Parsad

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!

With all the 'know thy client' rules out there now --- how does someone like this become a client without being aware of the risks. What is a 75-year old investor doing with his life savings exposed to the market -- particularly if he has a short term purpose for these funds. I own a small bit of Tims fund --- when I signed up there was something in the documents that said 'I could lose ALL my money' ---- it was not in small print either --- very bold. There was also some bolded out language that stated to 'read the document'. If after the fact this 75 year old still signs on what can you say --- he was prepared to take the risk just like anyone else. Informing the client of the risks before hand is very controllable. Not all investors have the same investment acumen or emotional constitution. The "Know Your Client Rules" are a joke! Virtually every questionnaire is standardized with a few simple questions, and millions of investors each year get into products they probably shouldn't. When I play hockey on Monday nights there are still a lot of guys that don't wear face shields - I don't know how informed they are but if they were --- they certainly are doing so at their own risk. And so am I by simply playing the game. You can't control all the hazards but you sure can control the information. If one of those guys playing with you gets hit in the eye with a puck, you're not going to tell him "you should have worn a visor" while he's lying on the ice writhing in pain, thinking he may lose his eyesight, right? There are alot of investment managers out there looking their clients in the face, many of whom are close to retirement, and telling them that eventually markets rebound. Sound advice, but probably not much help to those clients. The point I was making was with your theoretcial ten-year 20% note bought in the 1982 period and the 3x pe's available at the time that Buffett was also buying. I just pointed out that during this time he also bought or added to KO -- and I would guess that the return over 10 years probably beat the 20% total return on the theoretical note. 10 years later would have been around 1992 --- so the KO investment could have cumulated tax free for another 6 years before Buffett in hindsight would have sold it. He did. Well over 24% annualized till 1998 or so. Tell me how much it has grown since. :o How many investors, even die hard Buffett/Fisher acolytes, would hold for 11 years with a 50% loss, and then still hold another 5-6 years to get to breakeven...perhaps longer! Cheers!

The median home in California fell 41% year over year. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=aUnHHxyqfsyA&refer=home Cheers!

I am sure it happened --- but for those that were loyal they would have been quite pleased by the end of '76 (and beyond) -- quite the oppositie of your worries at present. Ruane as leader and captain knew what was best for the clients. Would he retain them all? Of course not -- you never do. Could GM have retained all their clients over the years? No -- but they sure could have done a better job by developing products that were in the client's long term interest rather than the client's short sighted ones. Doing what is best for the client (even if they don't know it at the time) works -- even for money managers!! Doing what's best for the client is to not lose money. How do you explain to a 75-year old investor that his life savings is now diminished by 50%? Wait five years...you should have known better than to put so much with us...you've invested for the long-term...I feel really bad for you...I'm closing access to your money to protect you from it! Buffett did not sell Coca Cola in that early 1980 era --- in fact he added significantly. I would bet that his investment in KO outperformed the theoretical ten-year 20% return note. And the beauty was he avoided a lot of taxes compared to the gains that would have had to be claimed on the note. Look, I am not saying there is not a time to sell -- but investor's ought to have a long term core strategy. I am not saying to buy KO -- and in fact I have never owned it -- but I will say that over the 17 years of doing this, KO is certainly the best bargain I have seen it at. Buffett as recently as a few years ago said that he should have sold Coca-cola in 1998 when it was overvalued. He just sold JNJ after holding it for a short period of time. I'm not sure how this discussion has devolved into me being a buy & trade investor where I have no core holdings. I just said that at times I am willing to sell even my core holdings, if I find things significantly cheaper relative to their quality and after paying taxes. That is no different than what Buffett does. And per Berkshire's mandate not to ever sell a private business they buy, he cannot sell any of their businesses regardless of the price they are offered...otherwise you might see a different outcome. They lost great wealth because they focussed on wealth accumulation rather than what was important. They invested in risky ventures --- we know the result. I beg to differ. While AIG's CDS business was overly leveraged, many of their other businesses would have fit in nicely inside Berkshire, Fairfax or many other companies. Some of Citi's businesses are also of the utmost quality. What about the guy who built a terrific business over his lifetime, but lost it all because the investment bank he dealt with put his company's cash into AAA-rated credit obligations? He did what he thought was correct...yet he suffered! Are you going to simplify it and say that he was focused on wealth accumulation and not what was important? He got caught up in a mess that was not entirely of his own making. Everything he built from day one, was lost in a few months. Doesn't Buffett focus on the right things? Yet, he made a mistake buying COP early, as well as the amount of exposure they have in the S&P puts he sold. Berkshire's AAA-rating was the crown jewel of the company, yet there is a distinct possiblity they may now lose it. Focusing on the right things and the long-term reduces risk, but it never completely eliminates it. Cheers!

GEICO has decided to enter the Massachusetts auto insurance market. Cheers! http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=51765

OEC2000 It's hard to hold a conversation or debate a topic if people keep lobbing out non sequiturs and strawman arguments at you. Yours Jack River That's a two way street Jack. Generally, I find that everyone does a pretty good job of respecting others and debating a topic, while providing real arguments on subjects here. Best advice, engage if you find the discussion worthwhile, otherwise ignore it. Cheers!

Judd Bagley of Antisocialmedia did a terrific little documentary entitled "Short Selling Hedge Funds and The Global Economic Meltdown". Definitely worth a watch. Cheers! http://antisocialmedia.net/