Parsad

Wade is very good as well. Pretty amazing how talented that pool is and it will get deeper over time. Prem has a very good eye for talent! Cheers!

The interview with John is now available at www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.com. I would really like to thank John for doing the first interview, and we look forward to what he does in the future at Mustang! Cheers!

I believe that is an April Fool's joke, but the actual Primerica business model is very much in line with other multi-level marketing businesses. Berkshire already owns one...The Pampered Chef. I think much of the negativity around Primerica is due to the cult-like sales force and their efforts, and the comments from many of their competitors. But the ROE at Primerica is around 17-18% historically, and the upper management is actually full of fantastic leaders. How do I know? I used to have a mutual fund and insurance business through them. I was terrible at it...the sales side...but I learned what I liked and disliked about the financial industry through them. It was directly through them that I understood what an awful business the mutual fund industry is, as far as the individual consumer is concerned. As well as the incestuous relationship between fund companies, their dealers and brokers. It's why I ended up going on my own and starting my own company and funds. I've always thought that Primerica was actually the jewel in the Citi crown, as well as the Smith Barney investment bank business. Before Primerica, there were alot of really crappy whole life and universal life policies floating around. The industry realized that and made their product more competitive. I think it would be an ideal business for Berkshire to own, but I would hope that their funds would become an in-house value product. Cheers!

Hi Rk, That's been on hold for a few months now...they are going quarter by quarter and seeing how the credit markets are. The three parties still want to consummate the deal, and they are under contract, but spreads are just so wide that financing is very, very expensive. A few months earlier and this deal would have closed with no problem. Until credit markets start to loosen, financing is not cost-effective. Cheers!

Eric, You need to take a break from posting. Stop for a week and then come back. You are totally overreacting to something. No one here gives a heck what this discussion is about...neither what you are saying, nor what I am saying. They are here to discuss investing, and this is a waste of energy from everyone's perspective. At this moment, your emotions are obscuring that. As I've already said, all I was trying to do was get you to stop the arguments between you, Oec and Jack. They've stopped, but you keep going. If there is a missing post, or I've said anything to insult your standing with your peers here, I apologize. This is not my usual self...normally you would be gone by now, because the sheer amount of time spent on this is not what this forum is about. I'm asking you to do something different than what you are currently doing. Take a break, and come back. Thanks.

Eric, That quote you are referring to, it is very possible that I did delete it as I was trying to end the running argument you, Jack and Oec were in at that point. Thus I posted to leave it and move on to the next topic. But you didn't, and eventually you messaged Jack. On several occasions I've asked you now to leave the subject alone, yet you continue to post on it. Notice how neither Jack, nor Oec continue the discussion. If you've taken offense by anything any of us have done or said, then I apologize. I don't know exactly what anyone else's intentions were, but I was simply trying to get you guys to stop. Then you suggested that I was picking on you. If you think that was the case, then once again...I apologize. That being said, if you decide to leave, then that is completely your choice. Everyone is a grown adult here. People have to act with a certain level of maturity. To let things go. I think everyone appreciates your efforts and posts. I think there is alot we can learn from one another. Good luck to you! Cheers!

Thanks Smazz! I just found a way to lock topics. Cheers!

The word "using" is exactly the word I used publicly before the two of you called me out for contacted him offline. Therefore, in no way was I attempting some underhanded campaign offline. It was merely using the precise word that I used publicly in a message to OEC. It is exactly because of my high ethical standards that I am trying to clear this up -- it bothers me that your first instinct was to mistake me for a lowlife. It truly bothers me! That wouldn't be the case if I was guilty of malice. Dude, you shouldn't have contacted him regarding that stuff in the first place. This is a friggin' message board for God's sake. You're like 40 years old like me. Why would you bother asking him that? Incidentally, I didn't call you out. Jack posted the original perplexed post, and I just made a comment that all users should debate with each other in the open: Folks, The PM service is there, but please do not use it to contact others after a debate. You clarify positions in the open board and say what you have to say. The private message system is there for people to network only. Thanks! You then decided to pursue the issue. And I'm almost certain you will have something to say after this post as well. If not, then great we can all move on to the next topic. Cheers!

Lest I be misunderstood, I'm asking him to post it because now you are saying I was bashing somebody. People can compare what I said privately to what I said publicly and determine for themselves whether you are right that I am being malicious. Eric, bashing may be a bit strong, but you were clearly suggesting that Oec was using Jack, and then asking Jack how he felt about it. It's just not a useful way to spend your time is it? It's just a pointless exercise that won't give you any satisfaction, and serves no value to anyone. Anyway, here is the original message you sent to Jack, which I requested a copy of last night, due to his original perplexed post. Please let's move on from this whole subject. At the same time, I would also ask Jack to just tone down the posts. Some of your posts come across a bit acrimonious...if not a bit hostile. Thanks! Jack, You spent a good amount of ink explaining to me that OEC wasn't being hostile. He let you continue with this for quite some time. In the end, he basically capitulated and said "yeah, but considering how hostile your 'sandbox' comment was, you can't complain about my comments". This is essentially him saying, "sure it was hostile but I didn't cast the first stone". The explanation of the sandbox misunderstanding by nodnub confirms that it would indeed have pissed him off... prior to that, I was wondering what could possibly be wrong with this guy. Then at the end he thanked you for backing him up! It sounds to me like he was intentially getting his digs in due to a perceived slight about kiddie play in a sandbox, but let you go on and on about how proper his intentions were. Did this make you feel used? That's all I want to know. I'd be pretty annoyed if I defended somebody for a long time, only for him to admit guilt in the end. Your mileage may vary. - Eric

Afraid I'm going to disagree with you in saying I lacked "common sense". What is the name of that feature again? Dude! You contacted him privately to bash another member. In that you are asking him if he felt used by the other boardmember. That may not having anything to do with common sense, but it sure as hell was immature. Leave it alone. Like I said, next topic please. Thanks.

Sanjeev, I've re-read the Terms of Use, and there's nothing in it that clarifies the terms of using PM. As long as the PM follows the terms of use for the general board (no vulgar, hostile, SPAM, etc...), I think it should be used for anything that the sender deems private. Kawikho, just because something isn't in the Terms of Use, doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate one's actions. Eric didn't say anything particularly negative or bizarre, but I'm asking that people use the PM feature for positive exchanges rather than negative. Otherwise, the feature gets turned off across the board. Cheers!

I emailed Rob Carrick this morning at the Globe & Mail. He's already planning on writing about it and has contacted Francis. There are some decent journalists out there! ;D In regards to the Sprott or Chou comment, they are different types of managers. Sprott has better absolute numbers, but he also shorts a fair amount and will concentrate his fund in specific sectors. Take a look at his Canadian Growth fund. It's got about an 80% concentration in commodities! He also uses leverage from time to time. The difference between the two narrows considerably if they had the same constraints. And I haven't seen Sprott refund any of his management fees after the punishment he took in most of his funds this year as well. Cheers!

Francis has put out his 2008 Annual Report. Alot of good stuff he talks about in there. http://www.choufunds.com/pdf/AR08.pdf He refunded most or all of the MER in two of his funds where he was dissatisfied with the performance. How many fund managers have done that this year? None that I know of. He doesn't know what the market holds for us in the short-term, but believes that investors will be very happy ten years from now. Cheers!

Folks, The PM service is there, but please do not use it to contact others after a debate. You clarify positions in the open board and say what you have to say. The private message system is there for people to network only. Thanks!

And it looks like he'll be three for three so far. Cheers!

Hi Jack, There's plenty of posts on here regarding Steak'n Shake and Western Sizzlin. Please use the "Search" feature on the top of the webpage. If you go to our old archives as well (http://msnbrkboardarchive.multiply.com/), there are even more posts and discussions on Steak'n Shake. Thanks very much!

It may be a nostalgia thing. People who grew up with the Steakburger, probably had fond childhood memories of eating there with their family. I don't really like In&Out and have never had a Steakburger, but I do have fond memories of the restaurants I used to go to as child...including fast food restaurants. I remember the old drive-ins at A&W, with the rickety speaker box where you order after you park your car. I remember the tray hanging from the windows, and the frosted mugs that the rootbeer came in. I remember standing in the front seat between my Mom and Dad as a six-year old chomping away at my little burger. It was the greatest thing in the world at the time! Even when I go to A&W now, and it has changed considerably. I can't help but remember those days while drinking rootbeer out of a frosted mug...they still do that here in Vancouver. Or their burgers coming in the little tinfoil wrapping. A friend of mine just had the Steak'n Shake chilli and thought it wasn't very good. Yet, that is one of their best sellers. I still prefer to eat at A&W compared to any of the other fast-food burger joints. Chalk it up to nostalgia. Cheers!

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown threatens to put out negative articles against Steak'n Shake if Sardar doesn't cave to his request for a Steak'n Shake in Chicago. Another great article on the chain, following the stellar blog article by Roger Ebert earlier this year! A cult-like following is slowly brewing. Hopefully Sardar grows it like See's Candies over time. Cheers! http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/1500402,CST-NWS-brown29.article

Thanks guys! Cheers!

Things are running smoothly at Western Sizzlin, but I believe virtually all of Sardar's efforts are being put into Steak'n Shake at the moment. Cheers!

The article is interesting from the point of view that FFH is starting to be sought out by the media. All it took was for FFH to: 1) become one of the highest earning companies in Canada, 2) get upgraded to investment grade And... 3) your three-year prediction of Armageddon for virtually every asset class outside of T-bills comes true! Cheers!

This article in the Indianapolis Business Journal backs up what I was saying about the board. As we all know, Sue Aramian and Charles Arnett, who were both close associates of Wayne Kelley's father E.W. Kelley (who grew the chain to what it was in 2003), seem to be on Sardar's side. http://www.ibj.com/html/detail_page.asp?content=34444 The article also says that if things continue to trend as they are going under Sardar's leadership, the company may break a 14-quarter streak of declining sales. And this isn't the most hospitable of environments for the restaurant industry. I have to think that Kelley's letter may have to do more with not being heard as the CEO, and son of the modern-day founder, than whether it was an issue of operations or board transparency. The company had to change course, or it would have been finished by next year without Sardar's ideas. Cheers!

If Sardar continues to get positive operating results at Steak'n Shake, it would be difficult for Kelley to supplant him unless he could get a 25-30% position. Steak'n Shake's CEO was voted out not because of Sardar's ideas, but the fact that they couldn't be any worse than what was already happening. Shareholders were frustrated. I think the mood of shareholders would be slightly different if anyone decided to start a proxy fight. Cheers!

Article from today's Toronto Star. Cheers! http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/609732

S&P cut Mid-American Energy to BBB+ from A-. And the beat goes on! Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2DWp3iX15OU&refer=home