ERICOPOLY

You might be wondering how they could reduce the number of 10,000+ "LED Bulbs" results... I have an idea... The 5th item I've actually clicked on is a flashlight. The quoted price (after clicking on it) changed from $3.99 to "go to checkout to see sale price". So I try to add it to my cart. It then says "This item is not available now. Please try again later". So... they are just wasting my time. Why???? Why oh why do they list unavailable products in the first place, and then why do they ask me to find out how much it will cost if I take it to the checkout???? When all along they KNOW it isn't even available???

The shifty salesman was supposed to be humorous. They implemented "switch and bait" instead of "bait and switch". That's why I joked that they are inept at being shifty!

Well, they've pioneered "switch and bait". Innovators!

Really, scrolling is much easier? :o :o :o Did you guys see this at the top of the "LED Bulbs" search results? Quoting (with emphasis added): Showing 10,693 products in LED Bulbs

They are also the virtual equivalent of "shifty salesmen" -- only they are incompetent even at this, and let me explain why... The first hit result is "Go Green LED Bulbs Premium Warm White 12 Watt PAR38 LED Light Bulb" Price quoted is "$139.53 $124.18" So then I click on that item. Now the new price quoted (for the same item): "$139.53 $118.60". I'm not joking guys! They really are this fucking inept! They quote me the higher price before I click on it, then offer me a lower price when I've clicked on it. Do they disincentive the first click by lying about the price -- only they exaggerate how expensive it is!!!! They don't show me the third lowest price until I've already clicked on it. This is the online equivalent of having the items in the window marked at a higher price than they are really listed at in the store.

Only, on the web the aisles are virtual. Brick and mortar stores have organized aisles. So should the aisle called "search result" be organized.

Which retailer does it that way? Amazon? The very best of the best, does not do it this way. This isn't rocket science: Scenario: You have a shopper that walks into your store. He asks the store personnel what aisle the "LED Bulbs" are on. They tell him it's in aisle "7". He goes there and everything is completely disorganized -- they've got flashlights, lamps, all kinds of stuff in that aisle in no particular order. He walks out of the store asking the guy on the street "Where is the retailer that has a system of organizing what it puts on the shelves?" Ah, then he goes into Home Depot/Amazon/Walmart/Target and completes the transaction.

The employees on the sales floor think the integration is so bad that they'd rather put down the iPad and ring it up the old way. It's faster and easier. Well, at least according to the associates that WSJ spoke to. I'm going down to Sears this week to ask a few associates myself.

On the positive side, perhaps if they build a non-patience-testing website one day the business will take off. Perhaps this passive aggressive layout design is part of the plan to drive the stock lower so Eddie can take out more of the float?

Do the "LED bulbs" search on ShopYourWay.com and scroll right to the bottom. Then more on the page downloads. Then scroll right to the bottom again. Then more on the page downloads. Then scroll right to the bottom. Then more on the page downloads. This is just downright awful presentation. Come on, no website does that! None!

IMO, ShopYourWay is off the charts bad. Try the "LED bulbs" search at HomeDepot.com, try it at Walmart.com, then Target.com. All way better. I mean, it goes beyond merely search relevance. Sears.com can't lay it out either -- just scroll down to the bottom of the results and they keep adding to the page results (instead of giving it as one page where you can flip to "page 2", they just keep dumping stuff in an endless download at the bottom of the page). I'm the one who originally compared it to Home Depot. But then I thought that wouldn't be fair, because HomeDepot isn't a department store -- which is an advantage in terms of search relevance. So I thought it would be fair to compare ShopYourWay to Amazon.com given that Amazon is the "mother of all department stores". I mean, they have the hardest work cut out for them in terms of search relevance. I honestly got so frustrated with trying to sift through the jumbled and disorganized search results as ShopYourWay presents them. None of the other websites I mentioned have anywhere near this level of disarray.

Numbers Don't Lie: Tesla Is Beginning To Put The Hurt On The Competition http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/08/24/numbers-dont-lie-tesla-is-beginning-to-put-the-hurt-on-the-competition/ While Tesla delivered right around 10,000 cars through two quarters, those sales appear to be coming at the expense of BMW, Mercedes, Lexus and Porsche. And Tesla’s sales are remarkably — though perhaps not surprisingly — concentrated in California thus far, with nearly half winding up in the Golden State. As the automaker continues to open new sales and service locations across the country while simultaneously growing its network of high-speed Supercharger stations, things are likely to get a bit worse for the imports. Nationally, the Tesla has matched the total sales of the Lexus LS, Audi A8 and Panamera combined. The big loser going forward appears to be Porsche, whose Panamera has received mixed results from critics and is mostly outperformed by the less expensive Model S. To make matters worse, Porsche profits come heavily from the Cayenne. When Tesla delivers Model X, Cayenne might well be a significant casualty.

Today I called Solar City and asked about their residential battery systems. They couldn't give me a price, instead they told me that Tesla is designing their battery for them at the moment (they didn't give me a completion date and I forgot to push them for one). http://www.solarcity.com/residential/energy-storage.aspx So Tesla has these jobs on the side going on for a bit of extra revenue. Also, Solar City will be installing the solar for all of the superchargers that Tesla is building.

yeah but lets focus on profits. the idea of NOT growing was to be profitable. He made a trade off. He makes Zero ebitda. That's why I thought of the oil analogy. If the profit comes from asset sales, then value it on that income stream (rather than a sum of all assets less liabilities). You effectively have a real estate mine.

I read his annual reports and saw the bit about the huge investment in online retail. However I'm used to shopping at Amazon. I encourage you to search Amazon for "LED bulbs". Then search ShopYourWay.com for "LED bulbs" -- you'll have to filter it "for the home". It's jaw dropping. They suck so bad at online retail it's impossible for me to describe in words -- you just have to witness it for yourself. And that's after making a "huge bet" on online retail? What a mess.

I'm confused. If they bought $60 and wrote $70, then they have no net position. They just have a bull spread. They are trying to get a maximum $10 on the net premium invested (the net between what they paid for a $60 and what they got paid for writing a $70). So if the stock is at $80, this creates no pressure on the shares -- one share sold at $70 for every share purchased at $60. The only way I can think it creates pressure is if the shares are between $60 and $70 at expiry. But if either below $60 or above $70, then it's completely without impact.

What's that tell you about his plans for brick-and-mortar since day one? http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120918/BLOG06/120919939 Berkowitz acknowledges that some people complain that Sears stores are rundown, but he explains, “Sears does just enough, so they're not breaking the terms of their very long lease.” A lot of Sears stores are not leased. But even if they are, why keep them open? Is the strategy to act slowly on the plan to shut them down? I know one possible answer is that they milked free cash flow for a while, but if you count the free cash flow was it actually a good return on the purported $160 per share in real estate?

Be careful putting words in Lampert's mouth. One practice I've used over the years is to only read the actual quotes from the subject, and not the musings of the author of the article. And then afterwards go back and read the entire article. Does he really say he would have invested in the stores if it wasn't for the pension? I don't get that message from the quotes. Fair enough. Look if he is just getting framed up by the media (which is clearly not beyond the ethics of the media) then I sincerely apologize to Eddie (on the remote chance he reads this). I hate the effing media -- they do that kind of thing all the time.

I am usually pretty harsh on myself. I make a mistake and call myself out on it -- today for example I said no adults are in control of the decisions. Eddie just makes excuses instead of saying "I was wrong" -- that's why I'm picking on him.

The article posted today and the quote you just referenced when thought of together just seems to me like he's willing to invest in the good stores once they are FCF positive. You are Eddie: You have $6 billion in your hands and you choose to return it to shareholders instead of investing in the stores. In theory, you return only EXCESS cash to shareholders. Later he has no money in his hands and says if only he had money he would invest it in his stores. Never did he invest in the stores -- not when he had TONS AND TONS of it coming out of his fricken ears, and not when it was scarce. To this you say that he will invest when he has FCF? How about when he has $6b, isn't that enough?

How much will Eddie increase his investment in the stores going forward? Today he said that he underinvested because the pension was sucking the money away from him. So if interest rates go up and stay up as some hope, thereby fixing the pension liability, then won't he invest in the stores? Something doesn't make sense. Back in February he said this: In our case, observers have mistakenly concluded that our issues were primarily related to underinvesting in our stores. http://www.searsholdings.com/invest/#letter

Most of the KMart stores are leased and they lost money shutting down the KMart stores both in 2012 and 2011. Sure, supposedly the KMart leases are below market as they weren't required to revalue them in the merger. Nevertheless, they recorded a loss when shutting them down in each of the past two years.

I'm seriously surprised that people on this board didn't know that Sears exclusively sells that Kardashian Kolleciton. This was big news and is a big reason why apparel sales have increased the last 8 quarters. People can make fun of it as much as they want, but I guarantee the awareness of Kim Kardashian vs. Ted Williams to the under 21 female crowd (future core U.S. spenders) is probably 100 to 1. I like Ted Williams as much as the next guy, but apparel shoppers don't want to be like him. Women do think the Kardashians have style. It'd be best to accept that. Why does Kardashian Kolleciton seem important? In my local Sears store, I have never seen anyone checking out these dresses. They just sit there quietly. And that Sears store is located in an affluent area, with Microsoft headquarter just 0.5 miles away from it. I don't think Bellevue girls would touch the class of Kardashians with a 10 foot pole. Nordstrom is more the pulse of the area.

I sort of think Eddie is going to invest more in the stores now after commenting that: "It was the pensions, yeah, the pensions that kept me from doing it. That's the ticket!"

He very nearly accepted responsibility here for what is going on as a result of low store investment... but then it turned into an excuse. He didn't blame the lack of cash from the$6b of buybacks, as that would be his fault, instead he blamed something out of his control.