Parsad

Cara Goldenberg, of Permian Capital, was invited to dinner by Warren Buffett after she sent a letter. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601108&sid=aYWu1wIwp2vQ

Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, disagrees with Henry Paulson's recollections of certain conversations he had and are included in his new book. Interesting what Paulson's response to this is...hmmm, my memory may be fuzzy! Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZzcAxzDhlPo&pos=7

Story on Willmill & Company's Tom Winmill and his Midas Fund. I know there were some folks talking about Bexil recently. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=abSHodgpVd9I&pos=10

I know that people are on both sides of the fence when it comes to Patrick Byrne, Judd Bagley and Deepcapture.com, but I thought this podcast was quite amazing! Not long ago, Judd Bagley who runs antisocialmedia.net "friended" a bunch of journalists on Facebook under an alias, and found that many of these journalists were friends with various analysts, hedge fund managers, etc. This is nothing new. I had seen that John Hempton and Joe Nocera were Facebook Friends in the past, and I've seen other relationships between analysts and fund managers. We've all already seen the emails John Gwynn had forwarded to Kynikos regarding Fairfax. Judd subsequently released a video discussing these relationships, and all hell broke loose! Suddenly, all the people Judd was trying to tie together went public with various attacks, including that Judd had put their children at risk, that he was a pedophile, etc. Some of these guys were Gary Weiss, Sam Antar and Barry Ritholtz. Ritholtz was invited to a radio talk show to talk about his book, but planned on talking about Bagley during the interview. The radio interviewer decided it would only be fair to have Judd on there as well to respond to anything Ritholtz accused him of. Ritholtz tears into Bagley and pretty much calls him a pedophile on the air. When the interviewer brings Bagley in to respond, Ritholtz bails after vehemently crucifying Bagley on the air. Not just slowly dissipates from the air, but this guy runs! This is the type of excrement that Byrne is dealing with. I know that there are plenty of people who disagree with the way he's pursued this, and at times I've wondered the same, but this is the low-life scum that exists out there and is helping to manipulate stock prices. A must hear...Bagley does a very nice job setting up the whole scenario. Cheers! http://www.deepcapture.com/podcast-barry-ritholtz-tale-of-two-media/

Hi Partner, I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately just like with Fairfax, it does matter. Berkshire's cost to finance their debt, including debt issued by MAE or Berkshire Hathaway Finance will go up marginally. If more credit rating agencies follow suit, those costs could increase a bit further. Over time, it does make a small impact in intrinsic value. Hopefully, various aspects of Berkshire will start firing on all cylinders and cash will start flowing back like before, and at that point the credit rating agencies will come back to their senses. In the meantime...Cheers!

Janet Tavakoli responds to Taleb's comments: http://www.cnbc.com/id/35331360 Cheers!

Interesting article about how Burlington Northern, Buffett and Calpers are working on reducing congestion for freight and commuter cars in Chicago. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aOLsZCyllcdo&pos=11

Fitch downgrades Berkshire to AA-. A couple of things we've seen lately with Berkshire...derivatives bets, splitting the shares and now the loss of Berkshire's pristine AAA rating. Things that are very un-Buffett-like based on what we've heard over the last decade. Cheers! http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN1017630620100210?rpc=44

I've watched it religiously since the beginning. One of the best shows on television, although at times they've really overcomplicated the story. I still think the two-hour pilot episode was one of the most exciting television shows ever made. And the music score and production value...they really make the show! Ok, back on topic! Cheers!

Lenny Dykstra is in the investment biz again. Now he's got a subscriber newsletter. Soon I'm sure he'll open a private valuation firm like Herb Greenberg, or perhaps a fund of funds like Ron Insana. Maybe a church like Peter Eavis, or more likely a guest columnist for Fortune or the WSJ! Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/35301124/

The fact that Taleb's comments about Soros and Buffett discuss statistical evidence should let you know exactly what you are dealing with. Buffett doesn't make many bets. In fact, how many bets do you think Buffett has made in the Buffett Partnerships and Berkshire since starting? Say ten a year for 50 years...maybe 500 material bets with capital. And what has his batting percentage been on those 500 bets? I would guess 90% or better, since Munger has said Buffett has never lost more than 2% of capital on any investment. How could Taleb or anyone else believe that batting 0.900 is not luck. It's beyond the realm of understanding for economists, no matter how smart they think they are. Cheers!

I hate to disagree with some members of this board because i have the utmost respect for their opinions, but the "split shares and I'm gone" concept seems to be a bit of an elitist position. Not everyone is a fund manager or can afford to own thousands of shares. When I first started buying Berkshire B's 12 years ago, I was not a fund manager, but someone scrimping and saving to buy each share. There were multiple options for me to put that capital elsewhere, where I could buy more shares for my money. But after reading Buffett's letters, I realized it was nonsensical to do that. Fairfax's shares today aren't out of the realm of even the smallest investor. Twenty years from now, they may be at $2000/share or $3000/share, which is pretty much where the B's are today. To buy stocks like Berkshire or Fairfax, you have to grasp what their CEO's espouse and the culture they've developed. You bring in a very specific group of investors...more knowledgeable about the right things and loyal to that culture. Unfortunately, by splitting their shares, Berkshire is now going to bring in a less desireable group of shareholders...something they had already done once by bringing in the B's and splitting the A's. More liquidity means a more diverse group of owners. Some may prefer that because it reduces the gap between intrinsic value and market price, but I'm of another group that believes you sacrifice the quality of your shareholder base...and not by a little bit, but by alot! Cheers!

The financial post did a video interview with Vito Maida, who runs Patient Capital and used to work for Hamblin-Watsa and Trimark. Part I: http://www.financialpost.com/video/index.html?category=Financial+Post&video=_NGQPaFjVR4EyolDreA4BP30dBlAvZ9i Part II: http://www.financialpost.com/video/index.html?category=Financial+Post&video=_NGQPaFjVR4EyolDreA4BP30dBlAvZ9i Cheers!

Article on Buffett speaking to employees of subsidiary CTB. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aylIZmWocStg&pos=2

SEC will consider implementing short sale curbs. Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/35256184

None, other than selling out of WFC at 18-21 after over 100% in gains in the shares and 250% on the options...still don't think that was a mistake, as we were being cautious. We did very well in 2009 with hardly any errors of ommission or commission. Our distressed debt portfolio shot the lights out, our equity positions were rock-solid or provided significant gains, and we averaged out of alot of positions as the values rose dramatically so that we have plenty of cash on hand right now. We're in fantastic shape for 2010! Cheers!

He knows that he won't react well to criticism, so he doesn't even read the final manuscript before it's published. When it goes on sale the smelly stuff hits the fan and gets all over his wife, his daughter, his sons and their families. They say "Warren, don't have any thing to do with that hateful woman." The result: "Sorry, Ms Schroeder, Warren's not available. He can't take your call. ... No, I'm sorry, he can't take your call next week either. Goodby". Exactly! I think the stuff that probably impacted Warren wasn't the stuff about himself. It was the way his family was portrayed, and so he decided to stem the pain that he had indirectly inflicted upon them by giving Alice full access. Buffett was fair game in the biography...I don't think his family was. Cheers!

Hi Dazel, In that clip from yesterday, some investor called him on that early in the show. I'm thinking to myself, so what is your "model" telling you now that you decided to buy gold? Cheers!

But he did, and continues to do so... in his own (very powerful) way. Yes, she found a few peanuts with their shells on in her Peanut Buster Parfait, and her Geico premiums were eerily higher this year. ;D Really, why would Buffett risk reputation to get back at Schroeder? I would guess the negative stuff he's doing is that he's probably told all the people he knows not to talk to her about him, his family or Berkshire. It was his mistake in the beginning to grant her that access, and now he's doing what he can to prevent it from getting worse or ever happening again. Cheers!

There is a new way to sell books nowadays. It creates a longer tail for your works. You write a book and then you blog and tweet and get on cable tv so as to stay in the public eye. when they see you they google you and find your web site and find out you've written a book. the more controversial you can be the more traffic comes to you and more eyeballs to see that you have a book. Jeff Matthews was perhaps even more calculating about his book. He showed absolutely no interest in anything Berkshire or Buffett related but is a good writer. What better way to have a long tail as an author than to become an expert at Berkshire Hathaway and Buffett? You hit on a very good point Peter. I always wonder how all these folks write books on investment analysis or building the next Berkshire Hathaway without ever having done so. Buffett seems like the only qualified person to write a book on such a thing. Just like Prem would be the guy to write a book on how to build the next Fairfax Financial. I don't mind Alice's book, because she didn't take that stance...she wrote a book about Buffett the person. I really like Andy's book because he wrote it solely on the history of Buffett and Berkshire. Poor Charlie's Alamanack also is basically an ode to Munger. They aren't purporting to be anything more than they are. But there are alot of books floating around these days that are written by people who haven't got a clue what they are talking about...throw in the word Buffett, Berkshire, value investing or the sort, and you've got a nice little cash cow going and something to try to give yourself some credibility. It's a whole industry now...Buffett should try and buy it! Cheers!

Tim, I fully agree with your comments. My question, and the question that I think alot of the current critics have, is why all the interviews constantly discussing Buffett's state of mind or emotional needs? It's clearly laid out in the book, and then in subsequent articles and interviews. But it seems as though it's become the primary framework for many of the discussions she has now. Also, Schroeder the analyst had a very different view of Buffett when she was on the outside. Could it be that depending on what relationship you have with Buffett, your perspective of the man will be very different...not unlike a husband or wife's perspective of their spouse, relative to the perspective of a co-worker or employee. Thus naturally you will have people who are critical of either perspective. Buffett sounds exactly like any other individual I know...they have their public life and they have their private life...they have successes and they have failures in both parts of that life. Cheers!

Folks, I changed the title, as it was a bit too racy. Cheers!

It's funny, you guys are usually so rational when it comes to investing, but yet when Warren Buffett is mentioned, that rationality just goes straight out the door and you go into "Hero-Worship" mode. What's even worse, is that when there is criticism, it's shouted down, after all, who knows better than the "Greatest Investor of All-Time"? Balling, it has nothing to do with Buffett. She's the one who writes, discusses the book, and comments on Buffett's demeanor towards her. Have you heard Buffett say anything? She wrote a book on Buffett that exposes all his strengths and weaknesses. She knew she could alienate him by writing everything and she did so. I liked her book, at least after the first 100 pages, but she knew what she was getting into. At the same time, she's garnered untold fame and fortune from doing so. Now, the subject of her book is displeased with certain portions that were very personal to him. My problem is why does she always address any problem Buffett has about something by saying he's needy? Has Buffett said anything at all about the book or Schroeder in public? Nothing, not one iota. If he's so needy, don't you think he would have just lashed out at the book or its author at some point to fulfill his needy emotional side? It's in check...a professional...something Schroeder should show a bit more of. Cheers!

The day Prem splits the shares, I'm selling. It sends the wrong message to investors regarding market price and intrinsic value, and really you end up diluting the shareholder base. In Berkshire's case, the split may have been a good idea (not because of the small Burlington shareholders), but because the Gates Foundation is keeping the stock artifically low with regular selling. The added liquidity from the shares issued in the Burlington deal, along with the share split, should allow BRK to trade a little closer to intrinsic value and move a bit more freely. Cheers!

Thanks Matt! Cheers!