Wilson-TPC Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Think to yourself for a second, WHY would Eddie loan Sears 400 mil that are SECURED by properties. Wow. Shareholders! WAKE UP! The one that loses is the guys holding the bag at the end. Even though he has 50% of his net worth in this company, he can pull something out of his ass where shareholders are screwed, and he wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Wow. Shareholders! WAKE UP! The one that loses is the guys holding the bag at the end. The smell of bankruptcy is imminent. So it doesn't even have 400 mil? It seems strange that you're saying "bankruptcy is imminent" and "wake up shareholders" when you didn't even know their liquidity position. I usually like to study a company's financials before making claims like that, but that's just me being silly I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I think a bankruptcy court would not look kindly on a controlling shareholder/executive taking the prized assets through a secured loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson-TPC Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Wow. Shareholders! WAKE UP! The one that loses is the guys holding the bag at the end. The smell of bankruptcy is imminent. So it doesn't even have 400 mil? It seems strange that you're saying "bankruptcy is imminent" and "wake up shareholders" when you didn't even know their liquidity position. I usually like to study a company's financials before making claims like that, but that's just me being silly I guess. I've followed Sears for 4 years now. I have a pretty clear image of its liquidity position. Something smells funky is all i'm saying. It reminds me of NuSkin going over head and heel for 30 million in yen. WHY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matson125 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Sears Auto Center closed at Westfield Countryside mall http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/retail/sears-auto-center-closed-at-westfield-countryside-mall/2197922 http://www.seritage.com/Portals/0/pdf/multi-tenant-pads/FL-Clearwater-1415A-MTP-Leasing-Flyer.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BargainValueHunter Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Just to be clear... There is actually a scenario where Eddie can own 25 of SHLD's top properties at $16 million each? How is this not bad for shareholders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peridotcapital Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Sears Auto Center closed at Westfield Countryside mall http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/retail/sears-auto-center-closed-at-westfield-countryside-mall/2197922 http://www.seritage.com/Portals/0/pdf/multi-tenant-pads/FL-Clearwater-1415A-MTP-Leasing-Flyer.pdf A reporter I spoke with is hearing that it is Nordstrom Rack. Unconfirmed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Just to be clear... There is actually a scenario where Eddie can own 25 of SHLD's top properties at $16 million each? How is this not bad for shareholders? To be fair it's not necessarily the top 25 properties, not that I think this loan is a great sign though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heth247 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Just to be clear... There is actually a scenario where Eddie can own 25 of SHLD's top properties at $16 million each? How is this not bad for shareholders? Yes, it will be bad. But is it probable, and justify a 9% drop in share price in one day? I think no. I really don't understand how people gets the "bankruptcy" message from this news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistopheles Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I made a lot of money, probably a 50-75% IRR, last year to early this year - I consider myself lucky. I am neutral now, neither bullish or bearish. You can add another 5% compounded by mid-January with the $25 strike put premium, and if you get called you can write a call for more premium. Like falling back to a defensive position and keeping on fighting -- cue the end scene of Saving Private Ryan. Find a defilade position! Jackson! The annualized rate on the out-of-the-money puts is far in excess of the burn rate of SYW strategy. Defensive position... fall back... fight... defensive position... fall back. It's tough to be short too. The borrow costs... the premium costs... it's a war of attrition between longs and shorts. I did just this today, except with the $20 strike at $1 premium. 5% return in 4 months is pretty damn good, with very minimal risk IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Sears Auto Center closed at Westfield Countryside mall http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/retail/sears-auto-center-closed-at-westfield-countryside-mall/2197922 http://www.seritage.com/Portals/0/pdf/multi-tenant-pads/FL-Clearwater-1415A-MTP-Leasing-Flyer.pdf A reporter I spoke with is hearing that it is Nordstrom Rack. Unconfirmed though. Nice find, Matson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adesigar Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Just to be clear... There is actually a scenario where Eddie can own 25 of SHLD's top properties at $16 million each? How is this not bad for shareholders? Is this loan good news for Shareholders? No Does the loan have bad optics as a loan from CEO controlled funds? Yes You have FAIRX/Berkowitz as a 25% shareholder in SHLD. Cesar Alvarez is on the Board of FAIRX and SHLD. FAIRX is ready to sue the US Government over Fannie and Freddie. Could you please elaborate on the scenario where Eddie can own 25 of SHLD's top properties at $16 Million each? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Could you please elaborate on the scenario where Eddie can own 25 of SHLD's top properties at $16 Million each? my understanding is he could only do that if $SHLD goes into bk before the loan comes due. it appears that he is at the front of the line with a $400m claim on specific propterties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted September 16, 2014 Author Share Posted September 16, 2014 his loan is secured by those 25 properties. Not any 25 properties. And it does not mean he will get that 25 properties if Sears goes BK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 his loan is secured by those 25 properties. Not any 25 properties. There is great flexibility in the properties chosen as collateral and they can be changed it seems. And it does not mean he will get that 25 properties if Sears goes BK. This. Surprised by the total misunderstanding of loan collateral here and in the general media. Literally saw an article today that suggested he swindled shareholders out of billions and that's just not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ni-co Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 The reaction on this is just hilarious. It's quite obvious what the problem was: He wasn't able to sell Sears Auto/Canada fast enough at an okay price to raise cash for the Christmas season. Now he has to borrow money. Instead of going to a bank and paying a C rating interest rate most likely secured by the same properties he might as well do this deal with ESL. He had to do it at arm's length because he also has fiduciary duties towards his ESL investors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heth247 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 The reaction on this is just hilarious. It's quite obvious what the problem was: He wasn't able to sell Sears Auto/Canada fast enough at an okay price to raise cash for the Christmas season. Now he has to borrow money. Instead of going to a bank and paying a C rating interest rate most likely secured by the same properties he might as well do this deal with ESL. He had to do it at arm's length because he also has fiduciary duties towards his ESL investors. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constructive Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Something very interesting happened in 2008 when Accredited Home Lenders, a mortgage lender, was about to go BK. A hedge fund, Loan Star Capital, bought it at a multiple of the current price (even after renegotiating on price). Stock price had been around $4 and deal was eventually closed at $11.75 http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/12/us-accreditedhome-idUSWNAS622320071012 I speculate that there was more to this purchase than meets the eye. You don't need to speculate. Lone Star made a stupid $300M mistake and AHL went bankrupt a year and a half later. Great, by this logic, Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch because they thought it would make a great investment. All I know is the deal made no sense on the surface when they did it-- mortgage lenders ere already going BK left and right, so the fact that AHL went bankrupt is meaningless. Care to share how come you have so much insight on this? Lone Star had no affiliates that might have benefited? No third parties trading the stock? No friends of theirs trading the options? No assets that were stripped and given to friendly associates. No back channel bailouts or tax advantages? No synergies/advantages despite the BK like the aforementioned See http://www.housingwire.com/articles/2287-what-jpmorgan-didnt-get-lone-star-picks-bear-res. I'm not saying every deal is a conspiracy, just highlighting the fact that things are not always so linear and simple as 1+1= 2. Sears still has a $3 billion plus market cap, $30+ billion in sales, a ton of real estate, and a low float stock price that is easily manipulated, and a lot of negative sentiment. That leaves a lot of room for interested parties to make money in ways that don't necessarily equate to retail profit, and do provide incentive for the stock to continue trading at reasonable levels with lots of volatility. Any thorough analysis ought to incorporate the Wall Street greed factor. That's all I'm saying. BAC did buy Merrill Lynch because they thought it would be a good investment. And as far as I can tell, they were right. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/09/28/bofa-merrill-still-a-bottom-line-success/ I would caution against reading between the lines when there is really nothing there. Just because someone has a lot of money (Lampert or Berkowitz for example) doesn't mean they have any special investment ability or take part in any special situations or securities not available to the general public. Any idiot could have lost money on a mortgage lender and elite funds like Lone Star, Greenlight, Fortress, TPG, etc. were no exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 his loan is secured by those 25 properties. Not any 25 properties. There is great flexibility in the properties chosen as collateral and they can be changed it seems. And it does not mean he will get that 25 properties if Sears goes BK. This. Surprised by the total misunderstanding of loan collateral here and in the general media. Literally saw an article today that suggested he swindled shareholders out of billions and that's just not the case. who gets the 25 properties if Sears goes BK? thanks. and if it's not lampert why would he take them as collateral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 his loan is secured by those 25 properties. Not any 25 properties. There is great flexibility in the properties chosen as collateral and they can be changed it seems. And it does not mean he will get that 25 properties if Sears goes BK. This. Surprised by the total misunderstanding of loan collateral here and in the general media. Literally saw an article today that suggested he swindled shareholders out of billions and that's just not the case. who gets the 25 properties if Sears goes BK? thanks. and if it's not lampert why would he take them as collateral? Lampert would get up to 25 properties where the assessed value would cover the 400M loaned. Let's assume all the properties are liquidated as opposed to having a third party assessment - the funds in excess of 400M would be retuned to the equity holders. He can't just take the 25 best properties for billions like the article and individuals in this thread have suggested. No one was swindled out of billions. It's like saying that in a bankruptcy, creditors get everything even if it's in excess of their claim. Lampert will get no more, and no less, than the 400M plus interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Sub-$30 is just ridiculous. I added a little bit to my already large position today at $29.85 average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elevensecsrt4 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Sub-$30 is just ridiculous. I added a little bit to my already large position today at $29.85 average. +1 added today at 29.80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picasso Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Sub-$30 is just ridiculous. I added a little bit to my already large position today at $29.85 average. How do you decide the price is ridiculous? What if the share price drops to 15 from here and Lampert takes it private at 25? That seems like a very plausible scenario to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 532 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Sub-$30 is just ridiculous. I added a little bit to my already large position today at $29.85 average. How do you decide the price is ridiculous? What if the share price drops to 15 from here and Lampert takes it private at 25? That seems like a very plausible scenario to me. Based on valuation the price is ridiculous. Sure, the above could happen as the market is a voting machine short-term, but I'm more than comfortable adding to SHLD sub-$30. With that said, doing a synthetic long is a better bet for most (long 30-strike calls, short 30-strike puts) as you pocket some premium. I went with common as sometimes option spreads can blow out on large spikes in the stock price resulting in not being able to get a trade executed when you want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Sub-$30 is just ridiculous. I added a little bit to my already large position today at $29.85 average. It is still roughly the same price as before LE spinoff, even though it sounds like a big bargain. 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