In short: Cited as an example — the dying-retail yield trap: a huge yield 5–10 years ago while bricks-and-mortar was "in the death throes." (She adds Macy's "just had really good numbers, which surprised me.")
19:40And sure enough they cut the dividend. So I would really say that sometimes it even looks sustainable on paper but if it just doesn't logically make sense... You saw with the retailers, the retailers like Macy's and Gap and Nordstrom and all those and Kohl's, all those guys had huge yields five and 10 years ago but you knew that [clears throat] bricks and mortar retail was dying, they were in the death throes. Actually I think Macy's just had really good numbers which surprised me, but you knew that they were in the death throes, so
In short: "No one cares about this retailer anymore at all" (a ~$10B cap), but "it looks like this is now a turnaround story that is beginning to work" — beat and raised; total same-store sales +2.7% "not bad, but not great," while Bloomingdale's comped +11.3% on "the demise of Saks." The stock fell on weak next-quarter EPS guidance, "but still, the strength in same-store sales comps was a pretty good sign." Constructive read, no position stated.
Macy's is the old department-store chain, and it also owns Bloomingdale's, its upmarket sister store. Eisman's point is that investors stopped paying attention to it years ago — the whole company is worth about $10 billion — and that is exactly when a turnaround can quietly start working.
"Same-store sales" means sales at stores open at least a year, so new openings don't flatter the number. Macy's overall grew 2.7%, which is ordinary. But Bloomingdale's grew 11.3%, and the reason is a competitor dying: Saks, the rival luxury department store, is in trouble, so its shoppers are walking over to Bloomingdale's.
The shares actually fell because management forecast weaker profit next quarter. He looks past that: the sales trend is the thing that tells you whether a turnaround is real, and that trend is improving. This is an observation, not a stated position.
19:18Generally, no one cares about this retailer anymore at all. It's market cap is only 10 billion, but it had a good quarter, and it looks like this is now a turnaround story that is beginning to work. The company beat and raised, but what I thought was most interesting was a total same-store sales increased 2.
In short: Pick of the Week — the M 6.7% senior note due 7/15/2034, BB+, at 95.474 for a ~7.45% YTM (~290bp over USTs): "a low-risk way to secure what is essentially a 7½% yield for many years." Credit is asset-covered and improving — CoStar puts M's real estate at $7.9–10.5B (> its $6.5B market cap, covers its $5.1B debt), FCF up double-digits two straight years (+11% forecast 2026, ~$1.4B this year), ~$1.3B cash / ~$3.8B net debt; Berkshire just bought ~1% of the shares (~$55M) as a vote of confidence; a Change-of-Control provision protects holders in an LBO. Haymaker believes the bond's return can beat the S&P 500 total return over the rest of the decade.
This week's pick isn't Macy's stock — it's a Macy's bond: a loan to the company that pays a fixed 6.7% a year and returns your principal on 15 July 2034. Because the bond currently trades a bit below face value (95.47 cents on the dollar), your actual locked-in return if you hold to maturity (the "yield-to-maturity") is about 7.45% a year — almost 3% more than a comparable US Treasury. That is a high-yield-sized payout, yet the bond is rated BB+, just one notch below "investment grade." Haymaker's long-running view is that BB-rated bonds are the sweet spot of the bond market: they almost never default (under 1% historically) but pay junk-bond-level interest — the so-called "BB anomaly."
The rest of the case is about why Macy's is unlikely to miss those payments. Its cash flow has grown double digits two years in a row (and is forecast up another 11% this year), it holds ~$1.3B in cash against ~$3.8B net debt, and — most reassuringly — the real estate under its stores is worth $7.9–10.5B, more than the whole company's stock-market value and far more than its $5.1B of debt, so bondholders are well covered if anything goes wrong. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway just bought about 1% of the shares, a small but encouraging vote of confidence. And a "change-of-control" clause means that if a private-equity buyer loads the company with debt (an LBO, normally bad news for bondholders), holders can sell the bond back to Macy's at a small profit. Bottom line: a fairly safe way to lock in roughly 7½% a year for years — and Haymaker thinks that beats what the S&P 500 will likely return over the rest of the decade. This is a long-term income hold, not a trade.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.