while i don't disagree with your broad brush comments, a lot of your specifics are factually incorrect.
when you say "he" wasn't willing to do the visionary things in the 90's, any reference to lampert or esl at that point is baseless.
lampert's esl fund (when it was worth way more than it is now) started purchasing kmart debt in 2002 AFTER kmart filed for bankruptcy. can't find any evidence either lampert or esl had an equity position in kmart either before or during the time kmart was in bankruptcy. therefore, he had no vested interest in preserving common shareholders.
unlike the kmart situation, lampert/esl have a significant equity and debt position in sears and those positions were held before bankruptcy.
WHILE I DON'T KNOW IF SEARS COMMON SHAREHOLDERS WILL SURVIVE IN THE EVENT LAMPERT/ESL ARE SUCCESSFUL IN THE BID FOR SEARS, they certainly have a significant interest in having the common stock survive since they hold over 40% of the outstanding common stock.
can't find anywhere that lampert/esl had any director or officer position in sears in the 90's. in fact, he didn't become ceo until 2013 so attributing his failures in the 90's to do anything to turn around sears is ridiculous.
history may be our teacher with respect to looking at lampert's decisions, but any history associated with lampert involving kmart and sears certainly didn't begin in the early 90's as you suggest.
again, i have no way of knowing whether or not sears or its common shareholders will survive, but any analysis of that situation is probably best based on facts not lies.
AI
