cwericb

I guess I may not have made myself cleat. I was not talking about loans or financial institutions. I was referring to private individuals and small contractors who did not get paid for their services.

Guess I must be illiterate too because I second rb's WOW!

"That's wrong. If this is the case then what's the point of having an LLC? BTW do you even know what LLC means and what legal rights and protections you have? John Malone said it is important to compartmentalize the debt. Do you even understand what he means? BTW, how long have you been doing investing? I can't imagine such words coming out of an investing veteran." Well it seems Donald Trump may be a role model for you so my probably don't mean much to you. Moral, ethics and legalities, they are not the same and that is the point I tried to make. I am well aware of the legal protection incorporation grants. If you want to hide behind legalities, that’s your choice, but there is always a certain moral or ethical obligation to pay one's debts. Some people have a sense of honor and I guess some do not. Your raised the subject of Buffett and Dexter shoes. The company may have failed but did he put it into bankruptcy? Did he stiff his creditors? Or did he suck it up, keep his honor intact, and pay his obligations and move on? Have you been in private business? How many bankruptcies have you had personal experience with? Yes, there are situations where some have no choice but to declare bankruptcy because they or their company are broke and have simply exhausted all access to funds. But then there are the shysters who have lots of money and hide behind the bankruptcy act as a way to screw their creditors when that shyster F-up in his own business ventures. When that happens it is the poor people who provided honest work to the bankrupt who wind up getting hurt. Obviously, that wouldn’t bother you. PS. Since you bring it up, I would suggest that I have probably dealt with more bankruptcies than you have and have probably been investing a longer. I am by no means a great investor, but I have muddled through pretty well so far and seem to be able to hold my own. “Do you believe the same way about those walked away from their mortgage in the housing crisis? What about bankruptcy for medical bills?” Tim, You may have missed part of this conversation. The point I am trying to make is that there is a vast difference between someone who inadvertently finds themselves in a financial hole and simply do not have the funds to recover and a billionaire who would stiff people simply because he started a company that failed.

TwoCitiesCap... “Maybe it's different if I had another company,” Yes, that was the point, Trump had numerous other successful companies yet he made no effort to pay the bills of the ones that were failing. he simply walked away let the people who were good enough to trust him take the hit. They supplied labor and materials for him to build and operate the companies but when he found them not to be profitable he walked away without paying his bills and filed for bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy there is often no assets left for the unsecured creditors and they get nothing. That creates a domino effect where many of those small companies and individuals then can’t pay their bills and end up with their own financial problems. “...but I also don't feel like I would be automatically compelled to use earnings/assets from the second company to pay off another one that was already been legally disposed of and settled.” Absolutely right. You may have an ethical obligation to pay your debts if you are able to, but there is no legal obligation. There is really is little difference between a hold up and a bankruptcy. In both cases someone takes things and does not pay for them.

"Look at his veto for the 9-11 bill, which got overturned by Congress by a margin of 97-1. This is one of the most shameful moment in his legacy." Wait for the other shoe to fall on this. Opening the door to citizens to sue governments will create an interesting situation when we see how many lawsuits the US Government will now have to defend every time the US drops a bomb on a civilian. It was these ramifications Obama had in mind.

I don't think you get it. You are saying Buffet should keep funding the Hathaway mills instead of shutting them down, and you are saying that Buffet should keep funding Dexter shoes even after billions of dollars invested in it already went into the drain. It is all about personal reputation. Therefore Buffet should rather keep losing money on these investees than take the lose and move on? I am sure you will disagree on that, but when the same thing is applied to Trump, you demonize him and make he look like an evil? You completely miss my point. If the business isn't working, you pay your debts and shut the business down. You don't just declare bankruptcy, walk out and stiff your creditors like Trump has done six times.

PS "Buffet had his defeat moments too. Dexter shoes and a few others." And did he go bankrupt and stiff his suppliers? Or did he take the honorable route and and pay his creditors?

"He had over 100 investees and bankrupted 6. Not a bad record." Seriously??? Obviously you have never been on the wrong side of a bankruptcy. In the circles I deal in, people usually do not go bankrupt if they have the funds in other businesses to pay out their creditors of the failed business. I have also had several cases where the bankrupt later paid out creditors when they became more successful and had the ability to pay. Some might view that as poor business while others consider it a matter of ethics. It is also about your personal reputation.

I am amazed that some very astute and respected members of this board hold such animosity towards Hillary Clinton that they are somehow blind to the shortcomings of Mr Trump and admire and defend him despite all logic. Surly at some point supporters have to stop making excuses for him. Is this the person you envision representing you and your country to the rest of the world? Does he personify the image you have for President? Do you aspire to be like him? Is he a role model for your children - a rude, vulgar, vindictive buffoon who simply can not tell the truth? Do you really believe that a person who has gone bankrupt six times and has stiffed thousands of people is “a successful businessman”? Warren Buffet and Prem Watsa are successful businessmen, how many times have they gone bankrupt? Did they start by inheriting $300 million 20-30 years ago? Do you not ask yourself why Vladimir Putin is doing everything he can to support him. Only the delusional would believe he has the best interests of the US in mind. I’m sorry if I am stepping on some toes here, but I can see no circumstances where Donald Trump would qualify for a Boy Scout leader, let alone the President of the United States of America. USA Today pretty well sums up the situation. I only wish that some of Trump’s brighter supporters would take a step back, think outside the box for a minute, cast your political prejudices aside and really look closely at who they are supporting. Hillary may not be ideal, but Mr. Trump is an embarrassment.

Hillary Clinton: 'Donald, I Know You Live In Your Own Reality' YUP!

Of course he is supported by those agencies. He has committed to expanding them from day one. Why would that be a surprise to anyone? And in a Presidential debate whose outcome could have a dramatic impact on world affairs he uses his time to take a shot at Rosie O'Donnell? eb PS. It boggles the mind to hear him brag about being smart to pay no taxes. So in other words it is all the poor slobs who pay their taxes that build and support the roads, airports, hospitals, police forces, military, etc, etc. Isn’t that the real problem? Guys like Trump pay little or no taxes. And yet many real taxpayers think he is out to help them??

I just want to note that a few days ago our board troll, Value^2, jumped in here once again in his quest to make disparaging remarks about FFH and Watsa. As usual, when he is challenged with facts he simply crawls back into his hole and disappears. I bring this up again because it concerns me that when someone like petec asks a legitimate question they may not be aware of Value^2's history of mudslinging towards FFH. Because of that, some may legitimately assume that Value^2 knows what he is talking about. Now in the ten years I have owned FFH, this “turd” as Value^2 refers to it, has increased in share price from $145 to $762 - or $848 if you include dividends - a nearly 500% return. But Value^2 never responds to FFH’s proven performance. In July 2015, Ben Hacker commented on an exchange between Richard Gibbons and Value^2 regarding FFH’s performance. Ben commented regarding Value^2's logic - “Had to write it down to make sure I could follow along with sophisticated trolling; use of ignore activated.” This was seconded by TwoCitiesCapital. Now personally, I just muddle along with this investing stuff, but when it comes to board members who actually do know what they are talking about and you have Value^2 on one side and Ben H, Richard G, and Two Cities on the other side, well.... I think that probably speaks for itself.

Value^2 said: “they are worst investors in this business. In-fact the reason they still are in business, is that, they keep raising new equity by selling shares regularly to keep the turd afloat.” I have owned FFH for about 10 years and have no intention of selling. FRFHF share price has increased 29% in the past 24 months. From $448 to $579 = $131/ share U$ FFH share price has increased by 55%. In the past 24 months. From $490 to $761= $271/share C$ Not bad for a “turd”. Plus Fairfax offers me substantial downside protection in the event of the market going south while their insurance business improves and expands throughout the world. PS. During the same period BRK.B has moved from $141 to $146 or 3.5% Perhaps I am in error?

I have been invested with Chou for 8 or 9 years and don’t pay a lot of attention to it - kind of set it and forget it - which by the way, is why I invest in a fund in the first place. But when I looked at it a couple of months ago and saw how much it had dropped I decided that just maybe I should pay a little more attention. My personal verdict is that yes, some of his investments give me some concern but he has done very well for me in the past. Very few other funds go up all the time. Also his ethics are beyond reproach, he is scrupulously honest and doesn’t charge when he has bad performance. Now out of the thousands of funds out there, how many fund managers can I say that about? Hmmmm..... Yeah, I think I’m quite happy to let Francis handle a portion of my money. eb

Happy Birthday and thanks for our board. However, things have changed a lot on the board with many new members and very few posts of your own so I wonder how many board members even know who you are. Have a good day :)

"Dangerous wildlife" reason is likely less than 1% of current gun ownership (~100M gun owners, <1M "dangerous wildlifers").” Perhaps, but I am simply making the point that there are legitimate reasons for owning guns. But there needs to be a reasonable control on what types of guns individuals can own. Mac-10's, AR 15's, etc are simply unacceptable in private hands “...we should deny the entrance to anyone who is not capable to demonstrate that they will be good visitors or citizens, accepting and obeying all laws currently in place? ISIS and terrorists supporters should be automatically refused.” Well how does one demonstrate they will be a good potential citizen? Certainly ISIS and terrorists should be automatically refused - but it’s unlikely they will declare that on their immigration forms. Now I do believe that immigration is a privilege and any immigrant who shows a consistent disrespect for the laws of the land or who commits a serious felony within a certain time period of their immigration date should be given a free one-way ticket to their home country. But to bring the conversation back to the original subject of the presidential race, how does anyone justify this remark? "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," That would appear to be another demonstration of how his mouth has no connection to his brain. Did he forget that would mean American Muslims couldn't leave the country and Muslims in the American military couldn't return home? So by this logic, when the IRA was bombing London, Britain have banned all Roman Catholics from entering the UK. Really? Should Middle East countries ban all all Christians from entering their countries? Should Canada ban Americans over fear of mass shootings?

There is a happy medium here but both sides seem to be ruled by extremists - and politicians seem to becoming the same way. Whatever happened to compromise for the greater good? Military weapons such as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of the general public in a modern society. Period. However, there are legitimate reasons for some types of guns. People who live in areas where they hunt for food or sport or deal with potentially dangerous wildlife should certainly be able to purchase and carry guns. When I hear “all guns must be banned” I think, here is someone who lives in a large city and simply does not understand that there are areas where wildlife still poses a real danger to people and domesticated animals.

This sort of puts things in perspective...

I am not against gun ownership itself as there are a number of legitimate reasons to do so. But what I really do not understand is why any civilized country would allow its citizens AND it’s enemies to purchase and own military weapons such as assault weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people. How can any rational person justify that? And for anyone who thinks so little of their own country and who is paranoid enough to believe that assault rifles are needed to protect them from their own government, than really shouldn’t you need to consider relocating to another country?

Since no one wants to answer Palantir’s question, the question I would pose is this: Trump believes a Hispanic judge should not be eligible to rule in his case because Trump has made anti-Mexican statements and says the same would apply to a Muslim judge. Therefore: does it not follow that American born judges should recused themselves from hearing cases related to Hispanics, Muslims, Canadians, Englishmen, Irishmen, Frenchmen, etc, etc.? White judges should not hear cases involving Blacks and vice versa? Of course this becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that Curiel is just as much of an American as is Donald Trump, who's mother, by the way, was not American born.

“That said, it is true he has relationships across the aisle, so in private he must be OK to work with.” And therein lies the problem with today’s politics - and not just in the USA. How will any progress ever be achieved if we keep having society - and politics - so divided. We have the extreme left and the extreme right and some of those characters are becoming every bit as dangerous as those extremists in the Middle East. It seems like the middle ground is declining with every election. How can any country progress if their political parties concentrate their efforts on trying to destroy each other rather than work for the good of their country? Look at how Chris Christy was regarded by his own party when he expressed his support of how Obama helped New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. Obviously in the Republican's mind, if Obama did it than it must be wrong. Tip O’Neil must be rolling in his grave.

Seriously? We are picking out dumb things Joe Biden said while we have Donald Trump around? I’m sure we could fill a couple of pages with some of the dumb, stupid and just plain outrageous pronouncements of The Donald and he’s like the gift that just keeps on giving... At least Joe seems like a likable guy

JBIRD quoted Stephen Hawking describing Donald Trump as a demagogue. The definition of the word seems to fit “The Donald” like a glove. Demagogues relentlessly advocated action, usually violent, immediately and without deliberation. Demagogues appealed directly to the emotions of the poor and uninformed, pursuing power, telling lies to stir up hysteria, exploiting crises to intensify popular support for their calls to immediate action and increased authority, and accusing moderate opponents of weakness or disloyalty to the nation. Certainly there are times when Donald’s odd and crude behavior is amusing and entertaining - but of course that fits the definition of a “buffoon”. As some say, “America sees this as an election. The rest of the world views it as an IQ test.”

It is more a matter of confidence in the leader's abilities to lead the country.

When I started this thread I expected that it would stimulate some good discussion. But seeing some of the comments here seriously shakes my confidence in the credibility of some board members. Perhaps we could steer this discussion back towards the original point of the thread. What impact do you think a Trump presidency would have on financial markets? Personally, I doubt it would be positive. He started business as a multi millionaire. As a businessman, Trump has had four businesses file for bankruptcy while another is being accused of fraud. This record combined with outrageous promises that will never see the light of day will not impress the business community. As for the rest of the world, his manner will not impress anyone. There is a saying going around: "The US views this as an election. The rest of the world views it as an IQ test"