anoldsalt asks:


How come nobody is wondering how soon the layoffs will hit and how
many will be axed? Every time a bank pulls off one of these deals
they always announce the
expected "efficiency" savings by reductions in force

You know it's going to happen, in the offices if nowhere else, but speculation
is probably fruitless. I know a bunch of people who work Sears' main office,
and a bunch of people in other companies who depend heavily on Sears in one way
or another. I don't know how things will turn out for any of them. I hope well,
but don't know.

I suppose the
efficiencies will come when they close one store or the other when
both are within 10 miles of each other. That should give them great
coverage compared to the competition ;-}

Presumably that's not going to happen, but that's today's announcement. What
tomorrow's announcement will be won't be known for a few hours. And so on down
the road.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

(David Hall) writes:

had still amassed enough cash to take over Sears. Expect to see a lot of Sears
real estate on the market (remember all the little Sears stores and Sears
Hardware stores not to mention the NTBs and other Sears owned non-Sears named
stores, many of which have closed in the last few years - lots of real estate).

Is NTB still in business? All the stores here in Minnesota only lasted a
year or two. The stores were vacant for a while and then Discount Tire
opened at some or all of the locations.

Brian Elfert

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:11:06 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Which leaves us with one company. Tar-Mart.

As long as they don't start stocking bulk feathers we should
be OK.


Brilliant.

Barry

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
:

Sufferin' succotash. Just read that Sears and Kmart will merge, an 11
billion buck deal, with the Kmart head leading the Sears Holding Co.
that will emerge, and the Sears CEO being CEO of the group.

I can see the benefit to Kmart. I cannot see the benefit to Sears.

No benefit to Sears at all. They are not really merging, Sears is
being bought by KMart. KMart wants Sears because the real estate
Sears owns is worth a bunch of money (plus they get a few brands
they can maybe make a little off, but that's lagniappe).

Note that the fact KMart can buy Sears only 3 years after bankruptcy
says there's something really wrong with the bankruptcy laws.

John

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

Supposed to come in as #3 behind Walmart and Target.

Pretty soon it'll all be one company.

Nope. Walmart is far too savvy to gulp KSearz-Mart.
They'll just watch it founder and die the slow, painful
humiliating death it deserves.

didja see the Frontline program this week? Titled something like, "Is
Walmart Good for America?" It's a retail behemoth that dictates
manufacturing and if you don't play by their rules, they're so large
they can hurt a company's income to the point of financial hardship.
Rubbermaid was one of the companies' declines illustrated by Walmart's
hardball tactics.

Once Sam died, they really embraced the race to the bottom and abandoned
the "Made in the USA" slogan.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

(Charlie Self) wrote in
:

Sufferin' succotash. Just read that Sears and Kmart will merge, an 11
billion buck deal, with the Kmart head leading the Sears Holding Co.
that will emerge, and the Sears CEO being CEO of the group.

I can see the benefit to Kmart. I cannot see the benefit to Sears.

No benefit to Sears at all. They are not really merging, Sears is
being bought by KMart. KMart wants Sears because the real estate
Sears owns is worth a bunch of money (plus they get a few brands
they can maybe make a little off, but that's lagniappe).

Note that the fact KMart can buy Sears only 3 years after bankruptcy
says there's something really wrong with the bankruptcy laws.

John

I'm not sure that follows. K-Mart was a classic case of a company rich
in illiquid assets (real estate, in this case) that had dug itself
into a cash hole with a combination of poor business practices and
inability to adapt to changing market conditions. It was technically
bankrupt since it couldn't pay its bills, but it had a lot of stuff it
could eventually convert to cash.

So in that sense it was an ideal candidate for a Chapter 11
reorganization. (Which really isn't bankruptcy as we usually think of
it.) The fact that they ended up with a wad of cash just a couple of
years later indicates they were successful in converting some of those
illiquid assets into cash.

What this says about the long-term survival of K-Mart or Sears, the
wisdom of the merger, or the ethics and tactics of the guy who put the
thing together are completely different matters.

--RC


Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

It's not like Kmart bought Sears.

Edward Lampert engineered a takeover of Kmart Holdings by converting his
debt holdings to equity when Kmart was emerging from Chapter 11. He sold
off a bunch of Kmart stores...some Home Depot...and with the cash generated
he made the offer for Sears.

According to the paper, the plan is to convert several Kmarts into Sears
stores and kick-start their expansion away from malls, at which Sears is not
doing well.

"John McCoy" wrote in message
0...
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in
:

Sufferin' succotash. Just read that Sears and Kmart will merge, an 11
billion buck deal, with the Kmart head leading the Sears Holding Co.
that will emerge, and the Sears CEO being CEO of the group.

I can see the benefit to Kmart. I cannot see the benefit to Sears.

No benefit to Sears at all. They are not really merging, Sears is
being bought by KMart. KMart wants Sears because the real estate
Sears owns is worth a bunch of money (plus they get a few brands
they can maybe make a little off, but that's lagniappe).

Note that the fact KMart can buy Sears only 3 years after bankruptcy
says there's something really wrong with the bankruptcy laws.

John

Is NTB still in business? All the stores here in Minnesota only lasted a
year or two. The stores were vacant for a while and then Discount Tire
opened at some or all of the locations.

Brian Elfert

The one down the road from me is still operating. Of course it was just built
three or four years ago.

Dave hall

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:48:10 -0700, John DeBoo
wrote:

I'm really surprised anyone in this forum gives a rats ass if KMart &
Sears merged or not given most people constant riddicule of Sears tools
and the probability they won't shop for tools at KMart for tools either.
Being that neither chain carries the tools that are so commonly
mentioned here I'm surprised the curmudgeons care.
John

I'd have to agree. I wouldn't go into a K-mart if they paid me to
shop there, and while I don't hate Sears, I don't have any interest in
them either. Everytime I've attempted to get a tool I needed at
Sears, it's been something they don't carry, so they quickly became
irrelevant to me.

Charlie Self wrote:

Sufferin' succotash. Just read that Sears and Kmart will merge, an 11 billion
buck deal, with the Kmart head leading the Sears Holding Co. that will emerge,
and the Sears CEO being CEO of the group.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On 18 Nov 2004 18:10:45 GMT, Brian Elfert wrote:

"Chuck Hoffman" writes:

Bottom line (for me anyhow): I don't buy tools or hardware at KMart. I
probably will stop shopping Sears for similar merchandise.

So, where will you buy tools that are American Made if you don't buy from
Sears?

The only option I can think of right now is Allen tools at the local Fleet
Farm. Lowes and Home Depot are both sourcing sockets and wrenches
overseas now. Home Depot quit selling anything but sets anyhow.

Allen does make nice tools. They call em Farm and Fleet around here,
but that's where I get all my stuff that isn't mail-order. Same
warranty as Craftsman, same quality as Craftsman hand tools, but
without the Sears price. I've got a whole toolbox stocked with them,
and I've never blown a socket or bent a wrench yet (can't say the same
for the tools from other vendors)

Maybe some of the chiwainese stuff is good these days, but some tools I
boght a long time ago were junk. The plating chipped off if you looked at
the tools, let alone used them.

Brian Elfert

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

BINGO! Of course, a lot of those assets are probably leveraged a bit now.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Note that the fact KMart can buy Sears only 3 years after bankruptcy
says there's something really wrong with the bankruptcy laws.

John

I'm not sure that follows. K-Mart was a classic case of a company rich
in illiquid assets (real estate, in this case) that had dug itself
into a cash hole with a combination of poor business practices and
inability to adapt to changing market conditions. It was technically
bankrupt since it couldn't pay its bills, but it had a lot of stuff it
could eventually convert to cash.

So in that sense it was an ideal candidate for a Chapter 11
reorganization. (Which really isn't bankruptcy as we usually think of
it.) The fact that they ended up with a wad of cash just a couple of
years later indicates they were successful in converting some of those
illiquid assets into cash.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:41:20 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

didja see the Frontline program this week? Titled something like, "Is
Walmart Good for America?" It's a retail behemoth that dictates
manufacturing and if you don't play by their rules, they're so large
they can hurt a company's income to the point of financial hardship.
Rubbermaid was one of the companies' declines illustrated by Walmart's
hardball tactics.

Sears did much the same thing in past decades, tho not to
the extreme that Walmart has taken it.

"GregP" wrote in message


Sears did much the same thing in past decades, tho not to
the extreme that Walmart has taken it.

Corporate America and never been all that warm and fuzzy. Either compete ...
or get you a government contract.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Swingman notes:

"GregP" wrote in message


Sears did much the same thing in past decades, tho not to
the extreme that Walmart has taken it.

Corporate America and never been all that warm and fuzzy. Either compete ...
or get you a government contract.


True. They project the image for the customers, not the vendors.

Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx

wrote in
:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

No benefit to Sears at all. They are not really merging, Sears is
being bought by KMart. KMart wants Sears because the real estate
Sears owns is worth a bunch of money (plus they get a few brands
they can maybe make a little off, but that's lagniappe).

Note that the fact KMart can buy Sears only 3 years after bankruptcy
says there's something really wrong with the bankruptcy laws.

John

I'm not sure that follows. K-Mart was a classic case of a company rich
in illiquid assets (real estate, in this case) that had dug itself
into a cash hole with a combination of poor business practices and
inability to adapt to changing market conditions. It was technically
bankrupt since it couldn't pay its bills, but it had a lot of stuff it
could eventually convert to cash.

Yeah - Sears is in much the same position, except it's not in such
a bad state cash-flow-wise.

So in that sense it was an ideal candidate for a Chapter 11
reorganization. (Which really isn't bankruptcy as we usually think of
it.) The fact that they ended up with a wad of cash just a couple of
years later indicates they were successful in converting some of those
illiquid assets into cash.

Yes, and it would seem that success is encouraging the mgmt to
try much the same process with Sears. Again you have a company
"rich in illiquid assets", so the same process of converting them
to cash should be just as successful.

What this says about the long-term survival of K-Mart or Sears, the
wisdom of the merger, or the ethics and tactics of the guy who put the
thing together are completely different matters.

I'm not saying anything about the ethics of the guys running KMart.
They have played the game according to the rules, and played it
well. The issue I see is that the rules allowed them to abrogate
a lot of debt and committments (e.g. the suppliers who had to eat
inventory when KMart was able to break purchasing contracts); _then_
convert the illiquid assets to cash. Under a traditional bankruptcy
the illiquid assets would have been used to satisfy the existing
committments. I think the rules should be adjusted, not with the
intent of putting a company like KMart out of business, but to at
least ensure obligations can't be written off while large value
assets are sheltered.

John

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:09:37 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

wrote in
:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:53:20 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

No benefit to Sears at all. They are not really merging, Sears is
being bought by KMart. KMart wants Sears because the real estate
Sears owns is worth a bunch of money (plus they get a few brands
they can maybe make a little off, but that's lagniappe).

Note that the fact KMart can buy Sears only 3 years after bankruptcy
says there's something really wrong with the bankruptcy laws.

John

I'm not sure that follows. K-Mart was a classic case of a company rich
in illiquid assets (real estate, in this case) that had dug itself
into a cash hole with a combination of poor business practices and
inability to adapt to changing market conditions. It was technically
bankrupt since it couldn't pay its bills, but it had a lot of stuff it
could eventually convert to cash.

Yeah - Sears is in much the same position, except it's not in such
a bad state cash-flow-wise.

So in that sense it was an ideal candidate for a Chapter 11
reorganization. (Which really isn't bankruptcy as we usually think of
it.) The fact that they ended up with a wad of cash just a couple of
years later indicates they were successful in converting some of those
illiquid assets into cash.

Yes, and it would seem that success is encouraging the mgmt to
try much the same process with Sears. Again you have a company
"rich in illiquid assets", so the same process of converting them
to cash should be just as successful.

What this says about the long-term survival of K-Mart or Sears, the
wisdom of the merger, or the ethics and tactics of the guy who put the
thing together are completely different matters.

I'm not saying anything about the ethics of the guys running KMart.
They have played the game according to the rules, and played it
well. The issue I see is that the rules allowed them to abrogate
a lot of debt and committments (e.g. the suppliers who had to eat
inventory when KMart was able to break purchasing contracts); _then_
convert the illiquid assets to cash. Under a traditional bankruptcy
the illiquid assets would have been used to satisfy the existing
committments. I think the rules should be adjusted, not with the
intent of putting a company like KMart out of business, but to at
least ensure obligations can't be written off while large value
assets are sheltered.

John

The rule in a case like this is that everyone gets to negotiate and at
least the majority of each class of creditors has to approve the reorg
before the court accepts it. In other words those suppliers had a seat
at the table and a chance to be heard, so it's not as unfair as it
seems.

If they'd gone through an actual bankruptcy rather than a reorg the
creditors would have had a shot at getting part of those real estate
assets as they were sold. The problem with that is that it either
takes several years to liquidate everything or you end up selling it
off as fire sale prices.

In a reorg creditors such as suppliers are typically compensated in
part in equity (stock, basically), which means they get something
faster and have a shot at more if the reorganized company prospers.

What it comes down to is a judgement call for the creditors and a
whole lot of heavy duty negotiating among the various interested
parties and their attorneys. Those negotiations are typically pretty
brutal.

--RC

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

wrote in
news
No benefit to Sears at all. They are not really merging, Sears is
being bought by KMart. KMart wants Sears because the real estate
Sears owns is worth a bunch of money

How come everything I have seen indicates that Sears was the one buying
Kmart?

It's about real-estate. Sears has bought 66 existing K-mart and Wal-Mart
stores/buildings over the past 12 months as they pursue their "off mall"
strategy. For a company flush with cash such as Sears, 11 billion was probably
a bargain compared to buying up more individual stores. This merger gives the
new company (Sears Holding Corp.) a total of 3500 locations. I can't speak for
all of the off-mall stores, but the one locally being converted (a former
K-Mart) they will even be carrying groceries. We've heard that stores will be
carrying lumber as well (yes, I work part time at Sears). Sounds to me like
they're trying to go after both Home-Depot and Wal-Mart. I figure if their
lumber and groceries are like that of Home Depot and Wal-Mart I'll continue
buying my groceries at grocery stores and lumber at lumber yards.

Kevin Daly
http://hometown.aol.com/kdaly10475/page1.html

"Howard" wrote in message

Prediction: Sears/KMart will be merely a footnote in the history books
under "failed companies" in another decade or so. And I will bid them
both "Good Riddance."

Don't hold back Howard, let us know how you really think.