Tapestry Plummets With Tariff Costs Weighing on Profit Outlook
The owner of Coach and Kate Spade said it's expecting earnings per diluted share between $5.30 to $5.45 in the current fiscal year. That would be a 4% to 7% increase versus the prior year. Analysts in a Bloomberg survey were expecting the profit metric to reach $5.49.
The difference likely lies in tariffs. Tapestry's EPS outlook includes a negative impact of 60 cents from higher duties, the company said in a statement Thursday. It's not clear that Wall Street has fully accounted for those costs.
Shares of Tapestry fell 17% in premarket trading. The stock had gained about 74% this year through Wednesday's close.
That hit tariffs represents about $160 million in extra costs in the current fiscal year, Chief Financial Officer Scott Roe said in an interview.
The 'new information' on tariffs, he said, will have a 'significant' effect in the current fiscal year. Still, Tapestry has 'strong confidence in our ability to mitigate the impact of tariffs over time.'
The handbag maker's outlook for the year is 'prudent given the backdrop,' Roe added.
Tapestry is forecasting revenue of nearly $7.2 billion in the current fiscal year that's expected to end in June, slightly above analysts' expectations of $7.12 billion. That excludes sales from shoe brand Stuart Weitzman, which Tapestry sold after it didn't generate much revenue. That figure would be a mid-single-digit percentage increase in sales versus the prior year, the company said.
Offloading Stuart Weitzman will enable Tapestry executives to spend more time and resources on increasing sales at Coach and turning around Kate Spade.
Revenue at Coach rose 13%, excluding currency fluctuations, and fell 13% at Kate Spade in the most recent quarter that ended on June 28.
'Coach outperformance continues,' Tapestry Chief Executive Officer Joanne Crevoiserat said in the interview. 'We're well ahead of the industry and we're doing that at exceptional margins.' Sales at Coach have accelerated in the current quarter, she added.
At Kate Spade, Crevoiserat said, 'the work to reset the brand is underway.'
Coach was listed as the fifth hottest fashion brand as of June, according to the closely watched Lyst Index. Its Tabby and Brooklyn bags are top sellers and have been spotted on celebrities, while its cherry bag charm is a popular and less expensive purchase for shoppers.
Most of the brands at the top of the Lyst Index are European fashion houses such as Miu Miu, Loewe, Prada and Moncler. Coach and Ralph Lauren, at No. 11, are among the few US names on the list and have been able to successfully compete with more expensive European luxury labels even as the two companies have consistently raised prices in recent years.
Both brands' prices are cheaper than many of their European peers, which makes their high-end products more accessible to a wider range of shoppers, helping to boost sales, executives have said.
The brands' popularity 'suggest a healthy outlook to support market-share gains and operating margin via full-price sales, even amid increased price sensitivity, low consumer confidence and tariff risk,' Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Deborah Aitken and Andrea Ferdinando Leggieri wrote in a recent research note.
(Updates with shares in fourth paragraph.)
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Hell hath no fury like Donald Trump scorned
Trump has not threatened China and Turkey, the largest and third largest importers of Russian oil. Nor Hungary and Slovakia, two European and Nato countries that import Russian oil. And he's ignored the fact that Japan has started to do so from June this year Has Donald Trump got it in for India? He's slapped 50% tariffs, he's suspended trade talks till the tariff dispute is resolved, he says he doesn't care if India's 'dead economy' sinks and Peter Navarro, his trade advisor, has said India is threatening America's national security by buying Russian oil. Worst of all, Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, has revealed that secondary tariffs on India could increase if Trump's talks with Putin fail. He also wants Europe to impose its own secondary tariffs. Does all of this suggest India has fallen out of America's favour? There is a view that Trump is using India to send a message to China and Russia. It's not a comforting one. It means we're collateral damage and he doesn't really care what happens to us. On the other hand — and this is equally galling — Trump seems to have fallen in love with Pakistan. He's only imposed 19% tariffs, his government considers Islamabad a 'phenomenal partner' in the fight against counter-terrorism — last week it lauded Pakistan's 'continued successes in containing terrorist entities' — he invited Field Marshal Asim Munir for lunch and wants to help Pakistan prospect for oil. In fact, Trump has taunted India with the tease that Pakistan could one day sell oil to Delhi. So, is Pakistan the new belle of the ball? Let's focus on the issue of Russian oil, both because it rankles with Delhi but also because Trump has made it clear that until it's resolved there'll be no trade negotiations. In fact, Bessent has threatened further penalties. The truth is the Biden Administration encouraged India to buy Russian oil. In May 2024, this is what Eric Garcetti, the American ambassador in Delhi, said: 'Actually, they (India) bought Russian oil because we (the US) wanted somebody to buy Russian oil at a price cap … because as a commodity we didn't want oil prices going up and they fulfilled that.' Today Trump is deliberately ignoring his predecessor's policy and blaming India instead. Secondly, Trump is also being hypocritical. America continues to import palladium, uranium hexafluoride, fertilisers and chemicals from Russia and reports indicate that in the last six months the amount imported has increased substantially compared to last year. So, if America can import from Russia, why can't India? Thirdly — and this hints at Trump's real intentions — there's another double standard. He has not threatened China and Turkey, the largest and third largest importers of Russian oil. Nor Hungary and Slovakia, two European and Nato countries that import Russian oil. And he's ignored the fact that Japan has started to do so from June this year. In fact, he's just extended the trade truce with China for another 90 days. Clearly his wrath is single-mindedly directed at Delhi. There is, however, another equally worrying aspect of the problem. Does Trump's attitude and behaviour suggest Quad has lost its utility in his eyes? If it has, where does America's Indo-Pacific strategy stand? It brought great comfort to India vis-à-vis our problems with China. If Trump is no longer committed to it, that will create worrying concerns for us. Whether Trump reaches an economic deal with China is hard to predict but probably likely because he's already talking of a summit with Xi Jinping. The question is, will the deal also presage a better political understanding of China? More space for Beijing's regional ambitions? In that event, will India continue to have US support over our border dispute with China? The biggest problem is what can we do about this? The truthful answer is very little. There's nothing we export to America that America can't do without. China has rare earth minerals and metals. We don't. Our leverage is very limited. Our only hope is a Putin-Trump deal on Ukraine which could lead to the secondary sanctions being lifted. Scott Bessent's comments suggest the White House has India in its sights if they aren't. Hell, it seems, hath no fury like a Trump scorned! Karan Thapar is the author of Devil's Advocate: The Untold Story. The views expressed are personal.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Kyivstar CEO says Russia-Ukraine peace deal would boost value after historic US listing
By Gianluca Lo Nostro and Leo Marchandon A peaceful resolution to the war between Russia and Ukraine would boost the value of Ukrainian mobile operator Kyivstar "quite significantly", its CEO Oleksandr Komarov said on Friday ahead of the company's stock market listing in New York. Kyivstar's shares will begin trading on the Nasdaq later on Friday, becoming the first Ukraine-based company listed on a U.S. stock exchange. The listing coincides with a summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, a meeting closely watched by Ukraine and European nations as a potential turning point in peace negotiations. "We will be the best asset for the international investment community to invest in Ukraine, to invest in the Ukrainian recovery, to invest in the Ukrainian support," Komarov told Reuters in an interview. Komarov said the company chose Nasdaq, where its parent VEON is also listed, over London or Warsaw because it was even more important to "strengthen the link between the United States and Ukraine rather than between Ukraine and Europe." The company has deepened its U.S. ties during the conflict, appointing former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to its board and signing a deal with Elon Musk's Starlink for satellite services. Kyivstar is the biggest mobile operator in Ukraine with 24 million subscribers. Founded in 1994, it became part of Veon in 2010. Apart from telecoms, it owns digital health platform Helsi and ride-hailing firm Uklon. VEON has pitched the listing as an opportunity for foreign investors to bet on Ukraine's reconstruction. But its success hinges in part on a peace deal being achieved. Komarov said that the first few weeks of trading will be extremely volatile. When asked if the outcome of the IPO depends on political developments, he said the volatile external environment was already incorporated in Kyivstar's valuation. Kyivstar, which has been given a pro forma valuation of $2.3 billion, carried out the listing by merging with fintech entrepreneur Betsy Cohen's special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The company raised $178 million. Reuters earlier reported Kyivstar expected up to $200 million. VEON will retain a majority stake in the mobile operator. Komarov said his firm's Nasdaq debut showed what Ukrainian companies could accomplish by accessing international markets and that prominent Ukrainian businessmen have spoken to him in recent months to hear about Kyivstar's listing strategy. "This is one of the dimensions of our integration into the Western world that should be developed and should be supported," he said.
Mint
5 hours ago
- Mint
Airbus set to break Boeing's long-held aviation record: Details here
(Bloomberg) -- In 1981, the year Airbus SE announced it would build a new single-aisle jetliner to take on Boeing Co., the 737 ruled the roost. The US-made narrowbody, already in use for more than a decade, had reshaped the airline industry by making shorter routes cheaper and more profitable to operate. By 1988, when Airbus began producing its upstart A320, Boeing had built a formidable lead by delivering some 1,500 of its cigar-shaped best-seller. It's taken the better part of four decades, but Airbus has finally caught up: The A320 series is poised to overtake its US competitor as the most-delivered commercial airliner in history, according to aviation consultancy Cirium. As of early August, Airbus had winnowed the gap to just 20 units, with 12,155 lifetime A320-family shipments, according to the data. That difference is likely to disappear as soon as next month. 'Did anyone back then expect it could become number one – and on such high production volumes?' Max Kingsley-Jones, head of advisory at Cirium Ascend, wrote of the A320 in a recent social-media post. 'I certainly didn't, and nor probably did Airbus.' The A320's success mirrors the European planemaker's decades-long rise from fledgling planemaker to serious contender, and finally Boeing's better. By the early 2000s, annual deliveries of the A320 and its derivatives had surpassed the 737 family; total orders eclipsed the Boeing jet in 2019. But the 737 stubbornly remained the most-delivered commercial aircraft of all time. At the outset, Airbus faced an uphill battle. The European planemaker, an assemblage of aerospace manufacturers formed in 1970 with backing from European governments, didn't yet offer a full aircraft lineup. Infighting hindered everything from product planning to manufacturing, and leadership decisions had to finely balance French and German commercial and political interests. Yet it was clear even then that Airbus needed a presence in the narrowbody segment to firmly establish itself as Boeing's top rival. Those aircraft are by far the most widely flown category in commercial aviation, typically connecting city pairs on shorter routes. Higher fuel costs and the deregulation of the US aviation industry in the late 1970s had given the European planemaker an opening with American airline executives, who clamored for an all-new single-aisle, according to a history of Airbus written by journalist Nicola Clark. To set the A320 apart, Airbus took some risks. It selected digital fly-by-wire controls that saved weight over traditional hydraulic systems, and gave pilots a side-stick at their right or left hand instead of a centrally mounted yoke. The aircraft also sat higher off the ground than the 737 and came with a choice of two engines, giving customers greater flexibility. Airbus's gamble paid off. Today, the A320 and 737 make up nearly half of the global passenger jet fleet in service. And the A320's success contrasts with strategic blunders like the A380 behemoth that proved short-lived because airlines couldn't profitably operate the giant plane. Boeing maintained that smaller, nimbler planes like the 787 Dreamliner would have an edge — a prediction that proved right. Yet the longtime dominance of the two narrowbody aircraft raises questions about the vitality of a duopoly system that favors stability over innovation. Both airplane makers have repeatedly opted for incremental changes that squeeze efficiencies out of their top-selling models, rather than going the more expensive route of designing a replacement aircraft from scratch. Airbus was first to introduce new engines to its A320, turning the neo variant into a huge hit with airlines seeking to cut their fuel bill. Under pressure, Boeing followed, but its approach proved calamitous. The US planemaker came up with the 737 Max, strapping more powerful engines onto the aircraft's aging, low-slung frame. It installed an automated flight-stabilizing feature called MCAS to help manage the higher thrust and balance out the plane. Regulators later found MCAS contributed to two deadly 737 Max crashes that led to a global grounding of the jet for 20 months, starting in 2019. More recently, Airbus has been bedeviled by issues with the fuel-efficient engines that power the A320neo. High-tech coatings that allow its Pratt & Whitney geared turbofans to run at hotter temperatures have shown flaws, forcing airline customers to send aircraft in for extra maintenance, backing up repair shops and grounding hundreds of jets waiting for inspection and repair. With both narrowbody families near the end of their evolutionary timeline, analysts and investors have begun asking about what's next. China, for its part, is seeking to muscle into the market with its Comac C919 model that's begun operating in the country, but hasn't so far been certified to fly in Europe or the US. Boeing Chief Executive Officer Kelly Ortberg said in July that the company is working internally toward a next-generation plane, but is waiting for engine technology and other factors to fall into place, including restoring cash flow after years of setbacks. 'That's not today and probably not tomorrow,' he said on a July 29 call. Airbus's healthier finances give it more flexibility to explore design leaps. CEO Guillaume Faury toyed with rolling out a hydrogen-powered aircraft — potentially with a radical 'flying wing' design — in the mid-2030s but has since pushed back the effort to focus on a conventional A320 successor. The Toulouse, France-based company is considering an open-rotor engine that would save fuel through its architecture rather than the current jet turbines that push the limits of physics to eke out gains. Speaking at the Paris Air Show in June, Faury called the A320 'quite an old platform' and affirmed plans to launch a successor by the end of this decade, with service entry in the mid-2030s. 'I have a lot of focus on preparing that next-generation of single aisle,' Faury said. 'We are very steady and very committed to this.' --With assistance from Jinshan Hong.
