SHLDQ - Sears Holdings Corp

[Vish_ram]

Once it reached 1000 pg, Andy Kilpatrick will get copyrights of these pages and write a book "Of illusory value - a story of Lampert & sears".

 

Can we mark this post and revisit in a few years, factoring in any spinoffs between now and then?  "Illusory value" at $28.13.  The value here is very real.

 

Yes, If I'm wrong, I'll send $500 to a favorite charity of yours. Why don't every bull and bear make a bet like this? It'll make it interesting and beneficial to society.

 

Sounds good.  Prison Fellowship would be my choice as they do some really good stuff: http://www.prisonfellowship.org/

 

Vish_ram, if you'd like, we can adjust the strike to $39 if we change your potential contribution to $700 and keep mine at $500.  Still factoring in future spinoffs.  The result is an even greater benefit to society as the potential pot size increases.  Let me know.  Thanks.

 

I'm comfortable with $28 strike. We didn't define the years, I thought of 2019 when I wrote that. We'll revisit in 2019. This is ample time to find out if I was wrong.

 

 

The decline in both IV and price has been dramatic in last 2 years. Guess Lampert never read Buffetts comment about circle of competence. This will likely be a penny stock in 3 years.

[doughishere]

Excellent article!  thanks, Doughishere !

 

An oldie but a goodie. Been around long enough  you remember theses things.

[alpha asset strategies]

Didn't Gates Cascades investments invest in Sears debt? Perhaps they are gamblers and are willing to throw the dice but I'm not sure that is their central expectation. But of course they could be very wrong as sometimes happens, remember Buffett and Allied Irish?

 

Gates' / Cascade Investments & ESL's $500mm loan is a first mortgage on 20+ properties.  The 20+ properties that secure this loan are reportedly the most prized real estate assets remaining in SHLD, including corporate headquarters, South Coast Plaza, etc.  That loan is over-collateralized; regardless of what happens, Cascade & ESL won't lose a dime on that loan.

Are you sure? I thought their Hoffman.E HQ was leased, not owned.

 

SHLD definitely owned their Hoffman Estates headquarters as of January 31, 2016.  The following statement is direct from their most recent 10-k:

 

"Our principal executive offices are located on a 200-acre site owned by us at the Prairie Stone office park in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. The complex consists of six interconnected office buildings totaling approximately two million gross square feet of office space."

[FCharlie]

As a former Sears bull now on the sidelines, I think the current pessimism is excessive.

 

Everyone is claiming bankruptcy now, even the bulls. People are claiming penny stock in three years. What if??

 

What if Sears sells Craftsman for $1 billion? Kenmore, or Die Hard also? They put the money into the underfunded pension and offer buyouts to the people receiving benefits. The now funded pension, with the help of rising rates, won't burn so much cash, if at all. The pensions have been frozen for decades as I recall... How long until these people are dead? 

 

The leases on, as I recall, about 700 stores, expire in less than five years. I've been hearing this for years so likely it's closer to three years. What if Sears closes all of these stores, liquidates the inventory, which is worth far more than the market value of the company today.

 

What would be left would be the owned stores mostly. These could be sold to Seritage or some other REIT.

 

Eddie & Bruce could take SHLD private. The remaining 10 million shares or so could be bought for less than $100 million.... The company could repurchase them out of net inventory.

 

Not saying this will happen... I guess I'm just taking the other side, which is what I tend to do when pessimism/ optimism seems to be universal.

 

Thoughts?

[doughishere]

As a former Sears bull now on the sidelines, I think the current pessimism is excessive.

 

Everyone is claiming bankruptcy now, even the bulls. People are claiming penny stock in three years. What if??

 

What if Sears sells Craftsman for $1 billion? Kenmore, or Die Hard also? They put the money into the underfunded pension and offer buyouts to the people receiving benefits. The now funded pension, with the help of rising rates, won't burn so much cash, if at all. The pensions have been frozen for decades as I recall... How long until these people are dead? 

 

The leases on, as I recall, about 700 stores, expire in less than five years. I've been hearing this for years so likely it's closer to three years. What if Sears closes all of these stores, liquidates the inventory, which is worth far more than the market value of the company today.

 

What would be left would be the owned stores mostly. These could be sold to Seritage or some other REIT.

 

Eddie & Bruce could take SHLD private. The remaining 10 million shares or so could be bought for less than $100 million.... The company could repurchase them out of net inventory.

 

Not saying this will happen... I guess I'm just taking the other side, which is what I tend to do when pessimism/ optimism seems to be universal.

 

Thoughts?

 

I kinda thought a stock buyback would be appropriate here....assuming the two actually believe what they say.

[Gregmal]

As a former Sears bull now on the sidelines, I think the current pessimism is excessive.

 

Everyone is claiming bankruptcy now, even the bulls. People are claiming penny stock in three years. What if??

 

What if Sears sells Craftsman for $1 billion? Kenmore, or Die Hard also? They put the money into the underfunded pension and offer buyouts to the people receiving benefits. The now funded pension, with the help of rising rates, won't burn so much cash, if at all. The pensions have been frozen for decades as I recall... How long until these people are dead? 

 

The leases on, as I recall, about 700 stores, expire in less than five years. I've been hearing this for years so likely it's closer to three years. What if Sears closes all of these stores, liquidates the inventory, which is worth far more than the market value of the company today.

 

What would be left would be the owned stores mostly. These could be sold to Seritage or some other REIT.

 

Eddie & Bruce could take SHLD private. The remaining 10 million shares or so could be bought for less than $100 million.... The company could repurchase them out of net inventory.

 

Not saying this will happen... I guess I'm just taking the other side, which is what I tend to do when pessimism/ optimism seems to be universal.

 

Thoughts?

 

I kinda thought a stock buyback would be appropriate here....assuming the two actually believe what they say.

 

Admittedly, I've been away from this for about a year and a half- at least in terms of following this intimately, but wouldnt there be covenants that prohibit this givien their liquidity concerns? From what I remember that was part of the reason Lampert stopped buying back stock post financial crash...after loading up over $100/share.

 

[ScottHall]

I think you guys are being unfair to Eddie Lampert. What many of you peg as value destruction has been anything but. By spinning off some of the company's bad assets, he has allowed long-term shareholders to recognize immediate tax losses such as in the case of Orchard Supply Hardware, Land's End, and Sears Canada while still maintaining ownership of a lot of the real estate property that was key to the bull argument.

 

Given the length of time it has taken to recognize the value of the underlying real estate, I think Eddie has done a great job for shareholders by allowing them to recognize losses years ahead of time to maximize the difference in present value of the recognized tax losses and the eventual capital gains taxes Sears shareholders will make once the real estate thesis plays out. Sears couldn't use them anyway, why not give them to shareholders?

 

This is financial engineering 101 and the fact that no one has picked up on this in the value investing community is astonishing. Maybe some people aren't the value hounds they claim to be... This is just another case of Eddie Lampert showing his genius in ways that the average investor doesn't have the wits to understand.

 

It is only a matter of time until Eddie and Bruce Berkowitz are proven to be the masters they used to be perceived as; Sears longs are so lucky to have both men on board!

[Mephistopheles]

Scott, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I remember you mocking the longs in previous years. Assuming you're serious; I suppose Lampert is also a genius for burning billions of dollars a year as that also creates incredible tax assets for future years huh?

[Eye4Valu]

I think you guys are being unfair to Eddie Lampert. What many of you peg as value destruction has been anything but. By spinning off some of the company's bad assets, he has allowed long-term shareholders to recognize immediate tax losses such as in the case of Orchard Supply Hardware, Land's End, and Sears Canada while still maintaining ownership of a lot of the real estate property that was key to the bull argument.

 

Given the length of time it has taken to recognize the value of the underlying real estate, I think Eddie has done a great job for shareholders by allowing them to recognize losses years ahead of time to maximize the difference in present value of the recognized tax losses and the eventual capital gains taxes Sears shareholders will make once the real estate thesis plays out. Sears couldn't use them anyway, why not give them to shareholders?

 

This is financial engineering 101 and the fact that no one has picked up on this in the value investing community is astonishing. Maybe some people aren't the value hounds they claim to be... This is just another case of Eddie Lampert showing his genius in ways that the average investor doesn't have the wits to understand.

 

It is only a matter of time until Eddie and Bruce Berkowitz are proven to be the masters they used to be perceived as; Sears longs are so lucky to have both men on board!

 

Let's invest with Scott Hall instead. He has the proven track record and leadership to criticise other investors on a stock thread with his sarcastic banter. Where do I sign up to give you my $$$?

 

[scorpioncapital]

Just speculating but Buffett said it best years ago, retail is tough and probably will fail. In this sense, Lampert failed the first mental model filter - don't go into brick and mortar retailing. However, the 2nd and 3rd filters I will be gracious enough to say - and based on that last article from 2008 published, that the fellow seems to have some talents. He sticks with it, he has skin in the game, he is determined,  he does not care what Wall Street thinks, and is frugal and wants to be on top of things.  If he got the first mental model right, he could have taken any investment to the moon. However, that Buffett invested in Seritage which is a REIT and has certain constraints on activity and merely collects rent, I suspect that the thesis there is that the model has a better future and with Lampert's determination holds at least a chance of moderate success in terms of being in a better field and by law and mandate not being allowed to deviate much from the profit engine. As for Sears, it is a managed process of turning off the lights.

 

Investment lesson I learned here? Choose the first mental model filter very carefully because every other layer on top of that is wasted effort if applied in the wrong direction. In other words, the first question before looking at any investment might be: what industries or areas should I stay completely away from - even if there are profits to be made, because either they are too tough, too competitive, no moat, or I have no competence in the field. In Sears case, he may have had great competence but the whole area of effort was dying so that usually trumps skill. In Bridge, this scenario occurs when you have a talented player who is given a close to impossible contract to make. You wish him luck but the only real chance is if his opponents royally screw up. This rarely happens. But Sears is worse, it's the case where you fail even if your opponents are completely incompetent because it almost approaches a mathematical impossibility.

 

[alpha asset strategies]

As a former Sears bull now on the sidelines, I think the current pessimism is excessive.

 

Everyone is claiming bankruptcy now, even the bulls. People are claiming penny stock in three years. What if??

 

What if Sears sells Craftsman for $1 billion? Kenmore, or Die Hard also? They put the money into the underfunded pension and offer buyouts to the people receiving benefits. The now funded pension, with the help of rising rates, won't burn so much cash, if at all. The pensions have been frozen for decades as I recall... How long until these people are dead? 

 

The leases on, as I recall, about 700 stores, expire in less than five years. I've been hearing this for years so likely it's closer to three years. What if Sears closes all of these stores, liquidates the inventory, which is worth far more than the market value of the company today.

 

What would be left would be the owned stores mostly. These could be sold to Seritage or some other REIT.

 

Eddie & Bruce could take SHLD private. The remaining 10 million shares or so could be bought for less than $100 million.... The company could repurchase them out of net inventory.

 

Not saying this will happen... I guess I'm just taking the other side, which is what I tend to do when pessimism/ optimism seems to be universal.

 

Thoughts?

 

I kinda thought a stock buyback would be appropriate here....assuming the two actually believe what they say.

 

Admittedly, I've been away from this for about a year and a half- at least in terms of following this intimately, but wouldnt there be covenants that prohibit this givien their liquidity concerns? From what I remember that was part of the reason Lampert stopped buying back stock post financial crash...after loading up over $100/share.

 

I feel quite confident that stock buybacks are the last thing on Lampert and Berkowitz's mind right now.  SHLD is just about tapped out - ie. dead man walking.  They certainly aren't going to be considering stock buybacks when they can't even retain many of their vendors / suppliers.

[Oreo]

I agree with ScottHall on this.

 

I had a tremendously cynical - you could say douchey - attitude on SHLD and SHLD longs for a long time.  I ended up concluding that this was unwarranted.  I saw analysis that suggested Lampert / ESL is either flat or modestly net $ positive on this whole saga. I'm sure Lampert expected a better outcome and misjudged just how bad the hand really was, but the fact that he managed (is managing?) to claw back this much from this crappy hand - all via financial engineering, as Scott points out - is remarkable. Of course, this excludes the intangible cost of damaged brain cells and forgone opportunities.  I don't think that Eddie would choose to do this all over again if he had the chance.

 

 

[randallchsu]

Bill Miller's investment experience in Kodak seems similar to the current situation in Sears.

 

Bill Miller talks about his experience in Kodak starting from the 27 mins mark

 

http://www.lmminvestments.com/bill-millers-interview-with-the-investors-podcast/

[alpha asset strategies]

Lampert yet again is backstopping SHLD with a $200mm secured letter of credit facility - that may be expandable up to $500mm.  I wonder what he is using to secure it - real estate, inventory?

 

It really does appear as if he is going to drag this thing out as long as possible.  I guess if Lampert can adequately secure all of his loans with ample collateral, there is minimal risk to Lampert and his investors - at least in regard to the secured loans.

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sears-holdings-announces-secured-standby-letter-of-credit-facility-300383950.html

[alpha asset strategies]

Here is a funny comment - direct from Goodfellas - that I saw posted about SHLD several months ago:

 

"And then finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out. You light a match."

[LongHaul]

This whole situation is interesting on so many levels.  Lampert was the next Buffett about 10 yrs ago when SHLD stock was riding high.  The businesses of SHLD did poorly and have gotten worse.  Lots of bulls who bet on Lampert have lost their shirt. 

 

The overriding consideration is that Sears and Kmart have higher prices for goods than competitors with no easy way to fix their cost structure.  I don't think Sam Walton could do it.

 

Here is my take on Lampert.  I think he has a big ego, is arrogant and delusional and he doesn't know anything about running businesses for the long term.  Don't focus on someone's words where they say are rational a value investor etc - look at their actions they take in their business.  The stuff I have observed regarding SHLD has been poor operating decisions generally.  That has only likely accelerated the decline. 

 

A mansion and a megayacht named Fountainhead are also interesting tidbits.

 

LTM FCF about -$1.7b at SHLD.  That is some serious change.

 

And Lampert keeps putting up money in this thing.

 

I think SHLD will be blackened toast with rotten sardines on it.  Such is the taste of reality at times.

 

P.S.  I hate it when people use the term financial engineering.  Increasing profits with short term moves or taking on more debt that increases risk to the business is as far from engineering as can be.  An insult to engineering which is a noble profession.

 

 

[dyow]

After some thought here are my 2 cents. 

 

I don't think this company is going bankrupt.  The assets are likely worth a lot more than their liabilities.

 

So there is value.....but this stock is a value trap.

 

There is not information to know when and how retail losses can at least be stabilized (the only way to know this would be to look at this on a store by store, segment by segment basis, and determine which stores/segments would have to be shut down, how long this would take, what costs would be incurred, what would be leftover etc etc).  Basically this would require a cash flow analysis at each store under say a worse case scenario.  I don't have access to this info which makes sears un-investible.  They can turn retail around, because they have the choice to close every unprofitable store, but this is a big company and this will take years.

 

The only way i would change my mind is if there are certain expenses they are incurring right now that are temporary in nature and sears is more profitable than it seems (i am not dismissing this bc have not looked at it enough).

 

This stock reminds me of Chesapeake, a crappy business with lots of assets.  I bought chesapeake at $7 bc i thought the assets could easily cover the debt (IIRC i calculated the net value anywhere between $15-30 a share). Then i watched it go down to $1.5.  I learned my lesson from Chesapeake, if you buy value traps, you got to be patient and buy them at a time of maximum pessimism. Chesapeake dropped from $3 to $1.5 on news of bankruptcy (which was fake and probably put out by short sellers).  I need a similar type of move to enter this stock and even then it wouldn't be something i could put a lot of money into.

 

Chesapeake was better than sears bc at least it had a couple of catalysts (commodity prices and it is a smaller company so cost cuts asset sales had a bigger impact).

 

The catalyst for sears would have to be retail losses stabilizing, and idk when that will happen.

 

Someone earlier in the thread brought up Sears' link with housing starts.  This was probably the case before 2007, but sears has fallen behind.  That said, they do have segments that are directly linked to housing. It is possible that if housing starts increase (and the US economy does better in general) it could help stabilize retail losses - and that could be a catalyst.......a rising tide lifts all boats.....even a boat with a sears logo. 

 

[abyli]

What I do not understand you guys is: there are so many great companies out there that could grow and grow and grow as far as eyes can see, but you guys spend years and years on value traps. Better to spend time and energy on great businesses: risk is lower, gain is higher, there are lots of stuff to learn from great business too, so you are getting wiser. What lessons do we can get out of Sears? Nothing.

[Vish_ram]

What I do not understand you guys is: there are so many great companies out there that could grow and grow and grow as far as eyes can see, but you guys spend years and years on value traps. Better to spend time and energy on great businesses: risk is lower, gain is higher, there are lots of stuff to learn from great business too, so you are getting wiser. What lessons do we can get out of Sears? Nothing.

 

The reason why value investors are enamored by value traps is the same reason why a guy who pounds his head with a hammer periodically stops doing it; there is an immense relief and pleasure during those brief stops.

[oddballstocks]

After some thought here are my 2 cents. 

 

I don't think this company is going bankrupt.  The assets are likely worth a lot more than their liabilities.

 

So there is value.....but this stock is a value trap.

 

There is not information to know when and how retail losses can at least be stabilized (the only way to know this would be to look at this on a store by store, segment by segment basis, and determine which stores/segments would have to be shut down, how long this would take, what costs would be incurred, what would be leftover etc etc).  Basically this would require a cash flow analysis at each store under say a worse case scenario.  I don't have access to this info which makes sears un-investible.  They can turn retail around, because they have the choice to close every unprofitable store, but this is a big company and this will take years.

 

The only way i would change my mind is if there are certain expenses they are incurring right now that are temporary in nature and sears is more profitable than it seems (i am not dismissing this bc have not looked at it enough).

 

This stock reminds me of Chesapeake, a crappy business with lots of assets.  I bought chesapeake at $7 bc i thought the assets could easily cover the debt (IIRC i calculated the net value anywhere between $15-30 a share). Then i watched it go down to $1.5.  I learned my lesson from Chesapeake, if you buy value traps, you got to be patient and buy them at a time of maximum pessimism. Chesapeake dropped from $3 to $1.5 on news of bankruptcy (which was fake and probably put out by short sellers).  I need a similar type of move to enter this stock and even then it wouldn't be something i could put a lot of money into.

 

Chesapeake was better than sears bc at least it had a couple of catalysts (commodity prices and it is a smaller company so cost cuts asset sales had a bigger impact).

 

The catalyst for sears would have to be retail losses stabilizing, and idk when that will happen.

 

Someone earlier in the thread brought up Sears' link with housing starts.  This was probably the case before 2007, but sears has fallen behind.  That said, they do have segments that are directly linked to housing. It is possible that if housing starts increase (and the US economy does better in general) it could help stabilize retail losses - and that could be a catalyst.......a rising tide lifts all boats.....even a boat with a sears logo. 

 

 

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.  Store to store losses?

 

How about this.... are there any locations in your town that cycle through restaurants?  A weird corner or something that's had three or four restaurant failures?  When a new one opens what's your first thought? It's probably "good luck, you probably won't make it."  Why?  Because there is a negative connotation with that location and the failures.

 

A few years ago my wife would give Sears a shot.  Now to her, her friends, and literally every single retail person (non-investor) I talk to Sears has the failed five times stigma.  My wife commented that she was surprised it was still in business.  I don't live in Westchester County or any place ritzy either.  If you stand in the back corner of my lot you can look through the trees and see a Sears store, it's directly behind my son's school.

 

This is the George Soros concept of reflexitivity.  Sears' own negative sentiment is killing itself.

 

The real estate probably has value, but once developers smell blood in the water Sears isn't going to be able to obtain the best and highest prices for each plot.  Buyers will force them into discounted sales, and if Sears can't unload quickly they might not have a choice except to accept depressed values.

 

The people who will make money on Sears as an investment are going to be people who can pick up Sears locations in a song and redevelop them.  Also any managers who have the AUM to support a large legal team to work through the bankruptcy.

[BTShine]

Has anyone else noticed that the store count doesn't add up for Sears' ability to extend lease options in their last presentation?

 

https://searsholdings.com/docs/investor/eap/q3-2016-earnings-release-presentation.pdf

 

Check out slide 17 and the Sears Real Estate Lease Expirations.  The Base Lease Obligations add up to 386, but the Base Lease Options (their ability to extend the leases, sometimes over 25 years+) add up to 265 stores.  This is 121 of the stated 386 lease count.

 

I would call SHLD Investor Relations, but they never respond. 

[dyow]

^^ i disagree wholeheartedly

 

After i looked at chesapeake, a value trap, i put 50% of my net worth in an energy stock, that went up 4X from its low in early 2016.  There is no way i would have invested in that co if i didn't look at chesapeake.  Chesapeake essentially taught me what to look for and what to avoid. 

 

So much of what you said was wrong:

- Looking at value traps teaches you how to be a value investor

- Risk is not lower, gain is not higher with great business, that claim is beyond ludicrous.  Risk reward is based on price you pay vs the IV of the stock.

- I learn very little from growth/growth is lazy.  I learn more when companies are on the verge of bankruptcy, bc you have to look at all the angles while remaining focussed on what matters. 

 

Also you don't get 1 year multi baggers with growth.

 

Warren Buffett buys "great businesses" bc he has 1 trillion dollars and can't find multi baggers.  If Buffett only had a million today he would be balls deep in small multi baggers.  But he never preaches this bc he knows most people can't do this, and he doesn't want value pretenders copying him.

 

You guys stick to growth, and enjoy your 10% CAGR.  Lol at 10%.

 

 

 

[dyow]

After some thought here are my 2 cents. 

 

I don't think this company is going bankrupt.  The assets are likely worth a lot more than their liabilities.

 

So there is value.....but this stock is a value trap.

 

There is not information to know when and how retail losses can at least be stabilized (the only way to know this would be to look at this on a store by store, segment by segment basis, and determine which stores/segments would have to be shut down, how long this would take, what costs would be incurred, what would be leftover etc etc).  Basically this would require a cash flow analysis at each store under say a worse case scenario.  I don't have access to this info which makes sears un-investible.  They can turn retail around, because they have the choice to close every unprofitable store, but this is a big company and this will take years.

 

The only way i would change my mind is if there are certain expenses they are incurring right now that are temporary in nature and sears is more profitable than it seems (i am not dismissing this bc have not looked at it enough).

 

This stock reminds me of Chesapeake, a crappy business with lots of assets.  I bought chesapeake at $7 bc i thought the assets could easily cover the debt (IIRC i calculated the net value anywhere between $15-30 a share). Then i watched it go down to $1.5.  I learned my lesson from Chesapeake, if you buy value traps, you got to be patient and buy them at a time of maximum pessimism. Chesapeake dropped from $3 to $1.5 on news of bankruptcy (which was fake and probably put out by short sellers).  I need a similar type of move to enter this stock and even then it wouldn't be something i could put a lot of money into.

 

Chesapeake was better than sears bc at least it had a couple of catalysts (commodity prices and it is a smaller company so cost cuts asset sales had a bigger impact).

 

The catalyst for sears would have to be retail losses stabilizing, and idk when that will happen.

 

Someone earlier in the thread brought up Sears' link with housing starts.  This was probably the case before 2007, but sears has fallen behind.  That said, they do have segments that are directly linked to housing. It is possible that if housing starts increase (and the US economy does better in general) it could help stabilize retail losses - and that could be a catalyst.......a rising tide lifts all boats.....even a boat with a sears logo. 

 

 

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.  Store to store losses?

 

How about this.... are there any locations in your town that cycle through restaurants?  A weird corner or something that's had three or four restaurant failures?  When a new one opens what's your first thought? It's probably "good luck, you probably won't make it."  Why?  Because there is a negative connotation with that location and the failures.

 

A few years ago my wife would give Sears a shot.  Now to her, her friends, and literally every single retail person (non-investor) I talk to Sears has the failed five times stigma.  My wife commented that she was surprised it was still in business.  I don't live in Westchester County or any place ritzy either.  If you stand in the back corner of my lot you can look through the trees and see a Sears store, it's directly behind my son's school.

 

This is the George Soros concept of reflexitivity.  Sears' own negative sentiment is killing itself.

 

The real estate probably has value, but once developers smell blood in the water Sears isn't going to be able to obtain the best and highest prices for each plot.  Buyers will force them into discounted sales, and if Sears can't unload quickly they might not have a choice except to accept depressed values.

 

The people who will make money on Sears as an investment are going to be people who can pick up Sears locations in a song and redevelop them.  Also any managers who have the AUM to support a large legal team to work through the bankruptcy.

 

LOL.....i would 100% look at each store and follow the cash flows.  What are you talking about.  This is investing, i need to look at the numbers.  People lie, numbers don't.  Either the number make sense or they don't.

 

OK ask your wife whether i should go short SHLD then and at what price?

[ScottHall]

Well I was correct faster than I realized on Sears. I guess I am just going to have to take my victory lap and end my bullish sentiment with a one day gain of 10%.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm the only guy who was right both ways on this one. I just have an intuition with this company; nobody is better at Sears than I am.

[dyow]

Well I was correct faster than I realized on Sears. I guess I am just going to have to take my victory lap and end my bullish sentiment with a one day gain of 10%.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm the only guy who was right both ways on this one. I just have an intuition with this company; nobody is better at Sears than I am.

 

lol....this thread is a trap. i am out.

 

It took Scott one day (on a value trap) to make the same amount you growth guys make in a year........true story.