ECCO Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 If they had buy stock on the market, there would be a price that they paid for those shares, no? My understanding is that there has been a capital injection in a fund that already own SLHD. That capital injection represent 12,9% of the fund, wish give his owner a 12,9% portion of the position own by the funds wish is SHLD. The same document has been filed for SHOS, wish also mention 12,9%. So sorry guys, it is not a new purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinkpad Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 He just bought indirectly new shares, so yes this is a new purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCO Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Ok, so Eddie increased his stake in RBS that own SHLD. You are right, indirectly he increased his stake of SHLD. RBS did not increased his stake, and no shares has been buy on the market. I wish I would, but I dont see something here to get excited about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Ok, so Eddie increased his stake in RBS that own SHLD. You are right, indirectly he increased his stake of SHLD. RBS did not increased his stake, and no shares has been buy on the market. I wish I would, but I dont see something here to get excited about. Not to nitpick, but I'm going to do it anyway. :) ESL did not necessarily increase his stake in RBS. RBS increased its stake in two of the underlying funds. It's effectively no different, economically, than a buyback. RBS has provided each of the two underlying funds with cash in exchange for ownership and increased its own ownership as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So we have the same filling for SHLD, SHOS and LE. It shows a capital injectionm from Lamert to a fund owning them. Could it be Lampert buying out the fund, or compensating redemption with his own money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 So we have the same filling for SHLD, SHOS and LE. It shows a capital injectionm from Lamert to a fund owning them. Could it be Lampert buying out the fund, or compensating redemption with his own money? I'm not sure we can gleam exactly what is happening here from the filing itself, but a capital contribution to be used to cash out limited partner interests (without having to sell any stock) seems pretty likely to me, especially given that these are the two smaller funds, not the main one (where more cash might be available for distribution). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heth247 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Ok, so Eddie increased his stake in RBS that own SHLD. You are right, indirectly he increased his stake of SHLD. RBS did not increased his stake, and no shares has been buy on the market. I wish I would, but I dont see something here to get excited about. Not to nitpick, but I'm going to do it anyway. :) ESL did not necessarily increase his stake in RBS. RBS increased its stake in two of the underlying funds. It's effectively no different, economically, than a buyback. RBS has provided each of the two underlying funds with cash in exchange for ownership and increased its own ownership as a result. I am still having difficulty seeing this as new purchases. The purchase price/share should be 16,800,000/250,243 = 67.13 25,000,000/373,219 = 66.98 Those are definitely not the market price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Ok, so Eddie increased his stake in RBS that own SHLD. You are right, indirectly he increased his stake of SHLD. RBS did not increased his stake, and no shares has been buy on the market. I wish I would, but I dont see something here to get excited about. Not to nitpick, but I'm going to do it anyway. :) ESL did not necessarily increase his stake in RBS. RBS increased its stake in two of the underlying funds. It's effectively no different, economically, than a buyback. RBS has provided each of the two underlying funds with cash in exchange for ownership and increased its own ownership as a result. I am still having difficulty seeing this as new purchases. The purchase price/share should be 16,800,000/250,243 = 67.13 25,000,000/373,219 = 66.98 Those are definitely not the market price. The funds own more than just SHLD. The $16.8 million bought a grab bag of securities, including SHLD, SHOS, LE, etc. It did not just buy 250,243 shares of SHLD. Same with the other one. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heth247 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Yeah, that makes sense. But why did not they disclose the purchase price for SHLD if it is open market purchase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Yeah, that makes sense. But why did not they disclose the purchase price for SHLD if it is open market purchase? Because, like I said and peridot also, it's that it could also be redemptions in the fund. So Lampert decided to buy them out by injecting his own money to not sell RBS stakes in SHLD, SHOS and LE. This way, it is not an open market buy, but Lampert would be increasing his share of RBS fund, and so, his personal share of Sears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valueyoda Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 May actually help explain why Eddie Lampert didn't use his war chest in Q1 when the stock was truly depressed after having sold a chunk of his Autonation and Gap shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 May actually help explain why Eddie Lampert didn't use his war chest in Q1 when the stock was truly depressed after having sold a chunk of his Autonation and Gap shares. What do you mean? That there were redemptions in Q1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valueyoda Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I think he already feared that additional redemptions might come at the end of Q1 or Q2, so instead of buying more shares of sears holdings for his personal account, he retained a higher cash level to support his hedge fund size in case of actual redemptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeenyc Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 looks like baker street might have cut their position a bunch today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 looks like baker street might have cut their position a bunch today. I was thinking the same thing with that 60/70 2015 call spread trade today on 15,000 contracts. Underlying was around $52 or $53 at the time of trade... SHLD + LE*0.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeenyc Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 looks like baker street might have cut their position a bunch today. I was thinking the same thing with that 60/70 2015 call spread trade today on 15,000 contracts. Underlying was around $52 or $53 at the time of trade... SHLD + LE*0.3 I see 40,000 contracts moved at both strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 looks like baker street might have cut their position a bunch today. I was thinking the same thing with that 60/70 2015 call spread trade today on 15,000 contracts. Underlying was around $52 or $53 at the time of trade... SHLD + LE*0.3 I see 40,000 contracts moved at both strikes. Lot of action. They have 90,000 contracts or so if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The Sears building in downtown Oakland finally sold ($25M). For those who are doing extensive real estate valuations for SHLD, it's probably a good comp to consider for older properties that will be purchased by developers. If memory serves, others on the board said the city's tax appraisal value was ~$22M (but correct that if I'm mistaken). http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2014/06/lane-partners-sears-building-oakland-tech-tenants.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Yup, the Oakland property was tax appraised @ $22M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The Sears building in downtown Oakland finally sold ($25M). For those who are doing extensive real estate valuations for SHLD, it's probably a good comp to consider for older properties that will be purchased by developers. If memory serves, others on the board said the city's tax appraisal value was ~$22M (but correct that if I'm mistaken). http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2014/06/lane-partners-sears-building-oakland-tech-tenants.html Several bidders. Selling at 13% premium. Interesting, thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20ppy Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 "Jun 16, 2014 LAMPERT EDWARD Officer 623,462 Shares Indirect Purchase" as reported by the Yahoo insider trading. Something we've been hoping for. Is this same as the RBS changes reported by Form 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The Sears building in downtown Oakland finally sold ($25M). For those who are doing extensive real estate valuations for SHLD, it's probably a good comp to consider for older properties that will be purchased by developers. If memory serves, others on the board said the city's tax appraisal value was ~$22M (but correct that if I'm mistaken). http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2014/06/lane-partners-sears-building-oakland-tech-tenants.html Several bidders. Selling at 13% premium. Interesting, thanks for posting. Oakland is hot these days. I'm glad that Sears is leaving the area. It never felt like it belonged there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 "Jun 16, 2014 LAMPERT EDWARD Officer 623,462 Shares Indirect Purchase" as reported by the Yahoo insider trading. Something we've been hoping for. Is this same as the RBS changes reported by Form 4? It's the same as the Form 4 change from a few days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heth247 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The Sears building in downtown Oakland finally sold ($25M). For those who are doing extensive real estate valuations for SHLD, it's probably a good comp to consider for older properties that will be purchased by developers. If memory serves, others on the board said the city's tax appraisal value was ~$22M (but correct that if I'm mistaken). http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2014/06/lane-partners-sears-building-oakland-tech-tenants.html Nice! Thanks for posting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Building Community Together Event Sacramento: Sears Home Services and Rebuilding Together Pretty cool they're doing this stuff. Especially for a veteran. 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