Parsad

Hi Alek and anyone else who did not receive their proxy...its probably an error by Computershare. If you have not received your documents yet, or your broker has not received them yet, please contact Rick Salsberg, Vice President, Fairfax Financial Corporate Affairs at 416-367-4941. Cheers!

Sanjeev---with the utmost respect---I cannot agree with your statement. I too am a very long time shareholder of Fairfax (initial shares bought in the mid 1990's). I stayed with the company through its darkest days and added to my aggregate shareholding throughout. Yes---my patience has been greatly rewarded. All the more reason why it pains me greatly to have to vote "No" against the Proposal at hand. My concerns with the Proposal are best described on page 20 of the Management Proxy Circular that was sent to shareholders. The two issues outlined on that page are as follows: 1) The Amendment may prolong the period of time during which Sixty Two can exercise a controlling influence on most corporate matters; and 2) The Amendment may have an anti-takeover effect. Detailed comments are provided for each of these items in the Circular. These items are significant enough (to me) that I believe as a shareholder of subordinated voting shares that I should be compensated for these two items which are arising only as a result of the Proposal at hand. I do not believe that Prem's commitment to remain as CEO for at least another 10 years and to fix his compensation at its current level are adequate compensation. I respect that others may disagree with my view and vote for the Proposal however I could not. Everyone should vote as their conscience dictates, but I think you guys have missed a couple of points: 1) The Amendment may prolong the period of time during which Sixty Two can exercise a controlling influence on most corporate matters; and Sixty-Two already controls Fairfax, and will never relinquish control of Fairfax. They'll stop acquisitions through share issuances before they ever give up control. The reason being, Fairfax like Berkshire, has done particularly well over the years under this structure and this corporate culture. This type of control could be tyrannical as we've seen with Biglari, or it could be successful and fair to shareholders as we've seen under Prem. 2) The Amendment may have an anti-takeover effect. Neither Prem, nor Sixty-Two which already has control, will ever sell Fairfax...so there is no anti-takeover premium or effect. Even back in the 1986 shareholder's letter, when it was still Markel, Prem stated that he would never sell: "Why did we sell subordinate voting shares which have only one vote and retain multiple voting shares (10 votes) for ourselves? Mainly because we wanted to control Markel Financial and manage the company to provide an above average long term return to shareholders. Our multiple voting shares are not traded and can be sold in the public markets only as subordinate voting shares. Also, a takeover offer for our shares, if accepted, immediately triggers a similar offer for all the common shares outstanding. A Canadian Tire type of situation, which we find very distasteful, cannot and will not happen with Markel Financial. However, we must add that it is extremely unlikely that we would sell our multiple voting shares even if an offer came in at 100% above the current market price. Thus, our multiple voting shares prevent an investor from getting an attractive one time bonanza. Our feeling though, is that for this short term pain, there could be some excellent long term gains. Berkshire Hathaway, for example, has experienced an unbelievable increase in its share price from $20 in 1965 to $3500 currently. Any takeover offer for Berkshire Hathaway, though attractive in the short run, would be hard pressed to match the long term returns that have been achieved. For Berkshire Hathaway, this is a fact. For us, it is only a goal!" Boy did Prem deliver! Cheers!

I just thought that since the vote is around the corner, I would help clarify a couple of points some have been debating on the various threads regarding the upcoming SGM. Ultimately, shareholders should all decide what they are comfortable with, but long-term shareholders should realize that what Prem is doing isn't really any different than what Buffett is doing by donating significant shares to the Gates Foundation and his children's charitable trusts, as well as the intention to add Howard Buffett to the board of Berkshire. The Watsa family's only duty as stewards of the "63 Foundation" is really to safeguard the culture of Fairfax, not unlike the Gates Foundation and Buffett's children's trusts. None of the Watsa family will ever hold managerial or officer positions. There are also measures and safeguards in place in the "63 Foundation" to ensure that Fairfax cannot become another family-run dynasty. While Buffett is doing all of this towards the end of his tenure, Prem and Fairfax still have another 20 years to go at least. But Prem wanted to take care of these issues early before they became a problem, including the erosion of the multiple-voting shares if they continued to issue shares in acquisitions. Another thing I would recommend that shareholders do, is to get to know the Watsa family. You have the opportunity at the AGM every year. The children are as courteous and humble as their parents...so fortunately, the apples did not fall far from the trees! Again, please vote your shares as your conscience dictates, just be aware that the measures in place will safeguard Fairfax's culture, like Berkshire's, well after Prem and Buffett are gone. Cheers!

Chinese tourists are notorious. I think there was a problem a while ago with people taking shits in the halls of museums in Egypt if there was a line in front of the toilets. There are lot's of amusing horror stories if you search for them. A lot of them behave like complete uncivilized pigs. Chinese government had to issue a press statement that this behavior was unacceptable. Straight from the countryside and Mao's era. And a lot of these idiots just discovered the stock market! still buying stocks at 100x earnings lol. And to think that a lot of these stocks are frauds. At least the dotcom bubble had somewhat of a legit reason behind it (an exciting new technology). I just came from China a week ago, and I saw nothing of the sort! In fact, I think every one with any such ignorant view of China needs to make a trip to get their facts straight. You'll be surprised exactly how quick this population has taken to capitalism and how sophisticated their country is becoming in short order. Yes, they will hit a wall, but just like the United States before the Great Depression, the world should have taken note on who was about to dominate the next 70 years! In terms of online boorish behaviour, China has over 1.6B people and counting...you are going to get idiots doing stupid things. How many videos are there of pig-like U.S. Walmart customers, yet that is a subsection of the subsection of the shopping base at Walmart. What I saw was mind-boggling in China, and if anyone thinks that Shanghai isn't the #2 money centre in the world already, should simply go stand on the Bund in Shanghai at night and look at Pudong across the river. Then, you will realize exactly what China is and how the people there are no different than the ones here...they want to take care of their family, they want a better life, they want to be comfortable and happy. Cheers!

What I was expecting...now let's see who else decides to leave in the next couple of years. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/greece-votes-referendum-future-euro-042002010.html#

Thanks everyone! Much appreciated. Hope your 4th of July was terrific! Cheers!

The exchange rate was the same but the price premium was significantly different since the prices moved between the two transactions. You can make the argument that RB is so illiquid that the price premium is irrelevant. I was skeptical of the premium in the original transaction, but you're right that being on the same terms as the public transaction counts in its favor. The price premium is irrelevant...we didn't get any more than any other shareholder is going to get...since we did not buy or sell the shares and did not enjoy any of the spread that might have existed between the purchase agreement and tender offer. It's exactly the same offer and the result is exactly the same as any other shareholder. Cheers!

Also, my guess is because it's an illiquid and there's no other reasonable way in which PDH could tender a control position. The price paid had to be weighed against the likelihood of getting enough people to tender to gain control over an additional 34% of the company for a total of 51%. Control is worth something. That means you have to make the price high enough that 1/3 of current shareholders are willing to walk away, since a voluntary tender is the only way you're going to get 51% of the company. Let's have a thought exercise - what premium do you think would have been high enough to guarantee 1/3 of shareholders would sell to you? You're talking about a different transaction. The tender offer was at a lower premium than the related party transaction. As far as I can tell there is no justification for that. The offer is identical! Absolutely no difference. 1 share of Premier for 2.5 shares of Russell. We had to do our purchase agreement first so that we could use an exemption from U.S. securities requirements...even though Russell is a Canadian company. We could not proceed the other way. Cheers!

For friends of Premier, MPIC or CofB&F...see attached invite! I'll be in Hong Kong from June 21st to 25th; Shanghai from June 25th to 28th; and Beijing from June 28th to July 1st. Cheers! PDH_Hong_Kong_Invite.pdf

How anyone can say this after looking at their chart versus the S&P500 boggles the mind! You are talking about performance that is in the top half of the top 1% when examining risk versus reward, and this is not impressive?! It's like telling a brilliant scientist..."Well, you're no Einstein!" It just shows me how far-fetched expectations have gotten in a rampant bull market. I'm hearing this sort of stuff from some of my clients and all I can say is I can't wait for the next correction! Cheers!

Best-selling Berkshire author and GWU professor, Larry Cunningham, did a lecture at St. Anselm College: Also available, his upcoming article in the Wake Forest University Journal: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2602825 Cheers!

It's not that I've gone away. I'm here every day for a while, but I just can't say as much as I used to. I think boardmembers have to understand that things are cyclical. When we first started, my friend LotsofCoke and Bsilly, were the premier posters on the board. Circumstances and times change, and you had others take their place like Ericopoly, Twcowfca, Uccmal, etc. But those guys did really well in the last couple of downcycles and don't need to waste their time digging for nuggets when they will simply wait for the next big correction...the rest of their time is spent on other things, like family, enjoying life, etc. So in this next cycle, there will be newer members who will take their place in terms of quality and quantity of posts. It may take some time for the board to whittle down to whom they place on that mantle, but it will come as it always has for the last 13 years. And of course, the older boardmembers will come out of hibernation when the shit hits the fan and share their brilliance once again. Too many times I've seen people want this or that in a forum or tool, yet functionality and simplicity go by the wayside and the experience deteriorates. Why has this board not been replicated successfully? Stockhouse is crap, as is Motley Fool, Yahoo and even Greenblatt's Value Investing forum suffers from "Let's tweak it until we f*ck it up!" The non-investment threads in General Discussion usually appear when ideas become thinner...yes, I've heard the crap about 60,000 companies globally...how many are in that investor's circle of competence?! The forum is a vehicle based on give and take. Some want better ideas and more investment content...yet how much have they contributed back in ideas and investment content lately? When events and circumstances create uncertainty in the markets, that is when you get the best out of this forum, as many once again start to contribute. When things are quiet and circumspect, you get non-investment related discussions and thin contributions. It's pretty simple! Cheers!

C'mon everyone! Last year we did nearly $3,000! That's the target for this year. We have 180 people come to our dinner each year in Toronto and we raised $25,000! There are 2,300 boardmembers on here and double that number in terms of people who view. Let's go...show me the money! Thanks very much to those who have donated already. Cheers!

Terrific article that captures the man and his beliefs. Congratulations Prem! Cheers!

Hi Folks, I'm doing the Gutsy Walk again on June 7th for Crohn's & Colitis Canada. Through our dinners each year in Toronto, we've raised nearly $100,000! If you include my annual Gutsy Walk campaign on here, we are over $110,000 in total. If you are interested in supporting my walk, please go to my profile and donate: http://crohnsandcolitiscanada.akaraisin.com/pledge/Participant/Home.aspx?seid=9641&mid=9&pid=2233297&sgid=47 Much appreciated! Sanjeev

Whoa, who the heck is this fellow that calls himself moore_capital? We used to have a terrific member named moore_capital who used to post here and they were wonderful posts at that. Could this be the same? Could it really be! Where the heck have you been? And welcome back! Cheers!

By the way, those are two relatively busy roads you would be living on, so I hope you don't mind road noise if you buy! Cheers!

No, I don't buy it. He had the same issues fighting Marquez and there were no injuries...somehow he managed to win those fights on the card, but I thought he lost two of them. When you are an offensive fighter, you just aren't as disciplined, because you are looking to get inside the defense of the other fighter...thus you are going to get hit and lose points. But a defensive fighter that is disciplined can beat you on points by simply connecting and then dancing away. Manny has to be aggressive, but he wasn't aggressive enough...so he wasn't throwing enough punches and not enough were connecting to counter how many times he was getting hit. He had the most success in his career when the flurries were coming in quick batches throughout a round...not only at the beginning and end. Cheers!

This is basically my take as well. I will say that I think the Manny of 5 years ago would have won. His speed isn't where it used to be and that's the thing that got him to where he was. Yes, I would have loved to see that fight. Sadly, he was a better fighter when he was gambling, carousing and cursing...kind of like Tiger Woods before his wife caught him! ;D Then again, the argument could be made that Mayweather would have also been faster five years ago, as he is 38 now and two years older than Pacquaio. Cheers!

I watched the fight with about 30 people at a friend's house and it went about how I expected. But for many of the people there, who aren't boxing fans and used to "ground and pound" crap, they were upset about what they were watching. I thought Mayweather put on a clinic in how to beat Pacquiao. Same issues Pacquiao had in his fights with Marquez (another great defensive boxer), two of which he lost but somehow won on the scorecards. Manny needed to be aggressive through the whole fight, rather than in spurts or ends of rounds. He started to look tired by the 7th round or so...you can't keep up that type of frenzy punches and combinations. I think Floyd was a bit surprised by Manny's speed in the first two rounds and then got his bearings straight and focused on jabs and defensive counterpunches. He did what he needed to...let Manny go crazy when his guard was up and then quickly duck and get out of the corners and ropes. I had it 8 rounds to 4 for Mayweather. You have to give Floyd a ton of credit for remaining so disciplined. Especially with his crazy father telling him to go after Pacquiao after each round. Floyd just ignored him and stuck to his disciplined style. You can see Manny's problems with really good defensive boxers. I don't think there is any need for a rematch, but with all the money involved, you might see one if they can interest Mayweather. I think he should just get 49-0 and retire, and then watch people argue over who was the better boxer...Mayweather or Marciano...even though they were two totally different boxers, in different weight classes, with different styles. It was a good fight for true boxing fans, but not for ones that wanted to see a lot of brutality. Cheers!

Norm Rothery did a terrific writeup on the Fairfax events for Moneysense magazine. Norm works tirelessly with me to help put all of these events together, so give him a hardy thanks! Wonderful article and I'm very pleased, that along with Fairfax, we've put together something quite fun and special for investors and shareholders. Cheers! http://www.moneysense.ca/invest/stocks/highlights-from-fairfax-lollapalooza-2015

Yup, ticker is the same. Cusip changes slightly. Cheers!

Nice Norm! Please feel free to post any pictures you guys might have. Cheers!

I do understand that your revenue is mostly coming from your clinics and other operating businesses. My major concern is the asset test, not the income test. Are you planning to have almost no investment securities in PDH, and just focus on acquiring whole businesses and 25%+ partial ownership? After a couple of acquisitions, most of the assets will be tied up in operating businesses...not cash or securities. Cheers! Cool. But is PDH a PFIC right now? Note that if it is a PFIC now and US investors don't file the form to purge the PFIC status, it will be considered a PFIC forever. You'll have to decide the status of the investment with your tax advisor. We are not making any distributions, the bulk of our revenue is from operations and the capital raised occurred in the 2015 fiscal year. So we do not meet either the revenue or asset benchmark in the 2014 fiscal year. You and your tax advisor will have to decide whether you choose to elect the PFIC status. We will not be issuing any sort of statements for U.S. shareholders like a 1099, which would be issued by Canadian mutual fund trusts, etc, when making distributions or allocation of interest/dividend income. Cheers!

Hey, Sanjeev: Is that a typo you had there, free refreshments for everyone? ;D Soon it will be free parking once we have $2,000 per share! LOL :) Yeah, it's just water, soft drinks and glasses full of ice. Just so people can mingle and relax between George's conference and our dinner. Feel free to donate to CCC if you would like, but I am covering this cost. Cheers!