Although the stock price of Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) has floundered for years with little deviation from the $50 area, the retailer's CEO has been bagging some large paychecks even as WMT shareholders have received bupkus from their investments. It's true that investors should be looking for longer-term returns instead of three-month returns, but it's been half a decade since WMT has moved in a significant way.

Would Sam Walton be proud of the performance of the current CEO, Lee Scott? This question was postulated over at Forbes.com, and it makes a pretty good point. With returns of -3.4% annually since Scott has been at the helm, does that kind of performance merit a $60 million payout for Scott since he's been at the helm? That's $8 million a year.

All the PR hogwash from boards that overpay under-performing leaders based on "competitive market rates" is laughable. Shouldn't a CEO's performance be relative to the performance of the company being led? After all, if you base pay on industry metrics, who's to say that those being looked at for a baseline are performing at the top of their game? Nothing says that -- and it's all relative. The shareholders who have a stake in under-performance should demand that executive pay be tied to that, not meaningless competitive metrics in the CEO world where the comparison could be on another leader's shining performance. Hey, you and I don't get paid that way. Why should CEOs?

Welcome to the seventh installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly -- a new weekly column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions and just a bit of everything else when it comes down to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

Last week I looked at Wal-Mart Stores' (NYSE:WMT) image issues to see what the world's largest retailer had in plan to goose its public image and try to form some sort of cohesive marketing message for its consumers. Basically, I can't find any strong image that Wal-Mart presents right now except the "Always Low Prices," and that is somewhat stale at this time.

This week I wanted to discuss what the retailer could do to supercharge its international strategy. Hey, when sales are going down in your largest market (the U.S.), there's nothing better than to attack international markets and grow sales there, right? The problem is, Wal-Mart has failed big-time in a few international countries recently (South Korea and Germany), but it's pushing hard into Europe (possibly) and definitely into China and India.

Suffice to say, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott will not be singing New York, New York with Andrew Cuomo at Madison Square Garden anytime soon, although I secretly am dying to see that. As I reported last week, Lee Scott doesn't like New York and New York doesn't like him.

In a column for Time.com, Bill Saporito argues that New York and its labor unions messed up by blocking Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) from entering the city:

The unions have got their walled-city approach wrong. Here's the UFCW, which has been losing membership at a steady pace, turning down a historic opportunity. You can't organize stores that don't exist, Stu. Supermarkets have been pulling out of the city, not moving in, given the high costs and the competition from retail banks for the store space. And Wal-Mart has kicked the UFCW's ass all over the country - there's not a single union Wal-Mart store anywhere. Whatsa matter, Stu, you don't got game for those hicks from Arkansas?

He goes on to urge unions to organize around Wal-Mart, and embrace it. The problem is that Wal-Mart's model of ruthless efficiency with sub-par wages and benefits just doesn't work in a union setting. This is not a knock on the unions. In the past, Wal-Mart has closed stores after the unions voted to get in. In the great book The Wal-Mart Effect, Charles Fishman discusses research showing that if Wal-Mart raised its average wage above $12 an hour (It's currently around $10), the stores would no longer be profitable.

Whether New York should have welcomed Wal-Mart with open arms is a legitimate question. But the idea that New York unions could have changed the face of the company is unrealistic.

As Zac Bissonnette wrote earlier, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) CEO Lee Scott seemed to vent his frustration with Wal-Mart's inability to enter the New York City market by stating "I don't care if we ever enter New York." Wow -- for a high-visibility CEO to lose his cool like that may end up in his being hammered in the press and even by his board.

It's amazing what a little candor can do these days. Scott could have said, "It's unfortunate that the shoppers and leaders of such a fine city have not accepted Wal-Mart into their community," but to actually slam one of the world's most respected cities just goes to show what arrogance Wal-Mart's leadership must have right now in the face of extreme frustration from slowing sales and constant bashing in the press.

Scott seems to be secretly under fire from his recent $22 million bonus for "meeting financial targets" to Wal-Mart's fledgling share price to the huge image problem the world's largest retailer has in its biggest market right now. Will 2007 see the end of Scott as Wal-Mart's CEO? Shareholders need to be holding Wal-Mart management accountable -- for something -- even as he gets publicly flustered and basically insults the people of NYC. Way to go, Lee.

In 1975, New York City was about to default on its bonds and then President Gerald R. Ford declined to back the city prompting the New York Daily News headline: Ford to City: Drop Dead. 32 years later, and according to the New York Times [registration required], New York is turning the back of its hand to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT).

Wal-Mart, which failed to get approval for stores in Rego Park, Queens and Staten Island, puts itself squarely on the political football field by blaming the unions and Manhattan elitism. CEO Lee Scott's money quotes: "The glue is the unions," and, "You have people who are just better than us and don't want a Wal-Mart in their community."

Scott is staunch union opponent but he has his economic geography wrong since I think New York's elites live on the Upper East Side (UES), not Rego Park or Staten Island. But with New York riding a wave of prosperity, it's amusing to see that instead of a Republican president giving the back of his hand to a financially struggling City, it's now the Big Apple giving the Bronx cheer to red state Wal-Mart.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Wal-Mart.

The New York Times printed some really bizarre comments from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) CEO Lee Scott yesterday in which he appeared to be venting about the company's struggles in opening stores in New York City. Here are a few of his comments:

• "I don't care if we are ever here."
• "I don't think it's worth the effort."
• "It's too hard to make money here."
• Referring to the company's struggles in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles: "The glue is the unions."
• "You have people who are just better than us and don't want a Wal-Mart in their community."

What's stunning about Lee's comments is his candor and arrogance, and it's difficult to imagine what he's hoping to accomplish here. They provide ample ammo for the anti-Big Box brigade, and the responses have already started to come. Ed Ott, executive director of the New York City Central Labor Council said, "We don't care if they're never here. We don't miss them. We have great supermarkets and great retail outlets in New York. We don't need Wal-Mart." Lee Scott has struggled to win the battle for the hearts and minds of consumers and the media and the company's stock price has also lagged during his tenure.

His petulant attacks on the city of New York are unlikely to please the company's Board of Directors and could add to the calls for his resignation.

The idea of buying clothing at Target (NYSE:TGT) and then selling it on eBay (NASDAQ:EBAY) for six times as much a week later seems crazy. In fact, I would argue that it is crazy: If you have enough money to spend six times as much on a skirt as it costs at Target, why are you buying a skirt from Target?

According to this article in the Wall Street Journal:

Among the items that have found buyers willing to pay substantial premiums: A Roland Mouret dress that sold for $108 at Gap in January appreciated 100%. A sweater dress from the limited-edition Stella McCartney line that H&M sold in 2005 went for more than six times its original price on eBay this past January.

This is a huge coup for Target. Not only have they succeeded in offering clothing that people actually want to wear at competitive prices, they're offering clothing people actual want and are willing to pay more for. Gone are they days when kids were made fun of on the playground for wearing clothing from the big-box stores. Call it Big-box chic.

Note to Lee Scott: the Journal article mentioned three pieces from Target's collection, and three from H&M, and none from Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT). There's obviously demand for budget designer clothes, and maybe Wal-Mart can capitalize. Signing a big name designer or two (looking for a challenge in creating affordable luxury) might go a long way toward improving Wal-Mart's image as a hick-store.

If you're a Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.(NYSE:WMT) shareholder who has watched WMT shares sit around for the past five years without much movement, you'll be interested to know that Wal-Mart has awarded CEO Lee Scott a stock bonus worth $22 million for reaching revenue targets.

That's all well and good ---- but after glancing at the five-year stock performance chart below, Scott certainly has not had a positive effect on the price of WMT shares in that timeframe, even though Wal-Mart itself may have met revenue goals set by upper management or the board. In fact, who set those revenue goals?

Wal-Mart's board of directors has an internal compensation committee like most boards to determine the amount given to key executives in the company, and it voted almost a week ago to make the award to CEO Scott. Additionally, other executives were granted shares. Perhaps now, a better concentration on making those shares worth more than they are now is in order?

The details: Scott's regular salary and bonus for 2006 was $5.23 million, and his total compensation was $15.7 million, not counting restricted stock awards for performance. The $22 million bonus was for Wal-Mart's 2007 fiscal year revenue targets being beat.

When Prince Charles buddies up alongside Wal-Mart at the behest of "green" environmental initiatives, the critics of the world's largest retailer are probably biting their tongues at the same time.

Prince Charles, a longtime proponent of environmentally-friendly business, was asked by Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott to, um, stand alongside the retailer's green initiatives.

I find it fascinating that Wal-Mart, for all its naysayers and critics, is being bashed for "not acting fast enough" to implement green ecologically-sound procedures in its company.

Give them some time, I say. It's true that Wal-Mart could have started a long time ago on this 'green' trip, but at least it is making great strides as of late.

24/7 Wall St. generated a list of 10 public company CEOs in December where investors in the underlying companies would be better served by a new CEO. Three of these have already been axed, and that is in roughly 6 weeks. Some calls aren't actually calling for the CEOs to be fired, but a title change or strategy shift was in order. There were few outright "He's Gotta Go!" and there still are. The FIRED CEO's are first, and the others are alphabetical by company. The names are highlighted so you can see the full comments and suggestions from the original article on each, and the original comments left on Bloggingstocks are here for the 7 of the 10 that are still pending:

Dell's (NASDAQ:DELL) Kevin Rollins.
STATUS: FIRED! His name will be forgotten by Wall Street most likely and will be referred to as 'That guy that took Dell down.'

Gap Inc.'s (NYSE:GPS) Paul Pressler.
STATUS: KIA! He's done and he'll have to go in for that old Japanese executive retraining boot camp before anyone speaks to him again.

The Home Depot's(NYSE:HD) Bob Nardelli.
STATUS: FIRED! But beware, he took a huge exit-payout and only has a 1-year non-compete. He'll probably end up in private equity and his name won't quietly disappear.

Amazon.com's (NASDAQ:AMZN) Jeff Bezos. He doesn't need to go away entirely! He just needs to do a partial title change. But will anyone inside the company tell the emperor he is wearing no space suit?
STATUS: Earnings are today, but either way the company could use an add-on here. I like Bezos and this will give him the latitude needed.

Citigroup's (NYSE:C) Chuck Prince. The prince calls for Draconian measures, and maybe the prince didn't mean just THIS Prince.
STATUS: Everyone has told this prince he isn't wearing clothes and he keeps ruling and ignores this. Sally Krawchek wasn't the problem. The stock is up in hopes that he'll leave and that new management can run the beast better.

Eastman Kodak's (NYSE:EK) Antonio Perez. Maybe he's nice, but for heaven's sake get the restructuring over with and get some mojo. Bring in a digital media leader.
STATUS: The earnings have turned, but the long painful restructuring continues and the last medical imaging sale funds might not be used aggressively enough. EK would still be better under a different digital leader.

Qualcomm Inc.'s (NASDAQ:QCOM) Paul Jacobs. He isn't being sent home yet, but his dad's shoes are proving very hard to fill.
STATUS: The note here is still in the pending file and he may survive if he can keep the stock from falling and if he can keep the company's patents and contracts alive.

Sirius Satellite Radio (NASDAQ:SIRI) & XM Satellite Radio (NASDAQ:XMSR). It is a dead heat in the race, and if two companies need to merge, it's these two. There can be only one.
STATUS: Still pending, still a tie! They should just merge and get it over with. A merger wouldn't be great for consumers and competition, but would be best for investors.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s(NYSE:WMT) Lee Scott. The company is struggling under its own weight, and it needs some good PR. Getting rid of the Darth Vader of Corporate America and bringing in someone fun and likeable would be the best start.
STATUS: He's still gotta go. If he is still there at the end of this year it is because he intimidated every internal external challenger. Darth Vader wasn't a hero until the last 10 minutes of the original series after almost 6 hours of being the bad guy. Lee Scott could become a good guy if he would just leave.

Yahoo!'s (NASDAQ:YHOO) Terry Semel. Yes, when you see him leave or forced out, Yahoo! holders should be happy.
STATUS: Panama may save him, but Wall Street would rather see Semel leave. Sue Decker is better suited for the role.

A lot of these may be controversial, and there are plenty of other companies that might benefit from a new CEO. None of these attacks are personal and these are merely based on observation and analysis. The list could probably be 100 CEO's long.

Jon Ogg is a partner in 24/7 Wall St. LLC; He does not hold securities in the companies he covers. He also not been compensated to represent any of these companies in any light.

The new issue of Fortune magazine presents interesting possibilities for the future of the world's largest retailer. Titled "The Unending Woes of Lee Scott," it centers on the stock's under-performance in recent years. Since Lee Scott took over in 2000, the stock has lost $90 billion in market cap. However, the company's earnings have grown in that time, and the poor performance is attributable to a multiple contraction: a P/E of 54 then compared to 17 now. Scott does not have an arrogant manner or outlandish pay package likely to draw the ire of shareholder activists. Combine that with the support that Scott has among the Walton family (who, with other insiders, control about 40% of the company's shares), and it doesn't look like Scott will be going the way of Nardelli anytime soon.

What was most interesting about the article was a suggestion form HSBC's retail analyst Mark Husson: Don't worry about growing earnings for one year, and increase pay and benefits for employees. According to Husson, "I could write the press release now: 'Having done the right thing by consumers for so many years, it's now time to do right by our employees. It will be good for America and good for our employee turnover as well.'"

A recent McKinsey survey suggests that the company would do well to increase goodwill among consumers; as much as 8% of Wal-Mart shoppers have stopped shopping there because of the negative press. While Husson's suggestion of a growth holiday might seem absurd -- un-American even -- to those who believe that, in the words of Milton Friedman, "The social responsibility of a corporation is to increase its profits," I think it makes a lot of sense. Making Wal-Mart a place that you're not embarrassed to admit you shop at would do a lot to increase its earnings in the long-run.

It sure looks like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT) is going on the defensive rather than trying to do the right thing. The new ad campaign is meant to help the company's image, but this sure feels like the company is going on the defensive.

The commercials are supposed to show employees describing cost savings for shoppers, the company's charitable donations, and its efforts to provide health insurance to eligible workers. One ad is featuring founder Sam Walton, although the ad is probably leaving out the part how, I think, Sam Walton would roll in his grave if he saw how the company is being run now.

These guys still aren't getting the message from either Main Street nor from Wall Street. The company needs to make a sacrifice and essentially start over. It needs a new clean and fun image and if what I read into the commercial descriptions was remotely at all the way this is going to come out, then Wal-Mart is just making itself continue to defend the same daily routine without making real changes to its image.

24/7 Wall St. has generated a list of public company CEOs where investors in the underlying companies would likely be better served by a new CEO. While this may seem aggressive, some of these aren't actually calling for the CEOs to be fired. The difficulty in calling for new new leadership is that in many cases there is an issue as to who would be the replacement candidate. How many Jack Welches and Lou Gerstners are there in the world? Taking the Six Sigma class and studying under them only goes so far.

This list is put in alphabetical order by company name. Calling a guy the No. 1 needing to go versus the No. 3 is too subjective, and as a reminder, some of these CEO change suggestions are nominal in actuality and execution. This list and brief note is a mere summary of the full article.

Amazon.com's (AMZN) Jeff Bezos. He doesn't need to go away entirely! He just needs to do a partial title change. But will anyone inside the company tell the emperor he is wearing no space suit?

Citigroup's (C) Chuck Prince. The prince calls for Draconian measures, and maybe the prince didn't mean just THIS Prince.

Dell's (DELL) Kevin Rollins. Rollins may survive since the stock has recovered. If the stock falls back again, Wall Street has already telegraphed a true Michael Dell Inc. would be better again.

Eastman Kodak's (EK) Antonio Perez. Maybe he's nice, but for heaven's sake get the restructuring over with and get some mojo. Bring in a digital media leader.

Gap Inc.'s (GPS) Paul Pressler. Every generation may have one, but his generation gap has helped the Gap to alienate customers and send them to competitors.

Home Depot's (HD) Bob Nardelli. Does anyone on Wall Street respect him? Just because he was one of the runners-up to run G.E. doesn't mean he shouldn't change his name to Richard.

Qualcomm's (QCOM) Paul Jacobs. He isn't being sent home yet, but his dad's shoes are proving very hard to fill.

Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) & XM Satellite Radio (XMSR). It is a dead heat in the race, and if two companies need to merge, it's these two. There can be only one.

Wal-Mart's (WMT) Lee Scott. The company is struggling under its own weight, and it needs some good PR. Getting rid of the Darth Vader of Corporate America and bringing in someone fun and likeable would be the best start.

Yahoo!'s (YHOO) Terry Semel. Yes, when you see him leave or forced out, Yahoo! holders should be happy.

A lot of these may be controversial, and there are plenty of other companies which might benefit from a new CEO. None of these attacks are personal and these are merely based on observation and analysis. The list could probably be 100 CEOss long.

Jon Ogg is a partner in 24/7 Wall St. LLC; He does not hold securities in the companies he covers. He also not been compensated to represent any of these companies in any light.

Just a few days after re-hashing Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott's suggestion to the U.S. Congress that it raise the federal minimum wage, Wal-Mart has come out and again and said that it still supports the idea of raising the minimum wage -- no surprise there. However, Wal-Mart's top Washington lobbyist was reported as saying that the world's largest retailer is actually neutral on the issue. Sigh -- ok folks, which is it? One single voice would be nice.

With CEO Lee Scott quoted like this, I have to think that Wal-Mart is not communicating as clearly as it should: "There are a number of proposals before Congress. Though we do not intend to take a position on any single piece of legislation, we believe Congress should increase the minimum wage," Scott said. Well, if Wal-Mart indeed supports an increase in the federal minimum wage, then it will have to support some kind of legislation to make that happen.

It's probably not wanting to open itself up to criticism from any angle by publicly stating that Wal-Mart supports legislation x that makes a primary argument for the raising of the minimum wage, but these signals -- to me -- are a little confusing, and slightly disheartening. If Wal-Mart truly wants an increased minimum wage in this country, it needs a solid message in this respect. Your customers, employees and shareholders are waiting.

With nearly 6.5 million shares trading hands, Wal-Mart shares closed up today to $47.81 per share, an increase of $0.18 or 0.38% per share over Tuesday's close. Wal-Mart is seeing opposition to its Chicago-area store expansion plans in the form of the "big-box ordinance" currently being noddled on within the Chicago City Council. This ordinance would require retail locations with more than 90,000 square feet to have higher wages and larger health care benefits than other retail locations -- regardless of merchant. Wal-Mart PR in Chicago believes that created undue competition in Chicago -- and he's right. This possible precedent could show its head in many other large communities across the nation if it succeeds in Chicago.

What's a retailer to do? Continue asking for the federal minimum wage to be increased, for one. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott begged the U.S. Congress back in October of last year for this so that it could help Wal-Mart's shoppers live a little more easily -- and spend more dollars at Wal-Mart itself, perhaps.

Wal-Mart's pending advertising re-invention is making the retailer look at re-tooling its advertising and marketing image, to the tune of sending out an RFP to multiple ad vendors, including vendors with advertising specialties in the Asian, African-American and Hispanic customer segments. Wal-Mart has woken up to the fact that to continue growth, more innovative and customized marketing will need to take place beyond "blanket-type" advertising.

Meanwhile, Britain's largest food retailer, Tessco, increased its marketshare lead over Wal-Mart-owned Asda in the United Kingdom by taking 31.4% share of Britain's retail food market for the last 12 weeks leading up to June 18th. Asda, the UK arm of Wal-Mart, reached a 16.5% marketshare during the same period.