peridotcapital Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799288/000119312514008029/d632333dex991.htm Updated LE filing - includes Q3 financials. EBITDA is 20% higher YTD (Nov end). Q3 Adjusted EBITDA increased 30% YoY on higher sales and lower SG&A. And yet operating cash flow was negative YTD... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeenyc Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 If you click from Sears and 1 partner it shows the partner that is selling it. (the Sears site sux compared to amazon). But both sears.com and Sears marketplace are both growing rapidly. Sears retail is horrible -- I KNOW. But I want to post more on SHLD -- especially since I can pretty much debunk the myth that Sears Retail is so bad that the retail ops is burning all the cash/real estate -- IT IS NOT. But I suggest everyone look at Sears 2 years ago vs Sears now -- CASH/DEBT/PENSION vs PROPERTY/LEASES SOLD. Realize that the SCC ownership is only 50% they recieved 300M USD from SCC in the last 2 years from SCC dividends. Consider Sears spent $1 billion in cash on the pension/postretirement benefits -- and the liablity went from $3 billion to about $1.4 billion. Look at how much CASH was burned, how much Debt was added, how much the pension was reduced, and how much SHLD took in from 1 offs (SHLD real estate transactions/SHOS and SCC dividends). Obviously the return on assets is HORRIBLE -- but the actual cash burn from retail ops is $0 or less depending on how you look at it. What they're really doing is burning inventory -- liquidating in slow motion all the excess stores. They are bridging the gap from a retailer with a lot of real estate to real estate company with a retailer attached. How do SHLD's book value and total assets compare from 2 years ago vs today. From that perspective, do you still think they have essentially treaded water from a financial condition perspective over the last 24 months? The major change in the book value -- comes from the net inventory. Which is why I say what they're burning off is inventory/net inventory. For people who want sears to liquidate -- they're doing a good job of burning assets that are not valuable over the longer term to their real estate story. The $1 billion in CASH that went to the pension has nothing to do with the retail operations. If Sears had no retail operations -- they'd still have had to pay that. You're looking at the story from a GAAP perspective which is totally different from how i'm looking at things. I want them essentially to "burn their" net inventory -- to close leased stores, grow their real estate leasing activities, and right size their retail operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799288/000119312514008029/d632333dex991.htm Updated LE filing - includes Q3 financials. EBITDA is 20% higher YTD (Nov end). Q3 Adjusted EBITDA increased 30% YoY on higher sales and lower SG&A. And yet operating cash flow was negative YTD... I think you're joking, right? Retailers build up inventory going into Q4. Nearly every one... every year. In our example, LE built up inventory by $84,982,000 in the first three quarters of 2013 (page F-32 of today's filing). They will sell this down in Q4 (as they did with the $107m inventory buildup the previous year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799288/000119312514008029/d632333dex991.htm Updated LE filing - includes Q3 financials. EBITDA is 20% higher YTD (Nov end). Q3 Adjusted EBITDA increased 30% YoY on higher sales and lower SG&A. And yet operating cash flow was negative YTD... I think you're joking, right? Retailers build up inventory going into Q4. Nearly every one... every year. In our example, LE built up inventory by $84,982,000 in the first three quarters of 2013 (page F-32 of today's filing). They will sell this down in Q4 (as they did with the $107m inventory buildup the previous year). Not joking at all. Most retailers make money before Q4. We obviously can't use Sears as an example here, but Macy's, Kohl's, and Dillards all had positive operating cash flow for the first 9 months of 2013. And if you don't like department stores as comps for LE, then you can look at apparel companies like L Brands or Ann Taylor... again, lots of positive OCF before Q4. Just because Q4 is the best quarter for retail doesn't mean retailers lose money the other 3 quarters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 If you click from Sears and 1 partner it shows the partner that is selling it. (the Sears site sux compared to amazon). But both sears.com and Sears marketplace are both growing rapidly. Sears retail is horrible -- I KNOW. But I want to post more on SHLD -- especially since I can pretty much debunk the myth that Sears Retail is so bad that the retail ops is burning all the cash/real estate -- IT IS NOT. But I suggest everyone look at Sears 2 years ago vs Sears now -- CASH/DEBT/PENSION vs PROPERTY/LEASES SOLD. Realize that the SCC ownership is only 50% they recieved 300M USD from SCC in the last 2 years from SCC dividends. Consider Sears spent $1 billion in cash on the pension/postretirement benefits -- and the liablity went from $3 billion to about $1.4 billion. Look at how much CASH was burned, how much Debt was added, how much the pension was reduced, and how much SHLD took in from 1 offs (SHLD real estate transactions/SHOS and SCC dividends). Obviously the return on assets is HORRIBLE -- but the actual cash burn from retail ops is $0 or less depending on how you look at it. What they're really doing is burning inventory -- liquidating in slow motion all the excess stores. They are bridging the gap from a retailer with a lot of real estate to real estate company with a retailer attached. How do SHLD's book value and total assets compare from 2 years ago vs today. From that perspective, do you still think they have essentially treaded water from a financial condition perspective over the last 24 months? The major change in the book value -- comes from the net inventory. Which is why I say what they're burning off is inventory/net inventory. For people who want sears to liquidate -- they're doing a good job of burning assets that are not valuable over the longer term to their real estate story. The $1 billion in CASH that went to the pension has nothing to do with the retail operations. If Sears had no retail operations -- they'd still have had to pay that. You're looking at the story from a GAAP perspective which is totally different from how i'm looking at things. I want them essentially to "burn their" net inventory -- to close leased stores, grow their real estate leasing activities, and right size their retail operations. Inventory was a factor, but doesn't account for most of the change. Let's compare end of Q3 2013 to end of Q3 2011. Inventory went from $11.1B to $8.9B, a drop of $2.2B. Book value went from $7.7B to $2.3B, a drop of $5.4B. That's a loss in shareholders equity of $3.2B outside of inventory declines. That's $30 per share... almost the entire current stock price... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeenyc Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 If you click from Sears and 1 partner it shows the partner that is selling it. (the Sears site sux compared to amazon). But both sears.com and Sears marketplace are both growing rapidly. Sears retail is horrible -- I KNOW. But I want to post more on SHLD -- especially since I can pretty much debunk the myth that Sears Retail is so bad that the retail ops is burning all the cash/real estate -- IT IS NOT. But I suggest everyone look at Sears 2 years ago vs Sears now -- CASH/DEBT/PENSION vs PROPERTY/LEASES SOLD. Realize that the SCC ownership is only 50% they recieved 300M USD from SCC in the last 2 years from SCC dividends. Consider Sears spent $1 billion in cash on the pension/postretirement benefits -- and the liablity went from $3 billion to about $1.4 billion. Look at how much CASH was burned, how much Debt was added, how much the pension was reduced, and how much SHLD took in from 1 offs (SHLD real estate transactions/SHOS and SCC dividends). Obviously the return on assets is HORRIBLE -- but the actual cash burn from retail ops is $0 or less depending on how you look at it. What they're really doing is burning inventory -- liquidating in slow motion all the excess stores. They are bridging the gap from a retailer with a lot of real estate to real estate company with a retailer attached. How do SHLD's book value and total assets compare from 2 years ago vs today. From that perspective, do you still think they have essentially treaded water from a financial condition perspective over the last 24 months? The major change in the book value -- comes from the net inventory. Which is why I say what they're burning off is inventory/net inventory. For people who want sears to liquidate -- they're doing a good job of burning assets that are not valuable over the longer term to their real estate story. The $1 billion in CASH that went to the pension has nothing to do with the retail operations. If Sears had no retail operations -- they'd still have had to pay that. You're looking at the story from a GAAP perspective which is totally different from how i'm looking at things. I want them essentially to "burn their" net inventory -- to close leased stores, grow their real estate leasing activities, and right size their retail operations. Inventory was a factor, but doesn't account for most of the change. Let's compare end of Q3 2013 to end of Q3 2011. Inventory went from $11.1B to $8.9B, a drop of $2.2B. Book value went from $7.7B to $2.3B, a drop of $5.4B. That's a loss in shareholders equity of $3.2B outside of inventory declines. That's $30 per share... almost the entire current stock price... peridot look through the 10-K for 2012 you'll see where that book value went (it's all non-hard assets or accounting mumbo jumbo -- tax assets, goodwill, etc and depreciation and amortization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799288/000119312514008029/d632333dex991.htm Updated LE filing - includes Q3 financials. EBITDA is 20% higher YTD (Nov end). Q3 Adjusted EBITDA increased 30% YoY on higher sales and lower SG&A. And yet operating cash flow was negative YTD... I think you're joking, right? Retailers build up inventory going into Q4. Nearly every one... every year. In our example, LE built up inventory by $84,982,000 in the first three quarters of 2013 (page F-32 of today's filing). They will sell this down in Q4 (as they did with the $107m inventory buildup the previous year). Not joking at all. Most retailers make money before Q4. We obviously can't use Sears as an example here, but Macy's, Kohl's, and Dillards all had positive operating cash flow for the first 9 months of 2013. And if you don't like department stores as comps for LE, then you can look at apparel companies like L Brands or Ann Taylor... again, lots of positive OCF before Q4. Just because Q4 is the best quarter for retail doesn't mean retailers lose money the other 3 quarters... Peridot, 'Lose money' implies Net Income. Operating cash flow is different from net income. You're right that many retailers are both profitable (net income) and operating cash flow positive in the first 3 quarters. That said, a retailer can be operating cash flow negative yet profitable in the first 3 quarters...AND still experience and excellent ROE, ROA, etc. It feels like you're saying LE isn't financially successful. If I'm wrong, then apologies for missing your point. When looking through the financials of LE, we see a company that earns between $50-$100 million a year (~$70m this year estimate) and they only employ about $180 million of tangible equity to attain those profits. Tangible assets are around $600 million. Return on tangible assets of between 8% and 17% are solid, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Let's compare end of Q3 2013 to end of Q3 2011. Inventory went from $11.1B to $8.9B, a drop of $2.2B. Book value went from $7.7B to $2.3B, a drop of $5.4B. That's a loss in shareholders equity of $3.2B outside of inventory declines. That's $30 per share... almost the entire current stock price... Did you make an adjustment for spinoffs? No, I didn't. Just trying to show that the retail business is actually burning tons of cash... can't give an exact number without digging in further. But to say that book value declines are solely to due to inventory drawdown and/or that book value declines are irrelevant because they are a bunch of accounting mumbo jumbo I think is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799288/000119312514008029/d632333dex991.htm Updated LE filing - includes Q3 financials. EBITDA is 20% higher YTD (Nov end). Q3 Adjusted EBITDA increased 30% YoY on higher sales and lower SG&A. And yet operating cash flow was negative YTD... I think you're joking, right? Retailers build up inventory going into Q4. Nearly every one... every year. In our example, LE built up inventory by $84,982,000 in the first three quarters of 2013 (page F-32 of today's filing). They will sell this down in Q4 (as they did with the $107m inventory buildup the previous year). Not joking at all. Most retailers make money before Q4. We obviously can't use Sears as an example here, but Macy's, Kohl's, and Dillards all had positive operating cash flow for the first 9 months of 2013. And if you don't like department stores as comps for LE, then you can look at apparel companies like L Brands or Ann Taylor... again, lots of positive OCF before Q4. Just because Q4 is the best quarter for retail doesn't mean retailers lose money the other 3 quarters... Peridot, 'Lose money' implies Net Income. Operating cash flow is different from net income. You're right that many retailers are both profitable (net income) and operating cash flow positive in the first 3 quarters. That said, a retailer can be operating cash flow negative yet profitable in the first 3 quarters...AND still experience and excellent ROE, ROA, etc. It feels like you're saying LE isn't financially successful. If I'm wrong, then apologies for missing your point. When looking through the financials of LE, we see a company that earns between $50-$100 million a year (~$70m this year estimate) and they only employ about $180 million of tangible equity to attain those profits. Tangible assets are around $600 million. Return on tangible assets of between 8% and 17% are solid, too. I was just pointing out that even if "adjusted EBITDA" is strong, they still didn't generate any cash. Obviously we care more about free cash flow than adjusted EBITDA. But no, I was not implying LE is a bad business. I don't think it's run well or positioned well for the future, but it's certainly not in the same camp as Sears or Kmart. Heck, imagine where SHLD shares would be if comapny-wide it had the same margins as LE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Let's compare end of Q3 2013 to end of Q3 2011. Inventory went from $11.1B to $8.9B, a drop of $2.2B. Book value went from $7.7B to $2.3B, a drop of $5.4B. That's a loss in shareholders equity of $3.2B outside of inventory declines. That's $30 per share... almost the entire current stock price... Did you make an adjustment for spinoffs? No, I didn't. Just trying to show that the retail business is actually burning tons of cash... can't give an exact number without digging in further. But to say that book value declines are solely to due to inventory drawdown and/or that book value declines are irrelevant because they are a bunch of accounting mumbo jumbo I think is incorrect. Some accounting mumbo jumbo is relevant -- some is much less relevant...but it's important to understand it all so you can determine with is relevant and which is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Peridot, You said, "they still didn't generate any cash." But, come on! That's only looking at 3 quarters of the year. We all know that the 4th quarter is when they start with tons of extra inventory and end with very little inventory (relative to their normal inventory levels). It's like you're looking at the January profits for a realtors office and saying "they're a negative cash flow business." In reality, realtors sells twice as many homes in the summer vs. the winter. It's totally inaccurate to make the statement over one month of financial data when significant business is done in other months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Chad, you know they wrote down $1.8 billion in DTA back in 2011, right? I can't recall when it happened during the year, but that could be a big chunk of your $3.2 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Here are quarterly financials from 3Q11-3Q13. Summary cumulative totals: Total Net Income: -$4.34B Total Operating Cash Flow: -$942MM Total Capex net of asset sales: +$164MM Summary account deltas: Total Assets: -$5.3B Inventory: -$2.2B Goodwill: -$1B Liabilities: +$77MM Interesting note: cumulatively, D&A exceeded gross capex by $878MM. So while "hundreds of millions" are going into the SWY program via the income statement - potentially as a replacement to capex as I believe Eric pointed out awhile back - and thus off of the balance sheet, simultaneously D&A in excess of capex is providing a double-whammy to the GAAP book value. In a nutshell, had capex matched D&A, BV would be $878MM higher at this time; likewise, had SWY expenditures been capitalized, BV would have been that much higher...take your pick as to the useful life of SWY expenses....SHLD_Financials_3Q11-3Q13.xlsx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeenyc Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Here are quarterly financials from 3Q11-3Q13. Summary cumulative totals: Total Net Income: -$4.34B Total Operating Cash Flow: -$942MM Total Capex net of asset sales: +$164MM Summary account deltas: Total Assets: -$5.3B Inventory: -$2.2B Goodwill: -$1B Liabilities: +$77MM Interesting note: cumulatively, D&A exceeded gross capex by $878MM. So while "hundreds of millions" are going into the SWY program via the income statement - potentially as a replacement to capex as I believe Eric pointed out awhile back - and thus off of the balance sheet, simultaneously D&A in excess of capex is providing a double-whammy to the GAAP book value. In a nutshell, had capex matched D&A, BV would be $878MM higher at this time; likewise, had SWY expenditures been capitalized, BV would have been that much higher...take your pick as to the useful life of SWY expenses.... Well also through this period Sears paid $1 BILLION in cash in contributions and expenses to its frozen pension plan -- which actually accounts for more than the total negative OP Cash Flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Peridot, You said, "they still didn't generate any cash." But, come on! That's only looking at 3 quarters of the year. We all know that the 4th quarter is when they start with tons of extra inventory and end with very little inventory (relative to their normal inventory levels). It's like you're looking at the January profits for a realtors office and saying "they're a negative cash flow business." In reality, realtors sells twice as many homes in the summer vs. the winter. It's totally inaccurate to make the statement over one month of financial data when significant business is done in other months. Look, I'm pretty sure most people on this board are aware that Q4 is the best quarter for retail. I don't think looking at cash flow for the other quarters is unfair. I never said LE was an unprofitable company or anything like that. I was merely pointing out that adjusted EBITDA of $70M for the first nine months of 2013 is not something to be overly excited about given that the company generated no cash whatsoever on over $1B of revenue during that time. It's perfectly fine to say that Q4 is all that really matters because that's when they make all their money, but that contradicts the original post that was highlighting the YTD numbers. If negative OCF from Q1-Q3 should be dismissed because it excludes Q4, then all of the other metrics for that period should also be dismissed for the same reason. It's not objective to give credit for the increased EBITDA for the non-holiday quarters, but then dismiss the negative cash flow for the same period as being seasonal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Chad, you know they wrote down $1.8 billion in DTA back in 2011, right? I can't recall when it happened during the year, but that could be a big chunk of your $3.2 billion. Yes, there are a lot of non-cash items that impact these numbers. I believe operating free cash flow was negative $700M in both 2011 and 2012, and is on pace to be about negative $900M in 2013. I prefer to use that metric to judge the core retail business, and I think it clearly shows that the retail side is burning cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heth247 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Yes, there are a lot of non-cash items that impact these numbers. I believe operating free cash flow was negative $700M in both 2011 and 2012, and is on pace to be about negative $900M in 2013. I prefer to use that metric to judge the core retail business, and I think it clearly shows that the retail side is burning cash. If SYW and pension are out of the equation, how would that number look like? Maybe Sears Canada is just the example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Yes, there are a lot of non-cash items that impact these numbers. I believe operating free cash flow was negative $700M in both 2011 and 2012, and is on pace to be about negative $900M in 2013. I prefer to use that metric to judge the core retail business, and I think it clearly shows that the retail side is burning cash. If SYW and pension are out of the equation, how would that number look like? Maybe Sears Canada is just the example. Canada has a pension too, don't forget. Net pension contributions account for about $850M out of that $2.3B cumulative negative OCF. As far as SYW goes, there is no way to know the exact figure, but even if we did know it, I don't think it makes sense to exclude them anyway. SYW rewards are not one-time in nature, and if you cut back on them, the idea that sales would not suffer as a result is overly optimistic in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I love Buffett's quote in last year's annual letter regarding BRK's Berkadia segment: Berkadia continues to do well. Our partners at Leucadia do most of the work in this venture, an arrangement that Charlie and I happily embrace. I view Berkowitz's and Baker Street's work on Sears' real estate the same way. We should count ourselves lucky to have their analysis entirely free of charge. I found this interesting from BB's March 2009 OID interview on page 15 OID: So you think Sears can pay off their debt - or refinance it at reasonable terms? BB: I think the answer to both questions is yes. And if Eddie Lampert has any difficulties, I think he should call Fairholme because we would be willing to help him at the right price. Between Lampert's personal resources and Fairholme's resources, I really believe an extremely distressed scenario is off the table. Berkowitz said that in March 2009 in the middle of Great Depression 2.0. Now? Cap rates are low, A-quality mall demand is high, money is easy and the economy is improving. There is just sooooo much optionality here it's scary. Who knows what the stock does in the short term, as the market focuses on the dying retail operations....but longer term, the biggest risk at these levels appears to be NOT owning the stock. Baker Report: http://www.bakerstreetcapital.com/BakerStreet_SHLD.pdf March 2009 OID: http://www.grahamanddoddsville.net/wordpress/Files/Gurus/Bruce%20Berkowitz/OID%20-%20Bruce%20Berkowitz%20-%203-17-2009.pdf I do feel like most investors buy into SHLD according to those super investor's reports. But the question is what do you perceive this investment on your own? People have been asking ESL to start a faster liquidation process, and from the cash position update in Q4, it seems like he is doing that work. But I still don't understand why the same store comp could drop 9%. If he is liquidating the inventories fast, he will report a higher loss, but I think at least the sales comp should go up instead of down. So maybe he is not doing what you wanted him to do. As another member pointed out, the cash increase is just seasonal. Anyway, I am very unhappy with my investment in this sucker, but fortunately I have only a 5% position, so I am not feeling as painful as Baker Street. What I especially don't understand is the reconciliation between GAAP and adjusted earnings. I expected the 700 mn reduction in pension liability due to interest rate increase to shock the short sellers, but it wasn't anywhere listed in the latest Q4 update. "We currently expect our reported net loss attributable to Holdings' shareholders for the quarter ending February 1, 2014 will be between $250 million and $360 million, or between $2.35 and $3.39 loss per diluted share. This includes $41 million of pension expense, $29 million for store closures and severance and $12 million from gains on sales of assets. Adjusted for these items, net loss is expected to be between $213 million and $316 million, or between $2.01 and $2.98 loss per diluted share." When you say you are unhappy with your investment is this sucker is because the facts have changed or because the price went down? What is different today vs when you first bought? Is it just because there was no update on the pension liability? It is because I was expecting a Q4 that is similar or not sooo much worse than last Q4. But I did not expect that this Q4 is waaaay worse than last Q4. This means the MoS here can erode quickly if ELS does not act fast enough to plug this sucker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I bought a few hundred calls this morning when stock was around $36.80 and the stock took off really fast into the $37.20 range. Fairly easy to move the price up despite the avalanche of bad press. Did you do a fast trade, or you will hold it for a bit longer? I think when the short selling ban is lifted tomorrow, SHLD may drop a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I bought a few hundred calls this morning when stock was around $36.80 and the stock took off really fast into the $37.20 range. Fairly easy to move the price up despite the avalanche of bad press. Did you do a fast trade, or you will hold it for a bit longer? I think when the short selling ban is lifted tomorrow, SHLD may drop a lot. I have written some puts, I have written some calls (covered by common), and I have purchased some calls. Some are in taxable accounts, some in the RothIRA. They are different strikes and durations. None of that should really be interesting. Plus, I consider it to be speculative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yours Truly Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Credit Suisse out with a price target of $20 on SHLD per SeekingAlpha news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLynchJr Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Hey at least that's 2x Morningstar's fair value of $10. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ourkid8 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I totally agree and waiting until tomorrow to buy some calls. I am hoping to be able to buy near the bottom and sell after any quick run! This seems to be the perfect trading stock due to it's volatility. Tks, S I bought a few hundred calls this morning when stock was around $36.80 and the stock took off really fast into the $37.20 range. Fairly easy to move the price up despite the avalanche of bad press. Did you do a fast trade, or you will hold it for a bit longer? I think when the short selling ban is lifted tomorrow, SHLD may drop a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted January 13, 2014 Author Share Posted January 13, 2014 i dont view the short lifting as significant.there are more way to bet the down side. and dont expect the buyers who suck 15 million shares will sit out. you have to judge whether short will create more or less than long selling 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