Latest on Whole Foods/Wild Oats Merger

Here's the latest I've seen:

http://www.gourmetretailer.com/gourmetretailer/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612564

John Mackeys remarks may come back to bite him....
(Personally I think it was really inappropiate given that he was disparaging Wild Oats management. Imagine what a great environment that would be if the merger actually does go thru).

Deb

What's Rotten at Whole Foods
John Mackey's anonymous online critiques and self-congratulations have damaged the brand identity on which the high-end grocer depends

by Jeffrey Sonnenfeld


There's something rotting at Whole Foods Market (WFMI) and it isn't in the produce department. It's in the company's management team: John Mackey, the chief executive who spent years anonymously posting on the Web about his company and its rivals, appears to share a cynical arrogance with other corporate self-promoters who believe they don't have to personally uphold the values they publicly proclaim. The Whole Foods mission statement boasts: "We lead by example." But Mackey's unapologetic example is hardly the model for the Whole Foods brand.

Full article can be found at this address:

Click for the article

sorry forgot to put it in...

(Edited by RG to hide page-stretching long URL)

[Robin Garr]

Full article can be found at this address

The embedded link to Business Week didn't post, but for those who'd like to read it, try this:

What's Rotten at Whole Foods

I didn't read those linked articles, but (in case anyone else doesn't want to) the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating if the nutty CEO said anything on message boards that would constitute a violation of SEC communications policies. I've read a bunch of the Yahoo! board comments, and he generally appears only to be repeating what has been said during quarterly analysts' conference calls. If that's all he's done, then he just looks silly, but would not have violated any regulations (in my opinion). However, if they catch him embellishing or announcing something that is in violation of Reg FD, he's cooked. Frankly, I think he's going to lose his job either way (and should, in my opinion, for risking the company's reputation with his silly postings).

I find it absolutely hilarious. I want more crazy out of him.

My wife helped open the Whole Foods here and subsequently was canned by an incompetent bakery manager (who was later canned herself). For all their talk of goodnees towards employees and their lofty ideals, they're still a corporation. Something similar happened to me years ago when I worked for Kinko's, another corp. started by an ex hippy. I've learned a lesson - A corporation started with big, rainbow dreams by former hippies is still - at the end of the day - a corporation.

Corporation does not have to be a bad word.....

No it doesn't. They do have to put profits and increasing shareholder value as their top priority, but as long as that doesn't conflict acting in an ethical and responsible manner there's no problem. Some corporations balance this beautifully, others not so well.

I just don't like it when corporations get elevated to special status that mere "people" don't enjoy.

This from yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I still think Mackey is "toast" pretty soon....


Group Urges Whole Foods' Mackey
To Step Down as Firm's Chairman
By DAVID KESMODEL
July 26, 2007; Page C7

CHICAGO -- An investment group affiliated with union pension funds said John Mackey, the embattled chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc., should step down as chairman of the natural-foods giant in the wake of revelations that he posted anonymous comments on Internet stock-market forums

[Robin Garr]

An investment group affiliated with union pension funds

They might have a point, but note that Mackey is publicly and virulently anti-union, so this particular body might be viewed as having an ax to grind. Justifiably, in my opinion, but it does qualify their opinion.

Very good point , Robin. I almost missed the "union" reference.

Deb

They might have a point, but note that Mackey is publicly and virulently anti-union, so this particular body might be viewed as having an ax to grind. Justifiably, in my opinion, but it does qualify their opinion.

Of course, pension funds (especially public) and union funds are typically the most activist shareholders, anyway. So, they may be just using their position to try to accomplish what a smaller shareholder couldn't (but would like to).

Yes, but to Robin's point, the unions and Mackey are not friends and it would seem to be in the unions' favor to have him out (and potentially someone a little more pro-union in). Does give their statement a slightly different slant.....

Deb

Yes, but to Robin's point, the unions and Mackey are not friends and it would seem to be in the unions' favor to have him out (and potentially someone a little more pro-union in). Does give their statement a slightly different slant.....

Deb

Yes, I got that the first time, but was presenting another point of view.