Parsad

I don't know that it is necessarily a bad thing. As Farnamstreet has said, having his name attached to the company will make him care about it more. I would also argue, that having his picture in the restaurants would make him care more to the level of service and repair that they are in; which might set some fears to rest of the company not spending enough on cap-ex. This would only mean that I'm dealing with the wrong type of manager if this is true. What example would this set for the other executives, office staff or employees...only if my name is associated with the company will I do the best job possible? If employees are encouraged to own company stock, feel like they have a say in the operation of the company, and do their best work possible, why would this not be enough incentive for the CEO, since he is already the largest shareholder and highest paid employee? We can come to any justification we want for renaming the company Biglari Holdings...the truth, and I'm one of Sardar's biggest fans from day one (seven years ago when I first interviewed him, to today where SNS is our largest position)...is that this was not a prudent move and it contradicts everything Buffett tried to imprint on his managers, employees, friends, family and shareholders for the last 50 years. Cheers!

Not a particularly favorable piece by IBJ. Cheers! http://www.ibj.com/steak-n-shake-hq-changing-its-name-moving-to-texas/PARAMS/article/16244

Article on Buffett speaking to employees of subsidiary CTB. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aylIZmWocStg&pos=2

SEC will consider implementing short sale curbs. Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/35256184

None, other than selling out of WFC at 18-21 after over 100% in gains in the shares and 250% on the options...still don't think that was a mistake, as we were being cautious. We did very well in 2009 with hardly any errors of ommission or commission. Our distressed debt portfolio shot the lights out, our equity positions were rock-solid or provided significant gains, and we averaged out of alot of positions as the values rose dramatically so that we have plenty of cash on hand right now. We're in fantastic shape for 2010! Cheers!

Very clean looking, bright and plenty of emphasis on food and value. Cheers! http://www.steaknshake.com/

He knows that he won't react well to criticism, so he doesn't even read the final manuscript before it's published. When it goes on sale the smelly stuff hits the fan and gets all over his wife, his daughter, his sons and their families. They say "Warren, don't have any thing to do with that hateful woman." The result: "Sorry, Ms Schroeder, Warren's not available. He can't take your call. ... No, I'm sorry, he can't take your call next week either. Goodby". Exactly! I think the stuff that probably impacted Warren wasn't the stuff about himself. It was the way his family was portrayed, and so he decided to stem the pain that he had indirectly inflicted upon them by giving Alice full access. Buffett was fair game in the biography...I don't think his family was. Cheers!

Hi Dazel, In that clip from yesterday, some investor called him on that early in the show. I'm thinking to myself, so what is your "model" telling you now that you decided to buy gold? Cheers!

But he did, and continues to do so... in his own (very powerful) way. Yes, she found a few peanuts with their shells on in her Peanut Buster Parfait, and her Geico premiums were eerily higher this year. ;D Really, why would Buffett risk reputation to get back at Schroeder? I would guess the negative stuff he's doing is that he's probably told all the people he knows not to talk to her about him, his family or Berkshire. It was his mistake in the beginning to grant her that access, and now he's doing what he can to prevent it from getting worse or ever happening again. Cheers!

There is a new way to sell books nowadays. It creates a longer tail for your works. You write a book and then you blog and tweet and get on cable tv so as to stay in the public eye. when they see you they google you and find your web site and find out you've written a book. the more controversial you can be the more traffic comes to you and more eyeballs to see that you have a book. Jeff Matthews was perhaps even more calculating about his book. He showed absolutely no interest in anything Berkshire or Buffett related but is a good writer. What better way to have a long tail as an author than to become an expert at Berkshire Hathaway and Buffett? You hit on a very good point Peter. I always wonder how all these folks write books on investment analysis or building the next Berkshire Hathaway without ever having done so. Buffett seems like the only qualified person to write a book on such a thing. Just like Prem would be the guy to write a book on how to build the next Fairfax Financial. I don't mind Alice's book, because she didn't take that stance...she wrote a book about Buffett the person. I really like Andy's book because he wrote it solely on the history of Buffett and Berkshire. Poor Charlie's Alamanack also is basically an ode to Munger. They aren't purporting to be anything more than they are. But there are alot of books floating around these days that are written by people who haven't got a clue what they are talking about...throw in the word Buffett, Berkshire, value investing or the sort, and you've got a nice little cash cow going and something to try to give yourself some credibility. It's a whole industry now...Buffett should try and buy it! Cheers!

Tim, I fully agree with your comments. My question, and the question that I think alot of the current critics have, is why all the interviews constantly discussing Buffett's state of mind or emotional needs? It's clearly laid out in the book, and then in subsequent articles and interviews. But it seems as though it's become the primary framework for many of the discussions she has now. Also, Schroeder the analyst had a very different view of Buffett when she was on the outside. Could it be that depending on what relationship you have with Buffett, your perspective of the man will be very different...not unlike a husband or wife's perspective of their spouse, relative to the perspective of a co-worker or employee. Thus naturally you will have people who are critical of either perspective. Buffett sounds exactly like any other individual I know...they have their public life and they have their private life...they have successes and they have failures in both parts of that life. Cheers!

Folks, I changed the title, as it was a bit too racy. Cheers!

It's funny, you guys are usually so rational when it comes to investing, but yet when Warren Buffett is mentioned, that rationality just goes straight out the door and you go into "Hero-Worship" mode. What's even worse, is that when there is criticism, it's shouted down, after all, who knows better than the "Greatest Investor of All-Time"? Balling, it has nothing to do with Buffett. She's the one who writes, discusses the book, and comments on Buffett's demeanor towards her. Have you heard Buffett say anything? She wrote a book on Buffett that exposes all his strengths and weaknesses. She knew she could alienate him by writing everything and she did so. I liked her book, at least after the first 100 pages, but she knew what she was getting into. At the same time, she's garnered untold fame and fortune from doing so. Now, the subject of her book is displeased with certain portions that were very personal to him. My problem is why does she always address any problem Buffett has about something by saying he's needy? Has Buffett said anything at all about the book or Schroeder in public? Nothing, not one iota. If he's so needy, don't you think he would have just lashed out at the book or its author at some point to fulfill his needy emotional side? It's in check...a professional...something Schroeder should show a bit more of. Cheers!

The day Prem splits the shares, I'm selling. It sends the wrong message to investors regarding market price and intrinsic value, and really you end up diluting the shareholder base. In Berkshire's case, the split may have been a good idea (not because of the small Burlington shareholders), but because the Gates Foundation is keeping the stock artifically low with regular selling. The added liquidity from the shares issued in the Burlington deal, along with the share split, should allow BRK to trade a little closer to intrinsic value and move a bit more freely. Cheers!

Thanks Matt! Cheers!

Hmmm...Matt, any comments on their financial statements? Cheers!

Hi Value, I believe that The Marketing Alliance provides audited financial statements to their shareholders, but because they are pink-sheet listed, aren't required to file those statements on EDGAR. Matt and Joe can probably confirm this or not, but as far as I know, the NAIC requires all insurers...listed or not...to provide audited financial statements to the commission and to shareholders. Cheers!

If you read one of Alice Schroeder's blog posts (January 23rd, "Am I Bitter?"), you would think she was one of Tiger Wood's spurned mistresses! This woman really should try and keep a lower profile...and for God's sake, she should stop writing that blog. I truly believe she wants to put Buffett in diapers and bottle feed him. Cheers! http://www.aliceschroeder.com/passages

It's at the 11:20 mark roughly. http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip263064 Finley is a numbnutz. He's what you would call a media whore. I've seen him on there for years, and he's wrong far more than he's ever right. Take a look at how his funds have done...atrocious! This is the type of guy who should be answering questions about compensation to his investors. His Acker Finley Canada Focus Fund has a MER of 3.73% and has returned -9.1% annualized over three years. And that doesn't include the optional front or back-end load charge! http://globefunddb.theglobeandmail.com/gishome/plsql/gis.fund_report?rep_type=CYR&pi_report_tab=162&order_by=&direction=ASC&start_row=&pi_report_option=&pi_report_param=&pi_show_criteria_yn=Y&iaction=fundFilter&pi_portfolio_id= He says Prem bet the company in 2008...yet I believe they invested only about $300M in the swaps. He says that they have a "model price" of $318 on Fairfax. Barring a 7.0 earthquake in California or another market collapse of greater than 30%, if Fairfax is at $318 a year from now, I'll kiss Finley's butt! This guy should be asking for tips, not giving them out on a television show. Cheers!

Smith & Wollensky is now taking shares of companies for your steak lunch or dinner! Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/35218624

Hi Kyle, I believe you are mostly correct. I think Prem bought some shares personally after 2001, especially through 2003-2005. You would have to check the filings. But for the most part that seems correct. Cheers!

Hi Value, Amitabh sent me the study. Here it is. Enjoy! Cheers!

Article on Burger King's woes, but what I found interesting was the same store sales of some of the better known burger chains. Compare that to what Steak'n Shake has done over the last year in the same environment. Amazing! Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/108728/burger-king-draws-critics

Patrick Byrne discusses his attempts to write an article for Henry Blodget's website. The first part is the usual Patrick Byrne being pompous and sarcastic as he tries to drive Blodget crazy, but the second half...the gist of the article he was trying to get published...lays out the entire blow by blow collapse of various nefarious institutions, analysts, journalists and hedge funds that were manipulating market prices. Many of them that we have followed, argued with and knew their culpability from the days when Fairfax was first attacked back in January of 2003, and the ensuing events since where they have been charged, flogged or proven guilty of something. And then seemed to fall off the face of this earth. Cheers! http://www.deepcapture.com/the-illustrious-henry-blodget-thinks-i-am-a-very-bad-man-part-2-the-essay-business-insider-requested-then-refused-to-publish/

I thought about posting it, but I'm not sure the board of directors at SNS would appreciate that, so I decided against it. Cheers!