Crip1

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

The following from a guy who's initial investments were funded by tips earned during years of bartending. There's an element of the population, can them "We's" which look for the greater good in a given situation. This is done to their own detriment at times, but understanding that the one needs to be cognizant of the needs, desires and motivations of others is considered in their decision-making process. Another element, we can call them "Me's", look at each and every situation as a means by which they can benefit, the greater good be damned. The latter element will utilize any fact at their disposal, will fabricate facts if need be and will use logic, with varying levels of distortion/perversion, to justify a decision which has no other benefit but to line their own pockets. It is increasingly clear that Mr. Biglari is one of the "Me's" out there. What's more interesting is that as a "me" achieves some success, they take their behavior to a higher level...increasingly using perverted logic in the process. First, know that these folks are quite smart to be honest. The brains and energy they possess allow them to pervert the logic to the level that they do. Their narcissistic tendencies see to it that they get more brazen and brash which as a deleterious effect on their lives. Bernie Madoff. Tiger Woods. Arnold Schwarzenaggar. Rod Blagojevich. Each of these folks did things that were wrong but, through some amount of perverted logic, they rationalized as being acceptable, if not right. The music does end for these folks. Perhaps not to the level of the individuals referenced above, but it does end. It may end in some sort of regulatory action against them, or they may find themselves embroiled in lawsuits, or they may gamble substantial portions of their net worth on what ends up being a bad decision and lose their wealth. It depends. What IS consistent, across the board, is that these folks lose all levels of credibility, influence and dignity. Their reputations are eventually shattered such that they become a joke. The individuals above and others in the public eye experience such shame that they become punch lines to late night television comedians. Other, non-public figures, experience similar losses, just on a more intimate scale. And this happens ALL OF THE TIME. Mr. Biglari, if money and power are what you seek, understand that if you do not stop this behavior, that is all you will have, and you will lose any sense of dignity and reputation. Don’t believe me? Try asking an objective bystander who is not somehow trying to get money from you or whom you cannot affect by their answer. You will find out that your list of “true” friends and those who truly respect you will be able to fit on a post-it note. -Crip

"His main lawyer, John Dowd, told dozens of reporters outside the courthouse that his client would keep fighting. 'We're gonna take an appeal for this conviction,' Dowd said. 'We'll see you in the 2nd circuit' a reference to the appeals court in New York." Really? Huh...never saw THAT coming. Imagine, an appeal. Not sure who it was who posted elsewhere about requiring the unsucessful litigant to pay for court costs, etc, but that should DEFINITELY be in place for appeals...especially one of the knee-jerk "We're going to appeal and appeal and appeal until our client dies of old age". -Crip

Q: What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the Atlantic? A: A good start. -Crip

Not sure that is going to change much, but it's widely reported...

I do agree that Buffett cannot paint himself FULLY as the victim here. It is rare, quite rare in fact in an instances such as this where one person deserves all the blame. A simple "Tell me more" line from Buffett when Sokol indicated he did own LU may have done the trick. Look, in most every situation, the astute businessman/businesswoman whose ego is in check* will internalize the situation and ask what they could have done better. If Buffett does this, more than likely he would state that he could have probed more into the ownership issue. From the BRK release, it does not look like much probing was done on Buffett's part as, if he did, the release would have stated such. Bottom line, I do believe that Sokol was wrong...he went way to close to the line when one of the main tenants, if not THE main tenant of working for Buffett is to never venture close to the line. Because Sokol did this, he got axed. That's the law of the BRK world and Sokol did it. One can be mad for getting a speeding ticket for being "only 5 MPH/KPH over the limit", but one has to understand that that can happen. The issue for Sokol is that this is one really expensive speeding ticket, monitarily and from a reputational perspective (Reputations are earned over a lifetime and lost in a heartbeat). * BTW, I work with folks who do not admit mistakes, ever. The level of frustration is monumental. It was always refreshing to see a guy worth Billions admit mistakes (US Air comes to mind right away) and expound the virtues of others. Internally, Buffett needs to admit this. -Crip

Swizzled, "Buy slowly because a better price is right around the corner." I used to refer to this as "Crip's Law of Investments" where the price of a security will drop by no less than 10% within 5 trading days of my purchase. Seriously, unless there is a screaming "Fat Pitch", I've adopted a similar strategy. Logically, it's not realistic to believe that one can hit the bottom consistently, but if your analysis concludes that a company is a good buy at $50, it's better at $46, obviously. One can use the volitility to their advantage. -Crip

Obviously the "Yikes" comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I would be interested in understanding whether Prem and Company get more out of the complementary comments or the critical ones. My guess would be the latter with the reason being that the FFH group is notoriously low on ego. Folks like this tend to welcome contrary thoughts/opinions to challenge pre-conceived notions. Those who are more egotistical tend to want to hear how great they are...the stereotypical "Yes-man". That may not mean that Prem and Co. are reading "Momentum Investors Digest", but hearing critical opinions, provided they are objective and well-thought-out, are ultimately more useful. That's my guess...I'd be curious to know, though. Yes, it goes without saying, I wish I could be in Toronto this week. -Crip