Parsad Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 Flights to NYC are pretty good, but hotels, food, etc. are steep! Wouldn't Chicago have been a better fit...with plenty of Steak'n Shakes around, cheaper hotels and food, and flights would be a little more central to the East Coast and West Coast? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Txlaw - at what point do you walk around the chocolate factory before you recognize Mr. Wonka is a strange bird? SB is a little off. Hmm, in what sense do you mean he is "a little off"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Flights to NYC are pretty good, but hotels, food, etc. are steep! Wouldn't Chicago have been a better fit...with plenty of Steak'n Shakes around, cheaper hotels and food, and flights would be a little more central to the East Coast and West Coast? Cheers! Just be happy he didn't have it in Omaha ;D Okay, low blow. I couldn't help myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarisapirate Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Flights to NYC are pretty good, but hotels, food, etc. are steep! Wouldn't Chicago have been a better fit...with plenty of Steak'n Shakes around, cheaper hotels and food, and flights would be a little more central to the East Coast and West Coast? Cheers! Thinking out loud: I am guessing that there are a ton of shareholders that are actually in NYC? For comparison's sake, at the last WEST meeting, there were probably about 2/3 of the number of people in attendance, when compared to the last SNS meeting in Indy... and SNS is HUGE when sized up against WEST. Plus, the Indy meeting was on their home turf, which is where I would have expected a ton of local shareholders to be- after all, The Lion Fund bought some billboard space there during the proxy fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Also, I gotta quote a famous picante sauce company commercial . . . "New York City?!" When talking to Jonathan Dash (director of WEST, and shareholder of both WEST and SNS) at the WEST annual meeting last year, I asked him where he thought that the SNS annuals would be (I figured it would be Indy of NYC). He said that he thought the shareholder list would be looked at, with the meeting taking place in the city where there was the least economic impact on shareholder's pocketbooks. That's interesting. So is the reason it's in NYC because of the institutional shareholders? For the picante sauce reference: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Txlaw - at what point do you walk around the chocolate factory before you recognize Mr. Wonka is a strange bird? SB is a little off. Hmm, in what sense do you mean he is "a little off"? I should rephrase my question. Why do you think he's a "little off"? Are there specific things he's done that makes you think he's a bit off his rocker? I can see taking the name change as being egotistical, but crazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarisapirate Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Steak-n-Shake-Company-prnews-2161385343.html?x=0&.v=1 "We normally do not comment on published articles, and though we therefore won't address the multitude of errors in this piece, we do wish to set one salient fact straight: Steak n Shake Operations Inc., the restaurant chain of 485 units, will maintain its principal headquarters in Indianapolis. Moreover, Steak n Shake's parent company — currently named The Steak n Shake Company with plans to change it to Biglari Holdings Inc. — is headquartered in San Antonio, a move which occurred some months ago. (The holding company is the owner of its subsidiary, where operations are primarily conducted.) The majority of Steak n Shake's employees will remain in Indianapolis even though the operating company will also have a presence in San Antonio. The errors in the IBJ article advance the notion that a change in the parent company's name is necessary; any time the parent company takes corporate action (e.g., announcing an acquisition), many erroneously would conclude, as the IBJ reporter did, that the restaurant chain is behind the action. The obvious reason for the alteration in the parent company's name is to avoid confusion between the parent's business activities and those of its subsidiaries. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxprogram Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Yahoo link didn't work for me, here is the Official company release: http://www.steaknshake.com/investing/news/02082010.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shalab Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 The Buffett/Munger bar is very high - not only in investment results but also the ethical standards. It is hard to meet let alone beat them in both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bargainman Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I don't agree with that statement at all. I believe it has more to do with immaturity and a young guy who has had enormous success to this point. It's easy to become a bit complacent when things have worked out very nicely for some time. Cheers! I was just having a conversation about this with someone. Years ago there was some interview with the CEO of a fortune 500 company. Basically he had an employee who made a decision that cost the company about $7-10 million. The interviewer asked him.. "well, did you fire him?", to which the CEO replied "What, are you crazy? I just spent $7-10 training him!". My point is that I'm a lot more confident with managers who have been through tough times than with managers who have not. I want people who have tried and failed and learned from failure. Not managers who's had their lives handed to them on silver spoons, so to speak. Biglari certainly hasn't been fed with a silver spoon, but he has had a lot of successes, with certain elements of luck for sure. As such I'm a bit weary of putting too much with him. Watsa on the other hand has been through a massive storm and weathered it and learned from it. After Biglari has a few defeats I'll be more comfortable with him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
premfan Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I dont recall Buffet having any massive failures since running berkshire. Little ones sure any one in the game for that long will have failures. Surely, sardar has had the under the radar type of failures that he has learned from. I am sure he has learned from other peoples failures as well. I do agree failure is a prerequisite for having success. There is no rule that states sardar can't have prolonged success without having a prem watsa type of failure. He can use reference experiences of previous failures run by great investors and try not to duplicate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 I dont recall Buffet having any massive failures since running berkshire. Most of them just happened to work out after Buffett got his hand's dirty or had to admit that certain aspects of the business had to be shut down...Solomon's, Dexter Shoes, Gen Re. He learned from all of those close calls. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junto Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I dont recall Buffet having any massive failures since running berkshire. Most of them just happened to work out after Buffett got his hand's dirty or had to admit that certain aspects of the business had to be shut down...Solomon's, Dexter Shoes, Gen Re. He learned from all of those close calls. Cheers! Or he got a qualified manager in the company to turn it around. At least that is what I gathered from Snowball... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenville Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The article below has the actual picture that greets you as you enter Steak & Shakes! http://ragnarisapirate.blogspot.com/2010/03/picture-of-sardar-biglari-welcoming-you.html You can click on the picture for a larger version where the text below the picture is visible. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted March 8, 2010 Author Share Posted March 8, 2010 I like the picture, especially what it says on the bottom. I'm still against the name change to Biglari Holdings. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kbateman Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I will say that I was against the name change at first as well. Then I mentioned the change to my wife, and she provided an excellent counterargument -- making me change my mind, as wives too often do. I will vote for the name change -- here is why. Much of the argument against the name change center around the fact that he is naming it after himself. On first glance, it looks self centered and arrogant. Our social norms have taught us to shun such an activity and denounce it. But in fact, it is the best thing that could happen for someone who is looking to actually take personal responsibility for the entity he leads. Let me put it a more personal way. I write a daily newsletter, with economic and value oriented stock picks. (The name is not important -- this is not a commercial for my service.) My name and phone number is on the top of every letter. I own what is in that letter; I own my choices. It is my responsibility. The same effect will come across for Biglari Holdings. It provides an opportunity for him to be held extra accountable. It is refreshing to see someone in corporate leadership who wants to take personal responsibility for his leadership. I am not going to deny someone the opportunity to assume such responsibility. Secondly, the name change is a suggestion that people begin to look at the company in a different way. I think it is apparent to people at this point that Biglari is not interested in courting the opinions of Wall Street. Rather, he would spend his time doing something actually productive, rather than be on a continual road show. But there is something to be said about a potential acquisition being picked up by Steak N Shake vs. Biglari Holdings. Should it make a difference? Not at all -- but we don't live in the theoretical world. We live in the real world, where labels means things and there are significant biases. If a different name leads to acquisitions at a lower price than were the entity named Steak and Shake, then I am all for it. It is just a name. Steak N Shake is the name of a restaurant; the title served well for years and years. Now the corporate mission has morphed into a holding company -- and holding companies are reliant on intellectual capital to be successful more than anything else. It is at least worth thoughtful consideration beyond initial emotion to examine the potential upside of a change that is, on the whole, rather trivial. I will be at the annual meeting, and I hope to see some folks there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted March 8, 2010 Author Share Posted March 8, 2010 Hi Kbateman, I agree with you (and your wife) on all of your points. ;D If Sardar owned 10% of the company directly, I would actually be fine with that. But he owns less than 1% personally. If this was the CEO of any other company, anyone in their right mind would believe this is truly a narcissistic move with ownership of 1%. We are giving him the benefit of the doubt that this is based purely on a strategic initiative. What if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? Do we leave it "Biglari Holdings", or is the company going to change the name back to "The Steak'n Shake Company". It seems incredibly premature to put his name on this thing....we are only a year in. As I said before, I will vote our shares against the name change. At some point in the future, if and when Sardar owns 10% of this thing and has moulded it into his dream, then I'm more than happy to vote in favor of the name change. But not yet! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kbateman Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Parsad, I understand that he is a 10% beneficial owner of the common. Of course, that isn't the same as personally own, but it is decent enough of an interest. He basically turned the company around from a company in severe decline into a profitable enterprise with a new and different long term focus on increasing shareholder value. It is his baby -- might as well have the same last name. It will be interesting to see how this vote goes. Like I said, I can see both sides: but on the whole, my perception is that the benefit to be gained by allowing him to attach his name to the investment vehicle far outweighs the potential downside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookie71 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I agree with Parsad. If he had a longer history, then OK but he needs a few years to show he isn't a "flash in the pan" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bronco Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I still find this odd. He isn't even the founder of the company. BTW - every company has a holding company as the parent. Every one. The name change doesn't really hurt shareholder value, but it doesn't help either. If this guy wants recognition, then just perform well over a long period. Just like investors know Jack Welch and Warren Buffett - earn it buddy! To be clear, the name change doesn't keep me up at night. I am more interested in seeing what SNS will buy next, if it is disclosed. Anyone hear anything from the Shareholder meeting (wasn't it today?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarisapirate Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I still find this odd. He isn't even the founder of the company. ... Anyone hear anything from the Shareholder meeting (wasn't it today?) Honestly, I view him as the founder of the new company, as he is taking it in a direction that the leaders of the company from Gus Belt, all the way to Jeff Blades, never would have envisioned. The annual meeting isn't for a month. I am going and will post my notes ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Investmentacct Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I probably would be happy if he had same uniform as other employees rather than black suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I call a spade a spade. Naming something more than 50 years old after yourself after you have been involved in it for 2-4 years is nothing more than an ego move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts