|
Cicero posted:How is Searsguy still CEO? If he's so obviously incompetent, why hasn't the board removed him? He's probably buddy buddy with the rest of the board.
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Cicero posted:How is Searsguy still CEO? If he's so obviously incompetent, why hasn't the board removed him? He owns about 58% of the voting stock.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
It's also possible (probable, even) that he has a golden parachute that will award him an absurd amount of money if he leaves/gets fired for literally any reason before a particular date. People intent on plundering a company like that do what they can to set it up in such a way that they can't be stopped from doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
The other issue is, where's the money in trying to help Sears at this point?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
A tax write-off?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The stores and assets aren't guaranteed to cover debts anytime soon. A lot of the property isn't going to be bought up soon if ever, and the other assets are likely to be sold off before actually bankruptcy. Several Sears brands were already sold. Yeah I've seen some old stores just sitting empty for years with aging For Lease signs collecting dust. Brick and mortar retail is never going to recover to where it was
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:He owns about 58% of the voting stock. This, and most of the board has been packed with his buddies for ages, basically since shortly after he engineered the merger between K-Mart and Sears.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Sears' CEO wrote a huge blog post to address the Reuters story about vendors refusing to sell merchandise to Sears or extend any credit to the store. Some vendors are demanding full cash upfront for all merchandise from Sears - no credit, no payments over time, no loans - out of fear that they will get stiffed in bankruptcy. Sears stock dropped 20% in the last week to the lowest value in over 60 years. quote:Sears stock tanks as CEO takes aim at vendors, saying: 'We will not simply roll over' Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:09 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Sears' CEO wrote a huge blog post to address the Reuters story about vendors refusing to sell merchandise to Sears or extend any credit to the store. Act like a pariah, get treated like a pariah; drat the world is so unfair lmbo
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Act like a pariah, get treated like a pariah; drat the world is so unfair lmbo The Free Market giveth, and the Free Market taketh away. It's amazing how Randian supermen can't seem to understand this. It is LITERALLY the thing they worship, but can't seem to actually understand how it works.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Not sure you can change the way people do business with you to include them giving you stuff for free bud.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
anonumos posted:The Free Market giveth, and the Free Market taketh away. Its only good when it works for them and fucks over other people
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
These are the same people that want monopolies where they're the one who controls the whole shebang. The Free Market has never existed but as a crutch to empower CEOs.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
TechCrunch has an interesting article on what makes Amazon so different from their competitors and why they will likely continue to eat the rest of the retail sector:Why Amazon is eating the world posted:I remember reading about the common pitfalls of vertically integrated companies when I was in school. While there are usually some compelling cost savings to be had from vertical integration (either through insourcing services or acquiring suppliers/customers), the increased margins typically evaporate over time as the “supplier” gets complacent with a captive, internal “customer.” The whole article is worth a read.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:He owns about 58% of the voting stock. Good, he's prob losing a shitload of money as its stock tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Good, he's prob losing a shitload of money as its stock tanks. Yea that's the funniest part of all this, he really hasn't been able to run the company into the ground without also really loving up a major part of his wealth.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Good, he's prob losing a shitload of money as its stock tanks. If that were the only way he was profiting off the situation he wouldn't be doing it. It's easier to pillage and burn a company for a quick buck than it is to actually run a company properly.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If that were the only way he was profiting off the situation he wouldn't be doing it. It's easier to pillage and burn a company for a quick buck than it is to actually run a company properly. How can he possibly profit from SEARS being burned into the ground? Get a dollar for every empty warehouse from Amazon? Wouldn't he get more money by keeping it as stable and effective as it can so he can just sell it for a higher price to Amazon now instead of in a begging fire-sale a few months from now?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:How can he possibly profit from SEARS being burned into the ground? Get a dollar for every empty warehouse from Amazon? Wouldn't he get more money by keeping it as stable and effective as it can so he can just sell it for a higher price to Amazon now instead of in a begging fire-sale a few months from now? Selling assets, brands owned by Sears, etc. Selling real-estate. Sears is a pretty old company that owns a lot of things. Or did, anyway; if memory serves a lot of that stuff has been sold. He also has a holding company that controls K-Mart and Sears. The big thing to look at here is that those companies actually own a ton of exclusive things. Lampert also controls a hedge fund and those things get up to all sorts of financial fuckery and shenanigans where tanking and pillaging a company can turn a profit. Granted it's also possible that he's just plain lost his damned mind.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Selling assets, brands owned by Sears, etc. Selling real-estate. Sears is a pretty old company that owns a lot of things. Or did, anyway; if memory serves a lot of that stuff has been sold. He also has a holding company that controls K-Mart and Sears. The big thing to look at here is that those companies actually own a ton of exclusive things. Lampert also controls a hedge fund and those things get up to all sorts of financial fuckery and shenanigans where tanking and pillaging a company can turn a profit. But he's not really making money for himself from that? The vast majority of that money is going into Sears itself, only to immediately be spent to try to prop upt he rest of the business as he continues loving up. From all appearances, he's just loving himself up, and only making up a small part of that with his hedge fund and other assets taken from Sears. He's behaving as if he really thinks his things are just a months away from making Sears do really well again. Check out this article: http://fortune.com/2017/03/31/sears-eddie-lampert-net-worth-hedge-fund/ "While shares of Sears (shld, -12.43%) fell nearly 55% in 2016 amid bankruptcy rumors, the assets in Lampert's 29-year-old fund ESL Investments have dwindled a matching 55% in the same period. Sears, making up about a third of Lampert's portfolio, was a major contributor to the the hedge fund's shrink, but investors have also abandoned the fund recently, taking their money with them. By the end of 2016, Lampert's fund held a mere $653 million—a sizable decline of 94% from the $16.5 billion it once managed at Sears' peak in 2007, according to securities filings. Lampert's turnaround plan for Sears has so far not only failed to bring the struggling retailer back to health, but it has also been a personal disaster for the investor's net worth. Lampert's fund held $3.8 billion when he became CEO at the beginning of 2013, but those assets have dropped 84% since then, a Fortune analysis found—even greater than Sears' 74% drop in the same period. Wilson's stake in Sears, along with Sears Canada, once worth billions of dollars, is now valued at just $285 million. At least part of the reason Lampert's losses outpaced those of Sears' was due to the hedge funder significantly paring down stakes in his two other major holdings, AutoNation (an, +3.00%) and Gap (gps, +0.16%). Neither or those stocks have done well since 2013, with Gap down 39% by the end of 2016, and AutoNation down 3.3%. The flagging performance has also prompted Lampert's shareholders to pull their money out of the fund, according to the New York Times."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Selling assets, brands owned by Sears, etc. Selling real-estate. Sears is a pretty old company that owns a lot of things. Or did, anyway; if memory serves a lot of that stuff has been sold. He also has a holding company that controls K-Mart and Sears. The big thing to look at here is that those companies actually own a ton of exclusive things. Lampert also controls a hedge fund and those things get up to all sorts of financial fuckery and shenanigans where tanking and pillaging a company can turn a profit. Yes he's lost his mind and is losing tons of money and is going to lose more. Some specific things he does will turn a profit but overall he owns a company and is tanking it and is losing doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Which is why I said whatever he has now, would be better to sell before he loses even more through liquidation or the toxic decay of his assets. Like there's possibly a ton of money to be made right now just giving up the chase to Amazon, but trying to dictate the terms of handing over their empire for maybe a spot in the Amazon throne room or just a fat stack of cash for himself right now, without any sort of effort into trying to do bookkeeping fuckery to squeeze poo poo out of hedge-funds or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If that were the only way he was profiting off the situation he wouldn't be doing it. It's easier to pillage and burn a company for a quick buck than it is to actually run a company properly. quote:"Sears, making up about a third of Lampert's portfolio, was a major contributor to the the hedge fund's shrink, but investors have also abandoned the fund recently, taking their money with them. By the end of 2016, Lampert's fund held a mere $653 million—a sizable decline of 94% from the $16.5 billion it once managed at Sears' peak in 2007, according to securities filings. His 11 billion dollars he used to have has been reduced to like 400m dollars and might well end up worth even less than that. Running sears has already cost him more than ten billions dollars personally. He doesn't have another 10b dollars to sweep in with to capitalize on it even if he wanted to or somehow could. He's not gutting the company to make money from the collapse, he's ruined himself and pissed away his fortune. http://fortune.com/2017/03/31/sears-eddie-lampert-net-worth-hedge-fund/ hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:41 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/seek-embarrass-us-sears-ceo-154851431.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=ma Holy poo poo he's calling out his chinese supplier. e: better link incoherent fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Re: The several page back and forth on buying clothes being hard for their "specific" body type-- Ask nearly anyone that cares about buying well fitting clothing if they have a hard time finding clothes. Hint, their answer will be yes. e: Uh, but don't listen to me I guess because I wear 2 pairs of leggings as one pair of pants. I am a walking abomination. e2: Jesus loving Christ we have a young lady posting pix of her legs in here. WTF. e3: I worked at a tech company that poached the treasurer from Amazon for a little while, and through various company meetings learned that Amazon was very mature about looking at its business, financially speaking, with long term goals that meant it was likely to not generate much profit in the short term. I don't have much business acumen, but that essentially communicated to me that you'll have to make some stringent sacrifices in order to be successful in terms of reach and relevance instead of just revenue. I wonder if Amazon was more focused on generating more reasonable profits early on if it would have overtaken our marketplace in such a drastic way. CmdrRiker fucked around with this message at 04:28 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
I think that Lampert believes he's going to come out ahead on the Sears stuff and all he looted. The problem is that it looks like he'll at absolute best end up back at his net worth of 2004, and even that would be unlikely. A monkey throwing darts at a decision board could have run Sears better.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
And hear I thought he was just another vulture capitalist wrecking a company to feast on the corpse.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:And hear I thought he was just another vulture capitalist wrecking a company to feast on the corpse. Yea it turns he's just some kinda actual true believer in Ayn Randism, unlike the normal type of libertarian who ignores it when it becomes unprofitable. If he just wanted to raid the company, he would have gotten out like 7 years ago. Instead he seems to believe he's doing The Right Thing and he'll get rewarded any minute now.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:Re: The several page back and forth on buying clothes being hard for their "specific" body type-- Ask nearly anyone that cares about buying well fitting clothing if they have a hard time finding clothes. Hint, their answer will be yes. Two things can both be bad with one still being worse. "Doesn't fit right" is a problem, but a much easier problem than "literally no brick-and-mortar store anywhere in your town sells clothing you can physically fit into." And before GBS squad hurrrrs about how fatties deserve it for not just killing themselves, fashion plus-size starts well within normal human ranges. And this is a thread about retail collapse and there's a massive sector of the retail industry flatly refusing to sell to a massive sector of their potential customers. Like, Banana Republic was selling women's blazers with a six-inch sleeve circumference and now they're whining that business is slow. Things are broken.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Two things can both be bad with one still being worse. "Doesn't fit right" is a problem, but a much easier problem than "literally no brick-and-mortar store anywhere in your town sells clothing you can physically fit into." And before GBS squad hurrrrs about how fatties deserve it for not just killing themselves, fashion plus-size starts well within normal human ranges. And this is a thread about retail collapse and there's a massive sector of the retail industry flatly refusing to sell to a massive sector of their potential customers. I think you make several reasonable and convincing arguments on the topic, but I am still unswayed about whether discussing fashion tips or faux pas is still on topic. Maybe no more than topic adjacent.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Two young women posted pictures of our tights. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Two young women posted pictures of our tights. The most I feel comfortable with relaying is the fact that I just didn't expect it, and once I saw it I was still not expecting it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
i think the problem with this whole retail collapse situation is that retail and capitalism are the wrong way to do things. i think we should all be naked all the time. in addition we should all strive to become as fat and obese as possible. This woild solve our problems manyfold> First, by being naked, we wouldnt be spending so much money on clothes and there wouldnt be stores in the first place to close down, so nobody would lose their jobs. Second, nobody would make fun of anyone else for not wearing the latest fashions because we'd all be nakes. Third, nobody would make fun of anybody else for being a fatty chub chubs, because we'd all be fat and roly poly. Fourth we wouldnt get cold because we will be fat and our blubber would keep as warm. Fifth we wouldnt miss pockets because we could put things in our fat folds. I have done my part now you all do yours. Together we can make a differenccce (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:I think you make several reasonable and convincing arguments on the topic, but I am still unswayed about whether discussing fashion tips or faux pas is still on topic. Maybe no more than topic adjacent. Good thing I haven't been doing that then, huh. Ballpark it for me, how many times a day do you go "Ugh I'm not like most girls. They're all vapid bitches." We talking two digits here, three?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Good thing I haven't been doing that then, huh. Ballpark it for me, how many times a day do you go "Ugh I'm not like most girls. They're all vapid bitches." We talking two digits here, three? There is nothing unique about me, and I just find the topic in this particular medium to be a tad strange. But thanks for seeing something in me.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:I think you make several reasonable and convincing arguments on the topic, but I am still unswayed about whether discussing fashion tips or faux pas is still on topic. Maybe no more than topic adjacent. It's fundamentally on topic. Retail that is not customer facing is dying. This is one of the most basic things these companies are loving up.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's fundamentally on topic. Disagree. While the broader topic on the limitations of manufacturing, advertising, and selling various items of various fashionable qualities en masse is on topic, the trivial details in and of themselves which appraise the relative fashionable qualities per specific body types, genders, etc is pretty boring. Style and fashion are pretty volatile, and the specifics and trends themselves aren't really appropriate or interesting. More appropriately, the topics do not match my expectations given what I read leading up to the conversation. e: Getting to the point because it is late and I maybe over elaborated: The statement "Companies seem to annoyingly cater to this unrealistic demographic is negatively impactful and hurting retail businesses" seems relevant. The statement "yeah, but look at these tights I end up buying because their unrealistic demographic doesn't fit me personally" is more like "Yeah, everyone has that same problem because that's what happens when you pick a single demographic and mass produce a select style for them and advertise it for the entire population. Next." CmdrRiker fucked around with this message at 06:20 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:Disagree. While the broader topic on the limitations of manufacturing, advertising, and selling various items of various fashionable qualities en masse is on topic, the trivial details in and of themselves which appraise the relative fashionable qualities per specific body types, genders, etc is pretty boring. Style and fashion are pretty volatile, and the specifics and trends themselves aren't really appropriate or interesting. More appropriately, the topics do not match my expectations given what I read leading up to the conversation. My wife has to shop children's petite for clothes. To get a good pair of boots that have good treads she has to look at boys. To get really high quality work pants I buy used women's pants (red ants) There's is pretty big problem inherent those examples. Clothing retailer that don't sell what thier customers want, have a major issue. Meeting these needs means success for a company in clothing retail. Not finding it interesting, means death for them.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:Disagree. While the broader topic on the limitations of manufacturing, advertising, and selling various items of various fashionable qualities en masse is on topic, the trivial details in and of themselves which appraise the relative fashionable qualities per specific body types, genders, etc is pretty boring. Style and fashion are pretty volatile, and the specifics and trends themselves aren't really appropriate or interesting. More appropriately, the topics do not match my expectations given what I read leading up to the conversation. Oh no, snowflake is bored. Pack it in, everyone. You have now made more posts than there were tights posts. Do you police every two-post derail on the forums or just the ones you find beneath you.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:e: Getting to the point because it is late and I maybe over elaborated: The statement "Companies seem to annoyingly cater to this unrealistic demographic is negatively impactful and hurting retail businesses" seems relevant. The statement "yeah, but look at these tights I end up buying because their unrealistic demographic doesn't fit me personally" is more like "Yeah, everyone has that same problem because that's what happens when you pick a single demographic and mass produce a select style for them and advertise it for the entire population. Next." "because that's what happens when you pick a single demographic and mass produce a select style for them" They can't do this any more. Doing this is not customer facing. This eventually kills the business.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 06:23
|
|