RESOLVED, that the shareholders of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (the “Company”) urge the Board of Directors to adopt a policy that a significant portion of future equity compensation grants to senior executives shall be shares of stock that require the achievement of performance goals as a prerequisite to vesting (“performance-vesting shares”).

This policy shall apply to existing employment agreements and equity compensation plans only if the use of performance-vesting shares can be legally implemented by the Company, and will otherwise apply to the design of all future plans and agreements.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

We believe that our Company’s compensation policies should encourage the ownership of stock by senior executives in order to align their interests with those of shareholders. To achieve this goal, we favor granting senior executives actual shares of stock for meeting specified performance goals. In our opinion, performance-vesting shares are a better form of equity compensation than fixed-price stock options or time-vesting restricted stock.

Fixed-price stock option grants provide senior executives with incentives that may not be in the best interests of long-term shareholders. In our view, stock option grants promise executives all the benefit of share price increases with none of the risk of share price declines. Stock options can reward short-term decision-making because many executives’ options can be exercised just one year after the grant date. Furthermore, we believe that stock options can create a strong incentive to manipulate a company’s stock price through questionable or even fraudulent accounting.

Leading investors and regulators have questioned the use of stock options to compensate executives. Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet has characterized fixed-price stock options as “really a royalty on the passage of time.” Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan blamed poorly-structured options for the ‘infectious greed’ of the 1990s, because “they failed to properly align the long-term interests of shareholders and managers.”

Similarly, we oppose granting executives time-vesting restricted stock that does not include any performance requirements. In our view, time-vesting restricted stock rewards tenure, not performance. Instead, we believe vesting requirements should be tailored to measure each individual executive’s performance through disclosed benchmarks, in addition to the Company’s share price. To align their incentives with those of long-term shareholders, we also believe that senior executives should be required to hold a significant portion of these performance-vesting shares for as long as they remain executives of the Company.

Executive compensation consultant Pearl Meyer has said “if a company is going to issue restricted stock grants as a way of making sure executives are owners rather than optionees, the grant should be earned on a performance basis — it shouldn’t be just a giveaway. ” Former SEC Chairman Richard Breeden has stated that “there is not a strong reason for granting restricted stock rather than simply paying cash unless there are performance hurdles to vesting.”