SNS Name Change to Biglari Holdings

[Redskin212]

Let's tally it up!

[omagh]

So, if the vote fails, what's the impact to the business?  Does Biglari find an alternate name?  Does he continue with the existing SteaknShake name with its potential impact on mergers (viz. ITEX, Fremont)?  Is another name change vote in the offing if this one fails?

 

Biglari strikes me as a "systemic thinker" rather than a linear thinker, so he'll work around this blip -- it did expose a bit of ego which seems to have wrankled most here.

 

-O

 

Let's tally it up!

[Zorrofan]

I'm wondering if a minor set back like having the proposed name change rejected would help set Sardar's feet "back on the ground"? He has done well so far, as things seem to have gone his way for the most part, and perhaps such a set back would act as a reality check.

 

my $0.02

 

cheers

Zorro

 

 

[Redskin212]

My little informal survey shows 80% Against and 20% For.  It will be interesting to see how the actual vote goes.

 

Redskin

[KFRCanuk]

My little informal survey shows 80% Against and 20% For.   It will be interesting to see how the actual vote goes.

Redskin

 

How about i don't care enough to vote.

[Guest ValueCarl]

Too bad the best name for his "holding company" got embedded in the "holding company" itself.

 

The young man went "WEST" to claim his fortunes.  8) 

[Guest ValueCarl]

By the way, a comment on your poll as compared to other boards where I have witnessed ones ability to see the voting tallies along with its corresponding consensus and biases before one casts their own official ballots, is outstanding. The results shouldn't be known for comparison purposes until one lays their OPINION down lest that man's opinion be potentially swayed by some crowd. imo 

[Hawk4value]

I have a substantial part of my assets invested in SNS, so I have given the name change some thought.  In my opinion, SNS is now, for all practical purposes, a publicly traded hedge fund run by Biglari, except the shareholders are not paying hedge fund fees. I am in the investment because of Biglari, period. I am riding this investment on his capital allocation abilities. If this were a private hedge fund, a name like Biglari Holdings would not raise an eyebrow, i.e. Paulson's fund. So why begrudge him the name change. If having his name on the investment vechicle motivates him that much more, then I am all for it.

[nodnub]

By the way, a comment on your poll as compared to other boards where I have witnessed ones ability to see the voting tallies along with its corresponding consensus and biases before one casts their own official ballots, is outstanding. The results shouldn't be known for comparison purposes until one lays their OPINION down lest that man's opinion be potentially swayed by some crowd. imo   

 

Carl, perhaps I misunderstand you... but I can see the results before I voted in this poll.

 

I voted my proxy for the name change. I agree with some others here that it may be a sign of ego on the part of Biglari, but I am happy to give him a little bit of rope here and see what he does with it.  I have been following his progress for several years (friendlys, WEST, and now SNS).

 

[ragnarisapirate]

 

 

I voted my proxy for the name change. I agree with some others here that it may be a sign of ego on the part of Biglari, but I am happy to give him a little bit of rope here and see what he does with it. 

 

 

And I thought I was the only one! ;)

[twacowfca]

Personalization is generally a good thing in business.  Would you rather deal with the Biglari Insurance Co. Or the XYZ Insurance Co. if you knew nothing more about the company than its name?  How about Smacking Good cake mix VS Betty Crocker cake mix?  :)  Would you have been more proud to have graduated from, hypothetically, PS 117 or The Morris School?

[twacowfca]

My little informal survey shows 80% Against and 20% For.   It will be interesting to see how the actual vote goes.

Redskin

 

How about i don't care enough to vote.

 

 

That's OK.  Surveys are more representative of opinions if only the strong pros and cons are tabulated.  :)

[Parsad]

Personalization is generally a good thing in business.  Would you rather deal with the Biglari Insurance Co. Or the XYZ Insurance Co. if you knew nothing more about the company than its name?  How about Smacking Good cake mix VS Betty Crocker cake mix?    Would you have been more proud to have graduated from, hypothetically, PS 117 or The Morris School?

 

But that's the point...would you rather deal with Biglari Holdings (hasn't existed even a month) or The Steak'n Shake Holding Company (been around 80 years)! 

 

Virtually everyone on this board owns Berkshire Hathaway, but not calling it Buffett Holdings hasn't made any difference to investors or people seeking products from Berkshire subsidiaries.  In fact, it does the opposite...people are more attracted to the company because he didn't name it after himself.  And whether it was on purpose or not, the right type of shareholder base was attracted to his company for about 40 years.  Prem did the same thing.  He could have called it Watsa Holdings, but what would be the point of that?  Cheers!

[twacowfca]

Personalization is generally a good thing in business.  Would you rather deal with the Biglari Insurance Co. Or the XYZ Insurance Co. if you knew nothing more about the company than its name?  How about Smacking Good cake mix VS Betty Crocker cake mix?     Would you have been more proud to have graduated from, hypothetically, PS 117 or The Morris School?

 

But that's the point...would you rather deal with Biglari Holdings (hasn't existed even a month) or The Steak'n Shake Holding Company (been around 80 years)!  

 

Virtually everyone on this board owns Berkshire Hathaway, but not calling it Buffett Holdings hasn't made any difference to investors or people seeking products from Berkshire subsidiaries.  In fact, it does the opposite...people are more attracted to the company because he didn't name it after himself.  And whether it was on purpose or not, the right type of shareholder base was attracted to his company for about 40 years.  Prem did the same thing.  He could have called it Watsa Holdings, but what would be the point of that?  Cheers!

 

 

 

Good point, Sanj. Berkshire Hathaway sounds rather distinguished and generic.  Not a bad name for what became a conglomerate.  The name encompasses a placename, Berkshire, and an old New England surname, Hathaway--a distinguished heritage, lending cachet to a company that would seek to project an aura of lasting solvency and integrity.

 

What if, however, Warren's acquisition vehicle had been Dairy Queen instead of Berkshire Hathaway?  Now that's an interesting thought!  :)

[ExpectedValue]

Personalization is generally a good thing in business.  Would you rather deal with the Biglari Insurance Co. Or the XYZ Insurance Co. if you knew nothing more about the company than its name?  How about Smacking Good cake mix VS Betty Crocker cake mix?     Would you have been more proud to have graduated from, hypothetically, PS 117 or The Morris School?

 

But that's the point...would you rather deal with Biglari Holdings (hasn't existed even a month) or The Steak'n Shake Holding Company (been around 80 years)!  

 

Virtually everyone on this board owns Berkshire Hathaway, but not calling it Buffett Holdings hasn't made any difference to investors or people seeking products from Berkshire subsidiaries.  In fact, it does the opposite...people are more attracted to the company because he didn't name it after himself.  And whether it was on purpose or not, the right type of shareholder base was attracted to his company for about 40 years.  Prem did the same thing.  He could have called it Watsa Holdings, but what would be the point of that?  Cheers!

 

Problem is, with a name like The Steak N Shake Holding Company, every time he tries to go activist or do a hostile deal, opposing management will surely use the argument of 'what the heck does a fast food chain know about the insurance business?' (what they were saying on Bloomberg).

 

Not exactly good when you are trying to compete for the wills of uninformed shareholder bases. Berkshire Hathaway may be the name of a textile mill, but it is vague enough that when you hear it you don't think textile mills -- Same goes for Fairfax (which as a name with a vague meaning). Unfortunately, this does not hold true for the Steak N Shake Holding Company which will elicit thoughts of burgers and milkshakes instead of a value oriented holding co.

 

So I do think that a name change is needed, especially one that does not reference fast food so directly.

 

 

[bargainman]

Personalization is generally a good thing in business.  Would you rather deal with the Biglari Insurance Co. Or the XYZ Insurance Co. if you knew nothing more about the company than its name?  How about Smacking Good cake mix VS Betty Crocker cake mix?     Would you have been more proud to have graduated from, hypothetically, PS 117 or The Morris School?

 

But that's the point...would you rather deal with Biglari Holdings (hasn't existed even a month) or The Steak'n Shake Holding Company (been around 80 years)! 

 

Virtually everyone on this board owns Berkshire Hathaway, but not calling it Buffett Holdings hasn't made any difference to investors or people seeking products from Berkshire subsidiaries.  In fact, it does the opposite...people are more attracted to the company because he didn't name it after himself.  And whether it was on purpose or not, the right type of shareholder base was attracted to his company for about 40 years.  Prem did the same thing.  He could have called it Watsa Holdings, but what would be the point of that?  Cheers!

 

Well.. today that's the case.  Not sure that would have been the case 20+ years ago when he first took it over!  I mean today more than half the people who hear Berkshire Hathaway think of Buffet, not of the old textile mill...

[shalab]

One doesnt buy into a company because of the name. SNS Holdings is a perfectly fine name. I want fairfax to be named as shalab holdings because I own some shares in it. Also SH sounds better than fairfax atleast to me.  ;D. And, oh, I will be motivated to hold shares in SH as it bears my screen name  ::)

 

 

[Parsad]

Well.. today that's the case.  Not sure that would have been the case 20+ years ago when he first took it over!  I mean today more than half the people who hear Berkshire Hathaway think of Buffet, not of the old textile mill...

 

I think if Buffett had named Berkshire Hathaway after himself, he would not have done nearly as well.  Why?  Because it would have been a narcissistic thing to do.  He would not have attracted early investors, leaders of small businesses, etc. that would have wanted to sell their business to him or invest with him.  He would not be held in such esteem nearly 50 years later.

 

Already people are wary of Sardar when he buys stock in their company.  At 30 years old, the name change and hostile bids are portraying him as Icahn, not Buffett.  People do not want to sell their businesses to him.  He has trouble keeping leaders in place.  It is going to slow his progress. 

 

Take a look at the last month...Icahn puts out hostile bid for Lions Gate and encounters tons of resistance...Buffett closes deal on Burlington Northern, with the CEO ecstatic he is buying!  Quite the difference...and that's directly attributable to the way the two moguls behave.  Who would you rather be and who would you rather invest with?  Cheers!

[twacowfca]

Well.. today that's the case.  Not sure that would have been the case 20+ years ago when he first took it over!  I mean today more than half the people who hear Berkshire Hathaway think of Buffet, not of the old textile mill...

 

I think if Buffett had named Berkshire Hathaway after himself, he would not have done nearly as well.  Why?  Because it would have been a narcissistic thing to do.  He would not have attracted early investors, leaders of small businesses, etc. that would have wanted to sell their business to him or invest with him.  He would not be held in such esteem nearly 50 years later.

 

Already people are wary of Sardar when he buys stock in their company.  At 30 years old, the name change and hostile bids are portraying him as Icahn, not Buffett.  People do not want to sell their businesses to him.  He has trouble keeping leaders in place.  It is going to slow his progress. 

 

Take a look at the last month...Icahn puts out hostile bid for Lions Gate and encounters tons of resistance...Buffett closes deal on Burlington Northern, with the CEO ecstatic he is buying!  Quite the difference...and that's directly attributable to the way the two moguls behave.  Who would you rather be and who would you rather invest with?  Cheers!

 

 

WOW!  That's a VERY good argument, Sanj!  I'm convinced -- genuinely.

 

As the poet said:  "What's in a name?"

[bookie71]

It's the ego implications that worries me.  Someone earlier said it is a hedge fund without fees. Raising his salary from 250,000 to 900,000 is some kind of fee.  I think he probably earned it with the turnaround, but if the salary gets raised 260% every couple of years it could get expensive. 

I have stock. but won't buy more until I get a much better feel for the man. 

[Hawk4value]

Naturally their are "fees" (including salaries) to owning shares in any company. In the case of SNS corporate costs have been substantially reduced due to Biglari's intervention. Now, am I completely happy with the triple salary increase and the name change----No!    I would have thought that a double might have been more appropriate. But one must consider that SNS has no dividend and has no stock option plan. I for one would rather pay Biglari a little more salary than have him dilute the shareholders with options.  As far as the name change, if I remember correctly Warren's original investment vechicle was called The Buffett Partnership.

 

 

[valuecfa]

Naturally their are "fees" (including salaries) to owning shares in any company. In the case of SNS corporate costs have been substantially reduced due to Biglari's intervention. Now, am I completely happy with the triple salary increase and the name change----No!     I would have thought that a double might have been more appropriate. But one must consider that SNS has no dividend and has no stock option plan. I for one would rather pay Biglari a little more salary than have him dilute the shareholders with options.  As far as the name change, if I remember correctly Warren's original investment vechicle was called The Buffett Partnership.

 

 

Well, Buffett started the partnership, and he was the managing member. He could freely name it whatever he wants.

 

The SNS name change is more akin to Buffett renaming Burlingtion Northern, Buffett Railways.

 

The interesting thing, is that i can not think of any other precedent in history (off the top of my head) where a CEO upon acquiring such a tiny portion of a company, through his own monies, has tried to hold a vote to rename the company after himself.

 

In addition there may be a bit of hypocrisy involved. Biglari sometimes lambasts management of other companies for their self-serving interest (despite owning so little of the company they are managing), to the detriment of minority shareholders. The renaming of the company after himself strikes me as a bit self-serving as well.

[rmitz]

Naturally their are "fees" (including salaries) to owning shares in any company. In the case of SNS corporate costs have been substantially reduced due to Biglari's intervention. Now, am I completely happy with the triple salary increase and the name change----No!     I would have thought that a double might have been more appropriate. But one must consider that SNS has no dividend and has no stock option plan. I for one would rather pay Biglari a little more salary than have him dilute the shareholders with options.  As far as the name change, if I remember correctly Warren's original investment vechicle was called The Buffett Partnership.

 

One important thing to note that I believe hasn't been brought up yet is that in 1963, $100,000 is the equivalent of roughly just over $700,000 today.  I don't know exactly when Buffett upped his salary to 100k.  This makes the salary number look not that crazy.

 

I don't like the ego demonstration of the name change though.

[link01]

The interesting thing, is that i can not think of any other precedent in history (off the top of my head) where a CEO upon acquiring such a tiny portion of a company, through his own monies, has tried to hold a vote to rename the company after himself.

 

In addition there may be a bit of hypocrisy involved. Biglari sometimes lambasts management of other companies for their self-serving interest (despite owning so little of the company they are managing), to the detriment of minority shareholders.

 

it should be noted that tho sardar may only own a small percentage of the co personally its not for lack of trying. he probably has most of his net worth invested in it thru having his own money plunked beside that of the other lion fund partners.

 

i also believe had sns not been so under valued at the time he would jumped at the chance to issue sns stock for the west acquisition, thus upping his stake more. but sns was selling under 12 at the time pre-split adjusted. now, THAT would have been my definition of self-serving!

 

to keep it in perspective, sardar owns a piddling percentage amount of sns NOT because he doesent have major personal skin in the game but because he happened to successfully gain control of a co that was much bigger than his piggy bank at the point in time it occurred.

[link01]

Warren in his younger days was not much different (ask Alice!). Sardar's shareholding in BH is very small, any hostile takeover with 'Biglari' name, Biglari not running it? Not going to happen to poor Biglari?

 

dont know about the warren in his younger days part, but you make a a very good point here, imo: "any hostile takeover with 'Biglari' name, Biglari not running it? Not going to happen...".

 

i struggled like many on this board (and still have my doubts!) with the seeming (and unseemly, if true) ego-stroking aspect of re-naming sns biglari holdings. but i ultimately came to the conclusion that there might have been other motivations behind it, & it'd be presumptuous to dismiss that possibility out of hand. kumar touched on one possible over riding motivation above: insecurity due to his relatively low ownership. there may be others, & none of them necessarily about ego. you could say that sardar has etched his personal imprint deeply on this co, with as much sweat & blood as he had to offer. its got his name all over it metaphorically already...