50 replies to this topic

[Sammy00]

WalMart Retakes Fortune #1.  I hope they can keep this up for a long, long time.

http://money.cnn.com...list/index.html

[zman9810]

Sammy00, on Apr 20 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

I hope they can keep this up for a long, long time.

I agree with you- how Wal-Mart goes is how NWA goes. It amazes me how many people slam the company even here in their home region. I think part of it is that if you are big you are just a natural target (as opposed to Target not being slammed because they are much smaller). Not that WM couldn't be a better corporate citizen, but there are plenty of other companies that should also get the scrutiny that they get.

[astrife]

zman9810, on Apr 20 2007, 09:26 PM, said:

I agree with you- how Wal-Mart goes is how NWA goes. It amazes me how many people slam the company even here in their home region. I think part of it is that if you are big you are just a natural target (as opposed to Target not being slammed because they are much smaller). Not that WM couldn't be a better corporate citizen, but there are plenty of other companies that should also get the scrutiny that they get.

I love Wal-Mart personally... where else can I get cupcakes at 3am in the morning?

[Aporkalypse]

I think this probably has as much to do with how ExxonMobil is doing as anything.

There is a very good article in the Wall St Journal this week, linked to on Arkansas Business, that talks about Wal-Mart's stock woes and some possible fixes including spinning off Sam's, getting out of Japan, stopping expansion and paying more dividends, etc.  The stock is worth a few dollars less than it was 5 years ago.

There was another article this week about dollar stores and how they are eating at some of Wal-Mart's lower end niche, with Target and Kohl's eating at the high end.

I don't see WM struggling anytime soon but it will take some clever innovation to keep it growing.  I would go a bit further than "as WM goes NWA goes".  I think WM struggling or relocating out of state would hammer the entire Arkansas economy.  The state couldn't deal with a massive loss of jobs in NWA and a corresponding loss of revenue.  It would really hurt Ft Smith and Little Rock in more indirect ways.

[CentralArkansas]

Aporkalypse, on Apr 22 2007, 11:33 PM, said:

I think this probably has as much to do with how ExxonMobil is doing as anything.

There is a very good article in the Wall St Journal this week, linked to on Arkansas Business, that talks about Wal-Mart's stock woes and some possible fixes including spinning off Sam's, getting out of Japan, stopping expansion and paying more dividends, etc.  The stock is worth a few dollars less than it was 5 years ago.

There was another article this week about dollar stores and how they are eating at some of Wal-Mart's lower end niche, with Target and Kohl's eating at the high end.

I don't see WM struggling anytime soon but it will take some clever innovation to keep it growing.  I would go a bit further than "as WM goes NWA goes".  I think WM struggling or relocating out of state would hammer the entire Arkansas economy.  The state couldn't deal with a massive loss of jobs in NWA and a corresponding loss of revenue.  It would really hurt Ft Smith and Little Rock in more indirect ways.

I don't ever see Wal-Mart relocating. As a "low-cost" king, there is absolutely no reason for them to do so. Any move would be extremely expensive, and I just see no advantage in it for them. Maybe whenever NWA was much less developed and their headquarters wasn't so well established, but not now. Besides, they have all of their suppliers already set up right here next to them. While the suppliers would follow, there is no reason to upset that relationship unless there is a very good reason.

[Aporkalypse]

CentralArkansas, on Apr 23 2007, 12:53 AM, said:

I don't ever see Wal-Mart relocating. As a "low-cost" king, there is absolutely no reason for them to do so. Any move would be extremely expensive, and I just see no advantage in it for them. Maybe whenever NWA was much less developed and their headquarters wasn't so well established, but not now. Besides, they have all of their suppliers already set up right here next to them. While the suppliers would follow, there is no reason to upset that relationship unless there is a very good reason.

Logistically NWA is tough for WM.  It's nowhere near a major airport (even now, though it's better) for execs that sometimes fly 4 times a week, it's a rural area by the standards of most potential executives one could hire, you have state income tax to deal with, etc.  WM stuck with NWA despite marked disadvantages in doing so.

Relocating a HQs doesn't mean moving all that much.  Boeing moved its HQs from Seattle to Chicago (DFW lost out) and it really only entailed physically moving 500 employees and building a small building.  WM wouldn't move all of its operations if it did move, probably just its upper management.

That said, I'm not saying I expect them to move, I don't.  However, if WM continues to tread water for several years that may be a proposed change that would rev up their stock and allow them to bring in some new personnel.

[cowbreath]

Aporkalypse, on Apr 23 2007, 08:47 AM, said:

Logistically NWA is tough for WM.  It's nowhere near a major airport (even now, though it's better) for execs that sometimes fly 4 times a week, it's a rural area by the standards of most potential executives one could hire, you have state income tax to deal with, etc.  WM stuck with NWA despite marked disadvantages in doing so.

Relocating a HQs doesn't mean moving all that much.  Boeing moved its HQs from Seattle to Chicago (DFW lost out) and it really only entailed physically moving 500 employees and building a small building.  WM wouldn't move all of its operations if it did move, probably just its upper management.

That said, I'm not saying I expect them to move, I don't.  However, if WM continues to tread water for several years that may be a proposed change that would rev up their stock and allow them to bring in some new personnel.

Executives don't tend to stick around too much these days.  I would hope they wouldn't try to attract any by moving somewhere.  So far we've seen them promote workers to the top, but now they've recently begun to hire people with the "education", the experience in other companies, and the diversity needed.

[Mith242]

Aporkalypse, on Apr 22 2007, 11:33 PM, said:

I don't see WM struggling anytime soon but it will take some clever innovation to keep it growing.  I would go a bit further than "as WM goes NWA goes".  I think WM struggling or relocating out of state would hammer the entire Arkansas economy.  The state couldn't deal with a massive loss of jobs in NWA and a corresponding loss of revenue.  It would really hurt Ft Smith and Little Rock in more indirect ways.

I hadn't ever thought of it that way.

[Sammy00]

I'm not sure where to put this (I think we could use a "Wal-Mart" thread if there isn't one).
-----

Wal-Mart is involved in what is becoming another high-profile situation that will severely tarnish their reputation/image.

This time it involves a severely brain damaged woman, her husband who just got over prostate cancer, and their son who was killed at the age of 18 in Iraq. It was the lead story on CNN.com and has been covered on air as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ttle/index.html

I believe I'm a pretty down to earth person, and I know rules need to be rules.
But when is Wal-Mart going to learn that in extraordinary cases such as this one, they will come out vastly ahead if they just leave the matter alone.

Here's an idea: Let her keep the money, donate another half million, and then publicize it.

Sorry guys. This has just really got me going.

Edited by Sammy00, 25 March 2008 - 03:40 PM.

[thewizard16]

Sammy00, on Mar 25 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

I'm not sure where to put this (I think we could use a "Wal-Mart" thread if there isn't one).
-----

Wal-Mart is involved in what is becoming another high-profile situation that will severely tarnish their reputation/image.

This time it involves a severely brain damaged woman, her husband who just got over prostate cancer, and their son who was killed at the age of 18 in Iraq. It was the lead story on CNN.com and has been covered on air as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ttle/index.html

I believe I'm a pretty down to earth person, and I know rules need to be rules.
But when is Wal-Mart going to learn that in extraordinary cases such as this one, they will come out vastly ahead if they just leave the matter alone.

Here's an idea: Let her keep the money, donate another half million, and then publicize it.

Sorry guys. This has just really got me going.

Legality wise and policy wise, Wal-mart is doing exactly what is within their rights, and since they had to agree to the terms of the health plan for it to provide coverage, the family's legal standing is pretty weak to basically nothing. I realize that this is an extreme case that is a "pull at your heart-strings" kind of story, but emotions shouldn't really factor into legal issues, and if I were a juror I'd probably have to uphold the company's position. The "They already have $90 billion, they won't miss $200,000" argument is bull and they should have never brought it up. That's the same mentality that shoplifters use when they steal things from "faceless coporations" like Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc, and it's no more right to use in this situation than it is in those. "Need" gets back into emotional issues, not legal ones.

At any rate, Wal-Mart did not handle this media circus well. Although they are well within their legal rights and policies on this issue, they should have known the legal costs of pursuing this and the negative publicity and resentment that would come with it going national greatly exceed the amount they're trying to recover from the family that for some reason will not be able to pay it. (That's where I'm a bit muddy... they said they only have $200 and some odd thousand remaining of a million dollar settlement for an accident that occurred not that long ago. Medical costs were picked up by wal-mart, and that settlement was intended to provide for her long term care. She's not that old, so a few years is not long-term. I'm wondering if they got screwed by their lawyers or blew some of it on an extremely fancy nursing home or something, because that seems off)
At any rate, the cost of this publicity and resulting public outcry isn't worth it, and wal-mart should now play damage control. They're in the legal right, but shoppers are emotional people.

EDIT: I see the legal fees accounted for more than half of the settlement amount. What the hell? The lawyers are the ones that ought to be ashamed. Settlements on personal injury are normally done on a percentage basis, and why you'd let your lawyers take almost 60% of your settlement is beyond me. They picked some crummy lawyers. A friend of mine had a personal injury suit a while back and the legal fee was 30-40%.

Edited by thewizard16, 25 March 2008 - 04:12 PM.

[Sammy00]

thewizard16, on Mar 25 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Legality wise and policy wise, Wal-mart is doing exactly what is within their rights, and since they had to agree to the terms of the health plan for it to provide coverage, the family's legal standing is pretty weak to basically nothing. I realize that this is an extreme case that is a "pull at your heart-strings" kind of story, but emotions shouldn't really factor into legal issues, and if I were a juror I'd probably have to uphold the company's position. The "They already have $90 billion, they won't miss $200,000" argument is bull and they should have never brought it up. That's the same mentality that shoplifters use when they steal things from "faceless coporations" like Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc, and it's no more right to use in this situation than it is in those. "Need" gets back into emotional issues, not legal ones.

At any rate, Wal-Mart did not handle this media circus well. Although they are well within their legal rights and policies on this issue, they should have known the legal costs of pursuing this and the negative publicity and resentment that would come with it going national greatly exceed the amount they're trying to recover from the family that for some reason will not be able to pay it. (That's where I'm a bit muddy... they said they only have $200 and some odd thousand remaining of a million dollar settlement for an accident that occurred not that long ago. Medical costs were picked up by wal-mart, and that settlement was intended to provide for her long term care. She's not that old, so a few years is not long-term. I'm wondering if they got screwed by their lawyers or blew some of it on an extremely fancy nursing home or something, because that seems off)
At any rate, the cost of this publicity and resulting public outcry isn't worth it, and wal-mart should now play damage control. They're in the legal right, but shoppers are emotional people.

EDIT: I see the legal fees accounted for more than half of the settlement amount. What the hell? The lawyers are the ones that ought to be ashamed. Settlements on personal injury are normally done on a percentage basis, and why you'd let your lawyers take almost 60% of your settlement is beyond me. They picked some crummy lawyers. A friend of mine had a personal injury suit a while back and the legal fee was 30-40%.

I completely agree about the whole legal process. I believe that is fairly obvious.
Just the notion that they would pursue it is really what I'm complaining about.

[zman9810]

If it hadn't been Wal Mart there wouldn't have even been a story, IMO. Bashing Wal Mart and other large profitable corporations is a surefire way to get readers to your website, newspaper, magazine, etc. If Wal Mart didn't pursue this then why have the insurance policy read that way? I imagine they could be accused of fudiciary misconduct or whatever the correct legal jargon is for missmanaging the stockholders investments if they didn't try to collect the money. I'm sure there are many more lawyers waiting to see if Wal Mart caves in so they will know how to attack the company next. Sure it's a heartbreaking story and it natural to feel for the family but there are millions of stories where people have been left desitute by insurance companies and similar financial disasters- who's going to help them?

[bubba72704]

zman9810, on Mar 25 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

If it hadn't been Wal Mart there wouldn't have even been a story, IMO. Bashing Wal Mart and other large profitable corporations is a surefire way to get readers to your website, newspaper, magazine, etc. If Wal Mart didn't pursue this then why have the insurance policy read that way? I imagine they could be accused of fudiciary misconduct or whatever the correct legal jargon is for missmanaging the stockholders investments if they didn't try to collect the money. I'm sure there are many more lawyers waiting to see if Wal Mart caves in so they will know how to attack the company next. Sure it's a heartbreaking story and it natural to feel for the family but there are millions of stories where people have been left desitute by insurance companies and similar financial disasters- who's going to help them?

I think we can all pretty well agree that Wal*Mart is within their rights enact this policy, I simply don't think it's a good policy.  Just from a public relations standpoint it certainly fuels the anti-Wal*Mart fire...    

It would be very interesting to get a look at the numbers behind this.  I'm sure the company has done a cost-benefit analysis on this practice at some point and I would have loved to be fly on the wall in that room when they gave that presentation:  "Well, Mr. Scott, we believe that we can sue approximately 300 severely injured ex-associates per year who have received over $100,000 in medical payouts & won settlements against the guilty parties.  We won't mess with smaller claims.  Since we're also entitled to recoup interest and legal fees, we'll be saving the company millions of dollars a year in insurance premiums.  The best part is:  The injured ex-associates won't have a leg to stand on if they try to take us to court.  In some cases, literally!!!"

I know Wal*Mart does a lot of good things, but this isn't one of them.

[zman9810]

bubba72704, on Mar 26 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

I think we can all pretty well agree that Wal*Mart is within their rights enact this policy, I simply don't think it's a good policy.  Just from a public relations standpoint it certainly fuels the anti-Wal*Mart fire...    

It would be very interesting to get a look at the numbers behind this.  I'm sure the company has done a cost-benefit analysis on this practice at some point and I would have loved to be fly on the wall in that room when they gave that presentation:  "Well, Mr. Scott, we believe that we can sue approximately 300 severely injured ex-associates per year who have received over $100,000 in medical payouts & won settlements against the guilty parties.  We won't mess with smaller claims.  Since we're also entitled to recoup interest and legal fees, we'll be saving the company millions of dollars a year in insurance premiums.  The best part is:  The injured ex-associates won't have a leg to stand on if they try to take us to court.  In some cases, literally!!!"

I know Wal*Mart does a lot of good things, but this isn't one of them.

Good point- the policy is faulty and never should have been enacted. Now that it is in place it deprives those in need of the financial assistance when they most need it and also gives Wal Mart a public relations blackeye. It looks like Wal Mart had their eye on the numbers only instead of looking at the bigger picture. I wonder how many cases like this have come up in the past and if they change the policy will the change be applied retroactively?

I do wish that the media would evenly report stories like this- so often Wal Mart seems to be the target for negative publicity when I'm sure many other companies do now and have done worse in the past. I realize how important the company is to our local economy and that makes it easy to be a bit defensive.

[Mith242]

Sammy00, on Mar 25 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

I'm not sure where to put this (I think we could use a "Wal-Mart" thread if there isn't one).

I think there is one but I think it's in the Coffeehouse subforum.

[KJW]

Aporkalypse, on Apr 22 2007, 10:33 PM, said:

I think this probably has as much to do with how ExxonMobil is doing as anything.

There is a very good article in the Wall St Journal this week, linked to on Arkansas Business, that talks about Wal-Mart's stock woes and some possible fixes including spinning off Sam's, getting out of Japan, stopping expansion and paying more dividends, etc.  The stock is worth a few dollars less than it was 5 years ago.

There was another article this week about dollar stores and how they are eating at some of Wal-Mart's lower end niche, with Target and Kohl's eating at the high end.

I don't see WM struggling anytime soon but it will take some clever innovation to keep it growing.  I would go a bit further than "as WM goes NWA goes".  I think WM struggling or relocating out of state would hammer the entire Arkansas economy.  The state couldn't deal with a massive loss of jobs in NWA and a corresponding loss of revenue.  It would really hurt Ft Smith and Little Rock in more indirect ways.

Won't happen.

The stories had W-M moving to Dallas.  If they did so (or went to some place like NYC) they'd be just another billion dollar company.

Here, they are Bentonville...and get benefits as such they couldn't most anyplace else.   The looming presence of Alice Walton's Crystal Bridges here pretty much says to me they're here to stay.

[thewizard16]

KJW, on Mar 31 2008, 10:16 PM, said:

Won't happen.

The stories had W-M moving to Dallas.  If they did so (or went to some place like NYC) they'd be just another billion dollar company.

Here, they are Bentonville...and get benefits as such they couldn't most anyplace else.   The looming presence of Alice Walton's Crystal Bridges here pretty much says to me they're here to stay.

I'm inclined to agree. There's no significant advantage to Wal-Mart to relocate anywhere. Everything they want near them has moved to please them, basically, and it's not as if relocating to a larger metro would save them money.

[andrewjensen]

Wal-Mart drops claim.

http://www.arkansasb...38.21653.116283

[Sammy00]

[Mith242]

Hopefully Sammy doesn't mind I changed the name of the topic so that we can keep posting more current info in this topic.