Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sammy00

WalMart News

51 posts in this topic


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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/2008/US/03/25/walmart.i...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/2008/US/03/25/walmart.i...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%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Don't mind at all. Think it's great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Is this thread still running: Wal Mart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this thread still running: Wal Mart

What do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wal-mart held on to the top spot in revenues for the second year holding off Exxon. Exxon had managed to beat out Wal-mart three years ago. Wal-mart had $378.8 Bil in revenues. Although of course Exxon easily beat them out in profits. Wal-mart had $12.7 Bil in profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably belongs in a Wal-Mart thread, but since it's happening in Fayetteville, and I'm tired, this is where I'll post it. Move if needed.

The Wal-Mart annual shareholders meeting is kicking off this week. Internationals from China, Japan, and the United Kingdom arrived last night, The Americas and any straggling internationals tomorrow, and then domestics on Tuesday and Wednesday. It looks like it'll be a good year for the event and Wal-Mart will be promoting their leaner, greener image. I encourage people to walk or drive by and see the chaos... if this week doesn't kill me, I'll claim illness next week and sleep the whole time.

I'll post this over here so that people can see your post in my reply. Yeah just about time for the shareholders meeting. Your post reminds me of an article I had read recently. Some people are complaining about Wal-mart giving in to the liberal left. Basically saying they're wasting their time with their 'green incentives' and such. I find it funny how people still view the environmental sustainability movement. Although they have made some concessions to be more 'politically correct' I still think a lot of what they're doing is based around efficiency and saving money. To me it's like saying if you're Republican you have to drive a big gas guzzling vehicle. And if you go to a smaller vehicle you're 'giving in' to the environmentalists. Although some people are switching to smaller or hybrid vehicles to be more environmentally sensitive I think most people do it to save money on gas. Maybe I need to post this in the environmental sustainability topic as well. I think this just shows when you get to be as big and successful as Wal-mart you'll be criticized for every little thing you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.