AzCactus

Hi All, I don't claim to know an awful lot about BH (but definitely am doing some digging). To me it seems that there are a camp of people who seemingly defend Sardar Biglari with a vengeance and those who feel he is way overcompensated given the size of his company. If I understand correctly he earns a base of around 900K, which can end up being about 10 MM if BVPS increases at least 6% and then he is required to use 30% of that bonus to buy BH shares. Hopefully, most of this is correct. I apologize in advance if it isn't. However, from what I have seen, since the company has been public he has earned a lot of money and the stock has significantly under-performed the S&P 500 while he is still earning a lot of money. As a long term investor this is not necessarily a huge deal, but if Sardar is as brilliant as some people think does anyone have insight into the performance since 12/2009. While this is not an investment lifetime 5 years of significant under-performance is not exactly negligible. Any feedback/guidance is appreciated. Thank You

Yeap, although I am a little younger than some people on this board (25) there really isn't much that is not available already. The key is to not let the software/information flow corrupt your decision making process. I think in a recent interview Guy Spier (noted value investor) mentioned that he has a quiet room in his office where no electronics or the like is allowed. My point is that people already use software and media to effectively create a huge advantage for others who can sit on their laurels and wait for the right pitch.

An alternative to what you mention is Joel Greenblatt's Magic Formula Investing. If I am not mistaken it looks for companies that have the lowest P/E combined with the highest ROE.

Possibly KN

As a 25 year old, hoping to slowly and surely build up a high net worth, the opportunity cost of this lunch is way too high. Although, I am sure it is well worth it given Mohnish's wisdom and insights.

Hi Longhaul, I think that looking at what you mention is pretty much where some activist investors take aim at. Two examples that come to mind are Darden Group DRI (which Starboard holds a large stake in) and Hertz HTZ (which Carl Icahn recently took a large stake in). Other than those two guys I think Dan Loeb at Third Point and Bill Ackman are known to try to turn companies around. David

True, I would just add though that all that information is available on other sites that show data feed like Whalewisdom. David

CorpRaider-I think that's a great idea if anyone wants to answer the question in a way that allows for more flexibility I think that would be awesome and also maybe a good way for people to feel a bit less threatened by the title.

I respectfully disagree. I mention ten years, not 200 or something. Some of the best investors have held onto investments for close to and occasionally ten years, especially Buffett. Furthermore, and as an aside---feel free to mention some of the qualities that you would look for in a business that you would consider holding for that time frame. David

If Brindle is gone, I am gone! ;) Gio But my understanding of the thread is you can't sell the company for 10 years. What happens if Malone, Biglari, Watsa, and Einhorn are all in a plane crash together next year? These are all businesses that rely heavily on their leader. DCG----My idea when creating the thread was that the companies couldn't be sold for ten years. We have all heard Buffett/Lynch say buy a company so good that any idiot could run it because sooner or later one will. Basically that implies that if a company has a large enough moat they would still earn decent returns on capital. Obviously, the four guys mentioned above maybe superior at allocating capital and managing an organization and they would also add value.

Hi Oddball---I'm not meaning to suggest that ten years is not a long time. I couldn't even drive 10 years ago. That being said a better question may have been what companies do you think have enduring moats/competitive advantages?

In the interest of not starting my first topic and avoiding the question, my top 3 would be: BAC BRK.B ESRX David

There are some stocks that seem pretty cheap. But in terms of using this board as a proxy (which was mentioned above)---I think that's a bit of a mistake. Most people on this board probably consider themselves value investors---however two different people could have completely independent approaches and still garner good results. As an example Charlie Munger ran an EXTREMELY concentrated portfolio and Walter Schloss ran a VERY diversified portfolio. However, in retrospect investing with either of those guys would have been a great decision.