Vindication: The Wall Street Journal Officially Buries "Wal-Mart Era"

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal featured a prominent, front page piece entitled, "Wal-Mart Era Wanes Amid Big Shifts in Retail."

As such, I'm going to declare yet another of my predictions vindicated. I wrote pieces on this blog, here, and here, as long ago as September of 2005, when I began writing this blog.

Among the quotes from my earlier posts are these from April of this year,

"Friday's Wall Street Journal ran a piece in their Money & Investing section on what ails Wal-Mart, and how to fix it. Trouble is, they mostly asked a group of money managers. Why they think those guys would have a lock on such knowledge is beyond me.

In my opinion, most of them are barking up the wrong tree. Wal-Mart isn't 'coming back' as they knew it. It's big, sluggish, and hard to manage with its saturated markets.

Rather, Wal-Mart is likely at a crossroads. If it desires to regain consistently superior total return performance via growth, then it needs to do a better job identifying those markets which will sustain its traditional, logistics-dependent strategy for dominating the low end of retail merchandising. Whether this means staying or leaving Japan, I don't know. But Wal-Mart's management should.

My own view is that it's unlikely that Wal-Mart will regain its former consistently superior outperformance record. Its size, need to be in multiple countries and exposed to radically varying cultures and logistics environments probably presents the firm's management with too many challenges to overcome simultaneously.

But, since I'm neither a broker, nor a current investor in Wal-Mart, I don't have a stake in convincing others to either buy, or sell the firm's stock based upon expectations. I'm just writing what I have observed, from both my proprietary research, track record of portfolio selections, and the recent media coverage of Wal-Mart's performance."

And these sentiments, from September, 2005,

"Back when I was earning my degrees in Marketing, there was a theory which was taught that went by the name of “the wheel of retailing.” It essentially observed that every so often, a new, low-cost retailer will arise that rips through the existing sector structure like a hot knife through butter, growing at the expense of outmoded, expensive older giants.

That said, the Wal-Mart saga since the 1980s is both remarkable, yet not surprising. What the company did is not all that new. It upended several existing chains of general merchandisers who had grown inefficient, insensitive to consumer needs and wants, and basically moribund. How it did it was with the latest version of what the lowest entrants on the wheel of retailing always use- low-cost supply of large volumes of goods. It looks glitzier now, with integrated IT functions shared among vendors. But if you go back to the architect of Sears’ great transformation, you will find that Robert Wood, the creator of that transformation, learned his supply skills as quartermaster on the Panama Canal, one of the more challenging logistical projects of that era.

What is puzzling me is why there is all this attention paid to the mid-late life growth pangs of a retail success. Retailers who began life at the bottom always try to extend growth, once they saturate the market with stores, by moving up-market. And they nearly always fail in doing so.So will Wal-Mart. The company appeared briefly as a selection in the large-cap equity portfolio I manage. That was back in the 90s. But it hasn’t performed in a consistently superior fashion in over a decade."

I'm quite proud of the fact that I called the demise of the "Wal-Mart era" two years ago. It's sort of sad that as fine a business newspaper as the Wall Street Journal both missed the boat for this long and, even now, in their comprehensive article yesterday, can't come up with a reporter who is familiar with the 'wheel of retailing' concept. Or Schumpeterian dyanmics. Because both figure in this story.

The 'wheel of retailing' is an old, but still valid, marketing concept which observes that, over time, low-end retailers eventually attempt to move upmarket, making way for new entrants, while tending to stall in their new product/markets. This is Wal-Mart, to a "T." Schumpeterian dynamics explains, additionally, why, over time, Wal-Mart sowed the seeds of its own competition, as well as became a target for regulatory and social activist forces, sapping its energy and tarnishing its reputation.

As it is, the article thoroughly documents Wal-Mart's troubles amidst shifting consumer values which place style and convenience above price. Further, having dominated their product/market spaces for so long, they became the target at which to shoot. Consequentially, the article mentions that many competitors, such as the drugstore chains, Walgreens and CVS, simply redefine their offerings to avoid head-to-head competition with the retailing giant. Krogers does the same in food, offering semi- and fully-cooked meals to differentiate itself from Wal-Mart's grocery stores. Tesco, the British food retailer, is about to enter the Western US market with a portfolio of store types, taking on Wal-Mart in this large product/market.

The Yahoo-sourced price chart in this post demonstrates, compares Wal-Mart's performance since the early 1970s with the S&P500. It's clear that, except for a brief 2-3 year period in the late 1990s, Wal-Mart's market performance has been stalled since 1992, i.e., for 15 years!

That's an awfully long time to be waiting for a turnaround, isn't it? That's why I called the company dead as a consistently superior total return performer. The Wall Street Journal article echoes my own research findings and observations about the retailer- it's simply grown too large and stable to respond with alacrity anymore to changes in consumer tastes. Further, with such a large, inertial sales volume, significant growth is no longer easy. Wal-Mart's ventures abroad have disappointed, suggesting their management style is not transferring well or easily to China, Europe, et. al.

As the chart above shows, if you had bought Wal-Mart stock over 30 years ago, and simply held, you'd still have outperformed the S&P for the period by a stunning margin. But you'd have to have sat and watched it tread water for this entire decade. Simply put, Wal-Mart's best days are behind it in terms of consistently superior shareholder return performance.

And you read it here first. Two years ago.

Wall Street on Wal-Mart

Friday's Wall Street Journal ran a piece in their Money & Inveseting section on what ails wal-mart, and how to fix it. Trouble is, they mostly asked a group of money managers. Why they think those guys would have a lock on such knowledge is beyond me.

In my opinion, most of them are barking up the wrong tree. Wal-Mart isn't 'coming back' as they knew it. It's big, sluggish, and hard to manage with its saturated markets.

A look at the Yahoo-sourced chart above ( please click on it to view a larger version) displays the firm's stock price over the past five years. To call it 'stalled' would be kind. It's in deep trouble.

Among the suggestions from the analysts and portfolio managers were: improve customer service; focus on same-store sales, not new growth; exit Japan; enter another foreign market like Mexico, and; sell the Sam's Club operation.

It's quite a mix of advice, but I doubt most of it will result in consistently superior returns for Wal-Mart, like its heyday in the 1980s and '90s.

From what I've read of the firm's travails of the past few years, customer service, per se, is not the problem. Certainly not of the sort that matters to McDonalds. It's a totally different customer satisfaction model.

Rather, Wal-Mart is likely at a crossroads. If it desires to regain consistently superior total return performance via growth, then it needs to do a better job identifying those markets which will sustain its traditional, logistics-dependent strategy for dominating the low end of retail merchandising. Whether this means staying or leaving Japan, I don't know. But Wal-Mart's management should.

Similarly, selling or keeping Sam's Club is strictly a matter of whether it contributes to high-margin, high-revenue growth, or not.

However, what all of these observers miss is that real companies become senescent. Eventually, investor expectations become adjusted to their performance, their competitive environment brings the firm to parity, and, like Wal-Mart, it may even draw the focus and ire of public interest and governmental groups, further burdening the firm's efforts to outperform the market.

My own view is that it's unlikely that Wal-Mart will regain its former consistently superior outperformance record. Its size, need to be in multiple countries and exposed to radically varying cultures and logistics environments probably presents the firm's management with too many challenges to overcome simultaneously.

But, since I'm neither a broker, nor a current investor in Wal-Mart, I don't have a stake in convincing others to either buy, or sell the firm's stock based upon expectations. I'm just writing what I have observed, from both my proprietary research, track record of portfolio selections, and the recent media coverage of Wal-Mart's performance.

More On Starbuck's Expansion

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal featured a very good piece describing the tactical considerations involving how Starbucks sites new stores.

As with most business operations, the details of each site's size, funding, and expectations paint a picture of how the company uses its knowledge of consumer behavior to capitalize on its brand, and drive growth.

Thus, one observes the phenomenon, written about in the story, of as many as three out of four corners of an urban intersection sporting a Starbucks coffee store, of one size and ownership or another.

This reminds me of nothing so much as the late-1980's growth of another fast-service, convenience-oriented purveyor of morning comestibles- Au Bon Pain. Many years ago, the Journal featured a similar article on that older chain. At the time, I traveled to Boston frequently on business, and noticed the saturation of the Downtown Crossing area with Au Bon Pain stores.

If I recollect, the chain found pretty much the same behavioral information on its customers as Starbucks has on theirs. For many urban areas, total sales actually rose with a saturation of stores, rather than splintering a seemingly-fixed demand among more outlets. Traffic patterns and purpose-specific visits allowed for more sales as the brand was more conveniently placed in the paths of more consumers.

Even Coke knows this, as its CEO has recently articulated a goal of putting a Coke within some very short distance or time period from every thirsty consumer on the globe.

It's hard to say whether or not this type of attention to operational detail and consumer behavior will result in Starbucks' total return reversing its recent stall, as depicted in the Yahoo-sourced chart (click on the chart to view a larger version) at the beginning of this post. I wrote much the same in my piece on Schultz's now-infamous memo, back in February of this year, here.

So, while I applaud Schultz's honesty about the changing nature of his brand's face, and his minion's careful study of consumer behaviors in their siting and expansion of outlets, I remain sceptical (hey, I am "the reasoned sceptic") that these well-intentioned efforts will reverse the firm's fortunes, and its senescence, on behalf of its shareholders.

The Street.Com On Dell: 'Who Cares?'

I admit, it's not something I ever thought I'd be doing. But I have to write a post to compliment The Street.com.

Finally, someone there said something with which I can strongly identify. Not that I ever expected it from staffers at firm, founded by Jim Cramer. But one of their number spoke truth to power last week on CNBC, boldly contending, about Dell's recent malaise and accounting troubles,

'who cares? it's an old tech has been,' or words to that effect.

When the CNBC on-air anchor/interviewer sputtered unbelievingly, and stated that many people have a lot of money in Dell, and it's a big company, the Street guy retorted something like,

'so is Xerox. How big is its market cap? Does anyone think it is a leading tech firm anymore?'

Very well put. Big does by no means equal important. Often, it simply means 'still bloated and primed to collapse like a souffle' when sufficient technological change finally sweeps away the last of its ancient underpinnings. Like Kodak. A victim of corporate senescence. Its best days of profitable growth are in the rear view mirror. Consistently superior returns, if they ever happened at Kodak, are a thing long past.

This is yet another example of Schumpeterian dynamics in action. Dell's model went out of fashion some years ago. The guy from the Street echoed my own analysis, noting that Dell hasn't been an outperformer in many years- nearly a decade. It's not just 'having a few bad years.' It's history, as an outperforming company. So are Xerox, Kodak, IBM, and Microsoft. Their earlier technological breakthroughs are now parts of the fabric of our current world, and no longer offer the potential for consistently profitable growth that distinguishes a consistently superior company in terms of total returns.

The truth is, companies, like athletes, slow with age, then die. Aging may be prolonged. Death may come by acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy. But it inevitably comes. In the meantime, watching some companies is like going to a baseball game and seeing the 'oldtimers' play between halves of a doubleheader. I guess somebody has to be CEO of Kodak, IBM and Xerox, but does anyone really care anymore? Personally, I can no longer name those people off the top of my head, as I can with Google.

The guy from The Street.com has it right. These firms may once have been fast-growing, leading tech icons. But now, they are just old, large, slow tech has-beens.

Warren Buffett Seconds My Views on Dell, et. al.

Yesterday, I wrote about Michael Dell's return to lead the company he founded, and the likelihood that he will return it to consistently superior total return performance.

I wrote,

"Both H-P and Dell are, for the most part, engaged in the production and marketing of commodity electronic products- desktop and laptop computers, and printers. These types of firms haven't been on my equity strategy's selection lists since 1998. In the interim, the market for consumer computers has evolved to the point that most buyers can select and take home a perfectly adequate machine from a store at any one of as many as four chains (e.g., BestBuy, CircuitCity, Staples, Costco), with competitive pricing pressure providing similar values across the vendors and products.

In such a market, can we really expect either vendor, H-P or Dell, to somehow add sufficient extra value, and be paid for it, to drive its performance to a level of consistently superior total returns over several years? We're talking about producing some of the most common, nearly-disposable electronic devices you can imagine- personal computers and printers.

The competitive environment for its products, and the behavior of its target consumers, have changed to the extent that I don't think the product/market positioning of the firm will sustain consistently superior total return performance anymore.

Instead, the action seems to have moved on to online information and advertising purveyors- notable Google. This is not really a surprise. Over the years, consistent superiority of performance among technology firms has moved up the "food chain," from Intel and Microsoft, to the box makers, then the specialty applications software firms, to the online access and content providers. Now, it's moved beyond the last group, to simply providing tools to find information.

Although Michael Dell may return his firm to profitability and some revenue growth, relative to recent years, I don't think Dell has much potential to reward shareholders anymore."

Today, my partner emailed me a piece containing excerpts from Warren Buffett's annual shareholder letter. It would seem he and I share the viewpoint which I expressed above.

Here is, in part, what Buffett wrote:

"Not all of our businesses are destined to increase profits. When an industry's underlying economics are crumbling, talented management may slow the rate of decline. Eventually, though, eroding fundamentals will overwhelm managerial brilliance. (As a wise friend told me long ago, "If you want to get a reputation as a good businessman, be sure to get into a good business.") And fundamentals are definitely eroding in the newspaper industry, a trend that has caused the profits of our Buffalo News to decline. The skid will almost certainly continue.

Now, however, almost all newspaper owners realize that they are constantly losing ground in the battle for eyeballs. Simply put, if cable and satellite broadcasting, as well as the internet, had come along first, newspapers as we know them probably would never have existed."

In this post, last November, I discussed the odds that Maurice Greenberg or Jack Welch can turn around the daily newspapers they are interested in buying and running. Again, Buffett has come to the same conclusion I did, by writing,

"For a local resident, ownership of a city's paper, like ownership of a sports team, still produces instant prominence. With it typically comes power and influence. These are ruboffs that appeal to many people with money. Beyond that, civic-minded, wealthy individuals may feel that local ownership will serve their community well. That's why Peter Kiewit bought the Omaha paper more than 40 years ago.

We are likely therefore to see non-economic individual buyers of newspapers emerge, just as we have seen such buyers acquire major sports franchises. Aspiring press lords should be careful, however: There's no rule that says a newspaper's revenues can't fall below its expenses and that losses can't mushroom. Fixed costs are high in the newspaper business, and that's bad news when unit volume heads south. As the importance of newspapers diminishes, moreover, the "psychic value" of possessing one will wane, whereas owning a sports franchise will likely retain its cachet."

It's nice to be in the philosophical and intuitive company of someone so well-regarded as Warren Buffett.

Dell's Attempt To Regain Past Glory

Last Thursday's Wall Street Journal contained an article detailing the many recent senior level management changes at Dell Computer. I won't go into all the details. Suffice to say, the article presented the situation as one in which Michael Dell has returned to the computer maker which he founded, and is evidently leaving no organizational or personnel stone unturned, in his determination to revive the firm's fortune.

Instead, I'd like to focus on a more strategic view of the Dell situation. For starters, consider the Yahoo-sourced price chart above, comparing Dell, H-P and the S&P500 for the past five years (please click on the chart to see a larger version). While H-P has outperformed both Dell and the index, it was effectively flat from early 2003 until mid-2005, or two and a half years. Dell, too, was flat for most of 2005, until it began its recent decline. Neither has been particularly consistently superior to the index over much of the five year period.

Both H-P and Dell are, for the most part, engaged in the production and marketing of commodity electronic products- desktop and laptop computers, and printers. These types of firms haven't been on my equity strategy's selection lists since 1998. In the interim, the market for consumer computers has evolved to the point that most buyers can select and take home a perfectly adequate machine from a store at any one of as many as four chains (e.g., BestBuy, CircuitCity, Staples, Costco), with competitive pricing pressure providing similar values across the vendors and products.

In such a market, can we really expect either vendor, H-P or Dell, to somehow add sufficient extra value, and be paid for it, to drive its performance to a level of consistently superior total returns over several years? We're talking about producing some of the most common, nearly-disposable electronic devices you can imagine- personal computers and printers.

If price- and feature-based competition is so fierce, one would expect the performance differences among the firms to be in market segment growth or penetration. Here, Dell is notably scarce on dealer shelves, in a market in which buyers no longer seem content to wait for a 'custom' machine. So I don't really expect Dell to be returning to its past glory of nearly a decade ago. The competitive environment for its products, and the behavior of its target consumers, have changed to the extent that I don't think the product/market positioning of the firm will sustain consistently superior total return performance anymore.

Instead, the action seems to have moved on to online information and advertising purveyors- notable Google. This is not really a surprise. Over the years, consistent superiority of performance among technology firms has moved up the "food chain," from Intel and Microsoft, to the box makers, then the specialty applications software firms, to the online access and content providers. Now, it's moved beyond the last group, to simply providing tools to find information.

Although Michael Dell may return his firm to profitability and some revenue growth, relative to recent years, I don't think Dell has much potential to reward shareholders anymore.

Starbucks' Schultz Sees Senescence

Saturday's Wall Street Journal carried a lengthy article concerning an internal email from Howard Schultz, the firm's chairman, regarding his concerns for the firm.

Back in April of 2006, in this post, I wrote,

"So Howard Schultz is opening more than 10 company stores per week, which would account for the employee growth. That is, 2 company stores per day, plus 5 licensee stores per day, plus turnover. With 'more than 100,000' employees currently, they are adding roughly 1% to their employee base per week. Allow for some Kentucky windage, and they are growing like topsy.

At these rates, I would guess Schultz lies awake nights wondering how his company's culture can withstand this sort of dilution and explosion among its ranks. When the US military saw these levels of growth during WWII, they employed the "cadre" system- seeding new units with experienced combat veterans. Is Starbucks doing this? Can they afford to, if they are moving into new locales?"

Interestingly, Schultz isn't planning to limit growth- he plans to more than triple the current number of stores to 40,000. Rather, he frets over the changes that have been wrought in Starbucks stores in order to maintain revenue and volume growth.

Changes such as automatic espresso machines which are tall and obscure the sight of the "barista" at work. A switch to pre-ground and packaged coffee, so that one no longer smells roasted coffee upon entering a Starbucks store. The aroma of burnt cheese on occasion, as the chain's new breakfast sandwiches cause some mess that is not immediately cleaned out of the ovens.

On one hand, I have to admire Schultz for his ethic in understanding that "success is not an entitlement." I really do admire that realistic attitude in a CEO or company leader. However, when Schultz wrote in his email,

"We desperately need to look into the mirror and realize it's time to get back to the core," just what does he mean? Hire more people and backtrack to more labor-intensive, poorer-quality service levels of the past? Trim the product offerings, and drop skim milk?

Perhaps Schultz is simply confusing limits to growth and consistently superior returns, with his company's own recent history. My proprietary research has found that there is a natural senescence that all successful firms experience. Just as athletes age, firms eventually outgrow their initial markets, attract competition, and simply become harder to lead, manage and grow in a manner that sustains consistently superior total returns than they once were.

This Yahoo-sourced chart (click on the chart to see a larger version) illustrates that, versus the S&P500, Starbucks has actually been stuck in neutral for about two years. While the company's stock price has outpaced the S&P for the last five years in total, it's been flat for the last two. The S&P is higher over that period, while Starbucks has plateaued. In fact, Starbucks is among the better performing shorts in my equity strategy, were we to be using the short strategy right now. It's been superior over several years in terms of total return, but inconsistently.


My guess is that Starbucks is simply reaching a Wal-Mart-like limit to profitable growth that can sustain a consistently superior total return performance.


From the Journal article, it appears that Schultz is not exactly a well-educated, deeply knowledgeable businessman. Rather, it notes that he was a salesman who moved to Seattle in 1982 to join the coffee roasting firm. It's just possible that he does not realize what happens when a firm outgrows its initial niche. In Starbuck's case, it must now add food, music, etc., to maintain growth levels. And it has engendered renewed competition in coffee from the likes of Dunkin' Donuts and McDonalds.


I should probably note here that I hold McDonalds in my equity portfolio. And that, truth be told, when offered a choice, I'm a Dunkin' Donuts guy, not a Starbucks aficionado, for takeout coffee. I do, however, religiously buy one-pound bags of espresso beans at Starbucks, because Dunkin' Donuts refuses to sell me bags of the espresso beans they have in the store to brew their own espresso.

However, back to the Schultz email. It surprised me to read that Schultz puts so much emphasis on the "romance and theatre" of a Starbucks store. I guess I really am not their target market customer, because I've never had a romantic or theatrical experience in one of their units. I've had bad service. But I could personally care less if I see the guy/gal - excuse me, the barista- actually make my cup of coffee.


If Schultz and his crew plan to hit their target of 40,000 stores, I think they will find themselves making lots more changes than they have yet anticipated. If anything, a Starbucks will probably become even more distant than Schultz' dreamy original-style store than it already is.

So, kudos to Schultz for being uncomfortable and suspicious of what success his firm has enjoyed. But I'm not sure there's that much he can actually do to avoid the inevitable effects of senescence upon Starbucks.