Categories
Articles

Lampert’s Move: Yes, Its About Brands

Eddie Lampert’s move at Sears Holdings (SHLD) on Friday is a big one in unlocking value at the retailer.

In November I stressed that Sears was not so much of a retailer story but a brand one. The general idea was that post and several others was that Lampert would eventually leverage the quality brands he has.

The Wall St. Journal reported Saturday that Lampert is doing just that.

Said the Journal, “A Sears spokesman confirmed the moves late Friday, saying the new structure will provide operating businesses with “greater control, authority and autonomy.”

It continued, “The contemplated restructuring would create separate units to manage Sears’s real-estate holdings and run brands such as Kenmore, Diehard and Craftsman. It isn’t clear how the units would be divided or which unit would run the stores themselves.

The structure would allow Mr. Lampert to spin off or close business units more easily, said a person knowledgeable about his thinking. “He warmed to the idea of a spin-off strategy,” this person said. The company also is willing to be flexible about how each unit will be set up, based on the skills of its operating executive. One practical effect of that could be to reduce costs.”

He is essentially setting up Sears like Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A).

This is probably the single best thing Lampert could have done. Why? Let’s say I am the newly minted head of the Kenmore line. What is my first move? Pick up the phone and call Home Depot (HD) and Lowe’s (LOW) and see who want to sell some of the best appliances out there. When I hang up, I tell them they can expect a call from the Craftsmen guy next. Will they license the brands to GE (GE) to expand sales even more?

Will we see Diehard batteries in Wal-Mart’s (WMT) or Targets’s (TGT) automotive sections soon? How about AutoZone’s (AZ)?

With Wal-Mart consistently trying to upgrade it apparel options, could we see either Lands End, Joe Boxer, Covington, Structure or Canyon River Blues on the shelves? With Target looking for refreshed options after a very disappointing holiday season, might they take a stab at it?

The main issue with Sears as it is set up now is that the closing of questionable locations now dramatically impacts sales. If the brands are being sold through other locations, closing and selling stores can have a more positive effect on the bottom line as the sales impact is not nearly as great but the expense reduction is the same.

We know Target has been begging Lampert to sell them hundreds of locations. Could the newly separated real estate management arm rather than selling them become a landlord to Target? Rather than just closing a Kmart location, rent it to Target. In that respect, that division becomes a REIT to the holding company. With 3,500 locations under it, the options are incredible.

The point is that if the main brands that account for the majority of the profits currently are licensed and sold through other outlets, the importance of the physical stores are diminished. It also means that Sears now has more options for the marginal stores it may be carrying now. Sears could keep the best and most profitable locations while disposing of the lesser ones through leases or outright sales and keep merchandise sales and profits going through other retailers.

This is exciting..

Disclosure (“none” means no position): Long Sears, Long Wal-Mart, None in others

Todd Sullivan's- ValuePlays

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Visit the ValuePlays Bookstore for Great Investing Books

8 replies on “Lampert’s Move: Yes, Its About Brands”

I don’t believe that there’s any opportunity to leverage the RE portfolio in the current environment.

retailers are slashing new store openings and I’d be curious to see why Target would be any different.

M,

of course there is not now. even if they decided to do everything i proposed, it would be 6 months to a year minimum until production of the brands was sufficient to outfit another retailer..

that being said, any move like that regarding RE would not even begin to take shape until the fall at the earliest..

First thing that came mind when I read the article this morning was, “Valueplays called this one.”
When these units begin to operate as wholly owned subsidiaries would there be a potential for these brands to be sold off (Black & Decker acquiring Craftsman, or Whirlpool buying Kenmore)? What do you feel would be the best case scenerio for shareholders? The article stated: “He (Lampert) warmed to the idea of a spin-off strategy”, can we read more into these words .. like the possibility of taking some of these brands public. Whirlpool has a market cap of $5.5B, Black & Decker is worth $4B.
One last question, what are tonight’s lottery numbers?

vlado,

thank you

i think to get real $$ for the brands, they need to be pervasive. i can by a whirlpool washer or dryer in any retailer that sells washers and dryers. we need that kind of distribution first in all the brands. that will take time but this “break up” if you want to call it that is step one

then they have real value. to be honest, i am not sure if i ever want to get rid of them. maybe the clothing ones because margins are so small on them but the craftsmen, kenmore and diehard are just a gold mine..

i think there might be regulatory hurdles if whirlpool tried to buy kenmore. but they fooled me once already…

The article points out that Orange County Choppers (OCC) will carry Diehard batteries:


In addition, the partnership will include the following:
OCC will sell DieHard batteries in their new retail store in
Newburgh, NY
— DieHard battery signage in the OCC shop along with a unique battery
maintainer station
— A link to diehardbatteries.com from orangecountychoppers.com
— DieHard branding on shirts worn by OCC mechanics

Todd,

I would like to preface my comments by stating my appreciation for your informative blogging. Your insight is both rational and lucid, in a world where such commentary is rare.

The beauty in Lampert’s strategy to for expanding the distribution channels is that it ties up less capital in producing more earnings. Rather than float the costs attendant in running stores, have the channel distributor carry them.

While many will argue that this destroys the competitive advantage in Sears stores, again, the value as you’ve stated is in the brand.

To argue the point, Apple Inc sells most of its product OUTSIDE its formal retail operations through its distributors. What differentiates a store from its competitors is not its products but rather, its presentation. I too, believe this will be fixed in select SHLD locations provided the return is to Lampert’s liking. All in due time…

p.s. A good discussion of asset-to-earnings efficiency can be read from Buffett’s 83′ letter in its appendix. See’s Candy is used as an example.

p.s.s. Also in this letter is Buffett’s hesitancy for capital expenditures in the face of poor business economics. I find this humorous given the 1 million and one criticisms for Lampert heeding this very advice.

Comments are closed.