Walmart Earnings Disaster Exposes a Collapsing Economy: Davidowitz

Yahoo! Finance ^ | August 14, 2013 | Jeff Macke

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Walmart (WMT) reported earnings of $1.24 a share this morning on revenues of $116.2 billion. Analysts had been expecting $1.25 on $118.5 billion. Sales in stores open more than a year declined 0.3%. Walmart also guided lower for the full year citing a "challenging sales and operating environment." The stock is off sharply and at risk of going negative for the last 52 weeks.

Those are the numbers, but not the whole story. Walmart is the thermometer of the American economy. Disregard the government data. Jobs and GDP and all the rest are at best inaccurate measures of the economy and at worst flat out corrupt. Walmart is capitalism writ large. The entire organization is focused on nothing but selling goods and services to Americans. It may be an empire in decline, but Walmart sells more than $1 billion worth of merchandise per day in a bad quarter. When Walmart misses estimates, it can only mean one of two things: either Walmart or the American economy is weaker than anyone thought.

"Walmart is a terrific operator... They didn't suddenly become stupid," says says Howard Davidowitz, one of the top retail minds in the country. "The economy is in collapse. That's what's going on."

Davidowitz points out that Walmart isn't just a store for the downtrodden. They have 150 million customers which collectively spent less in Walmart stores than in the same period last year. Davidowitz says another 50 million customers shop at Target (TGT), which he also expects to have negative comp stores sales when it reports next week.

--snip--

Either the best merchants in America forgot how to sell, Americans stopped consuming beyond their means, or the economy is turning south, not getting better.

[discostu]

OK a buck.24 instead of a buck.25 is NOT a disaster. And a .3% decline is negligible. And WalMart slipping a step could as easily be the economy getting better (ie less people NEEDING to shop in one of the most unpleasant stores in the world) as worse.

[cherry]

the stores with groceries are too big...the prices aren’t significantly cheaper...I hate their system of checkouts...

[gov_bean_ counter]

less people NEEDING choosing to shop in one of the most unpleasant stores in the world.

Now THAT is a bet I would take...

[cherry]

sometimes the dollar store will get you better buys....the other thing is, Goodwill and garage sales and craigslist....if one can buy what one needs...like a tool, or a shelf, or canning jars, etc at Goodwill or the garage sales or off craigslist...at cheaper prices, why shouldn’t they?

[discostu]

I run under the assumption that most of the people that shop at WalMart can’t afford places that are less annoying. I suppose it’s possible actually shop there voluntarily.

[gov_bean_ counter]

FReepmail.

[pabianice]

A 0.3% drop is a “disaster”? The only disaster here is Yahoo’s rancid, insane Leftist propaganda.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Walmart (WMT) reported earnings of $1.24 a share this morning on revenues of $116.2 billion. Analysts had been expecting $1.25 on $118.5 billion. Sales in stores open more than a year declined 0.3%. Walmart also guided lower for the full year citing a "challenging sales and operating environment." The stock is off sharply and at risk of going negative for the last 52 weeks."

I know little about finance and economics, but these numbers do not suggest a "disaster." A three-tenths of one percent decline in sales seems mildly disappointing, but not a "disaster."

[Buckeye McFrog]

“Well if you paid your people more so they could be better consumers” (commence MSNBC eye-roll...)

[Popman]

The fix is to unionize every Wally World...

That’s what the libtards say.....

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Amazing that the company makes as much as it does after being so brutally vilified by the liberals, the Dems, and their union and Hollyweird allies.

[Da Coyote]

Disaster?

I think not.

I’m not particularly a WalMart fan, but the number diffs are within the noise.

As for “analysts,” we’ve seen how good they are.

An apt comparison is that these “analysts” have the same talent as do our climate “scientists”.

After all, they are “analysts” because no company that produces things of value sees any value in them.

[Mad Dawgg]

Disaster?

"Seriesly"

This is Hugh...!

[Steve_Seattle]

I’ve only been to WalMart 4 or 5 times in my life because it’s a 20-minute drive and I can get pretty good prices with a 30-second drive to my local store. However, I never found WalMart particularly “annoying.”

[Red in Blue PA]

Sales were off by 2.3 BILLION. I am not sure what the guidance was for next quarter, but can only assume that the next several quarters will be revised downward too.

THAT is why a seemingly small drop is disastrous. A one time event would not matter, but as usual, the devil is the in details.

[Buckeye McFrog]

A 0.3% drop is a “disaster”?

Large retailers base their entire business model on the presumption of double-digit same-store increases for as far into the future as the eye can see.

[Mad Dawgg]

"I’ve only been to WalMart 4 or 5 times in my life because it’s a 20-minute drive and I can get pretty good prices with a 30-second drive to my local store. However, I never found WalMart particularly “annoying.”

Our local Wal-Mart is clean and well stocked. My only gripe is they tend to move the things I routinely shop for to new locations often and it slows me down when I need to hunt for them.

[Popman]

A .3 % decline does reflect any retail price increases over the year....so in reality....it’s more like 2 or 3 % decline...

That’ why an actual decline is big news....

[Red in Blue PA]

I’m not particularly a WalMart fan, but the number diffs are within the noise.

Companies give guidance to Wall Street of where they think their sales and earnings will be. They should ALWAYS make it a number they can hit. If they cannot even hit the low end, that is a red flag.