RolfGunderson

I think this is a couple of months old. The video is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7391360n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Posting this primarily for those who remember the 05 to 06 period of Fairfax. A reasonably interesting - and balanced (his miss on FFH is mentioned) - profile on Jim Chanos, with a focus on his present skepticism re: China. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/chanos-calls-china-syndrome/article2183539/singlepage/#articlecontent DP

Wow. I last remember seeing the William Ashley name in the '80s as a kid delivering the Toronto Star. They used to have a weekly ad on the back page of the Starweek TV guide. I would be interested in knowing more about this acquisition too (size of business, purchase price, etc.). DP

Hi, I was thinking about the criticism Buffett received this year re: investment underperformance on positions established in 2008 (COP, the Irish Banks, etc.). I also got to thinking that at the AGM, Buffett said (from Omaha World-Herald blog): "There are four possible investment successors, and one or more could be chosen. They are from inside and outside Berkshire. The four investment managers did no better than match the S&P 500. In 2008 they did not cover themselves with glory, Buffett says, but neither did he, so he is tolerant." I am having trouble finding the source, but I have a strong recollection of Buffett saying that he was going to have the investment successors manage funds (in the neighbourhood of ~$5 to $10 billion, if memory serves) on Berkshire's behalf to try them out. Anyway, all to say that this got me to thinking perhaps most of Buffett's "duds" last year were not actually his and that their underperfomance weighed on Berkshire Hathaway's 9.6% drop in book value. However, making it clear to the masses that some or all of the poor investments were the work of the "successors in training" would be a terrible message to send out. I am not suggesting the Buffett didn't make any mistakes. I'm just wondering if they were amplified by the other managers. Maybe I'm not the first to suggest this, but I haven't come across anything else positing this relationship. If the successors have that kind of capital under management and did no better than the S&P 500, I would think there have to be some large misses. Anyway, just a thought seeking other views. Dennis