Vizi1

Norm Any details on YYx

I thought this was interesting, hopefully you do to. http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000444163

We now own a majority stake in Orphan Black... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/temple-street-productions-lands-fairfax-as-new-owner/article25726195/

I am actually surprised this has happened. I voted NO thought at least I got to vote as I assumed Prem lined up the votes before he put the circular in front of the public. I also thought it didn't matter if CPPIB voted NO because the votes were due on July 17 to count for tomorrow and the WSJ published the article this weekend, so the article wouldn't have really influenced the vote of the retail shareholder, but I am glad to see the institutional holders weren't all sheep to Prem's proposal.

So it looks like its not just me who is not happy with Prem's plan. If you cut and paste headline into any web search you can read the article. http://www.wsj.com/articles/fairfax-canada-pension-plan-at-odds-over-ceo-voting-power-1437177062

Fairfax mentioned in this WSJ article with respect to its Greek Bank Investment http://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-in-greek-banks-face-wipeout-on-recapitalization-1437047435

Read through the circular - Its The Sixty Two Investment Company - not 63 and not a foundation. VOTED NO and sold 1/3 of my position and lived to tell the story. While I disagree with Sanjeev on this, I do agree you should read the circular and then decide how you vote.

Not really spinning IMHO, just presenting a contrarian view. I'm not looking for support, I'm comfortable in my reasoning and conclusions so far. And I'm not looking to convince anyone, just looking to state the other side of the argument of "In Prem we Trust". The AGM was two months ago, FFH could have raised it then. The 60 page circular wasn't just put together. Im sure it was making the rounds between FFH management and their counsel before the AGM. Instead, the special meeting is being held a boardroom at the lawyers office. I don't suspect they are anticipating the lovein that is the AGM. But then again, maybe that's too dark a view of humanity.

I'd be less concerned if he was going to helm the thing for the next 30 years, but he is essentially asking for another kick at the can but having someone else kick it for part of the next round. I held it for 20 years knowing he was losing control, but so did he, but now he's asking for another go round. And yes, he should have started at 50, but I doubt he would have gotten FFH off the ground at that ratio. The argument is being made now cause he is resetting his bar but not the other existing shareholders. The argument I had was 20 years ago when I first bought my shares, but I am surprised that Prem is pulling this after all the loyal shareholder long term holder spiel I've been listening to for all that time. I guess at the end of the day Im disappointed that Prem isn't the guy I thought he was and really just another CEO looking out to protect his interest over his fellow shareholders. The rising M doesn't preserve the status quo, it enhances his position. Prior to the reweighting, there was a greater chance that FFH might get taken out a premium to current price, however unlikely, it is more likely pre reweighting than post, so he's essentially removed a potential takeout premium to the stock price with the reweight, and what did the SVS get, nothing, or at least that's whats being offered. For the record petec. my first shares were bought at $414, and it took a long time to get the price back to those levels, but I believed we (FFH and I) were in the fight together, but really, we weren't cause now that the worst is over, the relationship changes. Shame on my I guess. I understand why he is doing it, I just don't agree with how he is going out about it.

petec Always enjoy a good discussion - this one is difference cause normally I'm a reader and not a participant. To respond to your points: 1. I would have gotten the BVPS CAGR regardless of the MVS reweighting. And if my compensation has an "if" in it like "If I get..." then I should be compensated up front for taking that risk. 2. He is going for the MVS re-weighting so that he can go out and do other deals, WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL. And while he has done some great ones, the has also really s*%t the bed on others. And Im not worried about the past 30 years, that's already in the price, its the next 30 and who is going to have the MVS hammer over that time, cause I don't think its Prem for the entire period. He didn't need to do this after the CDS win cause he still had enough of a margin in his MVS. That margin has clearly gotten away from him in the past 5 years. Here's another thought: If he saw his MVS margin shrinking, why didn't he buy up some more Subvoting shares in an attempt to keep that voting position? I think he didn't cause this MVS reweighting has always been part of his plan for when the control question became an issue. And we do agree to disagree. I think we are arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, cause this thing is already a done deal. The only question I have to answer is if I hold or sell as I mentioned earlier. This is the first time I've had to ask that question since I bought my first shares in 1994. Cheers

petec 1. Do you mind having your voting power diluted? - Yes, but I'd be OK with it if I were being compensated for it. 2. Do you mind having your economic stake diluted? - I think our economic stake is diluted, not now, but going forward as he issues more subordinated shares without diluting his control. Now its on me to go to pocket to maintain my economic stake going forward. Which is my I feel we should be compensated. And I think the timing of the request is quite relevant. Based on the recent performance of the stock/management it makes sense to take advantage of the goodwill generated by a higher stock price. He wouldn't have asked if he wasn't in a favourable performance window.

I don't think that looking at a days trading is relevant to a corporate action whose effect will span potentially decades, depending how sensible Prem is with his new currency of diluted subordinated voting shares. We are essentially giving him currency to spend which dilutes us, unless we keep our voting rights in line with pre-MVS restructuring levels petec - All questions are welcome. I also struggled with the MVS when I bought my shares, and I continue to struggle with it. This to me is different than most other MVS because what is being proposed to me is like adding another MVS structure into an already existing one via a re-weighting. There have been many threads over the years questioning why he issued shares or pref shares when it didn't seem necessary. Well, now we know he did it cause he figured whenever he needed to he could re-load on the MVS provided his record was favourable. Ask yourself, would you be OK with the current ask prior to the CDS homerun. I wouldn't be then and I'm not now, unless he is going to take me along for the ride for being a long time shareholder, which I've been lead to believe he/they value. Well, there is no demonstration of the love under the proposal. Amen globalfinancepartners I think FFH is relying on the greatest force in the universe to work in their favour - Inertia.

Here is the circular - make an informed choice. FFH__Soecual_IMeeting_Circular.pdf

I have to say this is the first time I have had to seriously question my holding FFH in 20 years. I always understood that FFH and Prem were always unconventional, but this recent ask is too much. Partner24 has it right, many of the other greats against which FFH is mentioned haven't had to resort to this. This is the first significant move by FFH that I really don't agree with. That being said, I don't think FFH would have launched this meeting without having the votes in the bag, so I think we are tilting at windmills. The only move I have left as a long time shareholder is to either hold or sell my position. Either way, the fact that we have gotten to a place where Prem needs this to solve his problem, yes, his problem, is just shameful and reeks of arrogance.

Even if Ben doesn't control it, in case something happens to Prem, Prem doesn't control it which is why he is looking for maintain control, so that he can maintain the stewardship of the company as he has since 85. As well, don't let the recent past cloud your judgement, there were a lot of years where the Faifax "culture"/strategy did NOT pay dividends. Regarding succession plan, I'd like to know more about what that looks like. Most the of brain trust is well into their 60s. The succession risk goes far beyond just Prem. And I am back to my point, if he is looking for continued "rope", he should be willing to pay for it as it does have value. There is no free lunch.