Parsad

Almost like Brett Favre, Lou Simpson was retired for a few days and then decided he'd had enough! He's opening his own shop with his wife that will have about $150-200M to start. Thanks to Keith for sending me the info! Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-21/buffett-stock-picker-simpson-opens-florida-firm-after-retiring-from-geico.html

Hi Folks, That's it! We're sold out. I will take names for a waiting list if there are cancellations. What I may also do, if possible, is set up a standing room only area towards the back of the room where we may be able to get a few people in. You won't be able to join for dinner, but you could attend the presentation. Unfortunately, for those standing room only guests, I would set the ticket price at $35 and all of that would go to "The Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of Canada" in JoAnn's name. Cheers and thanks for everybody's support!

I think Gaynor & Company like the money management business (high returns, very low capital expenditures), and if you can find a good horse...well! ;D Cheers!

Looks like Markel is backing them partly. Cheers!

Hi Folks, That's it! We're sold out. I will take names for a waiting list if there are cancellations. What I may also do, if possible, is set up a standing room only area towards the back of the room where we may be able to get a few people in. You won't be able to join for dinner, but you could attend the presentation. Unfortunately, for those standing room only guests, I would set the ticket price at $35 and all of that would go to "The Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of Canada" in JoAnn's name. Cheers and thanks for everybody's support!

One spot left! Who will be the lucky one? ;D Cheers!

Here's an article on Greg Abel, who is David Sokol's right hand man. He's a possible successor for the CEO position at Berkshire in the future. Cheers! http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/18/news/companies/greg_abel_berkshire.fortune/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote

Ok folks, I have room for exactly three more people. That's it! First come, first serve. Cheers!

As a side note, Starbucks does not have a 'small' cup on their menu. If you want to purchase a small cup of coffee, you must ask for a 'short cup'. I believe I am the only patron at our local establishment to order such an odd creature. No James, I used to as well. And then one day the cheap bastard in me realized that I was paying nearly as much for something significantly smaller than the Tall cup, so I switched. I always order Tall now. By the way, the Instant "Vias" are actually very good for those that like convenience at the office, rather than running down the block all the time. You must be losing a lot of fluid? Are you bleeding? That's pretty funny! ;D I'm guessing a good portion is water loss, as that occurs at the beginning of many diets. Cheers!

From what I've heard it is very good. Munger doesn't answer questions for hours like he does at Wesco, but he does answer some. I would think it is going to be far larger than normal, now that he will no longer be doing Wesco. Cheers!

Yeah, I am pretty tired of the nanny state these days. I think my last straw was being reached when people start talking about legislating helmets for downhill skiing where the hazard is miniscule, as compared to bikes or hockey. If they start looking at foods they would have to outlaw nearly every fast food outlet presently operating since about none of them have products without refined carbohydrates. Now my perverse way of thinking has me visualizing a java junkie shooting up a Startbucks after overdosing from his Trenta. I'm not talking about outlawing junk food. Junk food itself is not the problem. Exceedingly high levels of calories, saturated fat, trans fats, etc per meal is the problem. Buffett eats junk food, but he makes sure he consumes only his daily caloric intake. The coffee drink isn't the problem...the size of the drink is. Cheers!

Is it the role of the Canadian government (or any government in the world) to put a limit on how much coffee people can drink? Or by extension how much food they should eat every day? Probably not, but I sure see alot of kids around that are suffering because their parents choose to exercise that right. In that regard, should we remove the role of Social Services to monitor the welfare of children? I'm not one for the government intervening in every facet of our lives, but unfortunately maybe there are certain circumstances where intervention is warranted...the mortgage industry from 2004-2007 comes to mind. Cheers!

I would think that the caffeine hit from a 31 ounce coffee would almost certainly be fatal. I believe a "Venti" has at least two shots of espresso, so I would think that a "Trenta" would have at least three. The only time I order anything bigger than a "Tall" coffee is when Starbucks sends me a free birthday gift where I can order any drink I want. I thought the "Venti" was too large and full of caffeine. I'm not sure how somebody handles the new bigger drink...and all the sugar and fat! Cheers!

Starbucks is adding a larger cup size..."Trenta"...which will be much bigger than a "Venti". Do you guys really need this? http://www.cnbc.com/id/41106727 This is like gun control in the U.S. You really, really need it, but apparently "Guns don't kill, people do!" I'm guessing this is the same thing..."Supersized foods don't kill, people do!" I hope Health Canada puts strict limits on new products here. We're starting to already see changes in certain areas on the municipal and provincial level, but not federal yet such as on trans fats levels, fat content in street foods, etc. Cheers!

The fellow who sold it to Target, bought the entire company from Zucker's widow for $1.1B in late 2008/early 2009! Far less than the Zeller's sale price alone, and HBC is worth at least as much. Now that's a good investor! ;D Cheers!

I was a shareholder a while back (had a $600mln market cap, $500mln or so in debt... and some really choice assets), so I was familiar with him and the company... told him that it would be a great day when Target finally swooped in and saved them from Zellers - he just looked at me weird. It was the other way around for a long time. The Zellers stores were very profitable and were the dominant discount store in Canada by far for a long-time. They had over 50% of the market at one point in the 90's. The CEO of Zellers from 1989-1996 had done a spectacular job, but after that they started to lose market share and profitability. By 2005-2006, the tide had turned, the stores had been neglected and they were bleeding cash. Target will do very well in the existing Zellers locations. All those stores needed was a better supply management system, updating and a retailer that is at the top of their game when it comes to discount retailing and expenditure management. Many of those Zellers locations are still very busy...at least the ones in BC...so Target will come in and do what should have been done a few years ago. They will make money and take market share away from other players. In particular, Loblaws "Real Canadian Superstores" and Jimmy Pattison's "Save-on-Foods" will probably suffer a bit. Cheers!

I figured this would be a decent topic of conversation for all you property/casualty insurance buffs. Cheers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm

Article from Gurufocus on BH and Gideon King's recent letter to Fremont Michigan. http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=119717 I disagree with the writers use of Prem Watsa and Fairfax in the article. Prem has always taken a different route when investing and acquiring companies. I think he holds the bar as high as Buffett. Cheers!

We've got a few spots left folks. If you are interested in attending, please RSVP if you haven't already. Cheers!

Yeah, if there is multiple securities like the FRE and FNM preferreds, then just post that topic in the General Discussion section. Thanks! Cheers!

Hey Folks, When you post an idea on the "Investment Ideas Board", please make sure the title is in the format "Symbol - Company Name". Anything else will be moved to the "General Discussion Board". The reason being is that if someone wants to find information on a specific company, all they have to do is click the "Subject" heading and all of the company symbols are arranged alphabetically. You put anything else in the title, or different than the order above, and that ability to locate a company quickly diminishes. I want to keep that board uncluttered, so that it ends up being a very useful long-term resource for boardmembers to reflect and research on ideas, and ultimately how they ended up doing. Thanks very much. Cheers!

Probably an over-reaction on the part of law enforcement after the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford, but what a knob! Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/41076538

True, I agree Uccmal. But I don't believe the numbers are as high, thus the 5% rather than 1%. Temperament plays a big part, and naturally this philosophy is going to attract more of people of the right temperament than other philosophies, but I still don't think the advantage would be enough to allow an enormously skewed result. Cheers!

Norm, I think you are dead on the money. Investing one's own personal capital is a very different animal than investing other people's money, even if "other people's money" is partly your money. Unless you have a five-year lockup or longer, you cannot do the same things you would do with your own money. In our case, we have NO lock-up! Your partners temperament for volatility is no different than the general makeup of the markets. They may be modestly better if you have investors who have studied a "margin of safety" approach, but nonetheless the makeup will be the same as the general public. The members on this board are no different. There is no way in hell that the average return on this board would be anywhere near 20% annualized...whether you are managing your own money or other peoples money. Just not possible. While you may have a significantly higher concentration of outperformers, not unlike the "Superinvestors of Graham & Doddsville", the average would be nowhere near that number. If the markets return 7% long-term, I would expect the average board member to do modestly better at around 8-9% annualized. I hear about all these numbers in personal portfolios, but then where the heck are these people in the money management business? They just don't exist. Only 1% of investment managers beat the market long-term by 3% or more. I don't think that number would be different for the average investor. And I think that percentage would be modestly higher for investors versed in "value investing"...at best 5%. Cheers!

Good letter, but it won't do anything. These guys are entrenched! They will go to the courts or find an alternate buyer before they sell to Sardar. Cheers!