twacowfca

Yup. And in the meantime the absence of the Buffett Premium has been filled by the Buffett Put that is especially valuable in these bearish times in Europe and the whole world. :)

Yup. WEB became a buy and hold investor back in the mid 1980's after a change in the corporate tax law made it very expensive to flip stocks with gains. :(

This time I expect that BAC gets the approval. They've been hitting the gym the past few months trying to get in shape for this. There were probably given a cheat sheet to study. After all, it's in everyone's interests to help them pass with flying colors. It would be a positive sign of confidence in the banking system -- help weaken some rumors. No, I don't think just yet. BAC's litigation overhang means that it has to be better capitalized than its peers to allow dividends or buybacks. I think WFC, JPM will get the greenlight. Possibly C, but their European exposure may mean a little longer. And I disagree totally with the comment by MisterStockwell that it is a total blackhole. At these prices, BAC may be one of the cheapest and misunderstood stocks I have seen since Fairfax at $57. Actually, BAC outside of the litigation, is in significantly better shape than Fairfax was at $57 with losses still ahead of them. BAC has put much of their losses behind and will drag litigation out for years if settlements aren't in their favor. As I said, I find it incredibly hard to see how BAC will not trade at a slight discount to tangible book within a year or two, and at book value at some point within the next 3-4 years. Outrageously cheap in my opinion...just plain stupid! Cheers! I don't think the litigation overhang will affect the results of their stress tests. The accounting value of a contingent claim that can't be estimated accurately is generally zero. Ergo: no impact on a stress test. :) But don't you think the regulators will consider litigation risks even if they do not affect the balance sheets for reporting purposes? If I were a financial regulator, I would certainly have a more robust test that looks behind the FASB standards for recognizing contingent claims (whatever they may be). Perhaps, but the reason for doing a public stress test is not really to toss out bad apples, but to reassure the market. :)

The problem with attaching significance to aggregate share buybacks is that buybacks tend to follow market values mainly to prevent dilution from issuance of new shares, particularly to cover options and restricted stock schemes. The net effect of aggregate share repurchases on number of shares outstanding is about zero, although a small percentage of companies buy low and sell high intelligently. :)

This time I expect that BAC gets the approval. They've been hitting the gym the past few months trying to get in shape for this. There were probably given a cheat sheet to study. After all, it's in everyone's interests to help them pass with flying colors. It would be a positive sign of confidence in the banking system -- help weaken some rumors. No, I don't think just yet. BAC's litigation overhang means that it has to be better capitalized than its peers to allow dividends or buybacks. I think WFC, JPM will get the greenlight. Possibly C, but their European exposure may mean a little longer. And I disagree totally with the comment by MisterStockwell that it is a total blackhole. At these prices, BAC may be one of the cheapest and misunderstood stocks I have seen since Fairfax at $57. Actually, BAC outside of the litigation, is in significantly better shape than Fairfax was at $57 with losses still ahead of them. BAC has put much of their losses behind and will drag litigation out for years if settlements aren't in their favor. As I said, I find it incredibly hard to see how BAC will not trade at a slight discount to tangible book within a year or two, and at book value at some point within the next 3-4 years. Outrageously cheap in my opinion...just plain stupid! Cheers! I don't think the litigation overhang will affect the results of their stress tests. The accounting value of a contingent claim that can't be estimated accurately is generally zero. Ergo: no impact on a stress test. :)

Prime Restaurants Inc. Announces Receipt of Superior Proposal and Commencement of Cara's Matching Period MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO -- (Marketwire) -- 11/21/11 -- Prime Restaurants Inc. ("PRI" or the "Company") (TSX:EAT) announced today that it has received an offer from Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited ("Fairfax") to acquire of all of the issued and outstanding class A limited voting shares (the "Shares") and restricted share units ("RSUs") of the Company by way of a plan of arrangement under Section 182 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) (the "Fairfax Offer"). The Fairfax Offer was solicited by the Company during the "go-shop" period permitted under its agreement with Cara Operations Limited ("Cara") described below. The total consideration payable by Fairfax under the Fairfax Offer is approximately $71 million, equivalent to $7.75 per Share or RSU. Under the Fairfax Offer, holders of Shares (the "Shareholders") would receive $7.50 per Share in cash directly from Fairfax on the effective date. In addition, Fairfax would pay approximately $2.2 million to the Company to be used for paying certain expenses associated with the Fairfax Offer (including the Cara Termination Payment described below), with any remainder available to be distributed to Shareholders as a special dividend. The amount of the special dividend to be paid, if any, could not exceed $0.25 per Share and will depend on, among other things, the amount of the Cara Termination Payment and the Company's cash position on the effective date, as determined by the Board. It is possible that no special dividend will be paid. The special dividend, if any, would be an eligible dividend for purposes of the Income Tax Act (Canada) and any applicable provincial taxing statutes. The Company's board of directors (the "Board") has unanimously determined that the Fairfax Offer is a superior proposal within the meaning of the Cara Acquisition Agreement (defined below) and that Fairfax has the financial ability to execute the transaction. "After carefully weighing the alternatives, in consultation with our legal and financial advisors, the board of directors has concluded that the Fairfax Offer provides greater shareholder value than Cara's existing offer," said the Company's Chairman Steven Sharpe. On October 17, 2011, PRI entered into an acquisition agreement (the "Cara Acquisition Agreement") with Cara, whereby Cara agreed to acquire all of the issued and outstanding Shares of the Company by way of plan of arrangement (the "Cara Offer"). Under the Cara Offer, Shareholders would receive a total of $7.00 per Share on the effective date, comprised of $6.75 per Share payable by Cara in cash and $0.25 per Share as a special dividend from PRI. In accordance with the Cara Acquisition Agreement, PRI has notified Cara of the Board's determination that the Fairfax Offer is a superior proposal and that it is prepared to accept the Fairfax Offer. Cara now has five business days during which it may choose to make a proposal which it believes would cause the Fairfax Offer to no longer constitute a superior proposal (a "Matching Proposal"). Alternatively, Cara can terminate the Cara Acquisition Agreement and receive a termination payment (the "Cara Termination Payment"). If Cara makes a Matching Proposal and the Board determines in good faith, after consultation with its financial advisors and outside counsel, that the Fairfax Offer no longer constitutes a superior proposal, the Board will support a revised transaction with Cara. Otherwise, PRI may immediately terminate the Cara Acquisition Agreement, pay the Cara Termination Payment and execute an acquisition agreement with Fairfax in respect of the Fairfax Offer. The Fairfax Offer provides for, among other things, a non-solicitation covenant on the part of the Company, subject to a customary "fiduciary out" provision, which entitles the Company to consider and accept a superior proposal, subject to the right of Fairfax to match the superior proposal and the payment to Fairfax of a termination payment of $3,500,000. As a condition of the Fairfax Offer, John Rothschild (the Company's CEO), Nicholas Perpick (the Company's President) and Grant Cobb (the Company's Senior Vice President - Brand Management) have agreed to invest a portion of the proceeds of the Fairfax Offer each would receive into shares of the Company following closing. If accepted, the Fairfax Offer will be subject to a number of conditions, including (a) approval of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, (b) approval by the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the votes cast by Shareholders present in person or by proxy at a special meeting of Shareholders, © approval by a "majority of the minority" Shareholders, excluding the votes of John Rothschild, Nicholas Perpick and Grant Cobb, together with any parties related to, and any person acting jointly or in concert with, John Rothschild, Nicholas Perpick and Grant Cobb, including Prime Restaurant Holdings Inc., and (d) certain other customary conditions. The Fairfax Offer is not conditional on financing. About Prime Restaurants Inc. PRI franchises, owns and operates one of Canada's leading networks of casual dining restaurants and pubs. With such well-respected brands as East Side Mario's, Casey's, Fionn MacCool's, D'Arcy McGee's, Paddy Flaherty's, Tir nan Og, and Bier Markt, Prime has been delivering quality, value and a superior guest experience for more than thirty years. Prime's class A limited voting shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "EAT". Forward-Looking Statements The public communications of PRI often include written or oral forward-looking statements. Statements of this type are included in this news release, and may be included in filings with Canadian securities regulators, or in other communications. Forward-looking statements may involve, but are not limited to, the completion of either of the Cara Offer or Fairfax Offer in accordance with their proposed terms, comments with respect to our objectives for 2011 and beyond, our strategies or planned future actions, and our targets or expectations for our financial performance and condition. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this news release are forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding the future financial position and operations, business strategy, plans and objectives of or involving PRI. Readers can identify many of these statements by looking for words such as "believe", "expects", "will", "intends", "projects", "anticipates", "estimates", "continues" and similar words or the negative thereof. Although management believes that the expectations represented in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. The forward-looking statements contained herein are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. The forward-looking statements included in this news release are made as of the date of this news release. Except as required by applicable securities laws, PRI does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may make or that may be made, from time to time. Contacts: Prime Restaurants Inc. John Rothschild Chief Executive Officer (905) 568-0000 [email protected] www.primerestaurants.com

Right! The real Ben Graham would hold a position for a max of two years and then sell it and move on to other opportunities if it hadn't moved up in that time.

And someone who spoke softly, I'm sure. :)

I agree, If one follows the media's reports of this, they started out as if this report completely cleared Sino of wrongdoing, and now they are much more skeptical and even cynical. It's as if they first immediately reported after reading the company's PR and after actually reading the report and process later they realize there is a helping heap of bs and reversed their optimistic tone. Sadly, you're right. The online media are supremely interested in being first to get a story out. The quickest way to do that is to regurgitate a fish tale after swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Take it from a media guy who sees it all the time. The first reports out are salient and memorable. The truth that comes out later is often ignored. A severed finger in the Wendy's chili? Sudden acceleration accidents in toyota cars? What's the memory? What's the rest of the story?

LOL your excerpts, Hester. If that report exonerates them, in fairness they should let Madoff go free. :P

You're right. Warren's hit rate is better by far than any other investor -- ever! Charlie's isn't far behind since he stopped investing in tech 50 years ago, although he has an occasional lapse like the more risky BYD. However, when Warren takes a special preferred deal, it means the odds are lower. His large positions in 100 year old US companies, especially BRK itself, are most likely to work out well. Charlie's right. Having a very large percentage of capital in one situation is a very good idea if you know the odds are favorable and the probabilities of success are >.95 If you can't make that prediction with realistic confidence, don't go there unless you like to ride a roller coaster. Better to buy an index fund if you have little realistic knowledge which of your potential stock picks are going to be the winners in a flat to bearish market.

LOL the "Count". ;D

I'm a book publisher, and I disagree. It's a good straightforward account of his business life with lots of examples of his investing and explanations of why he made his decisions. There is always room for improvement from an editor's eye. But, what more could a value investor want? A book with literary style?! Or perhaps more coverage of personal shortcomings a la Alice S. ?

Tesla was brilliant, but he was also off his rocker in later years. :-[

Yeah. I can read a bio like that and say," That's awful; I would never do something like that." But the truth is that: "Wud t' have th gift he gae us, t' see irselfs as ithers see us" Then, I might not fare very well in comparison.

Yes, they concentrate on low risk reinsurance, the type that seems to be mostly somewhat capped for losses. The kind that should produce CR of about 100 with low volatility if well executed. They hope to make money by having a lot of their assets in equities, but returns have disappointing while most equities have not performed well in the last few years.

Thank you. I like that saying. :)

He finally bought after more than 80 years of observation (BG and WEB combined). I guess IBM's long term competitive advantage has now been established satisfactorily after a century of successful operation, as the other long term holdings mostly have 100 year track records with excellent returns. Interestingly, my brother in law used to work for IBM. He says that IBM's new CEO is the very best manager he has ever seen.

Ah, yes, The Bard! :)

See quote now reposted on BRK category. :)

That's a consequence of aging. When aging sometimes progresses to borderline dementia, expressions often become stereotypical with merely a limited number of stock phrases and pat stories in the repertoire. However, I wouldn't worry too much about Warren in this respect. His thoughtful remarks at the AGM show that he hasn't lost it, although many of his illustrative anecdotes are canned comments that his fans have often heard several times before. :)

Yes, taking the Dale Carnegie Couse was a turning point for me also in greatly improving my communication and mutual understanding. One caveat: take the course, but don't buy the recently "updated" edition of How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's horrible! It violates every rule of clear communication. It's almost like taking the clear Buffett version of the statement in the prospectus and turning it into the long winded version that lacks the punch and is hard to understand.

I agree that Warren is great at simplifying complex topics, especially on investing. Check out L J Rittenhouse's Do Business With People You Can Trust. There's a great comparison in it of a before and after explanation of a financial strategy in a prospectus. The "before" version that was in the prospectus was almost incomprehensible. Warren's "after" version sparkles with clarity. :) One prerequisite for writing clearly is knowing the subject very well. Another necessity is to revise, cut and rewrite until it can't be improved anymore. Even Shakespeare did this. Warren does this too, and he also has Carol edit his more important communications such as his annual shareholders letter before publication. :)

I'm trying to figure out what the shareholders might have lost because of Merrill. You have to admit, they were going to suffer some pretty radical stock declines in early 2009 just by virtue of not only being a bank, but by having Countrywide to boot! Even WFC lost 33% in the first two weeks of 2009. Thus it's not too instructive to look at the stock drop alone for BAC over the first two weeks of 2009 -- but rather look at how much further it dropped once the "bomb" was dropped on shareholders regarding the Merrill losses. A few dates in 2009: 1) Jan 1: Merrill deal closes 2) Jan 2: BAC closes at $14.33 (same as the range before shareholders approved Merrill purchase) 3) Jan 15: BAC closes at $8.32 (the day before Merrill loss is disclosed) 4) Jan 16: BAC closes at $7.18 after Merrill loss of $15.31b is disclosed 5) Jan 28: BAC closes at $7.39 Alright, you could have sold your shares for about 15% less after you found out about the loss. $50b in damages? That's ridiculous. A good summary of the defense. Your third career may be as a member of the bar! :) But plaintiffs don't have to prove that covering up ML's MTM losses was the only thing that caused the loss in the stock. They just have to show that shareholders could have avoided the loss by selling their stock in a timely fashion as they might have done if BAC had not covered up ML's losses before rushing the acquisition. Or the plaintiffs could show that shareholders likely would not have approved the disastrous acquisition that precipitated the cratering of the price of their shares if they had known about ML's huge losses. Also, when conduct is egregious, punitive damages may be awarded. :-\