giofranchi Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I agree with the compromise suggested by Farnam Street Investments except the part of allowing uncapped 0%/25% fees for Mr. Big. Of course, take that away and no compromise is possible! ;) Gio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I agree with the compromise suggested by Farnam Street Investments except the part of allowing uncapped 0%/25% fees for Mr. Big. Of course, take that away and no compromise is possible! ;) Gio It is still a compromise even if you take that away: Mr. Big stays in the company and is not kicked out. Also, I'd be fine if the cap was raised to $20M let's say. But I also said that the compromise in toto is better than nothing. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I don't believe this has been posted. Interesting article released this morning by Indianapolis Business Journal. http://www.ibj.com/articles/52637-advisory-firm-current-biglari-board-must-go Egan Jones came out in support of the Groveland Nominees. Also, Gabelli is quoted in the article and he is critical of Sardar Biglari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcmaaaaath Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 If anyone at the meeting wants to say hello I'm a white guy in a pink shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 If anyone at the meeting wants to say hello I'm a white guy in a pink shirt. Unfortunately, my schedule did not allow me to make it this year, but hopefully those who do will post their notes, as many of us did for the board last year. Should be an interesting afternoon... enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddballstocks Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 What time was the meeting? Any idea on when we might hear some news on the results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Value Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 What time was the meeting? Any idea on when we might hear some news on the results? It's already out http://www.ibj.com/articles/52662-shareholder-coup-of-steak-n-shake-parent-firm-fails Edit: Looking forward to seeing the auditors release what the numbers were. If the LF shares were the votes that tipped the scale in Biglari's favor then in my mind he's still on shaky ground and someone else with more firepower will join the Groveland guys next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 It was a good meeting. Nick and Seth were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerscorecard Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I would be grateful for any notes you may have taken, no matter how limited. They can't possibly be as limited as what's on Twitter, which makes it appear that the entire five-hour meeting was Biglari calling everyone idiots, while looking both dishonest and high on painkillers. There may have been some of that, but I'm sure that's not all there was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I would be grateful for any notes you may have taken, no matter how limited. They can't possibly be as limited as what's on Twitter, which makes it appear that the entire five-hour meeting was Biglari calling everyone idiots, while looking both dishonest and high on painkillers. There may have been some of that, but I'm sure that's not all there was! It all depends upon which camp people are in. The anti-Biglari shareholder/hater will certainly say what you found on Twitter, no matter what is shared. I was surprised by the amount of anti-Biglari shareholders who where there. It just doesn't make sense why people still hold stock when you think the CEO/management is "stealing" from you. (and spend the $$ to attend the meeting to voice it. I understand we all have a voice, but come on....). I will say the philosophy in this thread was brought up during the meeting. For those of us who have studied, read, and invested a lot of time and energy into BH, what has been mentioned here was talked about in the meeting. That said, there are a lot of un-informed investors who don't understand (hence, the "idiots" term), yet try to change the rules of the game. I'm usually a huge giver, but I might limit the notes I share. Not to stand up for Sardar, but anything posted will only fuel those who don't like the guy to continue the un-needed bashing that is unwarranted here. If discussion was constructive it'd be something else. Notes won't change anyone's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Txvestor Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The question/point you SB lovers won't answer/acknowledge is 'who owns the company?'. Ultimately I think those in the pro SB camp fail to acknowledge that a basic tenet of capitalism where owners of capital control the destiny of the corporation is being violated. Irrespective of whether people post their notes or not, this debate will continue until time arbitrates. It may very well turn out that SB hits more home runs and makes money for himself as well as shareholders but it still won't take away the fact that he made an end run around the majority will. That will forever tarnish his reputation. And I suspect that is something that will over time grow to be something very important for such an egotistical individual. After the money becomes a practically useless scorecard, most people start to look to legacy. For the record I think SB has unique talents, but SB the person is not a distinguished individual. I admire WEB for BOTH. That is also the reason why I held my nose and withheld my votes rather than voting for Groveland or for 2 independent directors in the end. I'm truly hoping that bravado and ego aside SB reads the very constructive balanced piece by the Farnham duo and implement their quite balanced proposals. Were he to do that, I would gladly increase my holdings, and make this a permanent holding and vote my shares favoring his control long term. I'm not holding my breath though. For those who wish to share their notes, we appreciate your efforts, for those that prefer not to do so for whatever reason we respect your decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mateo999 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The question/point you SB lovers won't answer/acknowledge is 'who owns the company?'. Ultimately I think those in the pro SB camp fail to acknowledge that a basic tenet of capitalism where owners of capital control the destiny of the corporation is being violated. This is the point I was making earlier. It just so happens that in the case of BH, tenets of capitalism ARE being violated and will likely never stop being violated. That is a fact. Rain falls down. There are higher truths. Biglari controls the destiny of the corporation. "Lovers" know this and, acting as capitalists, are ok with it. "People who decide not to own the stock" know this and as capitalists, choose not to buy the stock. "Haters" are just "people who decide not to own the stock" who thrive on frustration. If Biglari was just some schmuck with a sub-average capital allocation track record there would be no lovers. Being a lover is completely justified. It's capitalism at its finest. Disclosure: I own 1 share that I bought days before the record date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 It just doesn't make sense why people still hold stock when you think the CEO/management is "stealing" from you. (and spend the $$ to attend the meeting to voice it. I understand we all have a voice, but come on....). May I remind you that this was a contested meeting to get rid of the management who is stealing from shareholders? The fact that the contest was destined to fail with 20% votes residing with the said management does not make the opposing camp somebody without sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giofranchi Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I'm usually a huge giver, but I might limit the notes I share. Not to stand up for Sardar, but anything posted will only fuel those who don't like the guy to continue the un-needed bashing that is unwarranted here. If discussion was constructive it'd be something else. Notes won't change anyone's opinion. frugalchief, I understand your reluctance in sharing the notes taken during the meeting… But may I ask you to share them with me through a PM? It would be greatly appreciated! :) Cheers, Gio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaceliacapital Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 https://fortune.com/2015/04/09/steak-n-shake-activists-biglari-groveland/ "including it’s high profile one in New York City, which was opened in 2012, “Steak ‘n Shake by Biglari.” Steak ‘n Shake is allowed to use the Biglari name through licensing with Biglari that would pay him $100 million if Biglari were to ever leave the company or get fired..” :D Come on, who makes this stuff up?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giofranchi Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Biglari Holdings Proxy Battle Ends In A Whimper But It Won't Be The Last http://seekingalpha.com/article/3061626-biglari-holdings-proxy-battle-ends-in-a-whimper-but-it-wont-be-the-last?auth_param=7i5hb:1aifjbq:6590823587e365d2d5bd86724dccec17&uprof=25 Gio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 It just doesn't make sense why people still hold stock when you think the CEO/management is "stealing" from you. (and spend the $$ to attend the meeting to voice it. I understand we all have a voice, but come on....). May I remind you that this was a contested meeting to get rid of the management who is stealing from shareholders? The fact that the contest was destined to fail with 20% votes residing with the said management does not make the opposing camp somebody without sense. No need to remind since I was present at the meeting to hear it firsthand, and have studied all materials from it. It would be stealing should SB be paid handsomely for sitting on his hands, but quite the opposite has happened. There is no logic to that. If so, every fund manager should change their compensation to 100k (or less) and be demanded to produce outsized gains. What motive would they have to do such a thing, unless they were just a "great guy/gal?" Most would probably quit if there was no incentive. I believe the contest would've failed regardless of TLFs' 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matson125 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Mario Gabelli is not happy about the results, he posted this on twitter. Mario Gabelli @MarioGabelli 4h4 hours ago Biglariholdings ( BH).... Mindless investing led to mindless voting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 If so, every fund manager should change their compensation to 100k (or less) and be demanded to produce outsized gains. This is a strawman argument. Nobody demanded to "change their compensation to 100k (or less)". You should not distort the shareholder position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Partner24 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 This is one of the most ironic corporate governance story that I've never heard. Years ago, Biglari came as a white knight with "very incisive" letters, got managers and directors fired and now, he his starting to taste his own medicine. It would be terrific to see some kind of a "Biglari no. 2" starting to write some "very incisive" letters about "Biglari no.1". I'm happy to see these shareholders standing up for their rights as owners of a company. Biglari and his entourage are the last persons that should complain about them. I will certainly not be sad for him if he get ultimately fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giofranchi Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I will certainly not be sad for him if he get ultimately fired. Ahahah!! You want to fire Federer just because he has become a billionaire at 33 swinging a tennis racket?! ;D Your answer might be: Biglari is no Federer. Then I ask you again what I have asked some posts ago: show me the track record of a stock market investment professional which is better than Biglari’s since 2000. Until now no one has answered. ;) Cheers, Gio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 If so, every fund manager should change their compensation to 100k (or less) and be demanded to produce outsized gains. This is a strawman argument. Nobody demanded to "change their compensation to 100k (or less)". You should not distort the shareholder position. Those are examples, not actual figures...but of course, I wouldn't expect anything less than things being taken out of context. Some owners are looking for a "cheaper" manager. But they won't get the same great value results. As indirectly pointed to, most are looking for another WEB. But isn't that also why there was a contest? Owners weren't happy with his compensation (I'm excluding the governance issues highlighted). So in effect your looking for someone that's cheaper than SB, but lacks the experience and financial commitment? How does that help owners? If Groveland won, I'm curious what others think they would do that would be as value enhancing as what SB has done/will do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 But isn't that also why there was a contest? Owners weren't happy with his compensation (I'm excluding the governance issues highlighted). I cannot answer for all shareholders, but I voted against Biglari because of "governance issues". In particular, I am not against his compensation as approved by shareholders although I consider it high, but I am against his maneuvers to extract even higher compensation than approved by shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly value Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The idea that if shareholders don't like Biglari they should sell is crazy. If Biglari owned 75% of the company, he could say that and it may be a legitimate point. But of course he owns very little, and so if shareholders collectively don't like Biglari, then he should be the one to leave. The problem with Biglari as others have noted is not just the compensation scheme. The problem is the convoluted structures Biglari is setting up to give himself more money and more control. At the very least what is needed is a clearer organizational structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abitofvalue Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The idea that if shareholders don't like Biglari they should sell is crazy. If Biglari owned 75% of the company, he could say that and it may be a legitimate point. But of course he owns very little, and so if shareholders collectively don't like Biglari, then he should be the one to leave. The problem with Biglari as others have noted is not just the compensation scheme. The problem is the convoluted structures Biglari is setting up to give himself more money and more control. At the very least what is needed is a clearer organizational structure. Agreed, it seems that few people object to Bigs earning large sums of money. Many object to the underhanded, highly unethical and simply put dishonest way he ended up earning that compensation. Many also object to the various mechanisms he is using to entrench himself and the lapdog board of directors that is enabling him. The arrogance he is displaying and number of people he continues to rub the wrong way cannot be a good thing in the long-term for shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now