Parsad

Mediocre quarter, about what I epected. Al, you're getting spoiled! ;D Mediocre quarter?! Cheers!

I think the board got it pretty close with the estimates. Bonds were the main contributor, and the hedges countered the losses in equities. Insurance premium pricing is firming a bit, as they are writing more business. Doesn't look like they took any real profits off the bonds...at least before September 30th. I was hoping they would have capitalized on a bit and bought some cheap stocks. Basically, they are hedged neutral the way the portfolio is set up. In the meantime, they can grow their insurance businesses and continue to add bolt-on acquisitions. All in all, a good report in a volatile quarter! Cheers!

Usually how it works. Investors do stupid things because of emotion and anchoring. How many missed the boat again this time? Cheers!

They are doing exactly what they need to do to stabilize the banking system, and remove the risk of a domino effect occurring from counterparty liability through credit default swaps. It isn't a cure...it's the equivalent of a respiratory intubation. Now they can breathe, but the long, arduous task of reforming soverign fiduciary responsibility begins. No different than what happened in the U.S. The risk of a depression in Europe has decreased signficantly...the risk of a Greece default has been reduced. The banks will be on board with the 50% hit because they simply have no choice. It's either a 50% hit, or you fail! Greece will actually have a real chance of paying its debt back over time. Not a solution, but it creates the opportunity for reformation and change. Cheers!

Thanks you Ubuy! And Happy Diwali to our other Indian boardmembers. Cheers!

The attendees at this year's Fairfax Financial Shareholders Dinner were treated to meeting and listening to Bill McMorrow and Mary Ricks from Kennedy Wilson. He's a Watsa-type CEO. Cheers!

Thanks Crip! It's quite a bit of fun for me to do it, so the work doesn't really feel like work. Cheers!

I guess I have to give the guy credit for moving like the wind on this stuff but does he immediately phone the media or do they hound him for a quote on days like this? It seems that his moves are always public knowledge before the trade pie has even cooled! The stock fell today. How the heck would the media know what he is buying if he didn't disclose it. You know what they say, there is no such thing as bad press! Although, that's probably why we're managing such a pittance with our record. I just turned down another interview last week. You guys are the only ones who have to listen to me talk about myself. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am! ;D Cheers!

Hester, don't you think we should make a distinction between "good" and "bad" shorts? To the extent that "bad" shorts drive down a company's stock with false rumours and coordinated attacks resulting in a highly dilutive fundraising (as happened with FFH), there is some permanent damage done. The bad shorts have the privilege to trade in markets but surely that doesn't give them the right to use illegal tactics. I think the problem with this debate is that we have one group who want to demonise all high-profile shorts and another group that want to defend all shorts. Why not just accept there are some "bad" shorts (whom we should all condemn) and some "good" shorts (whom we should all support for their contrary views)? Oec, I think that is better. I'm not against short-sellers, just like I'm not entirely in favor of anyone who is long. I'm against members of both groups if they are colluding to drive a company's price up or down...manipulating the stock...hurting shareholders of the corporation...or straddling the lines of what is ethical. My comments were simply in reply to the fact that just because Overstock's business has done poorly, does not mean that the act of manipulating the stock did not occur. Cheers!

That's a false analogy, because a hit and run sees the victim severely injured for a period of time. A negative writeup on a company, although it distracts management, doesn't affect the core business. Alfred Little's blog ramblings don't make it harder or more difficult to mine silver. Unless there is some silver fairy that I don't know about working for the shorts and disrupting mining procedures (I wouldn't put it past the Sith Lord). Yes, because most mining companies don't access the public markets for financing to continue exploration and development...is that your thesis! If somebody yells fire in a theatre, do you think any interested moviegoer is going to stick around? Give me a break! Access to capital is a privilege not a right. Capital can freeze with or without shorts, just due to a loss of confidence. Silvercorp will get that privilege back if and when the shorts are proven wrong (they are possibly most of the way there) and/or the market restores confidence in them, just like the Fairfax story. Yes, that's right...if and when the shorts are proven wrong! Do you think Prem sold $300M in Fairfax stock under book to Cundill, Markel and Longleaf because he wanted to? He needed the money to maintain Fairfax's credit rating after the shorts yelled "fire". If Prem had waited for the shorts to be proven wrong, Fairfax would not be around today. Cheers!

Peter, does that mean you've made notice of Whitney's derriere? ;D Cheers!

And this is coming from somebody who has never shorted. Really, if I were convinced I was right on a target of these "bear raids" and such, I would welcome the short sellers, and would even be willing to lend them my shares, so that I could buy more at a lower price. Does anybody that wasn't emotionally involved in the Fairfax case even remember what happened? I don't think so; Fairfax has a great reputation. That's akin to saying that if the victim of a hit and run is ok and walking after a few years, there was nothing wrong with what happened. I can't believe that people who would agree with my statement above, feel that the same action in terms of short-selling is morally ok. I have no problem with the individual short-seller who takes a position. My problem is with collusion. And while that happens with longs even more than with shorts, it by no means makes it right. Cheers!

If there is a double dip coming, cargo transport certainly doesn't show it. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/north-american-third-quarter-rail-freight-car-orders-table-.html?cmpid=yhoo

WSJ article on the Tilson bet against Netflix. Cheers! http://blogs.wsj.com/overheard/2011/10/25/whitney-tilsons-long-lost-netflix-short/?mod=yahoo_hs

A somewhat funny anecdote, is that I once lived in Texas and ‘my twang’ was foreign to the local twang so all the old Texan's I worked with called me a Yankee as they thought I was from Oklahoma. That's pretty funny! I guess your twang is somewhat of a mutt, and a mixture of North Carolina and Virginia. Cheers!

It's the difference between putting an innocent man to death or giving him a life sentence. Some people think there is no difference...unfortunately there is! Cheers!

Article on Donald Yacktman. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-25/yacktman-defies-demise-of-stock-picking-era-as-berkowitz-falters.html

KPMG's forensic unit report has stated that there is nothing fraudulent about Silvercorp's revenues or business. I'm sure the short-sellers meant no harm. They were only trying to help investors with the best of unselfish intentions, and certainly no desire to profit from false rumours or fraudulent accusations. Cheers! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/independent-audit-vindicates-silvercorp/article2211260/

That's completely ridiculous. A loanshark preys off of it's victim causing them direct harm. What does a short or naked short do? In the case of a naked short, they sell stock they don't borrow to someone else, thereby creating a new owner that shouldn't exist. How does that in any way harm Overstock? The only argument that can be made is the selling drives down the share price so much that they can't raise new capital. I think this is complete bullshit as for every seller there is a buyer, no matter what the float is of a company. But, let's say you're right. Overstock has never been denied access to the capital markets. They could have and still can raise capital if that's what they need to compete. Their failure is purely the result of a shitty business and bad management. Rubbish! How much money did Bear Stearns raise at $3/share? What about Bank of America without government recapitalization, even though the banking business was solvent? Who was lending Dendreon money when their stock was getting pummelled? You like to point out the Fairfax only survived because they had friends who saved them. It's just not true. Fairfax survived because they were solvent and the stock was so cheap people stepped up to provide them capital. The same would have happened with Bear or Lehman or ANY stock at the right price. No short can drive a solvent, cheap, business out of business. Greed will always step up to invest at a good valuation. Again you're wrong. Without that $300M injection, Fairfax would have almost certainly been downgraded and would have had a difficult time underwriting many of their property casualty insurance businesses. There was no one who wanted to lend them money when their shares had been obliterated by naked shorts all the way down to $57, after less than six months being listed on the NYSE. With the articles being written by Peter Eavis, fuel being fed to other investors, the media and analysts by that slug who worked for the investment company in Sydney, no one was going to lend Prem money other than his friends. They essentially were driving Fairfax out of business! That $300M injection gave them time to turn around the insurance businesses, and it gave Dennis Gibbs time to keep the run off businesses from eating them alive. Once the investments in the credit default swaps worked out, they would never have to worry about reserving in their run-off businesses again. That $300M saved the company, because the naked shorts had pretty much eliminated their ability to raise funds from the public. And that is their case...Prem's case: The spigot to finance their business had effectively been shut off by a coordinated effort to drive their stock price down through the issuance of counterfeit shares. Cheers!

How about Bear Stearns? While it's demise was primarily of it's own making, the fact that the shorts drove the price down, limited their ability to finance the business. The naked shorts didn't cause Bear Stearns to fail, but they certainly made it impossible to get out. They did the same thing at Fairfax, which survived due to the goodwill of Longleaf, Cundill and Markel. There are alot of companies in similar circumstances that did not have the luxury of turning to friends with deep pockets. Overstock also had Fairfax step in to give them a chance. Your argument is the same as saying "No loan shark has ever driven a debtor into bankruptcy". You see nothing wrong in the loanshark making a profit, since it is simply a capitalistic endeavor to meet a market need. I see something unethical. Cheers!

Given, does the end result always mean that the argument was moot? In Fairfax's case the company rebounded, so are you going to say that it was only the hard work of the CEO and that there was no organized short attack? In Overstock's case the company struggled, and because it did so, are you going to say it was only the fault of the CEO and not of the short attack? It's like saying that someone who smoked and didn't get cancer, proves that smoking does not cause cancer. Cheers!

I actually shorted OPEN and NFLX in a practice account with leverage. I made a virtual killing!! lol. If Tilson had waited 6 months to put his trade on he would have a guru story to hang his hat on in 2011... Or just kept it going a little longer. I think he closed it out towards the end of the 1st quarter, or in the 2nd quarter. That's why I don't short. With a long position, I have no time horizon really. With a short, you not only have a time horizon, if it goes the wrong way it will kill you. Cheers!

Overstock's case against Goldman and Merrill Lynch has been moved to March 5, 2012. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Oco-aka-Overstockcom-prnews-2709966708.html?x=0&.v=1

There's still CRM to short the hell out of! Cheers!

A while back on here, I said that there were three stocks I would short the hell out of, if we shorted. Unfortunately, we only got the put price we wanted on one...Salesforce.com...which we sold during the correction, and it has since rebounded. The other two actually did far, far better...Opentable and Netflix...both down over 60%+. Netflix is getting killed right now in afterhours! Cheers!