KJP

Southpaw: I really liked your QIS writeup. Do you have something similar for QHR. At first glance, it appears to be a leading niche SAAS software company trading at 2x recurring revenue with room for growth, both from greenfield opportunities and other EMR software providers. One question I do have is if EMR software is very sticky, why is QHR able to obtain 1/3 of new sales are from competing EMR providers? Do they have a superior product? Lower cost to the user? Also, do you have a sense of the returns on capital the company has been able to achieve on its acquisitions of competing EMR providers? The recent Jonoke transaction, for example, appears to have given QHR access to $1 million in recurring revenue for almost nothing (I understand that not all of the Jonoke users will transition to QHR).

TNR Technical (TNRK)

Advant-E Corporation (ADVC) Mestek (MCCK) ELXSI Corp (ELXS) Conrad Industries (CNRD) [Founding family still runs it; not sure if they have majority ownership] Heritage-Crystal Clean (HCCI) [This is run by original founder but not majority owned by him] Radiant Logistics (RLGT) [Also run by founder but not majority owned by him]

Isn't Radiant trading at 9x-10x 2016 EBITDA? Market cap plus existing options is about $220MM + $20MM preferred + $55MM in debt, and 2016 EBITDA of $32MM (midpoint of guidance).

Good senior managers should: (i) run the business well; (ii) allocate capital well; and (iii) treat minority shareholders fairly. Here are some lesser known managers who I think have hit all three points: Character Group (CCT): Richard King (he's winding down now) Judges Scientific (JDG): Alex Hambro Armanino Foods (AMNF): Edmond Pera

Restrictions on the ability of an unlisted company's board to issue stock could arise from: (i) the charter; (ii) the by-laws; (iii) the law of the state of incorporation; or (iv) a shareholders' agreement. You referred to Delaware law, so I assume you're dealing with a Delaware corporation. Section 157 of the Delaware General Corporation Law authorizes boards to issue stock options, subject to any restrictions in the charter. The statute itself does not provide for any limit on the number of options that may be granted. Instead, you must look to the general law of fiduciary duty and waste.

Agreed re: the Wellington interview, particularly the discussion of the equal weighting on page 23.