Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Starfirenv (< 20)

TMF-WTF? Today's buying Opp? Invest in "The Death of Walmart? Are You Kiddin' Me?



August 20, 2010 – Comments (21) | RELATED TICKERS: SIL , LEE , WAL

  This is really getting silly. I can't ck email or pull up news without seeing your "Death of Walmart" ads. How long have they been dead now? A year or two? And it's today's buying opp? Do you people not notice how many valued Fools (to the community at least) have left of late? Ever wonder why? Like stocks, I'm about 90% out of here. Does it matter, since you're not getting any money from me? Probably not, but do not discount the value of this community- that is your strength. Lose your cred and you lose everything. Seeing "Buy WAL" and "The Death of WAL" on the same page will only accomplish that. Sorry for the rant. Your site has been huge for myself and others and it's troubling to watch the unraveling. Bring back the 10 count "Buzz Box", build on your strength or what's left of it.
  Fellow Fools, is it just me? I would REALLY like to hear your thoughts and I hope Fool Staff would too.
  Note- There's a "Death of Walmart" side banner ad as I write this. Pretty silly but sad and true.

21 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 20, 2010 at 1:34 PM, XMFShirKi (44.26) wrote:

Dear Starfirenv,

I cannot speak as an official representative of TMF, but as a Foolish member of the community just like you.

TMF has always valued diversity and differing opinions and encourages people to speak out with them. Therefore, it should not be surprising or shocking that there are different opinions - even on the same page - about Wal-Mart. Silly? Maybe to you. Personally, I like hearing the two sides to every coin before making up my mind.


Best wishes,


Disclaimer: I am a TMF techie and not in any way affiliated with marketing or the "11 o'clock stock" project.

Report this comment
#2) On August 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, RonChapmanJr (30.18) wrote:

Once they removed the market ticker I have been coming less and less.  They may not make enough money off us to really care. 

Report this comment
#3) On August 20, 2010 at 1:55 PM, kristm (99.66) wrote:

Changing the front page of CAPS (no more top declines/top increases of the day) and then shutting down hyponotoad while letting >20 score players blog pretty much did it for me. Participating in the game always required me to be distracted from work, but it's not worth the loss of productivity anymore. I make a few picks sometimes but it's difficult now to find them, and why blog when my post is going to be off the list in five minutes?

All Glory To The Hypnotoad.

Report this comment
#4) On August 20, 2010 at 1:59 PM, mtf00l (43.43) wrote:

I have a different theory...  Half the people will dump WalMart for whatever the brothers are pushing.  The brothers portfolios show success and more people subscribe.  The oppositional defiant's buy WalMart and the "service" pushing WalMart shows success and more people subscribe to that "service".  In summary, no matter who wins, the Fool wins, no matter who loses, the Fool wins.  I remember win the Fool was a 100% free.  Do you?

Report this comment
#5) On August 20, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Pick1es (25.67) wrote:

The Motley Fool = Buffet, Buffet,  Buffet,  Buffet, Lynch, Buffet,  Buffet,  Buffet....

Report this comment
#6) On August 20, 2010 at 2:17 PM, WallstreetKnight (41.23) wrote:


Wouldn't subscribing to a service be in contempt of rule(s) #1 and 2 then?  hehe 

Report this comment
#7) On August 20, 2010 at 2:21 PM, GNUBEE (< 20) wrote:

+1 for #3

(even though I do post smart @ss worthless comments too)

Report this comment
#8) On August 20, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Ron-#2.  You're not alone.
Kristm #3. I agree but you're talking about me (<20). Isn't it about substance?
mft001 #4. You pretty much nailed it and no sir/ma'am I do not.
fear #5. LOL and Paulson and Moody's and......
Knight/Gnubee/all- Thanks bothering to read and rec this <20 Fool. I'm hoping a dose of "tough love" can make this a better place.

Report this comment
#9) On August 20, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

I can't agree more.  While the policy of TMF may differ from the opinion of the TMFstaff member who recommends buying Wal-mart, its still the same thing as a ranking member of an oil  company telling people to invest in and use solar instead.  Its hipocracy, adn the true irony is that the Death fo WalMart banner is viewed on this page.  Maybe TMF is talking abotu one of WalMarts remaining 8 lives?  Our a resurrection?  Maybe TMF was wrong abotu WalMart to begin with?


Its disappionting to say the least.  Good thing for the caps community! 

Report this comment
#10) On August 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Jbay- Thanks and agreed.
I would sure like to see more honest opinions.

Report this comment
#11) On August 20, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Wow- Never seen a headline banner go away so fast. For those who missed it, today's "Buying Opp" was WalMart. Which I do own. Regards and thanks all. TGIF

Report this comment
#12) On August 20, 2010 at 6:07 PM, kristm (99.66) wrote:


Yes limiting blog posts to members above a certain level would have kept you from blogging, and your post was so well written I didn't even notice you were a low-rated Capper until my response was done. However, in most cases the people with >20 scores aren't very active on the site, many are just spammer/pimps. The whole purpose of Caps is for experienced or intelligent investors to help out those who aren't, thus building a knowledge community. So it only makes sense for blogs to be limited to those who have reached a certain level. If you make some picks it won't take long for you to get a real score.

This isn't anything against you, believe me - you're an exception to the rule. I used to be >20 too and probably benefit now, score-wise anyway, as much (or more) from having been on CAPS for three years as much as I benefit from any wisdom of my own. 

Report this comment
#13) On August 20, 2010 at 6:08 PM, kristm (99.66) wrote:

I would suggest that blog REPLIES be left open to players with any score. But reducing the number of people who could post the actual blogs would clean the site up a lot.

Report this comment
#14) On August 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM, madmilker (< 20) wrote:

on Wal*Mart's China web page!

"Walmart entered the Chinese market and opened its first Supercenter and Sam’s Club in Shenzhen in 1996. Currently, Walmart operates a number of store formats in China including Supercenters, Sam’s Clubs, and Neighborhood Markets. As of June 27, 2010, Walmart had 187 units in 99 cities, and created over 50,000 job opportunities across China.

Walmart China firmly believes in local sourcing. We have established partnerships with nearly 20,000 suppliers in China. Over 95% of the merchandise in our stores in China is sourced locally. Meanwhile, Walmart is committed to local talent development and diversity, especially the cultivation and full utilization of female staff and executives. 99.9% of Walmart China associates are Chinese nationals. All our stores in China are managed by Chinese local talent. 43% of leaders at senior manager level and above are female. In 2009, the company established the “Walmart China Women’s Leadership Development Commission” for driving women’s career development."

 That does not support American exports are American jobs.

Report this comment
#15) On August 20, 2010 at 8:45 PM, dragonLZ (90.99) wrote:

+1 from me.

I don't like seeing both buy and sell calls on the same stock coming from TMF (who really cares that TMF "values diversity" so these 2 calls are coming from different people).

I see TMF likes to advertise when TMF's right: "David Gardner called it. He's up 542% on his NFLX call", but seeing this both-ways call on Walmart makes me wonder if there were two other TMF guys who said NFLX is dead when it was at $14.00...

Report this comment
#16) On August 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Kristm- Understand completely and agree. Absolutely no offense taken. You are overly kind as this was spewed out of disbelief with no forethought or concern for composition. There are others I liked alot better. I have a relatively short post history, but feel that each was a positive contribution. After reading the top Fools break down how easy it is to "game the game" I had no inclination to play and generally disregard scores. I do play in RL. Thanks again for your kindness and response. I hope something positive comes from this in Foolville. Have an excellent weekend.
P.S. I'll watch for something from you, and this "<" means less than.

Report this comment
#17) On August 20, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Dragonz- Yea buddy, like I said, I can't ck my email without seeing it. What terrifies Bill Gates? Um... maybe that he can't give away some more Billions to make the world a better place..   I don't know, I owm WMT and have for a long time. Keep doing what you're  doing. How DO you pull that stuff ouy your ... :o)

Report this comment
#18) On August 22, 2010 at 7:41 PM, truthisntstupid (81.55) wrote:

Would anyone like to see a collection of links to blogs about "gaming the game?"   It would take some digging, but there sure have been a lot of them.

The number by my name is an unreliable indicator.  You can recognize the value in words that convey knowledge no matter who who writes them.

I don't even agree with many of the top players on what I consider to be the best investing approach for me. 

This space would lose too many people if only top players blogged.  How many top players would be writing anything about my chosen style - dividend investing?

Capital appreciation isn't the only game in town. 

I wrote this when my rating was in the 20's or 30's.

Of the 38 comments there were quite a few by high-rated players that saw value in my words.  They didn't care what my rating was.  They liked what I wrote.

This site would lose its appeal to many people if it became too lopsided in the styles of investing represented.  I've seen some, ahh...uninformed comments about dividend investing from some high-rated players. 

I'm sorry for the long winded reply. 



Report this comment
#19) On August 22, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Truth-  Oh yes, "Independence from the Herd". One of those 38 recs was mine.
The point of this post was the disbelief that "Today's Buying Opp" (WMT) was bannered by "Death of". A titanic blunder.
As to your points,
1. Collection of links (game the game) here's a good start-
2.  Unreliable - Absolutely
3.  Best approach- Agree
4.  Lose too many people- Already have (TS called it) and (for various reasons) will lose more with idiocy like this. You're right.
5.  Capital appreciation isn't the only game in town- True, but that's why I'm here, though preservation is my second choice
6.  Long winded- Disagree, not at all. Thanks for reading.
    From your "If" post- Comment #57  " Looks like you've found a home here- from the comments, I think you can stand tall. Best. Rec #103. That's pretty strong."  Thanks, And forget about the namechange. Now I must go "tune-up" my new girlfriend. She's a '65 LeMans.  Regards

Report this comment
#20) On August 22, 2010 at 10:12 PM, truthisntstupid (81.55) wrote:


Sorry I forgot to include a comment about the point of your blog while I was responding to one of the commenters.

I hadn't really realized how incongruous it is to see that banner on the same page as an article touting WalMart as today's top pick.

It does seem somewhat ludicrous, although I always took the "death of WalMart" thing as a proposal of an idea about a possible eventuality.  So I guess I never considered the two seemingly disparate ideas as a conflict in the present.


Report this comment
#21) On August 24, 2010 at 12:20 AM, kristm (99.66) wrote:

My apologies, I DO know the difference between < and > but made the same mistake twice in comments here.. Sorry.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners