

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!

I emailed Rob Carrick this morning at the Globe & Mail. He's already planning on writing about it and has contacted Francis. There are some decent journalists out there! ;D In regards to the Sprott or Chou comment, they are different types of managers. Sprott has better absolute numbers, but he also shorts a fair amount and will concentrate his fund in specific sectors. Take a look at his Canadian Growth fund. It's got about an 80% concentration in commodities! He also uses leverage from time to time. The difference between the two narrows considerably if they had the same constraints. And I haven't seen Sprott refund any of his management fees after the punishment he took in most of his funds this year as well. Cheers!

Francis has put out his 2008 Annual Report. Alot of good stuff he talks about in there. http://www.choufunds.com/pdf/AR08.pdf He refunded most or all of the MER in two of his funds where he was dissatisfied with the performance. How many fund managers have done that this year? None that I know of. He doesn't know what the market holds for us in the short-term, but believes that investors will be very happy ten years from now. Cheers!

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!

Thanks guys! Cheers!

The article is interesting from the point of view that FFH is starting to be sought out by the media. All it took was for FFH to: 1) become one of the highest earning companies in Canada, 2) get upgraded to investment grade And... 3) your three-year prediction of Armageddon for virtually every asset class outside of T-bills comes true! Cheers!

Article from today's Toronto Star. Cheers! http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/609732

S&P cut Mid-American Energy to BBB+ from A-. And the beat goes on! Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2DWp3iX15OU&refer=home

The list above has been updated. Please RSVP if you have not yet. Cheers!

Just to quell the rumors... In spite of my heritage, I am no tire deflating mafioso... (just bugging Sanj - I'm in!) I didn't even think about your Italian heritage when I said it. I was just thinking we could do it on the way to the Steak'n Shake in Pennsylvania! Perhaps, with respect to Prem's heritage and mine, we'll just throw "Butter Chicken" at Alec Scott's vehicle...or perhaps some really oily samosas! ;D Cheers!

That $4.16B number is either a mistake or a typo...perhaps $416M. Maybe Scott doesn't know how to a use a calculator and multiply the share price by the number of shares owned. :D Cheers!

I think the $2B comment is in relation to Fairfax's earnings in 2008, not his net worth. Am I correct in the context of the title? Cheers!

Outside of that lisp comment, I thought the article was balanced and fair...so I guess we'll take what we can get. Hell of alot better than those days when they were trying to pretty much lynch Fairfax. Cheers!

I don't think anyone cares whether he has a lisp or not. I'm pretty certain it doesn't bother Prem or anyone who knows him. Kind of stupid of the writer to say that. I spoke to the writer Alec Scott for 45 minutes and gave him some terrific quotes when he asked me about Prem: "Prem is a superb leader. At that time when those reports were coming out, it was really tough for everyone at Fairfax. Yet not a single executive quit. Prem has their trust because he gives them respect." "This isn't the first time he's made a call like this. If you go back and read the 2000 Annual Letter, you'll see he made one of the greatest market calls ever about technology stocks." "He's like an old friend or uncle when you meet him. It feels like you've always known him." "If there was anyone to ever take over the torch from Buffett as an investor, it could very well be him." "He's incredibly humble. Fairfax's office is like any other office. Nothing ostentatious." "If you ever get the opportunity, whether it is at the AGM or at Fairfax's office, you should meet him. He's a terrific human being." At the end of the conversation, he asked me if there was anything unusual about Prem or Fairfax. I said I've pretty much told you everything. He then said, anything you noticed or found interesting. So I said, "Well, they've got this room which is a library where they keep thousands of annual reports and articles." "Anything else?" "Um, his office his messy." "Messy?" "Yeah, you know like the absent-minded professor who has a pile of stuff on his desk. He knows where everything is, but it's messy. I keep a messy desk too, but I know where everything is all the time." "Oh, ok." "Ok, thanks Sanjeev. Somebody from the fact-checking department will get back to you." "Ok, thanks Alec." Guess which quotes they decided to use...the library quote and the messy desk quote. Nice! I never did get a call from the fact-checking department. Probably the first and last time Fairfax ever gives my name out for an interview! ;D When I go to Toronto, I'm going to find Scott's car and let the air out of his tires. Maybe Calonego can go with me! Cheers!

Toronto Life Magazine did a very good story on Prem and Fairfax. Cheers! http://www.torontolife.com/features/2-billion-man/

Hey Folks, These debates often can get heated based on the subject matter, and sometimes just on the minor difference in context in which individuals read the writings of others...I'm as guilty of that as the next guy! Time to let your cooler heads prevail on the subject. Next topic please! ;D Cheers!

I've never held a margin account, but does anyone know for sure if all of those account holders would get the proxy materials? Even if just two did, that would be an issue, but I'm just wondering if several of them would get the documents. Cheers!