cwericb

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"

“You took Pearl Harbor seriously? I think you're the one that watched too many war movies. A certain one by Michael Bay in particularly. Pearl Harbor was how the US got rid of their outdated fleet.” Ooooooookay. Those who ignore history may be bound to repeat it, but those who deny history are in a whole different category.

"The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century." Don't you mean "The US helped win 2 world wars?" “No the US was clearly the main victor. The war wasn't on their shores at all. All the other participants lost, some more than others.” Well that statement simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge of history. You must have been watching far too many US war movies. :) “ All the other participants lost, some more than others.” Now that’s just funny. :) :) :) PS "The war wasn't on their shores at all." You must have missed that little incident in Pearl Harbor.

"The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century." Don't you mean "The US helped win 2 world wars?"

tooskinneejs : “Sorry, but the analogy to Hitler is one of the most illogical arguments I've ever heard.” Well I wasn’t necessarily comparing Trump to Hitler. I simply stated some of Hitler’s campaign platforms that brought him to power and let the chips fall where they may. I simply mentioned that Donald had to change his method of waving to the crowd. Actually it was you that made the comparison between Trump and Hitler. “Hitler wanted to exterminate a large portion of citizens within his own country.” He certainly did. But he never campaigned on a policy of exterminating the Jews. Therein lies the problem. When politicians say they are going to do something and do not say how they are going to do it, you write a blank check when you put them in power. “By attempting to temporarily ban Muslims immigrants from Syria” Where did you get that idea? Mr. Trump initially said he wanted to prevent ANY Muslims from entering the country “...until we get this thing figured out”. Then someone asked what he intended to do about all of the Muslim US servicemen serving overseas and other Muslim Americans returning to the US. I’m not sure he ever answered that. However, that is typical. Trump makes rash sweeping statements that sound appealing at first glance but never outlines how he intends to do them. Not only Muslims, but you omitted Trump’s desire to expel all those Hispanic US residents.

"The best outcome possible is for people to think of politics as a nasty process that is irrelevant to their lives and to dismiss it completely." That is pretty well the definition of anarchy. I hope you are not serious.

merkhet re changing vote. I thought I had checked a box allowing a vote to be changed. other than that I don't know. eb

"If you have a better information source than the "research" by John Oliver, I'd like to see it." But facts are facts no matter who presents them.

In no way I am predicting this will come to be, but they do say that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it and the similarities here are rather remarkable. But who is he ? ............. He was very egotistical - to put it mildly. He ran on a platform that he would make the country great again. He blamed the Land’s problems on other countries who were taking advantage of his country. He promised to rid the country of certain races and religions. His rallies were marked by outbreaks of violence. He promised to rip up international agreements to better the country. He came to power in Germany in 1933 and his name was Adolph Hitler. I don’t believe in reincarnation, but Trump’s people did have to get him to stop raising his hand in a gesture that mimicked the Nazi salute when he appeared at his rallies.

If this has been brought up before I must have missed it. But I am wondering what our board thinks “The Donald’s” impact would be on markets in the US (and world wide). Perhaps that is two questions, but US only markets for the poll. As a successful businessman promising positive moves to the American economy and committing to run the country like a business, one might think that Trump would have a beneficial impact on the economy. But then, his methods and lack of tact and other issues indicate to others that he could be a disaster. Just wondering what the board thinks. I have set the poll so that participants can change their vote as time goes on if they wish.

Liberty, talk about coincidence. I clicked on your original link posted on page one of this thread back in 2012 and it took me to what is apparently today’s rant on the same subject. I guess if you keep re-hashing the same column year after year it might come true. But after four years of crying wolf Turner might have a bit of a credibility issue.

Never really been a fan of Mr. Turner’s, but let’s go back to the start of this thread. Mr. Turner confidently stated... “The risk of a long and slow real estate decline has never been more acute. The certainty of a long and slow ascent in interest rates never more assured. Smart people will follow the advice set out here often. Sell assets at the top. With real estate, that’s probably now.” That was over FOUR years ago. I wonder what Mr. Turner might say today should he meet one of those “smart people” in a dark alley? Four years later it makes for interesting reading http://www.greaterfool.ca/ eb

ATL & Jurgis - Thank you for that. ATL - Yes I now get the dilution point as it effects ROE, makes sense. Jurgis - Bit of brain fade there, I overlooked that they were in effect setting their own price on the shares at $735/$536. This is why I read this board every day. Much appreciate the education.

If my net worth is $100,000 and I withdraw $10,000 from the bank and put it in my pocket, my net worth is still $100,000. Fairfax sells X number of shares and retains the money earned within the company. The value of the company doesn’t change. So what is the logic behind a 6% drop in share price? What am I missing?