Parsad

Cheers!

Immigration Policy should not be based on charity, or political correctness. The existing citizens of a country deserve to have its government properly vet every potential legal immigrant to make sure they will not be a burden on society. If the immigrant is not skilled and has no money they will become a financial burden. Who pays the bills: free healthcare, free education, food stamps, etc, etc??? The productive citizens of the country pay the tab. How is this morally correct??? It didn't hurt the United States over the last 100 years...in fact it probably helped foster the United States' growth. It certainly hasn't hurt Canada either over the last 20-30 years, let alone the last 100. Cheers!

Lots of luck on moving to Canada. Instead of accepting immigrants who are well educated, are familiar with the culture, speak perfect English, and have a significant nest-egg of capital, we instead prefer to select refugees and family-class immigrants who often have no education, speak neither English nor French, find the culture alien, have no money and have no prospect of economic success. But, it does make us feel morally superior to select these inferior immigrants... Perhaps you should rather think of Mexico or Thailand? Wait a sec! That would probably be appropriate if you were building a country based on non-egalitarian values, but I sure as hell hope we aren't. We had a large influx of immigrants come into BC in the late 90's from Hong Kong, and while most have immensely added and built upon what was already here, there were many who brought along their spoilt brats who had no idea what the value of a dollar was or what hard work is. Many of these brats were living in monster houses, driving Ferraris and weren't working. Did they consume and drive business? Sure. Many left Hong Kong because they were concerned about the handover to China. Now that business is good and the Chinese have embraced free-market economics, many have repatriated back. Bye-bye Canada...hello China! I'm not sure there is much generational longevity in this type of immigrant. Many of the poor refugees with less than perfect English you speak of, who are eagerly optimistic about their future here when compared to where they came from, have and will continue to contribute back to society...my grandparents did, so did my parents...as well as most of the other immigrants I know of who have come here. For them, this isn't a pit-stop or a marriage of convenience. They are truly looking for a better life for themselves and their children. Usually the first generation are the ones who come here and struggle...the ones with less than stellar English and a small amount of money. The 2nd and 3rd generations usually receive higher levels of education and give back to the country far more than the first generation ever consumed. Are there bad apples? Sure. Can we do better? You betcha! But I don't want to base that decision on the dollars in their bank account or the sound of their accent. My favorite movie of all time is "It's a Wonderful Life"...how fitting, since it's shown regularly at Christmas! ;D Anyway, there is one sequence in the movie that I absolutely love, and covers what I'm discussing. The scene revolves around the protagonist, George Bailey, whose father runs the town's savings and loan. George's father has died and the town's wealthiest individual, who also happens to own the bank, says that they should close the Bailey Savings and Loan due to all of the "riff-raff" it lends to: George: Just a minute –– just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You're right when you say my father was no business man. I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I'll never know. But neither you nor anybody else can say anything against his character, because his whole life was...Why, in the twenty-five years since he and Uncle Billy started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right, Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me. But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter. And what's wrong with that? Why...Here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You...you said...What'd you say just a minute ago?...They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait! Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they...Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about...they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community." Cheers!

That is so funny! I sent that joke to all my Hab friends. Bronco...we're no slouch either. We're coming for everyone this year. We will take the cup! Forty years of futility will be forgotten. Cheers!

My memory might be incorrect, but Sanjeev didn't you object to the short selling ban? I think you reasoned that legal short selling is okay -- but my point to you is that one can't have legal short selling without a LENDER of shares. You implicitly said that LENDING is okay when you said that legal short selling is okay. Eric, When did I say short-selling was bad? What I said was that you guys lending your shares, in companies that were under attack and had numerous fail to delivers, only helped those creating the naked short sales in the first place. Your shares were lent to someone...you don't know who...and they could have simply been running reset transactions so that their fail to delivers disappeared. Take a look at the HCM/SEC case below. It's a good example of who may have been at the other end of the shares you were lending. Yes, there are numerous legitimate transactions, but I'm talking about the lending of shares of companies that were specifically targeted and heavily shorted, with numerous fail to delivers before Reg SHO was strictly enforced. Cheers! http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2009/34-60441.pdf

From what I understand some people were motivated to go the naked shorting route in order to get around the high borrowing costs... lending them shares helps bring the rate down, thus less need to naked short. That's like saying it's ok to do something unethical, because indirectly it brings down the cost for everyone. Yet what is the cost? Take a look at Fairfax...the naked shorts made it difficult for them to refinance if they needed to issue shares...same with Overstock. Dendreon was almost completely wiped out...how would that have been fair or good for society? The question is: Should investors participate in a rigged game, simply because it's legal? Obviously the answer is no. Saying yes would only compromise the integrity of the system and that hurts everyone! Cheers!

Hey, but naked short selling really doesn't exist, does it! There are certain value managers, including Buffett, that I wish did renounce the behavior of naked short selling. Instead, they just said that there are as many people guilty on the long side, which I thought was a bit of a cop-out. Wrong is wrong, and naked short-selling was just plain wrong. We never lent out our shares of Fairfax or Overstock, even though we were contacted several times by our institutions to see if we wanted to lend the shares. It was just unethical...regardless of the interest rate people were willing to pay. Unfortunately in this world, if it's legal than it's ok. I don't buy that. If it feels wrong, then it is. Simple! You don't know who was borrowing those shares, and who they were re-lending to. I didn't want to help those people in any way. Cheers!

Looks like they settled for $4.4M from a couple of the brokerages, while they keep the pressure on the others. Cheers! http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1130713/000110465910063091/a10-23820_18k.htm

Overstock.com's 2007 lawsuit against prime brokers due to naked short selling of Overstock.com stock, is now including racketeering charges against Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, due to new revelations under discovery. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Overstock-Adding-Racketeering-prnews-361017108.html?x=0&.v=1

I've followed Markel for nearly as long as I've owned Fairfax, and used to attend their meetings every year in Omaha. I've never owned Markel shares though until a few months ago. We bought just barely above book value, and I'm happier owning it than Biglari Holdings! It should trade around 1.3-1.6 times book, so we expect it to go up some more. Cheers!

Yup! Smart guys, good guys...ethical guys. Love'em! Cheers!

Markel Ventures has bought retail intelligence company RD Holdings. I guess no better time than when other intelligence companies and experts are being indicted! ;D Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Markel-Announces-RD-Holdings-prnews-1486289676.html?x=0&.v=1

If you really think there is going to be deflation, you should buy long-dated treasury bonds. If you think you will be in a prolonged deflationary environment. If you face a couple of years of inflation or deflation, it won't matter. Buy cheap, sell dear. Cheers!

I can't believe the valuation the market is putting on Krispy Kreme these days. Nuts! Cheers!

Terrific video Carl! Cheers!

How many shares voted from the total outstanding (percentage-wise)? How many of the voting shares (percentage-wise) were controlled through the investment by BH in the Lion Fund? You may be surprised by exactly how many people voted for the plan. Cheers!

Middle ground people... come to the middle ground. Sometimes there is no middle ground. Someone I spoke to this morning told me "I just know the difference between right and wrong, and it seems wrong...". There is no blurred line here. Name Change - Wrong! Compensation Package Implementation - Wrong! Buying Back BH Shares Through Lion Fund - Wrong! No middle ground. We all know the difference between right and wrong. The only thing you could chalk it up to is a disconnect from reality. In that case, add independent directors who are large shareholders, not maintain a compliant board of directors. You want oversight, create a board that will give you that! Cheers!

Why is it so bad that he is buying BH stock through the Lion Fund with BH's capital? If he believe BH is undervalued and believes it is a good way to invest the capital, why is it so bad? If they were such a good investment, then why not retire the shares through the treasury, which would definitely benefit BH and all shareholders? So was he buying it because it was a good investment, or was he buying it to acquire votes on the compensation package? If those shares are retired from the treasury, then those are votes that cannot be exercised. What do you think his intention was? In my personal opinion, and if you view it objectively, the CEO's share vote or shares controlled by the CEO, should be excluded from any vote on his/her compensation. Not that it would have made an impact, since it was overwhelmingly in favor, but these things all add up to good corporate governance practices, and lately they have been lacking at SNS and BH. As a word of advice to those buying it on his abilities...never buy a stock based on a manager's abilities. Buy it because it's cheap, not because of management. Those people who bought Berkshire at $90K per share ten years ago could have done a hell of a lot better! And that was with Buffett at the helm. Cheers!

No, it matters. If you were disappointed with Sardar, it was because your expectations were very high, comparing him to Buffett in all respects. When Warren took over BRK, he was already a very rich young man just happy to be in the investing game - salary and incentives did not matter. Since he was firmly in control of BRK and was free to do whatever he wanted without looking over his shoulders. That is not the case with Sardar. His stake in BH is very small, not rich, eager to be super-rich ASAP, talented and aggressive. An X-hedge fund mangaer now a CEO of a corporation can not get rich earning $100k per year. If you had understood those limitations, you would not have been disappointed - you would have remained a happy BH shareholder and an admirer of Sardar. So Kumar, exactly what does the name change have to do with him making more money? I've followed Sardar probably longer than anyone on this board. I invested in Western Sizzlin, Steak'n Shake and subsequently Biglari Holdings. The compensation package as introduced was fundamentally flawed, as was the name change...in particular the way they were introduced and handled with shareholders. I didn't have a problem with the form of compensation, just the hurdles and incentive fee, since the capital is now captive...his risk is less than when he managed the Lion Fund. The truth is that shareholders who have now stayed with Sardar are the ones that are misleading themselves. They've bought into his abilities and now are ignoring deficiencies in character that have become glaringly apparent. Accompanied by a passive board, that becomes a dangerous combination where an individual is more likely to make miscalculated bets. We missed an early example of this when he had put virtually all of Western Sizzlin's capital into Steak'n Shake. Now it is becoming clearer that the accumulation of capital is paramount to anything else. He's buying BH stock through the Lion Fund with BH's own capital for crying out loud! Cheers!

Meaningless, but still pertinent to the interest rates Fairfax pays on their debt, so not entirely unimportant. Cheers!

Looks like the credit rating agencies may finally be seeing the light. Cheers! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/fairfax-up-for-a-potential-moodys-upgrade/article1836281/

For all intents and purposes, we lost the proxy. Our committee members, particularly Dave and Rahul, did a fantastic job running this thing on a shoestring budget! Ironically, the one large shareholder group that ran their own campaign against ITEX a couple of years ago, decided to vote FOR management this year and cost us the election. I personally expected this group to withhold their votes, since both ISS/Riskmetrics and Glass-Lewis had signficant concerns about corporate governance and board independence at ITEX. But then I chalked it up to this group having difficulty recognizing corporate governance issues within their own organization, so why would they recognize it at ITEX or anywhere else. C'est la vie! It's funny though, I personally have a very good relationship with some franchisees, even those that put out a letter against our group, and I think the board in general is open to dialogue. The problem is that the CEO is as stubborn as a mule and is reluctant to have any cohesive dialogue with our committee. I can only imagine that long-term, they would much rather prefer to have us on their side, then the large shareholder group that just voted for them. But that isn't up to us, as only they can make that decision. All in all, shareholders have been very approving of the initiatives the company has undertaken after we brought them to their attention. I just hope ITEX decides to do what is in the best interest of providing security and opportunity for their core franchise base, as many of these franchisees do not like the uncertainty and discourse permeating the company. We don't enjoy it either, and will do everything we can to work with management, as we have in the past. Ultimately, it is up to the CEO to decide if he wants to be constructive with his largest shareholder base. I'll have plenty to say about this in our quarterly letter, and even more in our annual report which only goes out to partners. Nonetheless, we aren't going anywhere and look forward to doing this again next year if necessary! The ball is in ITEX's court. Cheers!

So how does a guy go from being a Bell Canada repairman, to getting a senior executive position at Fairfax, and running one of Canada's most successful mutual funds? Does anyone know the details of that jump? did he just show his investment club returns to Watsa and get offered a job? Because he is one of the most ethical people in the industry, and probably the most honest person I've ever met! Francis has a CFA. He worked with Prem at Gardiner Watson and was the one who told Prem about insurance float and Buffett. He's probably one of the most trusted friends and advisors of Prem and Fairfax Financial. He also incidentally was one of the guys behind the credit default swap investment at Fairfax. Please read the attached articles to get a better idea of the backstory. He's one of the brightest guys I've ever met as well and a dear friend. Cheers!

Where? Let the race begin - Biglari vs ? Both Fairfax and Markel are cheaper than BH. They also have the leverage of float and Markel owns entire non-insurance companies. There are companies still trading at less than 4 times free cash with no debt...we bought a bunch of one two weeks ago. BH will go up in price...that is a given simply based on the Steak'n Shake engine that is now humming really, really nicely. But it isn't cheap...it's fair value. Cheers!

I think investment contests are silly. They trivialize the intellectual framework required for successful, long-term investing with a margin of safety, since contestants would attempt to realize the biggest return in the shortest timeframe, regardless of risk. Call me an investment snob, but unfortunately I am. There are plenty of sites to enter such contests, and this won't be one. Cheers!