[Plantagenet]

Imagine WalMart and Coca Cola teaming up with Obama to fight climate change.

Well, its just happened. Now Walmart and Coca are "green" companies trying to save the planet, just like Obama.

obama-climate-change-coca-cola-walmart

How cool is that!


Obama + walmart + coca cola

[Outcast_Searcher]

I had a friend who had a really popular women's shoe store (ShoeFly). It was really busy and popular because she was really into women's shoes and would refresh her lineup with the latest fashions, offer advice on what goes with what, etc. But, she wasn't selling and determined that the young women that would use her store for advice and fit would then go buy the shoes at Zappos at a discount. Well, now they have nowhere to go to try on the shoes because she is out of business.

This sort of thing is very unfortunate. For the businesses offering extra value and service for a (reasonable) price differential, those businesses had value and (some of) their customers really appreciated it.

I ran into this with various electronic things like (in their day) portable CD players. I found I couldn't buy them at a small store with personal service (and good product knowledge), because they didn't carry them any more. Apparently people would get the advice on what unit to buy, and then go buy one cheaper at some big box electronics place. So people like me who are HAPPY to pay a higher price for much better service have no choice. (This was well before the internet, where now you can have Amazon's service and detailed customer reviews AND get a great price and convenience).

Don't people care about service anymore? I needed a new lawnmower last week, and dreaded it, given how much I hated the experience at Home Depot, even trying to look at lawnmowers, much less get someone to help me.

Then I remembered my small city of 300,000ish had ONE good hardware store left, with real personal service and folks who are there to help, and know what they're doing. At the small store I got the lawnmower I wanted after comparing several with help from two employees. They gassed it up (no boxes, all their lawnmowers are sold completely assembled) and started it to test it and helped me load it in the car. They told me where to take it for warranty service, if needed. They told me to call the store if I had questions. Pretty much the OPPOSITE of the Home Depot experience, and from what I could see, for a small price differential.

(Too bad I can't buy my washer/dryer there. At Home Depot I practically had to tackle someone to get ANY help, after multiple visits/tries). It's as if they don't want my money.

I wonder if people just assume bad service at a brick and mortar retailer is the norm now.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Walmart is in a desperate death spiral trying to keep that house of cards from falling. Why, because you can never be too cheap and there is always someone or something cheaper.

Ain't it the truth !

But you know guys, it's also internet and online business that's hurting main street brick and mortar retail.

Amazon.com is actually hurting walmart a lot, and is part of the problems walmart's having lately, along with trying to compete with costco and target etc.

I think walmart executives are making mistakes.

The stock buyback -- $20 billion -- is a waste of money. Better to invest that twenty billion in remaking the business, instead.

As both a stock investor and a customer, I don't get the whole stock buyback thing. Unless a company's shares are RADICALLY underpriced, the company buying them and driving the price up isn't sustainable, and as you say Six, better to invest in making the businesses better. And who better to judge a stock's price than the market? Often the buybacks are happening at somewhat troubled companies run by somewhat clueless management -- who I do NOT trust over the market to value the stock.

They should have got out front with online stuff early on -- they could have been the "amazon" of the world. They still could, they should have a phone app and online ordering and all that and really go for it. People do their order on the phone or computer, and then have a drivethru at walmart to just pick the stuff up.

Yes, Walmart's online store is, overall, shockingly bad. From the website to the lack of choices to the shipping costs -- stores like Amazon have made them look REALLY bad.

Walmart's service makes me NOT what to be involved in ANYTHING that relies on me interacting with customer service and waiting in a LONG LINE and hoping they don't screw up. Sort of the opposite of the Amazon experience. You couldn't PAY me to do the drive-through thing at Walmart -- I can imagine running out of gas waiting in line on the coldest or hottest day of the year while customer service searches for my item. No thanks. Their best innovation was the self check out lanes, so I could quit waiting in incredibly long checkout lines, day or night.

[Subjectivist]

OS originally businesses sold stock to raise funds for expansion or improvements, today they use stock as collateral with the mega investment banks. This discourages spelling of stock and encourages buy backs.

[Outcast_Searcher]

OS originally businesses sold stock to raise funds for expansion or improvements, today they use stock as collateral with the mega investment banks. This discourages spelling of stock and encourages buy backs.

Yes, I know. However, cash (they have to buy the stock with cash or debt -- and debt shouldn't count as collateral to a rational bank) should be just DANDY as collateral. I don't think this explains it. I think they try to pump up demand (short term) for the stock and with the perception that management believes in the company and are "doing something", they attempt to appease shareholders.

A business is good or bad, worth a lot or a little, based on what it PRODUCES and its assets, NOT how many pieces of paper they have lying around which divides up the ownership of the company. If you have a bazillion shares of a bankrupt company, how much are they worth? Assuming buyers are acting rationally, zero.

[Tanada]

OS originally businesses sold stock to raise funds for expansion or improvements, today they use stock as collateral with the mega investment banks. This discourages spelling of stock and encourages buy backs.

Yes, I know. However, cash (they have to buy the stock with cash or debt -- and debt shouldn't count as collateral to a rational bank) should be just DANDY as collateral. I don't think this explains it. I think they try to pump up demand (short term) for the stock and with the perception that management believes in the company and are "doing something", they attempt to appease shareholders.

A business is good or bad, worth a lot or a little, based on what it PRODUCES and its assets, NOT how many pieces of paper they have lying around which divides up the ownership of the company. If you have a bazillion shares of a bankrupt company, how much are they worth? Assuming buyers are acting rationally, zero.

I heard one analyst recently saying that by buying back the stock the companies do not have to pay out dividends on the shares they hold, so it not only gives them loan collateral, it also reduces a very real expense.

[Subjectivist]

Yes, I know. However, cash (they have to buy the stock with cash or debt -- and debt shouldn't count as collateral to a rational bank) should be just DANDY as collateral. I don't think this explains it. I think they try to pump up demand (short term) for the stock and with the perception that management believes in the company and are "doing something", they attempt to appease shareholders.

A business is good or bad, worth a lot or a little, based on what it PRODUCES and its assets, NOT how many pieces of paper they have lying around which divides up the ownership of the company. If you have a bazillion shares of a bankrupt company, how much are they worth? Assuming buyers are acting rationally, zero.

I wouldn't put much faith in banks being rational from an average persons POV. All that matters to them is looking good in terms of the rules and regulations and showing a profit within that framework.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Yes, I know. However, cash (they have to buy the stock with cash or debt -- and debt shouldn't count as collateral to a rational bank) should be just DANDY as collateral. I don't think this explains it. I think they try to pump up demand (short term) for the stock and with the perception that management believes in the company and are "doing something", they attempt to appease shareholders.

A business is good or bad, worth a lot or a little, based on what it PRODUCES and its assets, NOT how many pieces of paper they have lying around which divides up the ownership of the company. If you have a bazillion shares of a bankrupt company, how much are they worth? Assuming buyers are acting rationally, zero.

I wouldn't put much faith in banks being rational from an average persons POV. All that matters to them is looking good in terms of the rules and regulations and showing a profit within that framework.

Considering that the average person can hardly balance their check book and does NOT save rationally for retirement, I don't think we should establish bank loan collateral issues on what the average person's POV is.

How do you know what matters to banks? Are you an insider?

[Subjectivist]

Yes, I know. However, cash (they have to buy the stock with cash or debt -- and debt shouldn't count as collateral to a rational bank) should be just DANDY as collateral. I don't think this explains it. I think they try to pump up demand (short term) for the stock and with the perception that management believes in the company and are "doing something", they attempt to appease shareholders.

A business is good or bad, worth a lot or a little, based on what it PRODUCES and its assets, NOT how many pieces of paper they have lying around which divides up the ownership of the company. If you have a bazillion shares of a bankrupt company, how much are they worth? Assuming buyers are acting rationally, zero.

I wouldn't put much faith in banks being rational from an average persons POV. All that matters to them is looking good in terms of the rules and regulations and showing a profit within that framework.

Considering that the average person can hardly balance their check book and does NOT save rationally for retirement, I don't think we should establish bank loan collateral issues on what the average person's POV is.

How do you know what matters to banks? Are you an insider?

My ex wife was a banker, what I know about that business comes from life experience and personal study, not class room education or from being in the trade myself.