Capri Holdings Limited (CPRI): A Bull Case Theory
A luxury apparel store, showcasing the high-end brand offerings.
Capri Holdings (CPRI) recently announced the divestment of Versace to Prada for $1.375 billion—a notable step down from its 2018 purchase price but still a strategic win for investors betting on the deal. Despite the anticipated stock rally post-announcement, shares faltered due to the reintroduction of steep tariffs under Trump, particularly a 145% rate on Chinese goods, which significantly impacted sentiment around CPRI, whose Michael Kors and Jimmy Choo brands rely heavily on Asian manufacturing.
Still, this tariff pressure is seen as unsustainable. The belief is that Trump will be forced to reverse course, either by market pressure—such as rising 10-year Treasury yields—or pushback from corporations, as was the case with his 90-day pause on electronics tariffs. Capri's now net-cash position, excluding operating leases, strengthens the investment case.
Even after paying down $1 billion in debt, the company could still hold $250 million in cash, providing flexibility for reinvestment, buybacks, or further deleveraging. This financial pivot, paired with the sale of a loss-making segment, positions CPRI for re-rating—especially once tariff-related overhangs ease. While the core brands (KORS and CHOO) aren't the most exciting in isolation, the improved balance sheet and optionality create an attractive setup. Investors see a path for a 25%+ move from current levels once macro risks subside. With no imminent catalyst but strong structural improvements in place, the stock is viewed as a mispriced asset in the wake of temporary geopolitical noise, setting the stage for significant upside as clarity returns.
Capri Holdings Limited (CPRI) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 47 hedge fund portfolios held CPRI at the end of the fourth quarter which was 57 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of CPRI as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns, and doing so within a shorter timeframe. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than CPRI but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock.
READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock.
Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Intel Stock Pops on Report Trump Administration Is Considering Taking a Stake
Intel (INTC) shares surged Thursday following a report that the Trump administration is considering taking a stake in the struggling chipmaker. Trump's team has discussed plans that could see the administration throwing its support behind an expansion of Intel's domestic manufacturing capabilities, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter. White House Spokesperson Kush Desai told Investopedia such discussions "should be regarded as speculation unless officially announced by the Administration." Intel did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Shares of the chipmaker jumped over 7% during Thursday's regular session and rose another 4% in extended trading, adding to gains earlier in the week amid speculation about a deal after a promising meeting between CEO Lip-Bu Tan and President Trump. President Trump praised Tan's 'amazing story" on social media following the Monday meeting, just days after calling for Tan's resignation, and said Tan would spend more time with officials and "bring "suggestions to me during the next week." Bernstein analysts said Tuesday that the comments could mean more opportunities for Intel to win support from the Trump administration, at a time when the chipmaker is "clearly in need of help." Tan, who took the helm of Intel in March, has moved to lower the company's headcount and shed assets in his first few months on the job as part of his efforts to engineer a turnaround. Read the original article on Investopedia Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Putin summit: A look back at when the US purchased Alaska from Russia
Before President Donald Trump sits down with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a highly-anticipated summit in Alaska to discuss Moscow's war on Ukraine, experts emphasize the historical significance of this meeting location, specifically how the United States purchased the land from Russia back in 1867. "I think that what's missing in a lot of our political conversations in the world right now is history, and there's a history behind a lot of what's happening not only in this Russian-American relationship, but also this war," Lee Farrow, history professor and chair of the Department of History and World Cultures at Auburn University at Montgomery, told ABC News. Prior to Alaska becoming the 49th state of the U.S., the territory was under the control of Russia after Czar Peter the Great sent explorer Vitus Bering to the Alaskan coast in 1725, according to the U.S. Department of State's Office of the Historian. Afterward, "Russia had a keen interest in this region, which was rich in natural resources and lightly inhabited," the office of the historian's website said. As the United States was expanding westward in the 1800s and Russia was dealing with a lack of financial resources and military presence in Alaska due to its involvement in the Crimean War, Czar Alexander the Second decided "perhaps it might be a good idea to go ahead and get rid of this faraway colony," Farrow said. "The stars kind of aligned at the right moment for this sale to occur," Farrow told ABC News. Russia officially offered to sell Alaska to the U.S. in 1859, "believing the United States would off-set the designs of Russia's greatest rival in the Pacific, Great Britain," the office of the historian said. But, Russia had to "beg" the U.S. to buy the colony, as the Americans were not initially interested in acquiring the land, Andrei Znamenski, history professor at the University of Memphis, told ABC News. MORE: NATO Secretary General Rutte says Trump-Putin summit is about 'testing Putin' "If we don't do anything, England, which is our enemy, she will come and take it over. So they decided to beg the United States [to] please buy this ice box. Eventually, a few Congress people actually had to be bribed," Znamenski said. After a delay due to the American Civil War, then-Secretary of State William Seward agreed to a renewed proposal to pay $7.2 million in exchange for the land on March 30, 1867, the office of the historian said. The Senate approved the treaty of purchase on April 9, President Andrew Jackson signed it on May 28 and Alaska was "formally transferred to the United States on Oct. 18, 1867," the office of the historian said. After the treaty was signed, people on Capitol Hill argued "whether or not this was a good purchase" or if it "was a wise move at that particular time," with people later referring to the acquisition as "Seward's Folly," Farrow said. This perception changed once discoveries of gold, silver and other natural resources in Alaska were found, Farrow said. "It was actually quite a very good deal for the United States," Farrow said. Only after the increase in discoveries of natural resources, the federal government began to take more interest in the land, with Alaska finally becoming a state on Jan. 3, 1959, Farrow said. MORE: Trump warns Russia of 'severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to stop war "Americans turned out to be incredibly lucky by purchasing the so-called ice box, but little did they know that they would be so happy. It turned out to be the greatest investment in terms of territory," Znamenski said. Regardless of what comes out of the meeting between Trump and Putin on Friday, Farrow told ABC News it's crucial for political leaders to remember the historical context when it comes to conflict and relationships between countries, since "it's not just about things that have happened in the last 10 years." "The Russian-American relationship has been so fraught with ups and downs, and there's always a way of looking at the past and focusing on the positive if we're going to try and mediate a war between Russia and Ukraine and actually have any hope of achieving something," Farrow said.
Washington Post
16 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Scott Bessent's revealing admission about Trump's tariffs
The Trump administration seems to be catching on to what has been clear for some time: The president's claim of virtually unlimited, unilateral power to impose tariffs at whatever rate he chooses is in serious legal trouble. Hence the blustery letter Justice Department officials sent on Monday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which heard arguments on President Donald Trump's tariffs last month. The letter warned of a second Great Depression if the court pared back Trump's tariff authority. 'In such a scenario … millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened,' the letter said. 'In short, the economic consequences would be ruinous, instead of unprecedented success.' And hence Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's doth-protest-too-much assertion on Fox Business on Tuesday that Trump's border taxes will survive the courts because they are raising so much money for the federal government. 'The amount of money that's coming in here — I think the more deals we've done, the more money coming in, it gets harder and harder for [the Supreme Court] to rule against us,' Bessent said. He added that tariff income is 'well in excess' of $300 billion. Think about that for a second. At issue in the tariff case is whether the president is usurping Congress's power to tax. And the treasury secretary is pointing out that the tax is so large that the courts can't possibly find that the president has exceeded his power. That has it backward. The power to raise revenue for the government belongs to Congress. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, 'The legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people.' Tariffs are taxes paid by U.S. importers — individuals and companies — to Customs and Border Protection, which then gives the money to the U.S. treasury. If Trump is ordering Americans to pay huge sums of money without clear authorization from Congress, that ought to heighten judicial scrutiny of whether the taxes are legal. Trump based his 'Liberation Day' tariffs on a 1977 law that no previous president has used for that purpose. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president the power to 'block,' 'regulate,' 'void' or 'prohibit' importation in an emergency. Trump claimed that 'large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits' constitute an emergency and that tariffs are a form of regulation. But note that Bessent did not say that the tariffs must be saved by the courts because they are so successful at addressing trade deficits or fortifying national security (which Trump's emergency declaration also mentioned). He pointed instead to the tariffs' success at extracting revenue for his Cabinet department as a reason the Supreme Court wouldn't dare strike them down. That argument might fit better if Trump claimed the 'emergency' prompting his IEEPA tariffs was that the government does not collect enough money from taxpayers. But that would have underscored the absurdity of the presidential power claimed. Governments always want more money, and Congress obviously didn't intend IEEPA as a general revenue-raising tool. The Trump administration has argued that if IEEPA allows the president to embargo certain goods altogether, surely it allows him to take the lesser action of taxing them. But as Judge Richard G. Taranto pointed out in last month's Federal Circuit argument, sometimes Congress might give the president a 'tough choice between really tough action and no action, because intermediate kinds of actions,' such as a tariff, 'are too easy.' Bessent's comment makes Taranto's point. It's one thing for the president to impose full-scale embargoes on the countries he has tariffed. That would be an economic shock, and he'd be accountable for it politically. It's another thing for him to impose stealth taxes Congress never passed but that force Americans to pay more of their incomes to the administration he controls. That would certainly be an 'easy' way to raise taxes — but not any more constitutional for that reason. The ambiguity around tariffs and price increases erodes accountability. Americans might pay higher prices as a result of Trump's vast IEEPA tariffs, but it's not apparent who is raising taxes on them or by how much. If Congress actually passed a bill authorizing the president to impose tariffs to address trade deficits or raise revenue, the line of accountability would be much clearer. To be fair to Bessent, his point about the 'deals we've done' with other countries is constitutionally stronger. The Supreme Court doesn't want to intervene in diplomacy, which — unlike taxation — is a core presidential power. But the administration might be realizing that its constant invocations of foreign affairs aren't sufficient to wave off judicial review. It should have worked with Congress and put its trade dealings on a stronger legal foundation. There's still time to do so.
