Proof....Not really. Proof is in actually doing something. Using the sale of one site as a guide to value the remaining 235 is unwise. It may indicate the value of the other California properties but certainly not all others. Still in all, your point is not lost on me. I agree that the company has greater value in liquidation than in operation, so liquidate. Free up this money so that it can be invested in real growth stocks.
The article states that Pep Boys leases the property. This means that this particular property doesn't have any affect on Pep Boys vast real estate holdings. Over the last few years PBY has sold and leased back many of their properties, further reducing the value of their vast real estate holdings. The question should be where did the all money go when they sold the properties?
My point is simple: They still own 235 properties....if you do the math, you'll see that these properties books are way undervalued, as they are entered on the balance sheet at acquisition cost. They bought many of these properties decades ago, so their market value is not accurately reflectsd on PBY's balance sheet. There is definite hidden value there. Where did the money go for the stores they sold and then leased back? Most of it went to pay back debt as PBY's long term debt has been almost cut in half or buyback shares. Some of it was utilzed to pay cash dividends.