|Bid||0.00 x 0|
|Ask||0.00 x 0|
|Day's range||117.43 - 117.45|
|52-week range||117.43 - 117.45|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||0.56|
|PE ratio (TTM)||18.78|
|Forward dividend & yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y target est||N/A|
Ralph Lauren, J.B. Hunt Transport, Walmart, Amazon and Target highlighted as Zacks Bull and Bear of the Day
Today we'll do a simple run through of a valuation method used to estimate the attractiveness of Target Corporation...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Harry's Inc. billed itself as an alternative to overpriced razors, and the sales pitch worked — too well, in fact.The shaving company’s planned sale to Schick razor maker Edgewell Personal Care Co. officially collapsed on Monday after the Federal Trade Commission sued to block the $1.37 billion deal on anti-competitive grounds.There had been some thought that Edgewell would fight for the Harry’s deal in court, but the company said Monday it’s instead walking away, “given the inherent uncertainty of a potential trial, the required investment of resources and time and the distraction that a continuing court battle would entail.” Shareholders are fine with that: The stock rose more than 20% on Monday after climbing 13% on Feb. 3, when the FTC’s opposition was announced. While investors may be happy to say goodbye to an acquisition that was arguably overpriced, regulators’ opposition to the takeover has wide-ranging ramifications. Among other things, this threatens to close the door on one of the more sure-fire exit strategies for would-be direct to consumer unicorns.In advertisements, Harry's pitched itself as "the shaving company that's fixing shaving." In its complaint, the FTC argues that Harry’s successfully disrupted an effective duopoly between Edgewell and Gillette-maker Procter & Gamble Co. and forced the incumbents to start lowering their prices for razors. Curiously, it argues that this only happened once Harry’s products migrated out of the e-commerce-only environment in which they launched and started appearing on shelves at Target Corp. and Walmart Inc. stores. Using similar logic, the FTC dismisses Dollar Shave Club – acquired by Unilever NV in 2016 for $1 billion – as a full-blown competitor capable of making up for the loss of an independent Harry's in part because it still mainly sells razors via an online direct-to-consumer model.The idea that firm lines exist between the online and brick-and-mortar worlds — and that pricing dynamics in one don’t affect the other — feels rather silly in this day and age. Most consumers wouldn’t distinguish between the two marketplaces, and increasingly, neither would businesses. The FTC’s decision to block the Harry’s purchase is reminiscent of pushback to the merger of Staples and Office Depot in 2016, where the regulator ignored the stream of sales defecting to Amazon and declined to view it as a strong enough competitor in commercial office supplies. Amazon’s 2017 acquisition of Whole Foods Market Inc., by contrast, was waved through without a second glance and closed in just two months.Notably, without Harry’s and without the sales from an infant and pet-care business Edgewell sold in December, the company now expects total revenue to decline as much as 5% this year. When Edgewell had announced the Harry’s purchase last year, it projected a $20 million increase to Ebitda by 2023 from annual cost savings and an additional $20 million boost from revenue benefits, including new brand launches and international expansion opportunities. Antitrust regulation isn’t a forward-looking industry and I don’t think anyone would want to task the FTC or the Department of Justice with picking out the winners and losers of the future. But the result is a system that seems ill-suited to navigating the changes to the economy from e-commerce and direct-to-consumer business models. And while regulators may not want to predict the future, their actions will have a significant impact on what unfolds from here.One of the odd messages being sent by this decision is that it may be better for upstart consumer brands to avoid brick-and-mortar stores if they want to sell themselves to a more-established organization down the road. That’s not going to be helpful for Target, Walmart or the bevy of aging department stores trying to compete with Amazon and make themselves relevant to today’s consumer. Another alternative is for startups to sell out before they get big enough to matter, which raises the odds that smaller brands get swallowed up and killed off rather than nourished into viable competitors. The IPO route looks increasingly closed, at least at the valuations many had enjoyed in the private markets. Some brands will still succeed as independent entities – Glossier, Allbirds and Warby Parker come to mind – but the road to making it big arguably just got tougher.To contact the author of this story: Brooke Sutherland at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Brooke Sutherland is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals and industrial companies. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Bed-in-a-box seller Casper Sleep Inc., already worth less than half the valuation it reached as a private company, sunk below its initial public offering price on its second day of trading.Casper shares fell 18% Friday to $11.05 in New York trading, below the $12 offer price in its IPO this week. The New York-based company ended the week with a market valuation of $438 million after being being valued at $1.1 billion in a private funding round last year.Friday’s decline shows investors have grown skeptical of money-losing unicorns -- startups whose private valuations reached $1 billion or more. The listing followed landmark but largely disappointing performances last year by consumer-oriented companies including Uber Technologies Inc. and its smaller rival Lyft Inc., as well as SmileDirectClub Inc. and Peloton Interactive Inc.In contrast, PPD Inc., a biotechnology and drug-research services firm that raised $1.62 billion and debuted on Thursday with Casper, priced its shares at the top of its target for the offering and has climbed 15% since its IPO.Casper, founded in 2014, became one of the leading brands in its niche thanks to its pioneering status and savvy marketing. Since then, a slew of competitors have emerged in the U.S. and abroad. From 2016 to September 2019, Casper spent $422.8 million on marketing, according to an earlier filing.Casper had 60 stores in the U.S. and Canada as of September. Its sales increased to $312 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, a 20% gain from the same period in 2018. Its net loss widened to $67 million from $64 million during the same period in 2018.The company’s backers include Target Corp. and Dani Reiss, the chief executive officer of Canada Goose Holdings Inc.To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Hytha in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Liana Baker at email@example.com, Michael Hytha, Sally BakewellFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Bed-in-a-box seller Casper Sleep Inc. raised $100 million in an initial public offering, pricing its shares at the bottom of a reduced range.Casper, which boasted a valuation of $1.1 billion in a private funding round last year, is valued in Wednesday’s IPO at less than half of that.The online retailer sold 8.35 million shares Wednesday for $12 each, according to a statement. The listing gives the company a value of $476 million based on the outstanding shares listed in its filings. Earlier in the day, it cut its price target to $12 to $13 a share, down from $17 to $19.The IPO shows investors have grown skeptical of money-losing unicorns -- startups whose private valuations reached $1 billion or more. The listing follows landmark but largely disappointing performances last year by consumer-oriented companies including Uber Technologies Inc. and its smaller rival Lyft Inc., as well as SmileDirectClub Inc. and Peloton Interactive Inc.Casper priced its shares on the same day as PPD Inc., a biotechnology and drug research services firm that raised $1.62 billion, pricing its shares at the top of its target for the offering. In the past year, such business-to-business firms, especially software makers, have tended to fare better in their IPOs and afterward than consumer-focused companies.Marketing, CompetitorsNew York-based Casper, founded in 2014, became one of the leading brands thanks to its pioneering status in the niche and savvy marketing. Since then, a slew of competitors have emerged in the U.S. and abroad. From 2016 to September 2019, Casper spent $422.8 million on marketing, according to an earlier filing.Casper had 60 stores in the U.S. and Canada as of Sept. 30. Its sales increased to $312 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, a 20% gain from the same period in 2018. Its net loss widened to $67 million from $64 million during the same period in 2018.The company’s backers include Target Corp. and Dani Reiss, the chief executive officer of Canada Goose Holdings Inc.The offering was led by Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Jefferies Financial Group Inc. The company’s shares are expected to begin trading Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CSPR.(Updates with statement in third paragraph)To contact the reporter on this story: Liana Baker in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Elizabeth Fournier at email@example.com, Michael Hytha, Matthew MonksFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- With the traditional department store in its death throes, Macy’s Inc. is doing its best to keep the concept alive.The struggling retailer late Tuesday unveiled a strategic blueprint to defend its business against the twin threats of online and discount competitors. The centerpiece is closing 125 of its department stores — almost a quarter of the total — over the next three years, including some 30 locations it previously targeted for shuttering last month. These are the so-called “neighborhood stores,” leftovers that Macy’s was reluctant to close sooner. It should have, but at least it’s getting to grips with it now.Alongside the closures, Macy’s is also cutting about 2,000 corporate jobs, and shutting offices in San Francisco and Cincinnati, in an effort to save $1.5 billion a year by the end of 2022.But no one ever cut their way to growth.While taking an ax to the store estate was badly needed — and with department stores under so much pressure, costs probably needed to be reined in, too — Macy’s must ensure that what is left of its estate is compelling. Having the right products, at prices that customers are prepared to pay, and in settings that appeal, is crucial.In that regard, the decision to accelerate store renovations is encouraging. Since 2018, about 150 locations have been given a face-lift. A further 100 will be rejuvenated this year, with around 400 stores refurbished by the end of 2022.Plans to invest in building four $1 billion “power” private-label brands are also welcome. These not only offer merchandise that can’t be found elsewhere, giving customers a reason to visit stores, but exclusive items are more difficult to compare with products available in other stores or online, such as at Amazon.com Inc. That should help Macy’s wean itself off of its discounting, something that is also badly needed if the strategy is to work.New store concept Market by Macy’s also has potential. This paves the way for smaller units, in local shopping centers. At the same time, the group will also keep expanding its off-price locations.To really make a difference, these initiatives must be put into practice effectively. Transforming private-label offerings into brands with a personality and value in their own right is notoriously difficult. And the Market stores can’t just be mini-Macy’s. They must have the sorts of products that will appeal to customers, particularly younger ones, as well as plenty of experiences to brighten the shopping trip. The stores also must serve as hubs for collecting and returning online orders. At least Macy’s will have the cost savings — and proceeds from monetizing its real estate, for example, developing above stores or on car parks — to invest in these concepts.Some of the group’s efforts are already paying off. The 150 store refurbishments, for example, helped the Macy’s deliver better-than-expected holidays sales.But it’s not clear that even this latest overhaul — which also includes enhancing Macy’s loyalty program and staying focused on digital — will be enough to contend with Amazon, which goes from strength to strength. Target Corp., meanwhile, is already a private label powerhouse, and Nordstrom Inc. is further down the line with small-format stores.Indeed, it looks like Macy’s is trying to emulate elements of both Target’s and Nordstrom’s strategies when coming up with its own. It deserves credit for tackling the plethora of challenges it faces, and not just allowing itself to become retail apocalypse roadkill. But to really ensure it has a future, it needs to lead, not just follow. To contact the author of this story: Andrea Felsted at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Andrea Felsted is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the consumer and retail industries. She previously worked at the Financial Times.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Amazon earnings blew past Wall Street’s expectations on Thursday and potentially put traditional brick-and-mortar grocery stores on notice by revealing that its grocery deliveries had doubled since the same quarter last year.
The S&P 500 hit the 3,300 mark for the first time on Thursday and the other main U.S. indexes also broke record highs, fueled by solid retail sales data and upbeat Morgan Stanley earnings. Morgan Stanley jumped 7.5% to lead the S&P 500 after it beat quarterly profit estimates and raised its performance goals, closing out several big U.S. lenders' earnings on a strong note.
The retailer’s stock tumbled after reporting same-stores sales gained only 1.4% during the holiday shopping season, slowing from a growth rate of 5.7% the year prior.
Together with a report from the National Association of Home Builders showing confidence still close to a 20-year high, the data painted a picture of an economy still cruising as election year kicks off. By 10:55 AM ET (1555 GMT), gold futures for delivery on the New York COMEX exchange were down 0.2% at $1,550.75 a troy ounce. Figures released by the Commerce Department showed retail sales rose a solid 0.3% in December, in line with forecasts.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- There’s an old saying in retail that despite all the bluster, not much really changes over the holiday shopping season: Those store groups that have been winning keep on doing so, while the losers continue to suffer.Target Corp. just became the exception to this rule.The big-box retailer has been a consistently strong performer over the past couple of years, but in the latest holiday season it stumbled badly. Same store sales in November and December rose by just 1.4 % — significantly below expectations. The shares fell more than 6 percent in morning trading.Target seems to be suffering from issues across the market. But if the company – one of the more resilient of the bunch – is feeling the pinch, that bodes ill for weaker store chains, or those that have been less proactive in adapting to changing consumer tastes. The slip also suggests there may be limits to how much more its turnaround efforts can achieve.Same-store sales in electronics fell by more than 6%. This wasn’t helped by an uninspiring technology lineup – there was no one big standout game or gadget. Toys was also a difficult area, and there have been signs in Europe that demand is moving away from traditional playthings to tech.But Target has made a big bet on toys, in order to capture the customers who would previously have shopped at Toys R Us. Although it said it gained share over the holidays, if demand is permanently shifting away from this category, this looks like a rare misstep. Moreover, given that Target has invested heavily — it pledged in 2017 to spend $7 billion over three years on in its stores, products and online offerings — it should be outperforming even in these more challenging categories.The one silver lining is that both toys and electronics are low margin segments. So although Target cut its forecast of same store sales growth in the fourth quarter to 1.4%, from its previous expectations of as much as 4%, it maintained its profit guidance for the final quarter and the full year.What’s troubling about Target’s performance is that while it could have made some changes in the run-up to the holiday — given the highly competitive landscape and Black Friday falling later — it is generally doing the right things. It’s one of the few retailers investing in giving consumers the products they actually want to buy. In areas such as clothing, beauty and food, where it has been revitalizing its exclusive brands and overhauling departments, same-store sales rose.Target, as mentioned, has also been spending on revamping its stores. That might be counterintuitive, but it is sensible. When consumers do want to go to a physical outlet, they want that to be a pleasant experience. And it hasn’t neglected its digital offerings, particularly in areas such as click and collect, where customers order online but pick up their purchases at a store. While the digital performance was disappointing — up just 19% in November and December — same-day delivery options were up 50%.Even before the holiday miss, Target was facing a challenge to maintain momentum. It is entering the final year of its big store refurbishments, and it will be coming up against difficult sales comparisons going forward. But a knee-jerk reaction, say curbing investment in stores, products, and digital, would be a mistake. It probably has more to go for in food, and can capture more sales from department stores and mid-market clothing brands.That doesn’t make Wednesday’s disappointment any less worrisome.To contact the author of this story: Andrea Felsted at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Andrea Felsted is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the consumer and retail industries. She previously worked at the Financial Times.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Shares in Target, which nearly doubled in value last year, fell 5% in response. Walmart and department stores Macy's , Kohl's , as well as toy makers Hasbro and Mattel and electronics seller Best Buy all headed lower. "While we knew this season was going to be challenging, it was even more challenging than we expected," Target's Chief Executive Officer Brian Cornell said of the numbers.
Could Target Corporation (NYSE:TGT) be an attractive dividend share to own for the long haul? Investors are often...
Shares of JC Penney closed below $1 recently, and if the stock continues to close below $1 for 30 days it risks being delisted by the NYSE.
Yahoo Finance speaks at length about the future of retail and the cloud business in an exclusive interview with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella.