Got Wal Mart?

[Havasu Hangin']

The Two Faces Of Wal-Mart
Interesting column in The Washington Post this morning by Steven Pearlstein, noting that "Wal-Mart is now the symbol for all that is good and bad in the hypercompetitive global marketplace, its impact rippling to every corner of the U.S. economy."
Among the issues raised by Pearlstein (which also seem to be on the minds of many industry observers, especially in the media):
"Wal-Mart's relentless drive to deliver low prices now directly saves American consumers $20 billion a year by one estimate -- and probably several times that sum once the indirect effect on competitors is factored in. "
"To win Wal-Mart's business, suppliers have been forced to close U.S. factories and source overseas, with millions of American jobs lost in the process. Wal-Mart alone accounts for 10 percent of all imports from China, and its shelves bear little trace of the "Buy America" philosophy of its founder."
"The ruthless efficiency of Wal-Mart's supply chain accounts for as much as a quarter of the economy's recent productivity gains..."
"Surely no sector has felt the "Wal-Mart effect" more than retailing. The retail giant now accounts for 35 percent of food sales, 30 percent of consumer staples, 25 percent of drug store products and 15 percent of magazines, books and apparel. Entire chambers of commerce have been wiped out with the arrival of a new "superstore," while "greeting customers at Wal-Mart" has replaced "hamburger flipping" in the national debate over wages and trade."
Pearlstein sums it up as follows:
"In a rather neat way, Wal-Mart presents the essential dilemma of modern global capitalism: how to capture most of its benefits while minimizing the unpleasant side effects."
"Too much innovation and consumer saving would be lost if government were to step in to prevent Wal-Mart from opening new stores or purchasing goods from overseas -- which, in effect, is what its opponents would like."
"At the same time, we know that, in the face of the market's ruthless search for efficiency and growth, there are other ways for a wealthy society to assure all workers a minimal standard of living."
"I'm talking about a minimum wage that would put a family with two full-time workers above the poverty line in high-cost metropolitan areas -- and no doubt put upward pressure on wages at places like Wal-Mart."
"Or how about requiring employers like Wal-Mart to provide all workers with affordable health insurance, including part-timers and recent hires."
"And what about labor laws effective enough to prevent companies such as Wal-Mart that instruct managers never to hire anyone who once belonged to a union, that routinely fire any employee seen talking to a union organizer and that fly in special teams whenever a store's employees score too high on a "union probability index."
"Yes, such measures would likely force Wal-Mart to raise the price of jeans and chicken wings by a nickel or two, slow its growth, and maybe even shave a fraction of a point off real GDP."
"But that's not the issue. The issue we ought to be debating is what is an acceptable price to pay to restore a measure of fairness, equality and economic security to Wal-Mart nation. That is fundamentally a political issue, not an economic one."
KC's View: Wal-Mart can pretend these issues are just public relations nuisances, but they're not."
"They are fundamental questions about how we live, work, and shop in America. They are questions about diversity of choice, about standards of living, and about the long-term relationship between management and labor."
Good column, with questions that should be answered.

[Dave C]

very simple. If you don't like it don't shop there. End of story.
We shouldn't presume to take the choice away from Americans by making the government do something to stop WalMart.
BTW, those stores suck anway and I don't shop there. This is a free country (at least for now) But its just not right to force them to change.

[Blown 472]

We are feeling their effect now, as our parent company is looking to build plants overseas to supply them, I am sure in the not to distant future the place where I work will no longer exsist.:mad:

[COELIMINATOR]

Wal-Mart employs over 1 million people. That means approx. 1 in every 250 Americans work for Wal-Mart. They have changed the retail climate in so many different demographic areas it is almost beyond belief.

[Havasu Hangin']

Originally posted by Dave C
We shouldn't presume to take the choice away from Americans by making the government do something to stop WalMart.
I think he's referring to the FTC stepping in to prevent a monopoly...it happens.
A monopoly in a free-market economy is no longer a free market.

[Havasu Hangin']

Originally posted by superdave013
It's not free if you land on Boardwalk! lol, I've got hotels, houses a Walmart and 2 stores on strike there! :)
Pass go and get your 200.00
I don't know what you're talking about...
...I never got past Candyland.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
I think he's referring to the FTC stepping in to prevent a monopoly...it happens.
A monopoly in a free-market economy is no longer a free market.
I'm not so sure he is referring to that. It is sooooooooooo far from a monopoly at this point. A few examples, Target, Mervyns, Macys, Sears, Kohls, K-Mart, Fred Meyer, Albertsons, Ralphs, Vons, Stater Bros, Raleys, Food 4 Less, Costco, Home Depot, Lowes...get the point? They may be the largest but they are NO WHERE NEAR a monopoly, to suggest this is ridiculous.
Reading that article I felt like the guy just got done reading the Communist Manifesto. Spun like a web. Or he was writing that article on behalf of the AFL-CIO.
Wal Mart has found the formula, Like Dave C said, if you don't like Wal Mart, vote with your feet. Don't shop there. Nothing will send them a more clear message.
How much do you want to bet their business keeps growing? I bet it does:eek: :eek: :eek: :D

[Havasu Hangin']

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
A few examples, Target, Mervyns, Macys, Sears, Kohls, K-Mart, Fred Meyer, Albertsons, Ralphs, Vons, Stater Bros, Raleys, Food 4 Less, Costco, Home Depot, Lowes...get the point? They may be the largest but they are NO WHERE NEAR a monopoly, to suggest this is ridiculous.
Not so fast.
If you look at market share...chains have been broken up for less. Wal Mart has already been served with anti-monopoly lawsuits. They have a reputation of price-fixing to put the competition in an uncompetetive environment.
I guess Robinson-Patman doesn't apply to Wal Mart. Here's (http://www.lawmall.com/wal-mart/index.html) some reading for you.
To suggest that you understand the dynamics from one article is ridiculous.

[Dave C]

I agree that there are some anti-trust issues here. But there are still many competitors in their market still.

[BUSTI]

it is impossible for a private company to have a monopoly it a free enterprise system unless it is created by government...eg. the edison company soCal gas company ect. The only reason walMart succedes is because is they are providing what their customers want!
this article is communist in its point of you. ...the only fundamental questions needed to be asked and answered is America going to remain land of the free or is it going to fall in on it self with government restrictions on business?
Ask youself this ...is it better for the country for walMart to operate like Montgomery Wards did and as Kmart did? When will the libs realize we are strong in business as acountry inspite of our governments intervention not as a result of it! If the rest of the competition can't compete get the hell out the race!

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
Not so fast.
If you look at market share...chains have been broken up for less. Wal Mart has already been served with anti-monopoly lawsuits. They have a reputation of price-fixing to put the competition in an uncompetetive environment.
I guess Robinson-Patman doesn't apply to Wal Mart. Here's (http://www.lawmall.com/wal-mart/index.html) some reading for you.
To suggest that you understand the dynamics from one article is ridiculous.
Thank you for your OPINION. Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one. I do understand the dynamics and I also understand that the Washington Post is a moutpiece of the Socialist Left, just like the LA and New York Times. You seem to suck up their diatribe like it is gospel. Furthermore just because an anti-trust action is filed doesn't mean it is going anywhere. So you go on believeing your BS and I will go on shopping at Wal Mart.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Dr. Eagle]

I went to that F'ing web site, and GREAT! Just what we need another not for profit organization set up with a single agenda hoping to weild political power. I oppose groups just like this. They pick my pocket with every lawsuit they file.
If you want to believe this BS, knock your self out. Rest assured there are just as many people that think you are nuts......:rolleyes:

[Dave C]

Actually HH is in the "know" when it comes to this industry. I will defer back to him to know if there is a problem here but here is my point:
Antitrust law is clear, creation of a monopoly by itself is not illegal. Damaging the consumer (not the competitor) using the monoplies power is illegal. In other words you can create your monopoly but you cannot raise the price to the consumer using your monopoly.
so by using price manipulation to a point in a competitive market to drive a competitor out of a market may in fact be legal.
Things that may seem a face value unfair may not constitute an antitrust violation.
Plus it is very hard to define their competitors because of the many markets they serve. So the antitrust argument is hard to make here. It is easier to define if you sell one item such as a commodity rather hundreds of different things.

[Dave C]

Notice that Robinson-Patman allows discounts for quantity or for differences in quality and quantity..

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Dave C
Actually HH is in the "know" when it comes to this industry. I will defer back to him to know if there is a problem here but here is my point:
Antitrust law is clear, creation of a monopoly by itself is not illegal. Damaging the consumer (not the competitor) using the monoplies power is illegal. In other words you can create your monopoly but you cannot raise the price to the consumer using your monopoly.
so by using price manipulation to a point in a competitive market to drive a competitor out of a market may in fact be legal.
Things that may seem a face value unfair may not constitute an antitrust violation.
Plus it is very hard to define their competitors because of the many markets they serve. So the antitrust argument is hard to make here. It is easier to define if you sell one item such as a commodity rather hundreds of different things.
In all honesty I will cede that Wal Mart is engaging in behavior that I dislike. Particularly as it relates to offshore purchasing. However as you said the markets that Wal Mart serves is diverse covering many different business segments. I am sure that the size and power of the company creates a swager that they need to manage much better than they do. Remember when Sears and Roebuck had that gait? It almost cost them their existance as people beat feet from their doors because of their corporate arrogance.
But nonetheless, I think making the anti-trust case will be more than difficult, but that is my OPINION, and we all know that whole (no pun intended) story.
Not to change the subject, but lots of businesses behave poorly, Bechtel is a great example of one company driving hundreds of subcontractors out of business by using their money to float Bechtels business. Payment terms 6 months same as cash. Even though the terms are net 45.
My beef is hanging your hat on BS organizations that are supposed to be government or corporate watchdogs. I think they are basically evil, and are generally staffed by refugees from academia or in this case the legal profession. ALL information on such sites is suspect. They are written and gathered by people that have and agenda and so the material supports that agenda. I believe none of it, from the Wilderness Society to the Heritage Foundation they are all telling spin and half truths.

[Dave C]

There is soooo many holes in those rules, you have to be an idiot to violate them.
"That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered: "
"And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods, obsolescence of seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned."
BTW, that is serious left wing web site. The "anti-globilazation is the first tip.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Dave C
There is soooo many holes in those rules, you have to be an idiot to violate them.
BTW, that is serious left wing web site. The "anti-globilazation is the first tip.
Yeah, looking at that site REEEAAALLLLY got my blood pressure up. I HATE the entire anti globalizaiton movement, I think they are all NUTS. Just like the whack jobs that were protesting the genetically engineered food products here in Sacramento. Might as well have been a Grateful Dead concert. It did my heart good when the police had them sooo controled that they couldn't get violent or disrupt traffic like they wanted to. It really pissed them off too.
Regardless if Wal Mart is not careful they may just violate those rules, just because they think it is OK for them to do it. In fact they need to be very careful not to engage in activity that even Resembles anti competitive behavior for PR reasons.
But Wal Mart is not alone. What drove the two hometown hardware stores out of business here was not Wal Mart, but Lowes, Home Depot and Orchard Supply Hardware (Sears) surrounding them with their big box stores.

[78Eliminator]

I don't shop at wal mart. Not because of all the above mentioned issues, although I am not a big fan of outsourcing as my job is consistently being threatened by Indians. I don't shop there because it is full of big, fat, rude white trash. The smell of dirty diapers permeates the air. And how many times can a cart hit me of some huge white trash woman who can probably kick my ass push me out of her way? I will spend the extra $0.10 on a six pack of Coke and hang with a better class of citizen; or rather people with at least *some* class.

[Havasu Hangin']

I'm gonna avoid the usual multi "cutting and pasting" because I'm in a good mood tonight.
My point on Robinson Patman is that I (as a vendor) have to adhere to the guidelines, and so do my customers. To say that Wal Mart hasn't opened themself up to scrutiny because there is competition, is just plain ignorant.
The ironic thing is that the majority RP violation lawsuits are brought by small to medium businesses in markets that Wal Mart has saturated. In the industry, we have to watch performance (margins) by our customers, and it's common knowledge that Wal Mart will sometimes come into a market, lower it's prices (at a loss), and drive the local businesses from the area. Then they raise prices. Anti-competitive behavior can be local, too.
Now, these small to medium businesses that are suffering are the backbone of a free-market society...pretty ironic.
To say that the government is the only entity capable of a monopoly is rather funny...(so far from the truth) I got a chuckle. RP was passed because of the private sector...and keeps the FTC busy. For example, I don't think Microsoft was started by the government, but it's under the spotlight right now.
So RP was passed in 1936, and it's been in use all this time. "Anti-globalization movement"? Communist? If so, it's not new.
I'm not saying Wal Mart is the anti-Christ, but there are other facts out there (if you want to look without prejuduced).

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by 78Eliminator
I don't shop at wal mart. Not because of all the above mentioned issues, although I am not a big fan of outsourcing as my job is consistently being threatened by Indians. I don't shop there because it is full of big, fat, rude white trash. The smell of dirty diapers permeates the air. And how many times can a cart hit me of some huge white trash woman who can probably kick my ass push me out of her way? I will spend the extra $0.10 on a six pack of Coke and hang with a better class of citizen; or rather people with at least *some* class.
Well, that may be the case in your town, but in my town which is full of yuppie puppies it is less so. But I have gone to Wal Mart in other towns (Long Beach, Santa Fe, NM to name two) and noticed just what you mention. I would probably have to re examine my patronage in that case as well.
I really don't shop there that much anyway, once or twice a month, (sometimes not at all) to get oil and shop towels or other automotive products.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
I'm gonna avoid the usual multi "cutting and pasting" because I'm in a good mood tonight.
My point on Robinson Patman is that I (as a vendor) have to adhere to the guidelines, and so do my customers. To say that Wal Mart hasn't opened themself up to scrutiny because there is competition, is just plain ignorant.
The ironic thing is that the majority RP violation lawsuits are brought by small to medium businesses in markets that Wal Mart has saturated. In the industry, we have to watch performance (margins) by our customers, and it's common knowledge that Wal Mart will sometimes come into a market, lower it's prices (at a loss), and drive the local businesses from the area. Then they raise prices. Anti-competitive behavior can be local, too.
Now, these small to medium businesses that are suffering are the backbone of a free-market society...pretty ironic.
To say that the government is the only entity capable of a monopoly is rather funny...(so far from the truth) I got a chuckle. RP was passed because of the private sector...and keeps the FTC busy. For example, I don't think Microsoft was started by the government, but it's under the spotlight right now.
So RP was passed in 1936, and it's been in use all this time. "Anti-globalization movement"? Communist? If so, it's not new.
I'm not saying Wal Mart is the anti-Christ, but there are other facts out there (if you want to look without prejuduced).
Now I am not ignorant, and I hope you did not just call me that...
That being said, the web page you sent me to and the article was clearly just what I said. I stand by that ABSOLUTELY.
I don't know the ins and outs of RP like you, but I do understand that there have been ACCUSATIONS of such anti-competitive or predatory pricing practices against the big blue machine. I have not read that it has ever been PROVEN. Maybe you know of some judgement against them in this regard that I am not aware of. I do remember such discussions at the local planning commission discussion of Wal Mart's development application 11 years ago. But it seemed to be a group of outside parties (lets call em "Carpetbaggers") that RECRUITED local businesses to oppose the store.
I don't think Wal Mart is the second coming just as you don't think that they are the anti-christ. I have been less and less pleased with their business practices over time, and as such I patronize them very little. My biggest beef with them is that they have gotten away from their buy american roots.
What tripped my trigger was the one two punch of the obviously skewed article from a well known liberal rag and the whacko web site. If you call that unbiased information, I will tell you Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Both statements would make about the same amount of sense.:confused: :confused:

[Havasu Hangin']

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
...the one two punch of the obviously skewed article from a well known liberal rag and the whacko web site. If you call that unbiased information, I will tell you Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party...
To me, that sounds predjuduced. The fact remains that certain companies practice anti-competitive behavior....politics aside.
To say that they don't based on pre-conceptions about certain media (or a website) is sad. You might as well cover your ears, and yell "NA NA NA... I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
If you open your eyes...you'll realize that there are two sides to every story....and maybe even some truth in opinions you don't agree with.
Shocking, I know.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
To me, that sounds predjuduced. The fact remains that certain companies practice anti-competitive behavior....politics aside.
To say that they don't based on pre-conceptions about certain media (or a website) is sad. You might as well cover your ears, and yell "NA NA NA... I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
If you open your eyes...you'll realize that there are two sides to every story....and maybe even some truth in opinions you don't agree with.
Shocking, I know.
HH you are right, there are two sides to every issue. My eyes are open, and the BS filter is set at maximum. Calling my view on the "information" you provided predjuduced is probably accurate. I am predjuduced against any information that comes from ANY organization, Right OR Left that is so CLEARLY skewed. Yes, two sides to every story...agreed! There are distortions, spinning, half truths and outright lies on both sides of every issue. I discount anything that comes from such politically driven sites because they are so incredibly inaccurate, they love to lie and distort. They don't report facts and if they do they wrap them in packaging to present a certain spin.
The NA NA NA crap is just ridiculous though, sorry. If you read my earlier posts you see that I acknowledge that there have been ALLEGATIONS and COMPLAINTS of predatory pricing for years with Wal Mart. To my recollection they have not been substantiated. I offered the opportunity for you to correct me on that because I don't follow that issue all that closely (specifically), but I do follow business news closely. So I guess the message is that I don't believe it until it is proven to me, meaning a series of judgements in favor of plaintiff against WM, not just a cocophony of complaints.
And following the big must be evil philosiphy there are ambulance chasing groups just like the one whose site you referenced that go out of their way to stir up "community" opposition to new WM stores.
As far as predatory pricing goes, I do know that in many communities where WM has opened stores, including mine, the Mom and Pop stores have eventually disappeared. Predatory? Maybe. Most likely the M&P stores just can't compete with the buying power and ultimately fold.
That is a tragedy for their family and is very unfortunate, but is a fact of life. Like I said in an earlier post, Home Depot, Lowes and OSH did more to the M&P stores here in my town than WM.
As for there being truth in opinion, certainly there is. But you haven't convinced me of your case, so it remains just an opinion to me.
Bottom line is I guess if you want to think my mind is closed, fine...I don't need to change your mind, couldn't care less. But it seems to me that your "open" mind is just as closed, but then I guess not to you.
:eek::eek: :eek: :eek:

[Dave C]

HH I don’t want to belabor this too much but I always say that the devil is in the details.
Explain to me why buying items in quantity at a discount and passing that along to a customer is illegal in light of the exemption noted above? Or buying “cheaper” quality items and passing that savings along is illegal?
I’m not saying that they don’t do other more illegal things though.
If they offer an item at a lower price at a loss just to drive competition out of the market, wouldn’t that be OK? But then raising the price after is then illegal only if you can't "blame" it on on of the exemptions noted?.
BTW, Microsoft is a monopoly. However as the court ruling pointed out its not illegal to have or create monopoly through your own skill. But any manipulation that harms consumers is an antitrust violation that will have remedies. Harm done to other competitors is much harder to prove and the remedies are not clear.

[Dr. Eagle]

Dave,
Being of closed mind, it seems to me that in order for these types of practices to be illegal, intent would be central to the case. Did WM intend to drive others out of business with the price on XYZ item, or was it a "Door Buster" to get people in the store? A door buster or loss leader being an item that is almost always sold at a loss to create traffic into the store. Such items are generally sold for a defined period of time at the low price.
I certainly could be wrong in the assumption that intent is necessary, but it would seem central to the question of impropriety or illegality.
I have acknowledged that there has been a loud discourse over the years about this relating to WM and local shops and shop owners. But has anti competitive intent ever been proven? I don't know maybe it has, but not that I have heard of.
That test (intent to harm trade) seems like a high hurdle for the people complaining to clear to me. How do you go about proving something like that? No, I do not think WM is pure as wind driven snow, far from it. I think they throw their weight around a little too much with suppliers, employees, and who knows what else goes on?
Also Dave, I was going to bring up MS myself, thanks...

[spectratoad]

Originally posted by Dave C
very simple. If you don't like it don't shop there. End of story.
We shouldn't presume to take the choice away from Americans by making the government do something to stop WalMart.
BTW, those stores suck anway and I don't shop there. This is a free country (at least for now) But its just not right to force them to change.
I haven't read the whole thread but didn't the government try and is still half-heartedly trying to make Microsoft change it's Wal-Mart ways?
You are right though. Everyone has a choice and I very rarely shop there. Wal-Mart at this time is suing the City of Reno to build their fourth store here in town. All of the residents in the proposed construction area don't want it, there is already two other retailers there. Wal-Marts strong armed tactics are out of control.

[Dave C]

Dr.
I didn't want to bring that up but if someone has a complaint then go to the FTC or sue.
While I have no faith in the FTC, I do have faith in all the ambulance chasing lawyers and the burden of proof for civil court is kinda low IMO.
So if there is a complaint its going to be litigated. AS HH has said, there has probably been many suits filed. BUT how many have been successful????....

[Havasu Hangin']

I believe the issues w/RP would occur if Wal Mart drove competitors out of a market, then proceeded to raise prices, as they would now own a larger market share than the FTC would normally allow.
I think that's the cornerstone of the argument, but since I am not an attorney, I'll defer.
To your point, it is tough to prove, as there is alot of gray area. In fact, our free-market economy is built on this premise. However, as I stated earlier, the government has checks and balances in place to ensure that a competetive environment exists- otherwise, it's not a free market.
I could name a few instances where the FTC blocked expansion...and it would probably suprise you. Why they are not limiting Wal Mart is an unanswered question in the industry.
As for Robinson-Patman, I personally violate it regularly, but since I am not a "credible source"...then I guess it's not true...so I'm safe.

[Dave C]

Spectra. Don't get me wrong I am not defending Walmart cuz they still suck IMO.
HH, I agree that competition is vital to the free market. I wonder about the FTC also (e.g. oil company consolidation has resulted in too few competitors, IMO)
But how you define market share is ambigious. Using the percentages above, 30%, 25% & 15% it implies a dominant position not near a monopolistic one. Then you have to define market share by incorporating all markets participants that sell all the goods sold at WM. This would create quite a broad market and I doubt these percentage would be that high.
Picking up market share does not create an antitrust violation by itself because you have to look at competition in the entire "broader" market place.

[Dr. Eagle]

Well HH after my initial popping off (sorry) it seems we have had a good fact and opinion based discussion. And it seems that we agree on a lot of points.
My real issue from the get go was the source of information and the spin with which it was written. I suppose it does not concern me that organizations such as the web site represents exist or that they look at everything through a filter called agenda, but I do have a very strong nose for BS and spin. I just don't like the coated and digested information complete with spin, right or left.
I suspect that WM has been sued repeatedly by unhappy people in small business all across the country. I just don't know of any that have been successful. Who knows maybe there are such cases around.
I am positive that there are plenty of issues with WM, just like the one spectratoad from Reno mentioned above. But sometimes even these kind of statements are a little misleading too. Can you define "all of the residents in the proposed construction area"? What is the whole story here? Why would the big blue machine want to build a store where "all the residents" didn't want it?
Again, don't know the story, but if WM meets the established development criteria as defined in the city general plan (assuming there is one) and zoning code...why would the city deny a permit and on what grounds?

[Havasu Hangin']

Originally posted by Dave C
Picking up market share does not create an antitrust violation by itself because you have to look at competition in the entire "broader" market place.
I don't know what the FTC uses for a benchmark. I can say that when Albertson's bought American Stores, (in this market) they were forced to divest over 100 stores, which would have only been less than a 10% ACV swing in a market with over 1,500 stores.
I remember when I lived in Huntington Beach, the city passed a zoning ordinence specifically for Wal Mart...so the citizens tried to recall the entire board...it was pretty heated. There's not alot of warm & fuzzy feelings...especially if the jobs lost are being replaced by "burger-flipping" wages (which may be fine in Arkansas, BTW).
Just thought you guys might like some insight...especially with the clerks fighting for thier benefits from Steve Burd (CEO from Safeway who is using the "Wal Mart is coming" battle cry).
FYI- Steve Burd exercised some options just prior to the strike...netted $15 million. But of course, he never knew a strike was coming. :rolleyes:

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
Just thought you guys might like some insight...especially with the clerks fighting for thier benefits from Steve Byrd (CEO from Safeway who is using the "Wal Mart is coming" battle cry).
FYI- Steve Byrd exercised some options just prior to the strike...netted $15 million. But of course, he never knew a strike was coming. :rolleyes:
HH,
Steve Byrd "Exercised" some options? If all he did is exercise them, it doesn't mean much.
I have been through this and in fact am living on the proceeds from such stock sales 3 years ago. If he just exercised them, most likely he cannot sell them with the exception of perhaps about 60 days or less a year, depending on the blackout dates used by his company to comply with SEC rules.
If it was just an exercise, it does create a taxable event but not income per se. One of the quirks of the Alternative Minimum Tax laws. So it will show as income to him, but in fact he wrote the company a check and has netted nothing...until he can sell the stock he exercised. Sorry for splitting hairs, just wanted to be clear what you meant.
:confused: :D

[Dave C]

This sounds like WM is walking “both sides of the fine line.” You know what I mean?
A big company has an army of paid consultants (like me) to determine where the line between legal and illegal behavior is located then tailors their actual practice to straddle that line. Sometimes they go over but then they have another army of lawyers to deal with those issues.
But on average they stay “on” the line, while all the while pushing the line in the direction they want.
Besides you know that the “line” is determined by which circuit court you live in, which of course varies.

[Dave C]

I too have a problem with the original article, not necessarily what we are arguing about.
Why should they be forced to give all sorts of entitlements if they don't want to. It should be their right to be a bunch of "cheap-asses" with their employees.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Dave C
A big company has an army of paid consultants (like me) to determine where the line between legal and illegal behavior is located then tailors their actual practice to straddle that line. Sometimes they go over but then they have another army of lawyers to deal with those issues.
Excellent point...:)

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Dave C
I too have a problem with the original article, not necessarily what we are arguing about.
Why should they be forced to give all sorts of entitlements if they don't want to. It should be their right to be a bunch of "cheap-asses" with their employees.
Ergo my statement that this is a leftist argument laid out in the article. Lets say it was what pegged the BSOMETER. I found it to be patently dishonest and a bit offensive to a true blue capitalist pig such as myself...

[Havasu Hangin']

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
Steve Burd "Exercised" some options? If all he did is exercise them, it doesn't mean much.
It's my understanding that he exercised them just prior to the Safeway stock sliding 15% (from the anticipation of lost sales due to a labor dispute at Vons).
Here's (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/trans.asp?view=Recent&Symbol=US:SWY) some (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Symbol=US:SWY&Feed=BW&Date=20031021&ID=2978848) of it.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
It's my understanding that he exercised them just prior to the Safeway stock sliding 15% from the anticipation of lost sales due to a labor dispute at Vons.
Here's (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/trans.asp?view=Recent&Symbol=US:SWY) some (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.asp?Symbol=US:SWY&Feed=BW&Date=20031021&ID=2978848) of it.
OK yeah, they were actually shares sold, not options exercised. Nice booty too..he is doing OK for himself, and with over 400K shares remaining too...
:cool:
Thanks for the clarification...

[Dave C]

my main point is that while something appears unfair doesn't make it illegal
Examples:
the case against microsoft failed because they could not prove damages to the consumer.
The CEO can sell shares or exercise options as long as he is registered with the SEC prior and announces his intention to do so.
Walmart has probably gotten away with expansion because of they exploited loopholes in the rules and their market definition is too broad to define them as a monopoly.

[Dave C]

that actually looks like a "schedule sales plan" which was "suggested" to insiders by the SEC so they can sell sales legally (i.e. safe-harbor). Notice the pattern of regularly scheduled sales.

[Liberator TJ1984]

New WAL - Mart Extra Super Duper going up right now !
Damn thing must cover 10 acres:eek:
speaking of flippin' burgers...the old one downtown already does that...maybe this one will have a Sports Bar or a Hooters;) :p

[Havasu Hangin']

Originally posted by Dave C
that actually looks like a "schedule sales plan" which was "suggested" to insiders by the SEC so they can sell sales legally (i.e. safe-harbor). Notice the pattern of regularly scheduled sales.
Yes...but do you think he knew when his labor contract expired when he filed the "planned sale" with the SEC?
Planned sale- 9/8 (negotiating)
Last sale- 10/14 (still negotiating) net $15.43M (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/plandet.asp?Pval=10012&Symbol=US:SWY)
Strike happens- 10/18
Meanwhile...he commented in SN, "...financing price reductions by lowering costs, including restructuring labor contracts..."
I guess that doesn't include his labor contract...he's not very well thought of in the industry, since he was "an outsider"...
Here's (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-burd19oct19,1,3832105.story) a couple (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-walmart27oct27000421,1,1869458.story) more (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-golden23oct23,1,6949081.column) for you (but it's probably all "BS" anyway).

[ROZ]

Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
Here's (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-burd19oct19,1,3832105.story) a couple (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-walmart27oct27000421,1,1869458.story) more (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-golden23oct23,1,6949081.column) for you (but it's probably all "BS" anyway).
Look out Dave C., Los Angeles Times articles....;)

[Dave C]

the SEC rules require that insiders enter into a binding agreement to sell a set number of shares over a set period of time to avoid charges of insider trading. This is public information too.
I don't know when this started but he probably filed long before 9/8/03.
The reason for the plan was so that registered insiders can sell their options while being in possesion of insider information so they can have a "safe-harbor" by signing up for this program and sell the shares without fear of prosecution.
So basically he already disclosed the fact that he had insider information before he sold. That's how it works, you either wait until the insider information is made public before you sell or sign up for this program.
I know this doesn't pass the smell test but it is a legal mechanism to unload these shares because it was disclosed publicly before hand.

[Dave C]

so whats the point of those articles? The guy is a ball buster. Good for him. Wal mart is an 800 lb gorilla. Neither are illegal.
Did you notice that he got busted for the bad aquisition and his bonus got cut down for it.
wish I knew earlier and I would have sold short on safeway and went long on walmart.....:D

[Essex502]

Whew!
I don't shop Wal-Mart for the same reason - fat, dumb-assed, low class trash that's fillin' the isle. I'll do everything to avoid on. Just a larger K-Mart as far as I'm concerned.
However, having said that...they've done a helluva job going to the largest company in the Fortune 500! And....in a very short time. Founded in 1962 - 2002 (40 uears) = number 1. Remarkable.
General Motors = 1908, General Electric = 1890, Ford Motor Company = 1903.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Dave C
that actually looks like a "schedule sales plan" which was "suggested" to insiders by the SEC so they can sell sales legally (i.e. safe-harbor). Notice the pattern of regularly scheduled sales.
When you are in a senior management position, you have to be very careful how you sell your shares in the company. I am sure you are right, he filed a share sales plan to keep himself outside of the blackout dates and so no one could claim improper action on his part.:D

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
Here's (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-burd19oct19,1,3832105.story) a couple (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-walmart27oct27000421,1,1869458.story) more (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-golden23oct23,1,6949081.column) for you (but it's probably all "BS" anyway).
Well there appears to be some verifiable facts in these articles...but you said it...:D

[NorCal Gameshow]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave C
[B]I too have a problem with the original article, not necessarily what we are arguing about. [B] [quote]
what are you arguing about?
:confused: :D :D :D

[buck183]

Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
I'm not so sure he is referring to that. It is sooooooooooo far from a monopoly at this point. A few examples, Target, Mervyns, Macys, Sears, Kohls, K-Mart, Fred Meyer, Albertsons, Ralphs, Vons, Stater Bros, Raleys, Food 4 Less, Costco, Home Depot, Lowes...get the point? They may be the largest but they are NO WHERE NEAR a monopoly, to suggest this is ridiculous.
Reading that article I felt like the guy just got done reading the Communist Manifesto. Spun like a web. Or he was writing that article on behalf of the AFL-CIO.
Wal Mart has found the formula, Like Dave C said, if you don't like Wal Mart, vote with your feet. Don't shop there. Nothing will send them a more clear message.
How much do you want to bet their business keeps growing? I bet it does:eek: :eek: :eek: :D
Last time I checked Wal Mart owned Food 4 Less too.
I have a full set of mixed emotions on this subject. The main office is about 30 miles from me. I can honestly say that the economy in this area is not what it is in other parts of the country. I here about lay offs and people looking for work. This area is in the top 5 in the country right now and has been for over a decade. Commerce is everywhere. If you can't make a living in this area you don't have a pulse. The construction in NW Arkansas right now would blow one's mind. All of the people and companies that Wal Mart is bringing to the area is unreal.
On the down side....You can bank in our local Wal Mart, get Eye Exams, prescriptions, a meal from McDonalds, automotive service, Mobile Audio/Video installations, a family portrait, and many more things. The state started a campaign a few months ago about a pilot program with a few selected stores. You will be able to renew the tag on your vehicle there now. What a joke.
These people work their entire lives for a wage just above minumum. They say chants and act like zombies when on the job. The environment is REAL weird on the inside.
We buy all our groceries at the locally owned IGA. The owner has had this store since Jesus was a private. I pay more, but I feel like it stays right here where it belongs. Being a business owner in town myself, I feel like I owe it to them.
I dunno....
Buck

[NorCal Gameshow]

i believe food 4 less is owned by kroger which also operates ralphs out here in the west...some food 4 less stores are owned by other operators that lease the food 4 less name.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by NorCal Gameshow
i believe food 4 less is owned by kroger which also operates ralphs out here in the west...some food 4 less stores are owned by other operators that lease the food 4 less name.
Norcal, thanks I thought that didn't sound right...

[Dr. Eagle]

Buck,
You have voted with your feet. I know what you and others mean about the stores being a bit weird inside and the whole thing about kind of the "wal mart class" of patrons and help inside the stores. In my area it isn't so, but like I said I have been to other WM stores I am not sure I would patronize again. In fact I would not go back there again.