tombgrt Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Yeah, Lampert should buy back some of those shares with all that extra cash he has laying around. That will lift up the stock price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Yeah, Lampert should buy back some of those shares with all that extra cash he has laying around. That will lift up the stock price. I'm hoping shorts think along the same lines as you: completely dismissing the possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I think the relevant language is here: © Holdings and its Subsidiaries may make other Restricted Payments (1) from the Net Proceeds of any common stock issuances by Holdings after the Effective Date, (2) from the Net Proceeds of any Permitted Dispositions of the type set forth in clauses (f) and (g) of the definition thereof, and (3) from any dividends and distributions received (directly or indirectly) on account of equity interests in any Subsidiary of Holdings which is not a Loan Party or on account of equity interests in OSH, and (4) to the stockholders of Holdings in the form of the equity interests of the subsidiaries set forth on Schedule 6.02(d), provided, that in each case, immediately after giving effect thereto, the sum of (i) the Pro Forma and Projected Capped Excess Availability plus (ii) Pro Forma and Projected Suppressed Availability (not to exceed an amount equal to 5% of the Line Cap) is at least 15% of the Line Cap; and Since Sears Canada is not a Loan Party, the sale of Sears Canada could be used for a Restricted Payment, such as a share repurchase, so long as Sears Holdings satisfies everything after "provided, that in each case" -- I think this is why they mentioned share repurchases during the conference call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombgrt Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Yeah, Lampert should buy back some of those shares with all that extra cash he has laying around. That will lift up the stock price. I'm hoping shorts think along the same lines as you: completely dismissing the possibility. I'm not dismissing anything, certainly not when we are talking about Lampert. However, whether it would be a smart move is something else entirely. It wouldn't change the thesis one iota both on the long or short side if Lampert bought back shares. He's not in a position to force a short squeeze anyway (also, why would he?) if that is what you mean. What use does all this speculating bring you other than reaffirming your beliefs and behavioral biases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 It wouldn't change the thesis one iota both on the long or short side if Lampert bought back shares. Long-term it certainly impacts the thesis. Future profits, if any, are distributed over a smaller number of shares. What use does all this speculating bring you other than reaffirming your beliefs and behavioral biases? It's not a matter of reaffirming my personal biases (although that's always an area to be concerned about and to monitor), it's more of a matter of picking my spots for speculative trades using options. This, of course, is entirely different from my investment thesis... the trading opportunity and investment opportunity just happen to be in the same stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombgrt Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Market doesn't believe in your thesis or holds much value to Lampert's ownership at the moment. Share buybacks would therefore likely not change the stock price a lot. But I could be wrong. That of course isn't even the point. In such speculations, your more likely to be right or wrong for the wrong reasons anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Market doesn't believe in your thesis or holds much value to Lampert's ownership at the moment. Share buybacks would therefore likely not change the stock price a lot. But I could be wrong. Investing: I don't care whether the market agrees with me right now or if a buyback would change the market's short-term view. A buyback would shrink the share count and I would very much like that as a long-term shareholder. Trading: A buyback might change the price, it might not. There has been precedent for SHLD to skyrocket in the past when Lampert adds, share buybacks, etc. Went from $30-ish to $80-ish a few years ago in just a few months. But the trading is just speculative and I treat it as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 Market doesn't believe in your thesis or holds much value to Lampert's ownership at the moment. Share buybacks would therefore likely not change the stock price a lot. But I could be wrong. That of course isn't even the point. In such speculations, your more likely to be right or wrong for the wrong reasons anyway. that is one confusing message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I've been to about three Sears' in the Houston area recently, and I've found it very interesting that it seems like the two that you think shouldn't be open (the one next to a defunct mall, another in the middle of the bad part of downtown) have not been equipped with Wi-Fi tracking -- whereas the one on North Shepherd, which is much busier, has been updated with Wi-Fi tracking. Oddly enough, even the crappier Sears locations seem to have been cleaned up in anticipation of Father's Day sales this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 anyone think Eddie is asking about Sears Auto when he met with Mulally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpRaider Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 I've been to about three Sears' in the Houston area recently, and I've found it very interesting that it seems like the two that you think shouldn't be open (the one next to a defunct mall, another in the middle of the bad part of downtown) have not been equipped with Wi-Fi tracking -- whereas the one on North Shepherd, which is much busier, has been updated with Wi-Fi tracking. Oddly enough, even the crappier Sears locations seem to have been cleaned up in anticipation of Father's Day sales this weekend. Sounds rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombgrt Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Market doesn't believe in your thesis or holds much value to Lampert's ownership at the moment. Share buybacks would therefore likely not change the stock price a lot. But I could be wrong. That of course isn't even the point. In such speculations, your more likely to be right or wrong for the wrong reasons anyway. that is one confusing message. Friday night ramblings of a madman. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ni-co Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 anyone think Eddie is asking about Sears Auto when he met with Mulally? Good point. It's entirely possible that this meeting was "only" about Sears Auto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 anyone think Eddie is asking about Sears Auto when he met with Mulally? Good point. It's entirely possible that this meeting was "only" about Sears Auto. He should talk to Jeff Bezos on retail side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberhound Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I came across a good post by Oldye almost 4 years ago. Looks like about half was done. I agree with his point that Sears would have done well if housing had returned to the historical 1.5 million per year (a number he quotes in another post). Does anyone think that will happen this cycle, that is within the 3 years or so before the next recession? Further, with housing up 50% and Sears is still bleeding has Amazon now got too big and is growing too fast for a full housing recovery to save Sears? What is the likelihood of Sears stores avoiding bankruptcy if the recession comes before the housing recovery and what would be the result of the bankruptcy? They've spent $1.6B over the last three years on capex, so if he's not pouring it into the stores, where is it going? Sears Canada was better off than Sears USA, but it is going to run up against stiff competiton for the forseeable future. Buying Sears Canada may prove to be a poor decision, when that cash could have been invested elsewhere. Instead, they're burning through the cash in Sears Canada too! Revenues keep dropping, shareholder equity keeps dropping, debt has increased dramatically...slow burn! My opinion remains: Pour money into investment ideas or other businesses; runoff the underperforming stores; sell off properties in bulk as values stabilize or start to increase; license core brands to other retailers (Craftsmen, Kenmore, etc); eliminate paper catalog business and move everything online; decrease store footprint and reduce number of inventory items; reduce operating expenses to the bone. Cheers! Its actually 1.3 billion spent on cap ex over the last 3 years on 4000 stores which works out to about 325,000 per location and that is without consideration for the money they spent on i.t, logistics etc. Revenue and cashflow are strongly tied with new housing starts and I think they'll look much healthier, and Eddie a lot smarter, once the U.S gets back to 1.2m vs the 600k we have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I suspect that bankruptcy is nowhere on the horizon for Sears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matson125 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Sears Canada Enters into Development Agreement for Calgary North Hill http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140616-903229.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Sears Canada Enters into Development Agreement for Calgary North Hill http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140616-903229.html Nice find, Matson125. Concord Pacific... that might interest Sanjeev given his comments last year: Finally Eddie, finally you've woken up! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sears-canada-names-concord-pacific-223200164.html Let me explain this for those of you not familiar with Concord Pacific. Concord has pretty much transformed Vancouver's downtown from 1986, and is currently responsible for a lot of those glass condos going up all over Toronto. As I mentioned earlier when the announcement of the Metrotown redevelopment project was announced, according to this article, my original guess of a billion dollar development was dead-on! If Sears can do this to one property, think about all of the other core properties they can redevelop and make a killing off of over the next ten years! They are selling 50% of the land for $140M, and will not be responsible for raising the capital for the project. They would be lucky if they made $140M net profit from that store over the next 15-20 years! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizaro86 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Sears Canada Enters into Development Agreement for Calgary North Hill http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140616-903229.html This is pretty good news. I wasn't aware Sears Canada owned that store, even though I commute right by it every day on the train. Some facts that might be of interest. 1) There are two existing condo towers on this site from 12 years ago. Units start at around 550k resale. 2) The mall has significant amenities, especially for the elderly, that make it a convenient place to live. (Doctors, including a University of Calgary clinic, dentist, restaurants, hair stylist (who is good, according to my wife), gym, and grocery store) I suspect many of the current residents leave never or very rarely.. 3) This is a relatively inner city location, and is right next a CTrain (the light rail) station, so this is a very quick commute downtown. 4) It's across the street from SAIT and ACAD, two large post secondary institutions. 5) Two train stops away from the University of Calgary. Basically, this development should be a slam dunk if they do it anytime soon. Calgary real estate is up 10% in the last year, there are very few condos available for pre-sale right now, and demand is high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Latest from SHC Speaks: Discover, Share and Shop Healthy http://blog.searsholdings.com/leadership-viewpoint/discover-share-and-shop-healthy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Lampert Form 4: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/860585/000118143114024431/xslF345X03/rrd411965.xml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 Lampert Form 4: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/860585/000118143114024431/xslF345X03/rrd411965.xml Was excited for a bit but seems just change from one pocket to another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Lampert Form 4: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/860585/000118143114024431/xslF345X03/rrd411965.xml Was excited for a bit but seems just change from one pocket to another. How can you tell? Maybe it's late and I'm tired, so I'm having trouble seeing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Lampert Form 4: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/860585/000118143114024431/xslF345X03/rrd411965.xml Was excited for a bit but seems just change from one pocket to another. How can you tell? Maybe it's late and I'm tired, so I'm having trouble seeing that. Maybe it's late here in the CST, but I don't think it's a change from one pocket to another. The footnotes (1) and (6) indicate that RBS has injected additional capital of ~$16 million and ~$25 million into the underlying funds -- in essence increasing RBS' exposure to Sears (and other holdings in the funds). I don't know whether this is an injection of capital that offsets a redemption anywhere, though. All-in, it seems to be an effective $25 million purchase of SHLD for RBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 Lampert Form 4: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/860585/000118143114024431/xslF345X03/rrd411965.xml Was excited for a bit but seems just change from one pocket to another. How can you tell? Maybe it's late and I'm tired, so I'm having trouble seeing that. Maybe it's late here in the CST, but I don't think it's a change from one pocket to another. The footnotes (1) and (6) indicate that RBS has injected additional capital of ~$16 million and ~$25 million into the underlying funds -- in essence increasing RBS' exposure to Sears (and other holdings in the funds). I don't know whether this is an injection of capital that offsets a redemption anywhere, though. All-in, it seems to be an effective $25 million purchase of SHLD for RBS. Sorry guys, I might have read it wrong. I thought the shares was transferred from RBS. But I guess if that were the case, we should see the balancing sell entries. Market does not react YET. 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