92.57 +1.63 (1.79%)
After hours: 4:07PM EDT
|Bid||91.59 x 800|
|Ask||91.62 x 800|
|Day's range||90.75 - 96.18|
|52-week range||60.00 - 126.73|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||1.30|
|PE ratio (TTM)||16.56|
|Earnings date||19 May 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||2.20 (2.48%)|
|Ex-dividend date||20 Apr 2020|
|1y target est||117.24|
It's been a pretty great week for Lowe's Companies, Inc. (NYSE:LOW) shareholders, with its shares surging 20% to...
(Bloomberg) -- Bill Ackman said he has invested a portion of his personal wealth to help manufacture antibody testing kits produced by Covaxx, a newly formed subsidiary of closely-held United Biomedical Inc., amid the outbreak of the coronavirus.Ackman has repeatedly called for a complete shutdown of the U.S. for 30-days to help combat the spread of the Covid-19 virus. He has also called for antibody testing, like the one Covaxx develops, across the country to determine who has been contracted the virus.“The key to a successful reopening beyond the maintenance of social distancing, hand washing, mask use and other related practices is a broad-based testing regime and tracing program,” Ackman said in a letter on Wednesday to investors in his hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital Management.“This will enable the inevitable viral breakouts to be identified early and minimized with localized quarantines, reducing the impact on the overall U.S. economy and the need for future shutdowns,” he said.HedgesAckman made a roughly 100 times return on hedges he had put in place to protect Pershing Squares’ $6.6 billion portfolio against the impact of the virus, according to the letter.His firm paid roughly $27 million for the hedges, which were made in the form of purchases of credit protection on investment-grade and high-yield credit indices. The hedges generated $2.6 billion in proceeds by the time he exited them on March 23.He said he has since redeployed the capital by investing further in his portfolio companies, including Lowe’s Cos., Agilent Technologies Inc., Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Restaurant Brands International Inc., and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. He also reinvested in Starbucks Corp.“The proceeds of the hedges have enabled us to become a substantially larger shareholder of a number of our portfolio companies, and to add some new investments, all at deeply discounted prices,” he said.Ackman said in an interview on CNBC on March 18 that “hell is coming” if drastic measures were not taken to combat the virus. A week later, he said in an interview with Bloomberg TV he had made a $2.5 billion “recovery bet” on a bounceback, after gaining confidence “that the president and his team are heading in the right direction.”Covaxx has already deployed over 100,000 Covid-19 tests in China, and is currently testing in San Miguel County, Colorado. The company believes it can scale the tests to hundreds of millions in “relative short order,” Ackman said. The billionaire made the investment through the Pershing Square Foundation, which manages his personal wealth. He did not disclose the size of the investment.Health officials in San Miguel County, home of the popular ski-town Telluride, teamed up with United Biomedical earlier this month to collect blood samples to test the kits and provide free screening to people in the area.The tests can determine whether a person has been infected by Covid-19 within hours, rather than the days it takes for the current, drive-thru nasal swab tests.Broader antibody based screen will give an accurate estimate of what percentage of the population is infected, Ackman said. That will allow more accurate data on the virus’s characteristics, such as how many people become critically ill and how many have only limited symptoms.“Imagine how differently and effectively we could have managed this crisis if we actually knew who was infected,” he said.United Biomedical has spent years producing vaccines for animals and working on human treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. It manufacturers its test kits on Long Island, New York.The company has been around for more than three decades. Its animal vaccines have been used to protect billions of farm animals from foot-and-mouth disease and to chemically castrate pigs. It also has developed blood-screening kits and a test for SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.“We believe it is inevitable that in order to halt the advance of the virus and preserve the ability of local, city, and state health-care systems to deal with the volume of critical care patients, nearly all states will eventually initiate strong-form, non-essential business closures and stay-at-home regulations,” Ackman said.(Updates with additional details in the final paragraph; An earlier version of this report corrected the return on Ackman’s hedges)For 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.
To the annoyance of some shareholders, Lowe's Companies (NYSE:LOW) shares are down a considerable 42% in the last...
Lowe's Companies, Inc. (NYSE:LOW) shareholders (or potential shareholders) will be happy to see that the President...
There's been a notable change in appetite for Lowe's Companies, Inc. (NYSE:LOW) shares in the week since its yearly...
Lowe's (LOW) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 3.30% and -0.74%, respectively, for the quarter ended January 2020. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Who would have thought power tools and patio sets would be big holiday-season winners?After big-box retailers such as Walmart Inc. and even superstar Target Corp. came up short during the 2019 holiday shopping sprint, Home Depot Inc. rebounded with a better-than-expected fourth quarter. Same-store sales rose 5.2%, ahead of consensus expectations of a 4.7% gain.The gains indicate the home-improvement chain is back on track after a third-quarter stumble. Then, same store sales were below estimates, and growth was slow enough to prompt the company to cut its full-year guidance on this measure. A strong housing market helped in the latest quarter. Consumers are more likely to renovate when prices are rising; moving to a new home also is a catalyst for spending. Meanwhile, warm weather prompted some projects to be brought forward, although this was offset by fewer winter storms, which typically drive repairs. Lumber deflation also eased. The upbeat results are also a sign that an $11 billion effort it announced in 2017 to modernize the company’s stores, upgrade digital options and enhance offerings for its key trade customers is starting to bear fruit.Home Depot is right to invest. Do-it-yourself stores can be soulless sheds if not updated regularly and managed properly. What’s more, the focus on the trade market is sensible. Many consumers, particularly young people, are shunning DIY in favor of “do-it-for-me” – hiring a tradesman to carry out a job. But the group needs to ensure the benefits of its spending continue to filter through to its results.And there are risks. The first is from the deadly coronavirus. About 70% of the company’s products are sourced from the U.S.; the rest come from elsewhere, much from China, where supply chains are being affected by the spread of the disease. A large amount of first-quarter merchandise is already in stores, and the company is working with suppliers to ensure a continued flow of stocks.The bigger danger, however, is that the epidemic has a broader effect on global economic growth and consumer confidence. Monday’s stock market plunge will do little to make Americans feel good about their wealth, something that is essential for purchasing expensive items such as new kitchen. Meanwhile, Lowe’s Cos. — which is working on its own renovation project under new chief executive Marvin Ellison —could become a more muscular rival.Investors seem to be shrugging off these concerns right now. The shares rose almost 2 percent on Tuesday morning, and now trade on a forward price earnings ratio of about 23 times, a premium to about 18 times for Lowe’s.Home Depot may have put its rough patch behind it. But at its current valuation, the risks can’t be swept entirely under a graphic print rug.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.
Lowe's (LOW) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Now that the government has confirmed the first human-to-human transmission of the new coronavirus in the U.S., a lot of people will be rushing out to purchase masks. That would be, specifically, the N95 air filtration mask, the one recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for blocking most airborne viruses.Oops. Too late.CVS is sold out. So are Lowe’s and Staples and everywhere else I’ve checked — even Amazon. No matter how health authorities try to assure the public that a pandemic is unlikely, the creeping panic continues to creep a little faster each week. And no matter how many experts query whether the N95 mask would even stop transmission of the virus, supply still can’t keep up with demand.What to do?Let’s begin with a thought experiment: Suppose that an entrepreneur — we’ll call him Carter — turns out to have stockpiled several thousand N95 masks a few years ago. Now, noticing the shortage, Carter opens up his storehouse and announces that he will sell N95s, in lots of 20 (as they’re commonly purchased), to the highest bidder. He even sets up a website where people can bid. Every ten minutes, until the supply is gone, the highest bidder wins 20 masks. Bids quickly run into the thousands of dollars for a package that, before the panic, could often be had for less than twenty bucks.What happens next is of course predictable.The outraged news media declares a scandal, the outraged Twitterverse tries to cancel poor Carter, and the outraged politicians stumble all over each other on their way to the nearest camera to charge him with price-gouging. Carter is hauled before the country as an example of how not to behave in a crisis. Greed run rampant. An immoral effort to profit from people’s fear.You can write the script.Carter caves. Humiliated, and worried about his business prospects, he donates his entire store of N95 masks to public health authorities, who in turn will give them out if deemed necessary (that is, if deemed necessary in their view) according to some rationing formula that will be shared with the public only if what the authorities deem to be an emergency should arise. (In China, masks are already being rationed by the government.)But this is a dreadful result.Here’s the simplest reason: Smarter, who happens to possess an even bigger cache of N95 masks than Carter did, will observe how he was treated and decide to keep hers under lock and key. After all, she might need them in an emergency. As a result of the insistence that Carter not sell his property at the price the market is willing to pay, the supply of N95 masks to the public is smaller than if nobody had intervened.College students learn in Economics 101 that a demand curve slopes downward to the right. As demand falls, price falls. As demand rises, price rises. If instead you don’t allow the price to rise — because of your concern about “price gouging” — the quantity offered for sale will fall.This isn’t complicated, and it’s true in every disaster. I’m willing to pay a lot more for a generator when I know the power is going to be out for a week than I am when the lights are on. If the price is unregulated, the difference in what I would pay in those two situations will bring more generators to market. And depending on the cost to enter the market, the rising price will lead more sellers to bring generators to the disaster site, leading to a larger supply, and eventually a lower price.What I’ve just offered is the argument offered by most economists and most libertarians (and, certainly, by all libertarian economists) about why bans on so-called price-gouging are a bad idea.To be sure, there are counter-arguments. At their heart lies the notion that if a demand spike is caused by an unanticipated emergency, allowing sellers to significantly raise prices in response will undercut the morally imperative distributional principle of equal access to necessities. If ten people with the same fatal illness need the two available doses of a life-saving drug, the argument runs, it’s immoral to award the drug to the highest bidders.This intuitively appealing distributional argument helps explain why anti-price-gouging statutes are both widely supported and strictly enforced. But as with every regulatory regime, it’s important that we consider the cost. Suppose that our concern about equity in distributing the life-saving drug leads us to forbid the producer to raise prices. In that case, unless the government forces production at gunpoint, we’re going to get less of the drug (or the generators or the masks): the very thing we say we want. Certainly we can decide to make that tradeoff. But let’s not pretend there’s no tradeoff to be made.* * * * * * *Coda: Whenever I make this argument, whether in the classroom or in print, I’m accused of celebrating the morality of profit over all else. I’m doing no such thing. I’m simply insisting that we not pretend that the solution to a shortage is to insist that producers keep prices low.To contact the author of this story: Stephen L. Carter at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Sarah Green Carmichael at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Yale University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His novels include “The Emperor of Ocean Park,” and his latest nonfiction book is “Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.” 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.