Sears vs. J.C. Penney: Which is worse?
Both of these storied retailers are on the skids. But if you want to bet on a turnaround, it's clear that one of them is trying harder.
By Jeff Reeves for MarketWatch
Choosing between Sears or J.C. Penney right now is a bit like choosing between eating sawdust or getting a root canal.
Neither option is appealing.
The stocks of these storied retailers are both suffering -- losses, revenue declines, stock prices that have dropped precipitously since 2011 and brands tarnished in the eyes of consumers and investors alike.
(Article continues after video.)
That’s for one simple reason: J.C. Penney is reducing costs and trying to reinvent itself out of necessity, while Sears started the process of bone-deep cuts long ago... with seemingly no intention of ever stopping.
Given the choice between a struggling company that is trying to improve and a company that doesn’t care about long-term strategy as long as it makes this quarter’s numbers, I’ll take the former.
Let me show you a deeper look at both Sears and J.C. Penney.
Sears is its own worst enemy
To be clear: I don’t mean to imply Sears management, led by hedge fund icon Eddie Lampert, doesn’t care about the company or its shareholders. Deep cost cutting has likely been to boost profits as much as possible -- or at least to juice the company’s stock price.
After all, Lampert’s ESL Investments has held a massive stake in the retailer since he orchestrated a merger between Sears and Kmart in 2005. And even after redemptions forced him to cut the stake recently, ESL still owns 48% of Sears at last tally. That’s a stake that Lampert would clearly rather see rise than fall, both for his personal fortune and for his reputation.
Unfortunately, the actions taken under Lampert’s leadership appear short-sighted and a serious impediment to any future success. Any efficiency has been had, and there’s little juice left for the squeezing at Sears.
Consider that, for several years, the company has internally functioned under a “decentralized system” of business divisions. It’s a system that, one former exec described as “warring tribes” and that author Mina Kimes likens to “The Hunger Games” in a cutting BloombergBusinessweek profile of Sears after Lampert formally took the reins as CEO of Sears in 2013.
To make matters worse, this constant war over resources has been increasingly fierce as revenue has steadily dried up. In 2006, Sears posted revenue of over $53.0 billion, and should finish its most recent fiscal year at $36.6 billion -- a decline of over 30%.
Look at the company’s declining capital expenditures and you’ll see just how little Sears is investing in its future. Across 2011, Sears spent $432 million on capital expenditures. Across 2012, it was $378 million. And by my math, Sears will easily finish under $300 million in capex with only $201 million spent over the first three quarters of the year.
Just do some quick math and you’ll see how paltry that is. Sears has about 2,500 full-line and specialty retail stores, equaling about $120,000 per location for the year.
By contrast, Target (TGT) has about 1,800 locations and spent $3.2 billion last year -- more than 10 times what Sears dished out, equaling about $1.78 million per location. Oh, and Target has increased its capex roughly 50% from $2.1 billion in 2011, while Sears has been cutting back.
This is not a new trend, either. I expect total capex for Sears since the beginning of 2008 to come in well under $2.4 billion when fourth-quarter numbers are reported. That means despite having fewer total locations, Target spends more in one year than Sears has spent on improvements to its business since before the Great Recession.
When it comes to Sears, its recent capex numbers speak volumes on how the company is being run with a painfully short-term outlook.
J.C. Penney at least tried
Of course, it’s worth noting that sometimes miserly behavior like that at Sears is necessary to keep the lights on. After all, Sears simply has less potential than it did 20 years ago.
Case in point: Thanks in part to incredibly lean operations, Sears is in a better cash position than embattled rival J.C. Penney. By my tally, Sears carries $4.7 billion in total debt vs. a $4.5 billion capitalization -- an ugly number, sure, but much more comfortable than the $5.6 billion in total debt Penney carries on a market cap that’s just $2.4 billion.
All this debt doesn’t come cheap, either, considering both have CCC+ debt ratings from S&P that the agency reserves for companies that are “vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.”
Case in point: Penney has a batch of bonds due in 2015 that carry a whopping 6.875% interest rate, while some 2016 notes carry a 7.65% rate.
One could argue J.C. Penney should have been more aggressive with cuts and could take a page out of the Sears playbook — based on both the debt levels as well as stock performance; Sears stock is down only slightly in the last year while Penney shares have sold off a staggering 60%.
But here’s the thing: At least Penney tried. I would much rather invest in a company that attempted to grow and failed than a company that appears to have resigned itself to circling the drain.
J.C. Penney took a big shot in 2012 on an ambitious (and some might label naïve) “store within a store” strategy, a plan that hoped to evolve the business under the guidance of former Apple (AAPL) retail chief Ron Johnson. It failed miserably, as evidenced most painfully in a staggering $552 million loss in the fourth quarter of 2012.
So Penney fired Johnson and replaced him with Mike Ullman, the CEO who presided on roughly seven years of disappointing sales at the retailer before Johnson took over in 2011. The company has pretty much hit the “reset” button to stabilize things.
Bears have good reason to be skeptical with a debt load like that and a severe case of déjà vu in the C-Suite. And given the history of Penney’s stock, investors are clearly unwilling to go through this again.
But like I said... at least Penney and its board knew that something had to give.
Doing something beats doing nothing
Like I said, I have zero interest in buying either of these battered retail players right now. In fact, if you want trading advice regarding these stocks, my best idea is to buy calls to protect against a squeeze and then short them instead.
But while both stocks are in deep trouble, I have more faith in J.C. Penney than Sears.
Sears seems to be content on spinning off businesses where it can find value, like the planned Lands’ End spinoff and the Sears Hometown and Outlet (SHOS) spinoff from 2013 -- and simply bleeding the rest of the business dry.
Penney took a big gamble and failed, and is now regrouping. Whether it has enough time on the clock is anybody’s guess, but at least it has a plan.
The same can’t be said for Sears. Lampert is acting out Wall Street cliché, slashing and burning in the wake of the 2005 Sears-Kmart mash-up with no apparent long-term plan to speak of and no short-term plan beyond the idea of more profits at any cost.
I don’t know if either stock will end the year higher -- and people are speculating about whether either stock will even be publicly traded anymore in 12 months’ time.
But if I had to back one of these companies on turnaround hopes, my money is on J.C. Penney.
More at MarketWatch:
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
It's just a shame that it probably won't happen like that.
I hope neither goes under..... I don't want to see anyone lose there jobs even if management is phucked up.
I would agree with you pretty much Mr. Reeves, except for ONE thing. The current CEO and the previous CEO at least TRIED to boot JC Penny. Like you say, at LEAST give them credit for that. They may have made dumb decisions, but they did at least try.
Now, at Sears, you have Lampert pretty much doing nothing but playing people off against each other. He is NOT trying to save the company, he is trying to LIQUIDATE it. I AM NOT a CEO, but even I can see what he's doing. And what he's doing, is trying to make Sears as CRAPPY as possible, and he's doing it on purpose!!! If he REALLY wanted to save Sears, he would be doing EXACTLY the opposite of what he's been doing. If I can see it, then HE should definitely see it. Since we can assume he does see it, and is doing this to Sears on purpose, you just KNOW he's got some short-sighted monetary gain in mind. GREED. GREED GREED.
.....Sears is in a financial death spiral.....................
Their balace sheet is unsound and the market cap is skewed higher due to Lampert propping up the share price since he owns 48% of the shares which minimizes the fluctuations. Additionally, the Sears name and reputation is permanently tarnished as can be attested by all the negative comments on this forum. Lampert is clearly selling off assets which will expedite the bankuptcy of Sears Holdings. My guess is 2-5 years at the most. Sears, Roebuck and Co. will end their 100+ year run. I have many fond memories of Sears - but their no longer competitive in today's retail enviironment.
JCP meanwhile has a good, sound reputation, public image and perception. The bankruptcy of Sears will further boost JCP. America needs a good mid-level retailer.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
Apple has a new entry in the cell phone wars. But how often do you buy a new phone?
Thanks for being one of the first people to vote. Results will be available soon. Check for results
- As soon as one comes out. I'm an early adopter.
- Every year. I need to keep up.
- Every two to three years, when my contract allows.
- If it's not broken, who needs a new phone?