ragu

Surely, there is only one question to ask her: Did you buy BBRY in anticipation of a bid from Watsa and co.? (there's hope if she didn't:)). Good luck! Ragu

Still smarting from JCP, then? :-), Ragu

Definitely one that got away. I found SONC more understandable from an undervaluation perspective than RRGB around that time. And, SONC's cash flows mostly came from franchising. So, more security. Plus, I liked the fact that Omar Janjua (who had been with SNS during the turnaround and was rumoured to be in the running for the CEO position at one point) was involved in the efforts at SONC to turn around operations. I then proceeded to sell it too early! Best, Ragu

Ditto, although the cynic in me was expecting only a fine. I hope they get him on the civil charges. Best, Ragu

matjone, I'd suggest paying cash. The less anxious you are about finances, the less likely you are to make investing errors related to temperament. Best, Ragu

I think you can be fairly certain that the OP isn't buying the BH rights. Best, Ragu

I don't have much disagreement with much of that Bloomberg article, but Berkshire's decision seems all to do with not being able to get enough business. FWIW, my experience with them in India wrt to a rate quote was prompt and courteous. They would've set the bar really high, if they'd hung around. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/banking/berkshire-india-to-stop-online-sale-of-insurance-products/article4797836.ece Best, Ragu

Saidal, Heh. We'll hear more about it in the next letter, but I figure Sardar doesn't have the votes to get the cap removed. And there may well have been some dissonance from the Lion Fund partners at the fact that Sardar has been paid pretty well since the incentive agreement, while the fund's partners haven't done as well (to put it mildly). My offer still stands, btw. Best, Ragu

compoundinglife, Many thanks for the letter. Much appreciated. He owns more than 5%, so he'd have to report sales. He has been calling for a sale of the exhibitions side of the business and management seems to be going the other way based on recent comments. Best, Ragu

FWIW, I don't think it was nefarious (you may still be arguing with ItsAValueTrap on that one). As you say, it was required to be disclosed because there was an agreement in place, not the fact that there had been an actual bid in place. So, there was no subjective evaluation on PRXI's part when making this disclosure. And no, I have no problem with how it was phrased. If someone initiated a short position based on that wording alone, I'd say good luck. They needed it. Best, Ragu

Bids already on the table as of April 4, 2012, none of which were disclosed. My emphasis ought to have been on the "additional" alone. Best, Ragu

From an 8-K in April 2012: (emphasis supplied) It's reasonable to assume that there were bids on the table then. Shareholders got details on none of those bids. So, the material fact assumption on every bid does not seem to hold. Ultimately, it's not so much that the bid didn't fructify (that was a risk all holders assumed). It's the impression that there wasn't ever a chance of it happening that has led to a lot of disgruntlement. Best, Ragu

Kraven, I am with you on this. However, the fact that Sellers deemed this disclosure worthy to shareholders led me to believe that the bid was a bit more solid than it turned out to be. Best, Ragu

Yep. The consortium that had a non-binding agreement to buy the assets doesn't have the financing. For the first time since the court verdict, I feel uncomfortable about the value that will accrue to Premier on the sale of these assets. I find it really, really odd that Sellers felt comfortable about making a disclosure to the SEC about this agreement with the aforementioned consortium. Hands down, the worst investment I've ever made. Still holding, though. Best, Ragu

stahleyp, Making character judgments based on personality traits is an exercise that is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions. Not at all. I hope though that you reserve your cynicism in the future for those that are actually deserving of it. Best, Ragu

(emphasis supplied) Warren Buffett, CNBC interview on May 6, 2013 Transcript is here (quoted section is on page 10 of 70). Best, Ragu

netnet, Many thanks for posting this. Best, Ragu

I was thinking the same thing, myth. :P Myth465/stahleyp, You likely know this already, but just for the record, I am not affiliated with BH/Sardar other than as a shareholder. I am curious though as to why you thought I was. And even if I was, why you thought I'd be likely to be posting on a message board about BH/Sardar. Best, Ragu

Parsad, IMO, the thread title with the childish name-calling needs to be fixed. I think it's classless enough for name-calling to appear in individual posts, but a thread title? I bring it to your attention because I know that a post making what was,quite frankly, a disgraceful analogy about investing alongside Sardar was removed from these boards (voluntarily or otherwise). GrizzlyRock, I am sure you know this already, but Sardar suggests that you include the shares held by BH in any analysis and make the corresponding adjustments to GAAP accounting. Best, Ragu

In my limited interaction with sell-side analysts, I'd agree with this. And kiwing100's post is excellent. I've never had a sell-side job, but his last two paragraphs are spot on. Best, Ragu

mpauls, Couple of things that should provide some food for thought to you (and the other detractors): 1. Which set of investors have been with Sardar the longest? 2. How have they responded to the incentive agreement and Sardar's subsequent actions? Best, Ragu

dcollon, You were right. Many thanks for posting this. (pg. 5) Indeed. Best, Ragu

Zigackly. Not at all. Buffett is so rational that is always worthwhile thinking about what he says. Even more so, when it seems odd at first glance. Best, Ragu

Kiltacular, Firstly, thank you for the kind words. Setting aside the question of whether it is appropriate (or even useful) to add a separate measure of value for GEICO's u/w profits, I'd suggest that any measure of said value is completely independent of the goodwill paid in acquiring GEICO, because these two measures aren't like for like. My understanding is that you believe that adding back an estimate for the value of float still causes the insurance operations to be undervalued because u/w profits are essentially being ignored. Buffett disagrees with the notion that u/w profits ought to be capitalized, although he seems to ignore both float and deferred taxes entirely when coming up with a value for the insurance operations. From the 2008 letter (in the section titled 'Yardsticks'): (emphasis supplied) I believe you are. If you'd really like to value u/w profits, then you'd need an estimate of what normalized u/w profits over an entire cycle might be and then capitalize them appropriately. Best, Ragu

Kiltacular, IMO, this has very little to do with conservatism and all to do with assigning a value to Berkshire's float. If you assign a value to Berkshire's float and adjust Berkshire's BV upwards accordingly, then you must subtract goodwill. Why? Because they represent the same thing i.e. the value of the float, only at different points of time (goodwill: at the time of acquisition, estimate of the value of float on the books: current). It's the estimation of the value of the float that will take care of the discrepancy between goodwill on the books and current economic value. If the estimate is reasonable, then that number will be larger, likely significantly larger, than the goodwill on the books. Best, Ragu