IBJNews

Steak n Shake slashes restaurant spending as CEO hoards cash

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Steak n Shake Co. spent $545 million from 1999 to 2008 to add dozens of restaurants and buy new equipment for existing ones. That worked out to $55 million a year in so-called capital expenditures.

In 2009, the locally based burger chain spent just $5.8 million.

The drastic cut in restaurant investments is the biggest reason Steak n Shake is profitable again and sitting on $51 million in cash, up from just $7 million at the start of the year.

Biglari

Steak n Shake CEO Sardar Biglari says the investments by previous executives failed to generate a return for the company’s shareholders despite helping Steak n Shake boost annual revenue from $350 million to $627 million.

Biglari instead has opted to stockpile cash and scout investment opportunities outside of Steak n Shake. The company agreed in October to acquire steak chain Western Sizzlin and in December made an unsolicited bid for a Michigan insurance company.

Restaurant experts and financial advisers say the moves carry heavy risks for the 75-year-old restaurant chain founded in Normal, Ill. They say Steak n Shake could fall behind its competitors and lose market share as Biglari turns his attention—and the chain’s cash flow—elsewhere.

Steak n Shake CEO Sardar Biglari is spending much less than his predecessors on new restaurants and improvements to existing ones. (IBJ File Photo)

“Without question, it’s a strategy to make the numbers look better,” said Steve Huse, a former Steak n Shake executive who now owns 38 Arby’s restaurants in the Midwest and St. Elmo Steak House downtown. “You can delay capital expenditures, but you can’t ignore it for a longer period of time.”

Greener pastures

Steak n Shake risks becoming irrelevant as it faces well-funded and well-managed competitors focused solely on the restaurant business, said George Farra, co-founder and principal of locally based Woodley Farra Manion Portfolio Management.

“He’s kind of running the risk of letting the burger business wither from a lack of capital—taking his eye off the ball to pursue an insurance company,” Farra said. “I don’t see him wanting to be in the restaurant business; he just needed a publicly traded stock to gain access to the capital markets.”

Biglari, who rarely speaks to the media and doesn’t hold conference calls with Wall Street analysts, did not return a phone message from IBJ. But he discussed the strategy in his annual letter to shareholders.

“Steak n Shake has been resuscitated and now enjoys prodigious cash flows,” he wrote in the letter, which also announced a 1-for-20 reverse stock split that sent the chain’s shares above $330 on Dec. 30.

Biglari, a 32-year-old hedge fund manager who took over as CEO in August 2008, went on to say the chain’s next move is to redeploy the cash to the “greenest, most fruitful pastures”—relying on Biglari’s investing instincts, unaided by an investment committee or investment bankers.

“In sum, opportunity will shape our company,” he wrote.

Cash cow

Biglari essentially is milking Steak n Shake for its cash, said Juelene Beck, a former top executive at Burger King and Dunkin Donuts who now runs a restaurant consulting operation out of Coral Gables, Fla.

She’s seen the move before. When she worked as a vice president of brand strategy at Burger King, the chain cut its capital expenditures to almost zero during lean years.

During the current recession, most restaurant chains have made similar moves. Nashville, Tenn.-based O’Charley’s Inc., which operates about 360 restaurants, trimmed its 2009 spending to roughly $18 million, from $48 million in 2008. The total works out to about 2 percent of the chain’s total revenue. McDonald’s Corp. plans to spend about 1 percent of its revenue, or about $2.4 billion, on capital expenditures in 2010.

Steak n Shake’s investment in 2009 was less than 1 percent of its revenue. The company owns 421 restaurants and has another 73 franchise locations.

Cutting back can work for a few years, but there are long-term risks, Beck said. Just remaining a player in the hyper-competitive chain restaurant business requires investment. And if, like Steak n Shake, you’re looking to expand via franchising, you have to prove to potential franchisees you plan to invest in the brand.

“Any franchisee that does an evaluation of this chain would see [Biglari] is buying up other brands and other kinds of businesses,” Beck said. “The question is, do I want to buy into a chain that’s going to be milked instead of one that’s going to be invested in?”

Burger battle

Steak n Shake has a long history—a strong asset—but it also faces a wave of new competitors.

Lorton, Va.-based Five Guys Burgers and Fries is expanding in many of Steak n Shake’s markets, including Indianapolis. And Denver-based Smash Burger—which bills itself as “every city’s favorite burger place”—has launched an aggressive coast-to-coast expansion, including two locations in Dayton, Ohio.

Meanwhile, more fast-food-oriented chains like McDonald’s and Burger King have upgraded burger options to more directly compete with the likes of Steak n Shake.

“It’s become a very hot segment,” Huse said. “It’s a hands-on, day-to-day business you really have to run and not let slip. If [Biglari] has the right leadership in place, I suppose it’s OK to run off and pursue other things.”

The company so far under Biglari has made encouraging progress, including snapping a 14-quarter streak of declining same-store sales with two positive quarters.

Steak n Shake reported a 10-percent jump in same-store sales for the fiscal fourth quarter, buoyed by aggressive discounting like the 4 Meals Under $4 promotion and easy comparisons to previous quarters.

But analyst Michael W. Gallo of Albany, N.Y.-based CL King & Associates sees the company’s shares as fully valued.

“The company has done a good job of stabilizing the Steak n Shake brand over the last year given the difficult environment, something we continue to think is more than reflected in the valuation,” he wrote in a December report.•

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • the downfall of steak n shake
    I was a loyal, dedicated employee of Steak n Shake for 8 years. I started out as a server when I was 16 and moved up to be the GM of a restaurant. What I can say about the leadership of this company now which will ultimately cause the downfall of the company is that they have forgotten WHO works in the restaurants and making sure they have the correct and best support systems in place. Steak n Shake is posting record same store sales growth but continues to cut labor, underpay management and cut much needed heath care options for its employees. I have seen first hand employees that have worked for the company for years that have left because they no longer had access to medical care. One thing that Steak n Shake needs to remember is that while the ones on top are sitting on millions, the ones at the bottom are getting hit with all the cut backs. I hope that one day the company will remember the people who are making the money!!
  • SARDAR
    Sardar is no idiot.

    1 million
    2 million
    3 million
  • Jeff
    You might be underestimating the risks you faced under the previous management. Without the leaseback, cap ex shrinkage, and menu reorientation, SNS would have been at the mercy of its lenders and may not have survived last year.

    Whatever you think of the holding company model going forward, your money was certainly not safer in the hands of the previous management team.
  • Really?
    If marketing has been increased, I haven't noticed it in the Indianapolis market. I sold my shares in SNS when Biglari's intentions became clear, and I'm glad my money is safer.
  • spending on marketing
    the article fails to mention that marketing has been increased...minor detail but don't let that get in the way of a slanted article.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    2. If you only knew....

    3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

    4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

    5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

    ADVERTISEMENT