Parsad

The full paragraph is much clearer in hindsight on how disingenuous the intentions were: In addition, the board’s letter reiterates the falsity that we are seeking to control the company for our own personal benefit and therefore should pay a control premium. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is another erroneous argument designed, in my view, to distract you from the serious problems confronting Steak n Shake. The truth is that Steak n Shake will stay in the hands of its shareholders, and we will remain a significant minority shareholder working for the benefit of all shareholders. Compensation change...name change...name licensing termination fee...dual voting share structure...Lion Fund holding SNS shares...Lion Fund sold back to Biglari because compensation agreement doesn't pass...Lion Fund invests BH shares to reap hedge fund fees...control BH with less than 4% personal ownership. Finally, Steak'n Shake by Biglari! i didn't even know he invented steakburgers! Cheers!

The CNBC clip, including Jim Cramer refusing to comment at all on Overstock or Byrne: http://www.deepcapture.com/my-response-to-becky-quicks-proposal-i-do/ Anybody remember that clip of Joe Kiernan, David Faber and Herb Greenberg mocking Overstock.com a few years ago with comments like "Isn't Overstock.com finished?"..."Is it still around?" Now they act as if they never said anything in past stories and interviews. Cheers!

Looks like it was updated. Cheers! http://pgntgroup.com/

Well, I know Mr. Biglari Sardar ;D is trying to expand the franchise abroad. For this reason the ownership of a jet might be a sound investment… Much better! Cheers!

Biglari Holdings aircrafts...fractional and non-fractional. Cheers! http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Name_Results.aspx?Nametxt=BIGLARI&sort_option=5&PageNo=1

Gio, Respectfully, I believe you and others will do nothing but find excuse after excuse for Sardar's behavior. I don't even bother with these debates anymore, because there will always be a subset of people who say I harbor past grudges, just as there will always be people who will justify any conduct if it makes them a buck! I've been involved with a company recently, where the CEO has been a disgrace in terms of self-entitlement and he constantly blames others for his failures, both in terms of the company's operations and his own compensation. The only reason people ignore Sardar's failures in corporate governance, compensation and ethics is because he has been successful on the company operational side. That success gives him the opportunity to write his own check, while shareholder's gleefully ignore other troubling symptoms. But that's ok if you guys want to ignore those symptoms or lapses...just let go of the charade of excusing his behavior and simply embrace the fact that you want to make a buck regardless of the CEO's ethics. There's no shame in that...but forget about trying to explain to us over and over how his conduct is misunderstood. I invested in SED International...I knew Sham had not properly disclosed certain charges against him, but I still bought shares because I thought they were cheap...but I'm not going to sit and argue on the SED thread on how great his ethical conduct is. If you think Biglari Holdings is a good investment or is cheap...great! But stop the BS...and please stop calling him Mr. Biglari...it's driving me nuts! ;D He's not Buffett, he's not Watsa, he's not even Mohnish Pabrai! You can take what those three say to the bank. You can't bank on what Biglari says! Cheers!

And he's on the prowl for another business. Congratulations on 15 years at Pabrai Funds as well! Cheers!

If atheism is accurate, I agree. With that being said, if we are truly rational, why shouldn't we overcome these emotional biases to give us more material wealth? That's all they are. I don't disagree with you. Cohen's behavior was only condemned as immoral when it was reflected upon by the U.S. government and society at large. The act itself at the time was neither moral, nor immoral. A hundred years ago, it may have been deemed ok by the same government and same society. But so was segregation! Or the lack of women's rights...or Chinese/Japanese internment...or the so-called perversity of homosexuality...etc. Has the Bible's verses changed in those 100 years? The Koran? The Torah? The Gita? Buddhism? Confuscism? Nope. So what gives?! Perhaps, the natural evolution and enlightenment of society. While deep down we may be animals, there is a higher plain of consciousness we are privy to, thus the ability to fly to the moon even though 99% of our DNA is identical to an ape. That human beings aren't simply "created in the image of God", but are God himself or God incarnate on earth...the hand of God! If that is the case, then we create our own ideas of what is right and wrong through evolution and rationalization, rather than simply being imprinted upon by a secular moral code. Religion is just another framework for life when humanity cannot explain its own existence. Once you get past that, you no longer need that framework, because you have rationalized or evolved a new, non-secular framework. - I'm not a generous fund manager, disinterested from personal gain, but understand my duty to create wealth for subsequent generations - I'm not doing charitable work, but work that allows the genes of those suffering from Crohn's or the imbalance of education to continue to be preserved - I'm not a proponent of imbalances that will allow one gene to prosper unfairly against others...thus my view of Cohen's agenda and self-interest I believe I'm on a higher evolutionary plain than Cohen, just like Buffett, Watsa, Pabrai, et al! Cheers!

Would you agree then, Sanj, that the work you do for charity is no more moral (or immoral for that matter) than what Steve Cohen did to Fairfax? Both are simply acts, right? He was providing returns (or trying to anyway) for his shareholders. Morals, in this case, are totally subjective. Both are simply acts...correct. One attempts to balance the scales...the other tries to create an imbalance. Nothing to do with morals. How does a child without being prodded, know to soothe another child's pain? Why does a female dog without pups, adopt a litter of orphaned kittens? Humans and animals, generally speaking, do have some understanding of an innate right and wrong...some basic instincts that are there without being taught...or what we would call morals. Whether God exists or not, we should all have a responsibility to ourselves and the people around us. Packs of dogs even know that without being taught. Birds fly in flocks. It's instinctive and not simply instructed to us. Cheers!

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults. So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral? Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness. I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection. And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily. God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result. Cheers! Sanj, thanks for your thoughtful response. However, to be fair, you kinda avoided the original premise. We're not talking about people who weren't happy by the cheating (the premise was that the cheating spouse was happy) nor was I referring to a couple that was cool with the other's infidelity. Let's say that she is happier and the husband is happier (per the original situation). However, he would not be happy if he found out (unlike the second thing you wrote about). However, he never finds out. He is happy and she is happy. Is her cheating a moral or immoral act? Secular ethicists normally say that if "harm has to be done in order for something to be immoral." By the way, I'm not saying that God played any part in their decisions. I'm implying that if God doesn't exist, nothing we do (or not do for that matter) is inherently "good" or "bad" objectively. We can rationalize anything and everything to fit our whims. I would suggest that it is neither moral, nor immoral. Simply an act. The eventual view by her spouse when it comes out, or by others decides whether it is moral or immoral based on their secular or non-secular view. For example, killing another human being would be normally deemed immoral by most people, but what if it was in self-defense? It's neither moral, nor immoral, but only in the eyes of others would it deemed one or the other. It is simply an act. Cheers!

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults. So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral? Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness. I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection. And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily. God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result. Cheers!

LOL! Cheers!

Yeah, because all the single mothers I know do it for the money and life of leisure. If we made that life less attractive, maybe they would stop consciously choosing to become single mothers; heck, maybe it would even force them to stay in bad relationships and be financially dependent on abusive men, like in the good old days... LOL! Couldn't agree with you more Liberty. I don't think single mothers go out of their way to be single mothers, but more so because they are naive, run into loser men, not enough education, or never fully understood the consequences and repercussions. Not to say there may not be a certain niche that get pregnant simply for welfare payments, but I would say that percentage is far smaller than those simply falling into single motherhood due to circumstance, than making it a lifestyle choice. Buffett says that the children growing up today, will live better than his generation, and those after them will live even better. I'm not sure that isn't the case, regardless of the huge gap in wealth, income and opportunity. You have a black president in the United States today...how can that not be more advantageous for the millions of underprivileged black youth, than 50 years ago when segregation still existed! Cheers!

Harsh in terms of driving on a track, but not in terms of road performance. It's a $55k supercar...it's not going to be as great as a 911 S4 or a Ferrari California, but it you pay a quarter of those cars. Cheers!

Enjoy! https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/driving-the-2015-alfa-romeo-4c--is-it-really-as-good-as-it-looks-134548168.html Cheers!

Young boy takes selfie of Paul McCartney and Warren Buffett eating ice cream in Omaha. Cheers! http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/starstruck-kids-post-picture-with-paul-mccartney-and-warren-buffett-on-instagram-194728820.html

Lemmings! :P Cheers!

Motley Fool interview with Lawrence Cunningham also discussing his new book: Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values Cheers! Part I: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/19/berkshire-hathaway-doesnt-need-warren-buffett.aspx Part II: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/20/why-berkshire-hathaway-will-thrive-without-warren.aspx Part III: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/23/heres-a-strong-list-of-who-can-run-a-post-buffett.aspx Part IV: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/28/warren-buffett-why-the-billionaire-doesnt-want-to.aspx#commentsBoxAnchor

[amazonsearch]Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values[/amazonsearch] Lawrence Cunningham, who has written some of the best books around Buffett and Berkshire, has a new book out. Book cover attached. Cheers! Cover_Flyer_June_2014.pdf

No defence. A good structured team will always have a good shot at beating Brazil. The Germans always build their team from the net out, so I don't think anyone expected this offensive output. Cheers!

LOL! The Lego Movie? Cheers!

You can assume that I would not have posted it unless it was from a verified source. You will not know when he exits until he does, and then discusses it like any other position in the Pabrai Funds. He only talks about it once it is no longer a holding. Cheers!

Expansive discussion on Mohnish's new Indian bank investment. Cheers! http://rakesh-jhunjhunwala.in/index.php/2014/07/05/mohnish-pabrai-ends-exile-from-indian-stocks-with-purchase-of-south-indian-bank-from-renuka-ramnath/

Once again, thanks everyone! It was a nice easy day that was all mine, other than a number of work-related emails. For dinner, had my free Red Robin burger, a coke, and then part of a slice of an 8-layer chocolate cake from Whitespot...mmmm! Use to enjoy a monthly cigar, but stopped cigar smoking a few years back. Will enjoy my annual cigar on my birthday each year though. A nice Montecristo Especial this year! The family/friends dinner is tomorrow night at a nice seafood restaurant. Cheers and thanks!

Thanks everyone! To our American members, enjoy your Fourth of July! Cheers!