You are generally right, but there is one super key distinction: despite being a "bad" business, Berkshire was throwing of real hard cash, albeit in decreasing

You are generally right, but there is one super key distinction: despite being a "bad" business, Berkshire was throwing of real hard cash, albeit in decreasing amounts. Buffett used that cash to invest in Washington Post and buy See's Candies, among other things. Buffett never let them do any serious reinvestment in the textile business. Sears, on the other hand, has been a cash consumer, not producer. Just look at the FCF numbers from the past 10 years: -2,175 -2,378 -1,657 -1,438 -681 -707 -311 1146 495 977 931 There was some money at the beginning, but not nearly enough to justify a $20B market cap. If you want to be like Buffett, buying a dying business is a terrible place to start. It'd be like someone idolizing Steve Jobs, so they go get a woman pregnant then abandon the offspring.