Crip1

Absolutely correct that often times goalies get too much blame, and Robbie Loo may be in that category. That said, Jonathan Quick has done a lot to keep the Sedins, Kessler and Burroughs off the scoresheet. -Crip

I've given up on trying to figure out "the future"...it's in the "too hard" pile. However, it's cool to simply stop being as analytical as we value investors tend to be and just marvel at the technology. The "print" of the woman's head was remarkable. -Crip

Just north of Dallas, TX, USA - Originally from Chicago, IL, USA. Go Blackhawks -Crip

That would be eclipsed by "I'm little more than a self-promoting shmoe who's sole goals are entertainment and garnering ratings I've no desire to provide well-thought-out, useful information. Listen to me at your own investing risk." -Crip

There are several themes to this discussion and to the company itself, so it helps to stratify: Equity Investments: The heavy exposure to equities and concurrent 100% index hedging, as stated, means that shareholders are not receiving the returns on the equity portfolio, but are effectively receiving the delta between Hamblin-Watsa’s returns and the overall market. Based on my knowledge of Hamblin-Watsa, and their historical returns, I am very comfortable with this. Since even the best investors cannot beat the markets consistently in the short term (quarterly, annually etc.), this will occasionally cause results as shown in Q4 2011. We’re not going to hit a home run at every at bat, but I’ll take my chances with Hamblin-Watsa at the plate, so I am comfortable with this. I’m a long-term holder and will be more than happy to take the good with the bad, because over time the good will be much “gooder” than the bad. Bonds: Obviously, the LT bonds are going to lose value once interest rates rise, and LT rates ARE going to rise, the timing of which is anyone’s guess… we know it’s coming. As long as the company has sufficient cash and ST capital to use so that there is no forced selling of these bonds and said bonds can hold until maturity, I’m comfortable with this as well. Implied with this is that the bonds will have a VERY SMALL default rate and, again, understanding the investment acumen within the organization, my comfort level is substantial. International Exposure and Non-Insurance Business: This is the next step in creating a fortress of a company, so I endorse this strategy as well. Time will tell whether the aggregate of these investments will show to have an acceptable rate of return, but the strategy makes sense and I would be of the opinion that the execution of this strategy will be good, considering the team which is executing this strategy. Underwriting: THIS IS THE AREA OF CONCERN! I am tired of hearing “ratio before bad stuff” on damned near every earnings release. The insurance business is the business of “bad stuff”. Yes, I understand that their fixed expenses as a percentage of premium will be higher because they are reticent to let people go, but the fact remains that FFH is not the only company to think this way but FFH’s combined ratios are not only substantially worse than the Chubbs and Markels of the world, but are substantially worse on a consistent basis. Quarter after quarter and year after year we’ve seen this and I don’t feel that FFH management properly acknowledges this. The results are simply unacceptable and I think that Prem should state this AND create and explain a strategy designed to make underwriting a strength of the organization, not a weakness. Maybe the company simply needs to write less business irrespective of how this flies in the face of the institutional imperative? In my professional life, I am responsible to pricing our product (the product being residential mortgages). In the fall we found that our competition was beating the pants off of our company as it relates to rates offered, so our volume dropped considerably compared to 2010. I was NEVER tempted to lower our pricing (margins) to get business (nor was I tempted to reduce staff). I could have had at least 20% more volume in the last 4 months of 2011 had I reduced our margins, but I didn’t. We are sized and positioned to skim the cream and leave the milk for our competition. Maybe it’s a matter of FFH having so much statutory capital that they feel that they need to write business. Perhaps it’s, as Cardboard indicated, that FFH writes policy “…to have lots available for investment purposes”. I don’t know for sure. But, I am confident that if FFH were focus efforts on achieving consistently great or even a good underwriting results, FFH would become an absolute powerhouse of an organization. This may mean shrinking operations, but I think that this should be considered. At bare minimum, I would like to see Prem acknowledge that underwriting results are the biggest issue for the company right now and to state that changes are being designed and will be implemented to address this issue. A man of his integrity should do so. I’ve not sold my position and do not anticipate doing so any time soon as I feel that, in its present form, FFH will outperform the market over time and will provide, at minimum, a satisfactory return. That said, making compelling positive changes to underwriting will virtually ensure said satisfactory return and will afford Long-Term shareholders the best chance of achieving returns far above satisfactory. -Crip

I very much like the idea of accountability / responsibility. Now, instead of looking for responsibility for the financial crisis with potential suspects numbering in the tens if not hundreds of thousands (if one wants to take this down to unscrupulous mortgage loan officers, appraisers, etc) how about if we seek to assess a similar fee to those responsible for the US budget crisis and ever-expanding national debt. Hmmm...who could it be? CONGRESS? After all, that is the group who ratifies the national budget. No blaming Real Estate professionals or amphedimine-popping traders, it's our elected officials. How does that sound? -Crip

BRILLIANT!!!!! I was down 1/2 of 1% for the year, a strong December helped. -Crip

Amazon has two aspects which really impress me. First, obviously, is selection. Amazon does not have everything, but they're close. I've used Amazon for everything from cooking utensils to books to music to sporting goods to musical instruments. More often than not, I've found what I'm looking for on Amazon cheaper than anywhere else. Second is consistency. I've not had any orders come in late, whether shipped from Amazon or other vendors. Nor have I ever had issues with their site as it's never failed me and I've rarely, if ever, had issues. Perhaps I'm lucky, but the experience has been so consistently good that Amazon has garnered the lion's share of my online purchases. As well, I've used Overstock a few times and found the experience to be good as well. One product was rather shoddy, but I was buying "on the cheap" and, sometimes, you do get what you pay for. -Crip

No opinion on the company, but it should make for a more interesting addition to the AGM... -Crip

Berkshire Buys $2 Billion Power Project as Buffett Wagers on Solar Energy (Emphasis added) Why does the press incessantly refer to investment decisions as "bets" or "wagers"? It just seems to me to cheapen the intellect of the individual who is purported to be betting. -Crip

OK, if I click Edit > Find on Internet Explorer, or click "Find" in MS Word, does that put me in the 90% or the 10%? -Crrp

No "cheers" going on here. >:( -Crip

I refer to Buffett's famous quote "I want employees to ask themselves whether they are willing to have any contemplated act appear on the front page of their local paper the next day, be read by their spouses, children and friends. . . . If they follow this test, they will not fear my other message to them: Lose money for my firm, and I will be understanding; lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless." Buffett directs this to his employees which, presumably, would refer to actions taken in context of their professional lives, but those lives do cross for all of us. Given the choice to work with person A or person B, if they had comperable knowledge, experience, work ethic and talent but person A was reasonably clean where person B cheated on his wife, had a drinking problem and verbally abused his children, we would all opt to work with person A. Morality is important in the professional world, but it is not vital. Legalty is vital (Wouldn't you agree Messers Madoff and Blagojevich?) I frankly think that such advice is relevant in one's personal life as well. If you're OK with having an article for all to see which shows that you had a dozen beers and 3 shots of tequila one evening, then have at it. Furthermore, if asked, I'd bet Buffett would concur that this is an admirable way to live one's personal life as well. -Crip

As no one apparently was injured, it's not wholly wrong to take a little pleasure in this. That said, the description "Gathering of Narcissists" is downright hysterical. -Crip

Getting away from Japan and back to shorting ideas, I can't help but think that this will be a great candidate down the line: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/zynga-prices-ipo-plans-to-raise-up-to-1b/2011/12/02/gIQAtGLgKO_story.html -Crip

+1+1+1=(3) :D Got to be good looking 'cause he's so hard to see... (Apologies, all...I've got the music in me this morning) -Crip

This discussion reinforces what I believe to be a common misconception in the media that it is a “rich vs. non-rich” discussion, and I think that’s an over-simplification. Before offering my thesis, I would offer that, in general, I’m a fiscal conservative whose general thinking is more in line with the 1% than the 99%, but I’m DEFINITELY in the 99% from a financial perspective. I’ve a life-long friend who’s a firefighter, married to an elementary school teacher. They are fully supportive of the occupy movement, and are vocal about it. Their beef is less with the wealthy and are more with governments which, they feel, are coddling the ultra-rich. Firefighter perspective: there was a deal with local governments where firefighters would receive a certain level of pay for doing their jobs. Firefighters have done their jobs and are dismayed that they are looking a workforce reductions and pay cuts, despite having done their jobs. Normally, I would retort something along the lines of “Welcome to the real world, dude, where all of us are subject to getting laid off despite doing our jobs”. However, when it is seen that execs at “too big to fail” companies, who clearly have NOT done their jobs as stewards for their shareholders’ interests, get large bonuses by their firms who’ve received government bailouts (in effect financed by government bailouts), they feel slighted. And, they’ve a point. Teacher perspective: Local governments are in the red, substantially, and teacher’s salaries are in the crosshairs. Normally, I would retort something to the extent of “This is simply supply and demand…there is more school teacher supply than demand, so pay will decline”. However, they feel that their salaries are looked as a potential cost reduction targets when, when you look at it, isn’t the money spent educating our children among the best uses of taxation? Do we really think our governments are such outstanding stewards for our taxes that there are no better places to cut costs than teachers’ salaries? Again, they have a point. The subject is sufficiently complex that there are certainly other perspectives out there not referenced above. The details are different but the basis is the same. This is not a rich v. poor discussion, IMHO; it’s a discussion of accepting responsibility by big business and/or Wall Street execs who’ve collected millions or tens of millions over the past decade while screwing up our world financial system (and many of whom are still employed) or priorities putting Wall Street and/or governmental financial mismanagement ahead of educating our future. The seeds of much of the discontent seen out there are planted in these soils, not in the “someone has more money than me and I’m not digging it” soil. It’s entirely possible that I’ve projected my personal knowledge on an entire movement, and that this is all about rich vs. poor. But, I don’t see that being the case. Summed up differently, people are not mad because others have more money, they are mad because those who helped create this mess have still reaped ridiculous compensation while others, who’ve simply done they jobs, are being asked to accept pay cuts. Capitalism works, it is wonderful, but it’s not 100% perfect. One of the most glaring imperfections are that the “Left vs. Right” or “Rich vs. Poor”, “Worker vs. executive” or “Tea Party vs. everyone else” conflicts we see currently are dominated by talking, with listening taking a distant second. Listening is far ahead, however, of searching for an answer and far, far ahead of actively engaging those with whom I disagree in mutually respectful and meaningful dialogue. Buffalo Springfield had it right years ago: “Singing songs and carrying signs, mostly say, hooray for our side” -Crip

http://www.fairfax.ca/Theme/Fairfax/files/Q3%202011%20-%20FINAL_v001_c385a7.pdf -Crip

Sanj, There's little doubt that this is an increasingly large pain in your arse to put this on year after year. I just wanted to say that it's quite admirable that you continue to do so year after year, and your efforts are greatly appreciated (even by those of us who don't make it every year). Thank you, sir, for your time, effort and passion. -Crip

The name of the game is making money...there are not style points for originality, artistic interpretation or (using a diving reference) minimal spash upon re-entering the water. As long as one has an above-average return and has done so legally, ethically and morally, then they are doing well or are "winning the game". Frankly, my best ideas have been ripped off from many places, this board included. The art is listening to the right people, throwing your own filters on to make sure the idea works, and then executing. There's a lot of ideas out there to pilfer, but determing what is to be pilfered is quite difficult, and is the key to success. However... I do agree that it would be really difficult to go on television and tout myself as some sort of investing authority without giving credit where credit is due. The value investor is typically self-effacing (look at Buffett, Watsa, Pabrai and members of this board for examples). Tilson is less investor and more marketer. He's not as successful a marketer if he states "Yeah, I heard Ackman talking about the HKD and it made sense to me, so I..." as the audience would not want to listen to him, they would go to Ackman. Yes, Tilson is successful, but he is more concerned with marketing himself than he is making outstanding returns on his invested capital. Cramer is like this as well, only to a substantially louder and more annoying level. -Crip

I've never held a position in IAC, nor have I even looked into it seriously. Irrespective, the presence or lack thereof of Chelsea Clinton on the BOD would have minimal, if any, bearing on whether or not I took a position. -Crip

No worries, Sanj, I can relate. Several years ago, I made my first mistake... :P -Crip

Considering that Fairfax stands for Fair, Friendly Acquisitions, I doubt that they are going for vulture investments. That said, if they saw more value in distressed securities than in the hedge, I can see them moving in this direction. -Crip

The O&G area looks very good to me right now. I added to my Suncor and am looking at others.

Wow, so many comments: Tough to have the best record and lose game 7 in your own house. The fans of Vancouver deserved better. Regrettably, the "fans" were not rioting, those were morons. Yes, of course they had donned Canucks garb (makes for better photo-journalism to be sure) but they were nothing short of morons. If Vancouver had pulled it out, the same numbskulls would have been doing the same thing....they simply want an excuse to be idiots, and this series proved to be the excuse they needed. Thomas was unreal, absolutely unreal...funny how we have a 2 year streak of the guy who started the year as back-up (Neimi was the backup to Huet for the Blackhawks at the start of 2009-2010) ended up backstopping the Stanley Cup Champs. Luongo's comment about the goal Thomas let through in Game 5 was ill-advised at best, and stupid at worst. It does not even matter that he may have been technically correct, you don't want to give a hot goalie more incentive...and it bit Luongo in the a**. Really surprised at Ryan Kessler...he was money for the Canucks, game in and game out, for most all of the year and for most of the playoffs. Not sure how/why, but was a statistical non-factor against the Bruins. Agreed that Kevin Bieksa would be a good captain...heckuva player. Dear GOD I'd love to have Milan Lucic in a Blackhawks uniform. Congratulations to the Bruins. Not sure if the best team won, but the Bruins the were the better team in these 7 games. -Steve