SHLDQ - Sears Holdings Corp

[blainehodder]

The Kim Kardashian Kollection?  I guess Sears neededsomething to combat the JCP tea kettle?

[/quote

 

I'm seriously surprised that people on this board didn't know that Sears exclusively sells that Kardashian Kolleciton.  This was big news and is a big reason why apparel sales have increased the last 8 quarters. 

 

People can make fun of it as much as they want, but I guarantee the awareness of Kim Kardashian vs. Ted Williams to the under 21 female crowd (future core U.S. spenders) is probably 100 to 1.  I like Ted Williams as much as the next guy, but apparel shoppers don't want to be like him.  Women do think the Kardashians have style.  It'd be best to accept that. 

 

It was a poor joke. First the JCP Hitler kettle.

 

  ... Now sears comes out with the KKK line. 

[Guest wellmont]

The Kim Kardashian Kollection?  I guess Sears needed something to combat the JCP tea kettle?

 

I'm seriously surprised that people on this board didn't know that Sears exclusively sells that Kardashian Kolleciton.  This was big news and is a big reason why apparel sales have increased the last 8 quarters. 

 

People can make fun of it as much as they want, but I guarantee the awareness of Kim Kardashian vs. Ted Williams to the under 21 female crowd (future core U.S. spenders) is probably 100 to 1.  I like Ted Williams as much as the next guy, but apparel shoppers don't want to be like him.  Women do think the Kardashians have style.  It'd be best to accept that.

 

so you are saying that their apparel operation is tied to a temporary fad? great.

[heth247]

"In its filing with the bankruptcy court, Alexander's listed assets of $183.7 million and liabilities of $95.7 million. Bankruptcy experts say the value of Alexander's real estate insures that its banks, suppliers and even its shareholders are likely to recoup their losses in the long run."

 

Compare Sears with $19.3B in assets ($16.0B tangible) and $16.5B in liabilities.

 

But the question is if the 16b asset and 16.5b liability really reflects the reality? As Mussleman and Fcharlie pointed out in today's filing, they sold stores for $287mm which was carried for $47mm on book, and the liability has decreased $700mm due to interest rate rise. 

 

 

[premfan]

Sitting back with my popcorn and green tea. Great case study on why turnarounds rarely turn or if they do turn its hard to know when. For long time believers of eddie why not just invest when the story is simple and told?.  I have no skin in the game. Intently watching to add new insights to my mental model list. Good luck to all the speculators.

 

The reason I'm invested and not selling my stake and then getting back in when it's "simple and told" is because there will always be some worry with any stock and there will always be doubt.  Also, there is no guarantee that further bad operating numbers will result in lower share prices.  We could be trading at $50 or $60 by the time next earnings come out on nothing but the short-term emotions of traders (voting machine vs weighing machine).  What I'm saying is that I believe SHLD is dirt cheap.  Could it go to $30?  Sure, but it's cheap at $40 and $50, too, so why not buy and take away the element of trying to time the market?

 

I also think there are a handful of potential catalysts that could cause a gap up when the market is closed.

 

REIT:

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/shld-sears/40/

If they are moving to asset light, there are going to be more REIT monetazation(s), hq, distribution center, stores.  The argument that there isn't a market for mall/big box assets is unfounded, you have SPG selling at +20x FFO.  I was recently caught in a short that gapped over night by 30% because of a reit conversion, on my list of risks for this short, I had never considered that.  The Company is PENN, we're talking about a single entity, special special purpose REIT conversion.  The market is hungry for yield and they really don't care what kind of asset it is.

Short Squeeze:

http://www.oldwestim.com/files/media/Download%20this%20site/Commentaries%20and%20Investor%20Letters%202013.02.04.pdf

We have recently stopped lending out our shares because we are increasingly concerned that there could be a fail-to-deliver problem if there happens to be a short squeeze based on the market better recognizing the company’s underlying value as a

result of real estate deals, brand distribution deals, better than expected operating performance (imagine margins rising as sales fall), or just continued buybacks with cash taken from operations or runoff activities. When you strip out the shares owned by Eddie Lampert/ESL, boardmemember/ESL investor Tommy Tisch, and long-term shareholder Bruce Berkowitz at Fairholme, only 20% of the total shares outstanding remain publicly traded, and 50% of that ever-shrinking float is reported short. To repeat, only 20% of total shares outstanding remain publicly traded, 50% of that float is reported short

 

It's actually closer to 61% of the float now conservatively.  That's only counting Lampert, Berkowitz, Tisch (not counting Horizon, Baker Street, Chou or any institutions).

 

Lampert announces he's closing ESL and focusing solely on SHLD:

But your right, if he did become the portfolio manager at Sears Holdings I would be more or less buying hand over fist.

 

I don't think texual would be the only one.

 

Deal with Amazon:

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/amazon-com-inc-amzn-and-sears-holdings-corp-shld-strange-bedfellows-or-a-match-made-in-heaven-185421/

 

What does Sears have that could interest Amazon? Bricks.

Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN) is currently a significant tenant for datacenter REIT Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE:DLR), leasing 448,895 square feet in six properties. Why is this important?

 

Sears Holdings Corp (NASDAQ:SHLD) is in the early rounds of evaluating and extracting the value locked in its vast legacy real estate holdings. It is in the middle rounds of a difficult fight to create a profitable, customer focused retail operation. Sears is currently valued around $5 billion. Amazon is currently valued around $125 billion. I am not currently advocating or trying to make a case for Amazon to acquire Sears. However, I do believe there is a compelling case to be made that Sears is significantly undervalued at the present time. Sears' vast portfolio of real estate certainly contains pins in the map that could be ideal for Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN)'s expansion plans.

 

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos recently announced the company’s entry into the grocery business. This new business initiative will certainly require additional facilities and boots on the ground.

 

What's stopping Amazon from leasing a comparable amount of space to satisfy its desire to have stores, or to really launch their grocery business, etc.?  See what just 40,000 sq ft deal with Forever 21 did to the stock price below...

 

Larger deal with Whole Foods, Forever 21, etc: 

That 40,000 sq ft deal with Forever 21 in the past caused the stock to jump 5%.  5% on a pittance of the square footage owned by Sears.  What would a 200,000 square foot or 400,000 square foot deal do to the stock price?

 

Sell Lands End or other brands:

It appears that Lampert could sell Lands End tomorrow and either dividend all of the cash to shareholders, or use it to buy back stock.  It appears he could do the same with most of the real estate as well as the brands. 

 

Would you be just a little scared as a short if Lampert had an additional $1B-$2B in his pocket, especially given his track record of buybacks?

 

In my opinion any of these events would cause a strong surge in the stock price, and if that takes place after-hours or when the market is closed, we'd miss that huge gap.  Even if it takes place during the day there are not many shares to be traded right now... and you can bet the shorts would be putting in market orders to cover making it that much harder to get in at a decent price.

 

If one is worried about the timing of it why not just sell puts to get some premium while you wait?  It seems a bit naive to me to think we can predict when a certain event might occur (and predicting that nothing will happen and the stock will go down or stay flat, is the same as predicting that something will happen).  I don't know of any true value investors that have made a consistent living timing their positions.

 

Its not timing a position. Its labeling a position as :

 

1.) Long term core holding

2.) spec

3.) trade

 

You can rationalize it anyway you want. But this is totally a spec play currently not a investment. No one in their right mind can  predict the earnings yield 2-3 years out.  What is confusing is so many people have a insane strong conviction on a spec play.

[ScottHall]

  What is confusing is so many people have a insane strong conviction on a spec play.

 

+1

[premfan]

You spec on things when the street and overall sentiment thinks bankruptcy when the reality is not so. This is based on your personal checklist. There still is a lot of joy and positive talk about sears. I will only invest ( spec) when shit really hits the fan ( if it ever does).  I need total doom and gloom and most importantly I need to be unsure and a bit fearful on making the bet. Having confidence and conviction while doing a spec play is death. I need to be scared and a bit fearful then I know its time to spec.

[premfan]

If you look at the stock price, you can see that the equity never lost its value through the bankrupcty process (similar to GGP in recent years).

 

"In its filing with the bankruptcy court, Alexander's listed assets of $183.7 million and liabilities of $95.7 million. Bankruptcy experts say the value of Alexander's real estate insures that its banks, suppliers and even its shareholders are likely to recoup their losses in the long run."

 

GGP had $29.2B tangible assets and $27.3B liabilities when they entered bankruptcy.

 

Compare Sears with $16.0B tangible assets and $16.5B liabilities.

 

Thanks for info. Very good!

[heth247]

You spec on things when the street and overall sentiment thinks bankruptcy when the reality is not so. This is based on your personal checklist. There still is a lot of joy and positive talk about sears. I will only invest ( spec) when shit really hits the fan ( if it ever does).  I need total doom and gloom and most importantly I need to be unsure and a bit fearful on making the bet. Having confidence and conviction while doing a spec play is death. I need to be scared and a bit fearful then I know its time to spec.

 

I thought the speculation here is about the timeline -- when Eddie will either turnaround the retail or unlock the asset value -- not really about if SHLD will go BK...

[premfan]

You spec on things when the street and overall sentiment thinks bankruptcy when the reality is not so. This is based on your personal checklist. There still is a lot of joy and positive talk about sears. I will only invest ( spec) when shit really hits the fan ( if it ever does).  I need total doom and gloom and most importantly I need to be unsure and a bit fearful on making the bet. Having confidence and conviction while doing a spec play is death. I need to be scared and a bit fearful then I know its time to spec.

 

I thought the speculation here is about the timeline -- when Eddie will either turnaround the retail or unlock the asset value -- not really about if SHLD will go BK...

 

Whenever comes first. Who knows. If it turns then invest for the long term. If it  continues to struggle sooner or later people would spec that its going BK. The sentiment would totally change. No one on this board would be so joyful and have all this conviction. Look for the sentiment change and mostly important make sure your checklist says invest. Sears is a binary situation but no one knows what and when all this will manifest.

[premfan]

ERICOPOLY, I think I bought your shares @ $40 today.

 

We've spent a lot of time looking at Sears from a fundamental standpoint, and I think the consensus is that there is probably a lot of hidden value but we aren't sure when that will be unlocked.

 

I think it's instructive to look at the liquidity profile as well. By my calculations, somewhere between 85% and 295% of the float is sold short right now.

 

I'm currently traveling to Montreal, but I'll try to expound more later.

 

My thoughts are that it's probably worth at least $120 in assets.  However if an oil company has $5b of oil in the ground it doesn't trade for $5b necessarily.  Rather, it trades roughly based upon the speed that oil comes to the surface.

 

Great mental model.

[merkhet]

So here's my going theory on Sears.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArX667iB-WCRdFZRMEl4T29EQnRmUTZueE1XY09nSWc&single=true&gid=0&output=html

 

I used the Bloomberg screenshot from earlier in the thread to put those numbers together.  I don't think I need to explain to anyone on here that RBS/ESL, Fairholme & Tisch are in it for the long haul. If you search around, you'll also find Horizon Kinetics, Old West Investments & Chou Associates have all similarly stated they are or acted as long haul investors -- so I would think they can safely be called non-float shares.

 

Baker Street & Force Capital Management, I think, are more opportunistic in that they're holding it sort of for the long haul, but at the very least, I think that they're not the types to trade in and out of the position.

 

If you add all that up, the short interest of 14 million shares is 85% of the float of 16.5 million shares.

 

Now, the interesting thing is that both Baker Street & Force Capital have a lot of interest via call options. We've discussed previously that it looks like they've bought 2015 calls @ $60 and sold 2015 calls @ $70.  Baker Street has 7 million shares via calls and Force Capital has 4.7 million shares via calls. And oddly enough, Baker Street owned the 700,00 calls first.

 

So, I have to make one leap of faith here. I don't think that anyone on that list is selling calls to get called out of their shares @ $70 a pop. Therefore, I think that the extra 11.7 million shares via calls is coming from the 16.5 million shares of float.

 

What happens if either or both of those funds ends up exercising their options? You'd suck 4.7 million, 7 million or 11.7 million of shares out of a float of 16.5 million shares. Keep in mind that the average volume is 870,000 shares a day and there are 14 million shares sold short.  If the "true" float is only about 4.8 million shares, and you're short the name, then you're in some serious trouble...

 

Just some thoughts.

[constructive]

But the question is if the 16b asset and 16.5b liability really reflects the reality? As Mussleman and Fcharlie pointed out in today's filing, they sold stores for $287mm which was carried for $47mm on book, and the liability has decreased $700mm due to interest rate rise.

 

Yes, that is the key question.

 

But the inaccuracy of book value also works in the other direction - in probably 98% of bankruptcies, creditors recover less than the final balance sheet would suggest, because of the cost of liquidation.

 

Nobody (outside the company) knows the economics of the stores that were sold for $287M. Selling profitable stores will obviously make future operating earnings worse.

 

Rising interest rates are definitely not all good news for the company. They negatively impact real estate values, below market lease values, and interest on their bank loans. But SHLD only mentions the good news.

[alertmeipp]

agree on rate change, but obviously pension is a different ballgame given how the accounting is done there

[Luke 532]

Check out the PDF that member "giofranchi" posted at the following link.  It's the Horizon Kinetic 2013 Q1 letter: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/horizon-kinetic-q1-2013-commentary/msg112901/:

 

In 2011, Sears recorded a $1.8 billion non-cash charge to write down its deferred tax assets. This was necessitated by an accounting rule test requiring that a valuation reserve be established when income has not been generated over a three-year cumulative period to support the deferred tax asset. However, the company stated in its just- released 2012 annual report that it believes that no economic loss has occurred. If the company is correct, then those net operating losses and tax benefits remain available to reduce future taxes on future income. So, as of 2012, Sears still had $679 million of deferred tax assets on its balance sheet and what it believes should be an additional $1.8 billion. Future after-tax income, then, could be far higher than would otherwise be anticipated. The company’s book value, now $3.2 billion, as against a stock market capitalization of $5.3 billion, would actually be $5 billion if the write-down of the tax asset were reversed. The Sears book value discussion has some additional interesting complexities, so we’ll call this adjusted $5 billion book value an “all else equal” figure.

…

It also recorded a gain of $163 million for the surrender and early termination of the leases on three properties operated by Sears Canada; proceeds were $170 million.

…

In comparing the amount of gain with the total proceeds, which were only marginally greater, one might reflect on what the stated book value of Sears really means. One might also reflect on the value of some of the Sears stores that it doesn’t own, but merely leases, if those are long-term leases. Finally, one might reflect on the aggregate gains figure of $468 million on these 14 properties in the context of the 2,109 full-line stores that the company operates.

 

[FCharlie]

Sears has put $1.6 billion into it's pension in the past five years.

 

That's 38% of today's market value for SHLD.

 

If the updated pension obligation is $700 million lower, and another 1% rise in interest rates would drop it a further $600 million, does that not scream out at anyone other than me? The GAAP losses look ugly, but truth be told, the cash flow excluding pension looks much better. Depreciation was 3.25X greater than cap ex in the first half of this year. SHLD spent a whopping $56 million on cap ex last quarter. Add back that cash flow and the cash loss is no where near as ugly as the headlines appear. Let's face it. The pension is the bigger problem, and most people are ignoring the pension.

 

The pension has been suffocating SHLD for years. Without it, what would SHLD have done with that $1.6 billion dollars over the past five years?

 

 

[Luke 532]

Sears has put $1.6 billion into it's pension in the past five years.

 

That's 38% of today's market value for SHLD.

 

If the updated pension obligation is $700 million lower, and another 1% rise in interest rates would drop it a further $600 million, does that not scream out at anyone other than me? The GAAP losses look ugly, but truth be told, the cash flow excluding pension looks much better. Depreciation was 3.25X greater than cap ex in the first half of this year. SHLD spent a whopping $56 million on cap ex last quarter. Add back that cash flow and the cash loss is no where near as ugly as the headlines appear. Let's face it. The pension is the bigger problem, and most people are ignoring the pension.

 

The pension has been suffocating SHLD for years. Without it, what would SHLD have done with that $1.6 billion dollars over the past five years?

 

You're not alone in really, really liking the rising interest rates and how it impacts the pension liabilities.  Rates rise 3% or so and poof the pension liability is gone.

[treasurehunt]

Sears has put $1.6 billion into it's pension in the past five years.

 

That's 38% of today's market value for SHLD.

 

If the updated pension obligation is $700 million lower, and another 1% rise in interest rates would drop it a further $600 million, does that not scream out at anyone other than me? The GAAP losses look ugly, but truth be told, the cash flow excluding pension looks much better. Depreciation was 3.25X greater than cap ex in the first half of this year. SHLD spent a whopping $56 million on cap ex last quarter. Add back that cash flow and the cash loss is no where near as ugly as the headlines appear. Let's face it. The pension is the bigger problem, and most people are ignoring the pension.

 

The pension has been suffocating SHLD for years. Without it, what would SHLD have done with that $1.6 billion dollars over the past five years?

 

I really don't understand pension accounting. What you say seems sensible, but here's what the 10-Q filed today says:

 

<i>During the 13- and 26- week periods ended August 3, 2013, we made total contributions of $87 million and $176 million, respectively, to our pension and postretirement plans. During the 13- and 26- week periods ended July 28, 2012, we made total contributions of $78 million and $164 million, respectively, to our pension and postretirement plans. We anticipate making aggregate contributions to our domestic and Canadian defined benefit and postretirement plans of approximately $244 million over the remainder of 2013.</i>

 

Since the pension liability decreased by about 700 million, why does Sears still need to make these large contributions to the pension plan? Returns on pension plan assets have been decent from 2009 on, so I don't think that is it. Any ideas?

 

Also, the "pension and postretirement benefits" line in the liability part of the balance sheet only decreased from 2,730 to 2,539 or by less than 200 million dollars. I would have expected a difference of close to 700 million here. What's going on?

 

Thanks.

[alertmeipp]

Sears CEO cites pension costs for not boosting store investment

 

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE97L14920130822

 

 

(Sorry if repost, this thread is too active.)

[ERICOPOLY]

Sears CEO cites pension costs for not boosting store investment

 

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE97L14920130822

 

 

(Sorry if repost, this thread is too active.)

 

They are completely unrelated.

[ERICOPOLY]

Sears has put $1.6 billion into it's pension in the past five years.

 

That's 38% of today's market value for SHLD.

 

If the updated pension obligation is $700 million lower, and another 1% rise in interest rates would drop it a further $600 million, does that not scream out at anyone other than me? The GAAP losses look ugly, but truth be told, the cash flow excluding pension looks much better. Depreciation was 3.25X greater than cap ex in the first half of this year. SHLD spent a whopping $56 million on cap ex last quarter. Add back that cash flow and the cash loss is no where near as ugly as the headlines appear. Let's face it. The pension is the bigger problem, and most people are ignoring the pension.

 

The pension has been suffocating SHLD for years. Without it, what would SHLD have done with that $1.6 billion dollars over the past five years?

 

You're not alone in really, really liking the rising interest rates and how it impacts the pension liabilities.  Rates rise 3% or so and poof the pension liability is gone.

 

Or the 10 yr goes to 1% (which might happen) in a bad upcoming recession (perhaps next year) and then what?  Their sales are falling right now without a recession... what a bad combination that could be.

[ERICOPOLY]

Sears CEO cites pension costs for not boosting store investment

 

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE97L14920130822

 

 

(Sorry if repost, this thread is too active.)

 

He very nearly accepted responsibility here for what is going on as a result of low store investment... but then it turned into an excuse.  He didn't blame the lack of cash from the$6b of buybacks, as that would be his fault, instead he blamed something out of his control.

[goldfinger]

He very nearly accepted responsibility here for what is going on as a result of low store investment... but then it turned into an excuse.  He didn't blame the lack of cash from the$6b of buybacks, as that would be his fault, instead he blamed something out of his control.

I didn't like that either. :(

 

[FCharlie]

Sears has put $1.6 billion into it's pension in the past five years.

 

That's 38% of today's market value for SHLD.

 

If the updated pension obligation is $700 million lower, and another 1% rise in interest rates would drop it a further $600 million, does that not scream out at anyone other than me? The GAAP losses look ugly, but truth be told, the cash flow excluding pension looks much better. Depreciation was 3.25X greater than cap ex in the first half of this year. SHLD spent a whopping $56 million on cap ex last quarter. Add back that cash flow and the cash loss is no where near as ugly as the headlines appear. Let's face it. The pension is the bigger problem, and most people are ignoring the pension.

 

The pension has been suffocating SHLD for years. Without it, what would SHLD have done with that $1.6 billion dollars over the past five years?

 

I really don't understand pension accounting. What you say seems sensible, but here's what the 10-Q filed today says:

 

<i>During the 13- and 26- week periods ended August 3, 2013, we made total contributions of $87 million and $176 million, respectively, to our pension and postretirement plans. During the 13- and 26- week periods ended July 28, 2012, we made total contributions of $78 million and $164 million, respectively, to our pension and postretirement plans. We anticipate making aggregate contributions to our domestic and Canadian defined benefit and postretirement plans of approximately $244 million over the remainder of 2013.</i>

 

Since the pension liability decreased by about 700 million, why does Sears still need to make these large contributions to the pension plan? Returns on pension plan assets have been decent from 2009 on, so I don't think that is it. Any ideas?

 

Also, the "pension and postretirement benefits" line in the liability part of the balance sheet only decreased from 2,730 to 2,539 or by less than 200 million dollars. I would have expected a difference of close to 700 million here. What's going on?

 

Thanks.

 

Look in the 10Q that was filed today. Regarding the liability of $2.539 billion

 

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we recognize on the balance sheet actuarial gains and losses for defined benefit pension plans annually in the fourth quarter of each fiscal year and whenever a plan is determined to qualify for a remeasurement during a fiscal year.

 

 

So..... this is a number that isn't adjusted until the 10K comes out. What the presentation did today was give an update as to where things are if the year closed out today.

 

They still will make large contributions for now. Next year everything can change and what's exciting is to look back over the years and see how much smaller SHLD's contributions were back when the pension liability was $1.6 billion and below. Free cash flow may be much closer than people think.

 

 

[alertmeipp]

Sears CEO cites pension costs for not boosting store investment

 

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE97L14920130822

 

 

(Sorry if repost, this thread is too active.)

 

They are completely unrelated.

 

Wonder why he brings it up now, this pension thing is not new.

[BTShine]

Sears has put $1.6 billion into it's pension in the past five years.

 

That's 38% of today's market value for SHLD.

 

If the updated pension obligation is $700 million lower, and another 1% rise in interest rates would drop it a further $600 million, does that not scream out at anyone other than me? The GAAP losses look ugly, but truth be told, the cash flow excluding pension looks much better. Depreciation was 3.25X greater than cap ex in the first half of this year. SHLD spent a whopping $56 million on cap ex last quarter. Add back that cash flow and the cash loss is no where near as ugly as the headlines appear. Let's face it. The pension is the bigger problem, and most people are ignoring the pension.

 

The pension has been suffocating SHLD for years. Without it, what would SHLD have done with that $1.6 billion dollars over the past five years?

 

I really don't understand pension accounting. What you say seems sensible, but here's what the 10-Q filed today says:

 

<i>During the 13- and 26- week periods ended August 3, 2013, we made total contributions of $87 million and $176 million, respectively, to our pension and postretirement plans. During the 13- and 26- week periods ended July 28, 2012, we made total contributions of $78 million and $164 million, respectively, to our pension and postretirement plans. We anticipate making aggregate contributions to our domestic and Canadian defined benefit and postretirement plans of approximately $244 million over the remainder of 2013.</i>

 

Since the pension liability decreased by about 700 million, why does Sears still need to make these large contributions to the pension plan? Returns on pension plan assets have been decent from 2009 on, so I don't think that is it. Any ideas?

 

Also, the "pension and postretirement benefits" line in the liability part of the balance sheet only decreased from 2,730 to 2,539 or by less than 200 million dollars. I would have expected a difference of close to 700 million here. What's going on?

 

Thanks.

 

Look in the 10Q that was filed today. Regarding the liability of $2.539 billion

 

In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we recognize on the balance sheet actuarial gains and losses for defined benefit pension plans annually in the fourth quarter of each fiscal year and whenever a plan is determined to qualify for a remeasurement during a fiscal year.

 

 

So..... this is a number that isn't adjusted until the 10K comes out. What the presentation did today was give an update as to where things are if the year closed out today.

 

They still will make large contributions for now. Next year everything can change and what's exciting is to look back over the years and see how much smaller SHLD's contributions were back when the pension liability was $1.6 billion and below. Free cash flow may be much closer than people think.

 

Good find.