Parsad

Hi Rkbabang, I just tried Firefox and everything seems to running smoothly. It might have been due to the issues we were experiencing. Also, there is a Firefox update which may help. Thanks! Sanjeev

If you notice some strange things happening with the board, or the large number of ads popping up and then disappearing, please ignore it for the next little while. Paul's team was updating the SMF software, but then some of the package modifications weren't activated. They are working on them and trying to get the right ones going and turn off the other ones. Should be fixed over the next 24 hours or so. Thanks very much! Sanjeev

Nice! You got a kegerator. Can we get Russell on one of the taps there? ;D Cheers!

I don't want to tell you what you should pay, but you should remember that Ben has only had three quarters under the helm, without any help from me. The expanded sales team and market didn't even go into effect until the 2nd quarter, and as quarters go by, he'll find more efficiencies. I would suggest that $400K in net income is on the low side once the business is running efficiently and his time spent on growth becomes apparent. Another way to value a beverage business is by book value, and generally depending on profitability, many are priced between 1.5 and 2.5 times book. Cheers!

We originally thought we might have to be, but when Ben took over as CEO, he cleaned house and put in his own team. I then met with him and found he's an amazing manager. Never been involved with a beverage or brewery company, yet he turned the company around in six months...profitable the first full quarter he took over! The company had not been profitable in any given year for over 7 years! We've had three consecutive quarters of profits and revenue growth...I suspect we'll see a full year! We are by far the largest shareholder at over 18%. You've got fans of Jones Soda on this board...I too am a fan of the product and brand...but Jones is not at all profitable and does roughly the same revenue as Russell. Both companies had roughly the same equity a year ago, and the disparity is becoming quite apparent. Russell is retaining capital, while Jones is burning through it. Yet Jones valuation is over 3 times higher than Russell! Russell's beer just won three medals in the Canadian Beer Awards, including the gold medal for their "Wee Angry Scotch Ale". Go figure! Maybe they need Ben in there at Jones! ;D Cheers!

We'll work on that at some point in time, as we continue to generate positive free cash flow. First job was to turn it around by becoming consistently profitable; expand the sales team and reach; recapitalize it; and finally grow the brand organically. Cheers!

That's exactly the plan at Russell. Currently, we are growing organically, solidified the financials, and focusing on expansion using our expanded sales team. At some point in time, we will acquire many of our competitors who came into the craft brewery business with enchanted dreams and not enough fiscal restraint. Vancouver is behind Portland, but you've got a new craft brewery opening up every other week here. The market is just warming to craft beer and sales are growing strong. In a few years, as the cycle stabilizes, and competition is heated, only those with strong balance sheets or funding will move on. The turnaround by Ben at Russell, was as fast and amazing as Sardar's turnaround at Steak'n Shake! Cheers!

I HOP so! Russell is very well capitalized, and we expect smaller brewers to go out of business at some point, so we can acquire quality brands, equipment, etc at a fraction of the price. In many instances, prices will be passed on to consumers, so quality brands with loyal drinkers should continue to do fine. Incidentally, Russell's "Wee Angry Scotch Ale" won the 2014 Canada Beer Awards gold medal. If you like Guinness, you'll love this. Same bold taste but a bit lighter so it doesn't fill you up. I'll bring some to MPIC's 2015 AGM at Roy Thomson Hall. Cheers!

LOL watching with popcorn, that's my position as well. I think Biglari is an interesting capital allocator and think he might produce above average returns, but I'd like to see what Berkshire Hathaway "A" shares would be priced at right now if they had since inception been saddled with a Sardar Biglari style "rake" Rough estimate: if you take Berkshire's 19.7% cagr over last 48 years and take 25% above hurdle of 6%, you would take mgmt fees of 25%*(19.7%-6%) = 3.4% per year. Compounded over 48 years (1.034)^48 gives you about 5. So Shares would be worth about 1/5. (Of course assuming that Biglari's 10M cap would keep moving upwards and never actually capping performance fees.) ;) QUESTION: Where do you think Biglari came up with this idea of taking 25% of the performance above a 6% hurdle rate? HINT 1: It is the same source from which Mohnish Pabrai modeled his fund's fees, which are....25% of performance above a 6% hurdle. HINT 2: Asking, like in the comment above, what that Berkshire Hathaway guy's track record would be like if he charged those type of fees to his investors, means that you'll probably get his wrong ANSWER: The Oracle himself....(but he didn't cap his fee at 10 million) Buffett didn't charge 25% above a 6% hurdle at Berkshire...he took a very modest $100K salary...that's it! Mohnish is also doing the same at Dhando...a modest salary and incentive fee. There is an enormous difference using such a fee structure at a hedge fund where you can have redemptions and a public company where you are dealing with captive capital...the biggest risk to the manager no longer exists at the public company...that your partners will redeem all of their capital. Biglari found a nice little way around that by becoming the hedge fund manager to Biglari Holdings...in essence he charges his fee structure on captive capital, as Biglari Holdings will never pull that money. He couldn't get shareholder approval the other way, so he found a nice simple way around the shareholders. Cheers!

I don't think we are far off from that. Think in terms of Remington, Dave from Wendy's, Bijan (for those that remember the early 80's), Martha Stewart, etc. He's literally tying himself into the brand and will eventually pitch them, if not already. Except, all those people really controlled their companies in ownership stakes. Cheers!

Try it now. I removed the IP triggers from the one particular banned member that was causing this havoc since I banned him. Hopefully, that should resolve most of the unintentional triggers. Cheers!

Need the board's help with your extensive network! If any of you reside or do business in Hong Kong and China, who do you use for capital raises via Canada or there directly? Any connections would be much appreciated! The amount would be in the $3-5M range. Thanks very much! Sanjeev

Parsad, a couple of questions. First, given the 33% and the 7% holdings, why do the (big, but in aggregate much smaller) institutional shareholders hold so much sway? The two institutions I think own closer to 20%, as Montrustco alone holds 14%. And second, why do you say the company is running into the ground? I realise the key metrics haven't made a lot of progress in the last few years but I thought that was down to weak end markets in big cities and perhaps to a disappointing acquisition of Postmedia, not because of a lack of cash to deploy. I personally don't differentiate much between buybacks and dividends, given that I can use the dividends to buy more stock (I hold it in a tax-free account). Either way I end up owning more of the company. Do you think they should pay debt down much faster, or really ramp up the acquisitions? I didn't mean that Glacier is running into the ground, but that often institutional mentality is to just follow the status quo and the company slowly languishes and runs into the ground over years and years. In Glacier's case, the capital paid out in dividends would be better spent paying down debt. And then buying back shares at these prices. As well as possible acquisitions that are accretive and growing. Any of those ideas are better than returning capital to shareholders at this point! Cheers!

They are going to be in tough in Vancouver, unless they make it more like a boutique or something. You've got big chains like Mountain Equipment Coop and Sport Chek to compete with in BC. Who really know their stuff and carry broad assortments of gear, equipment and clothing. Then you have all of the specialty stores in BC. It's very, very competitive! The prices I saw in Toronto would not work here in Vancouver, unless they were selling through a high-end boutique type of store on Robson where mainly tourists would be buying, or in West Vancouver or Whiterock, where there is less competition and per capita income is high. Cheers!

If you are happy you received the letter, who cares? Cheers!

Yeah, I felt the same way. The stock is at a five-year low doing things the institutional way. How tarnished will the memory be if the stock continues to languish for another five years? Cheers!

I was at the meeting today, and I've got to say that I'm extremely disappointed with the institutional mentality that is preventing Glacier from actually increasing shareholder value. The team at Glacier, in particular CEO Jonathon Kennedy, are top-notch, honest guys. Chairman of Madison Ventures, Sam Grippo, wasn't there, but I certainly would have liked to hear his opinion. In general, the company's plan is to focus on creating, acquiring and growing rich media products, while selling off non-core, decaying businesses. With the cash, they want to pay down debt, buy back shares and maintain the dividend. For the most part, they are in a position to handle the possible CRA decision if necessary. I asked why pay such a fat dividend when you can pay down debt, prepare for a possible CRA settlement or buy back shares at a large discount to book? It sounded like Madison was interested in buying back shares, but there was definite pushback from a couple of institutional shareholders. One of the institutional shareholders suggested to me that removing the dividend could put the stock in play? I said how could the stock be in play if Madison controls 33%, Tim controls several percent and the two institutional guys control about 15-20%? He didn't really have an answer except to say that he couldn't explain the details to me. Then one of the other institutional shareholders said that removing the dividend would tarnish the company and that shareholders have long memories. I explained that the capital was still being returned to shareholders, but in a more effective way by either paying down debt or buying back shares. He sort of shrugged and said "I'm just laying it out there, and you can ponder it over the weekend"! It's these types of idiots that caused the company to deteriorate and languish. No, no, don't cut the dividend. "They have core undervalued assets they can sell and buy back shares." Well, if they are undervalued, then would it not make sense to buy back stock? Through the whole discussion, it seemed as though management had to play this balancing game between what these institutional shareholders desired and what was truly right for the business going forward. I can't stand this institutional mandate. Guys run mutual funds with hundreds of positions and then have a status quo system to fix companies that run into trouble. The problem is that their status quo often just keeps running the company into the ground. Anyway, I think the guy from Montrusco Bolton really started to dislike me and wanted to gouge my eyes out a la Martell/Mountain fight from Game of Thrones! ;D Cheers!

Because it's a cash cow and I had secured the most valuable asset of the company in my agreement at a fraction of its cost. The cash was not used properly and they did not have board members (or at least enough) that were business operators. But the business makes money hand over foot with economics that should keep it that way for a long time! Cheers!

Well, of course I give the same interpretation Sanjeev gives about this trademark license agreement: it probably is all about control. But I don’t understand who really cares… I want him to feel comfortably in charge and to have full control… That way it will be easier for him to think and to plan for the long run, won’t it? One thing I know for sure: if I hadn’t full control over my company, I wouldn’t be able to do half the things I am doing… which might be a very good outcome, after all!! But that’s another story!! ;D ;D ;D Gio The question is, how did you come to control your company Gio? I'm guessing you either built the stake or bought it, correct? You didn't entrench yourself into a company with 2% personal ownership and then start changing names, compensation, licensing, share class structure, building names, etc. Cheers!

One of the better articles the Globe & Mail has written on Fairfax in many years. Cheers!

Nope, nope, nope! Is this about a single title? If not, it belongs in the "General Discussion" board. Don't worry, I'll move it! ;D Cheers!

LOL! Stop it already. You must drive your family nuts Alan! Pay the fu*king $5.00 for the hour! Cheers!

Actual brands are built on the backs of a product, generally created, developed, distributed and then consumed in daily life...be it technology, industrial equipment, food and beverage, vice or anything else. Biglari has created nothing! He's taken the wheel and called it his own...he's not a shameless cloner as Mohnish would put it, but someone who clones something, or acquires it, and says he created it. This whole "brand" thing is solely to entrench control. Cheers!

Fu*k me! Sorry, that's the only thing that could come out of my mouth after reading and seeing that. ;D For you board members who think this has something to do with my past history, please read the comments that people left after that article and come to your own conclusion. If you think that it's still me, you are delusional! Insane! Owns less than 10% of the company and names a landmark, historic building after himself! Cheers!

Whew it's hot here! Nice dry heat though. Cheers!