logo
Tariffs Hurt Footwear, Apparel Growth, Says Moody's

Tariffs Hurt Footwear, Apparel Growth, Says Moody's

Yahoo4 days ago
Unresolved U.S. tariff policy keeps outlook for the global retail and apparel sector at negative, said credit ratings firm Moody's Ratings.
'U.S. companies in the segment still face higher costs even at current tariff levels, with apparel and footwear, big-box and department stores struggling most,' said credit analysts at Moody's in a report last week.
More from WWD
Questions Remain on US-EU Trade Deal, But 'Reduction of Uncertainty' Could Be Positive Step
CEO TALKS: Tim Little of Grenson on the Power of Retail, Potential Investors and Keeping a Heritage Footwear Brand Alive
ERL Takes Flip-flop Trend to New Heights as the Brand Continues to Grow Footwear
The credit analysts also kept their revenue growth projection for the next 12 months in the 0-3 percent range, reflecting weak unit demand offsetting increased pricing to defray higher costs.
'The effect of tariffs will drag materially on earnings through at least the first half of 2026, since companies will have limited ability to raise prices without hurting demand,' the analysts concluded, noting that affordability remains particularly critical for middle- and lower-income consumers. 'The costs of implemented tariffs will begin to hurt retailers' profitability once companies sell through any inventory that they purchased earlier in 2025,' they also said.
While the largest retail and apparel firms can absorb the higher costs from tariffs, even they may face higher near-term costs as they try to restructure supply chains or re-engineer products to use inputs more cost effectively.
U.S. footwear and apparel firms, and department stores, are the most likely to struggle with further tariff hikes due to reciprocal tariffs on many Asian countries, which are key sources of supply. Moody's also cited Nike and Under Armour as firms impacted by their heavy concentration in technical apparel and footwear that is difficult to move out of Asian manufacturing hubs. In addition, 'heavy promotional activity in some of their assortment makes it harder to raise prices,' the report said.
The credit analysts also said they expect Walmart to outperform, as its scale and significant exposure to grocery has relatively low tariff exposure helped by the discounter's negotiating leverage with vendors coupled with its supply-chain expertise. In contrast, they expect Target's operating performance will be weak, due in part to the mass discounter's higher mix of discretionary general merchandise mix.
Separately, the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index in July rose 2 points to 97.2 from a revised 95.2 in June. The Present Situation Index slipped 1.5 points to 131.5, while the Expectations component rose 4.5 points to 74.4 —although that level is below the threshold of 80, which typically signals a recession ahead for the sixth consecutive month.
One data point to note is that the consumer appraisal of current job availability has weakened for the seventh consecutive month, reaching its lowest level since March 2021, said Stephanie Guichard, senior economist, global indicators at the Conference Board.
'Consumers' write-in responses showed that tariffs remained top of mind and were mostly associated with concerns that they would lead to higher prices,' Guichard said.
Best of WWD
All the Retailers That Nike Left and Then Went Back
Mikey Madison's Elegant Red Carpet Shoe Style [PHOTOS]
Julia Fox's Sleekest and Boldest Shoe Looks Over the Years [Photos]
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Option Care Health, Inc. (OPCH): A Bull Case Theory
Option Care Health, Inc. (OPCH): A Bull Case Theory

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Option Care Health, Inc. (OPCH): A Bull Case Theory

We came across a bullish thesis on Option Care Health, Inc. on Brian's Substack by Brian Flasker. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on OPCH. Option Care Health, Inc.'s share was trading at $29.35 as of July 31st. OPCH's trailing and forward P/E were 23.29 and 19.65, respectively according to Yahoo Finance. A home infusion nurse in full PPE gown delivering treatments to a patient in their own home. Option Care Health (OPCH) has evolved into the dominant independent provider of home and alternate site infusion services in the U.S., originating from Madison Dearborn Partners' 2015 acquisition of Walgreens Infusion Services. The 2019 reverse merger with BioScrip and full divestiture by Walgreens and MDP by 2023 paved the way for OPCH to operate with full independence. Led by CEO John Rademacher and CFO Michael Shapiro, both with substantial equity stakes, OPCH has built a national infrastructure of 91 pharmacies and 99 infusion suites, covering 96% of the U.S. population. The company's integrated model provides cost-effective, high-quality infusion therapies in outpatient and home settings, capitalizing on a healthcare trend shifting treatments away from costly hospitals. This platform serves over 1,400 contracts with 800+ partners, including all top 10 national insurers. Acute therapies, though operationally complex, act as a competitive wedge, while chronic therapies anchor long-term recurring revenues. OPCH's mix—75% chronic, 25% acute—combined with a focus on generics and biosimilars, ensures resilience against pricing volatility. With its Advanced Practitioner (AP) model, OPCH is pushing clinical boundaries, managing more complex therapies in lower-cost settings and enhancing utilization of its already-built infrastructure. Only ~50% of its infusion suite capacity is currently utilized, leaving ample runway for capital-light growth. Despite industry concerns like drug pricing reforms and labor shortages, OPCH's embedded relationships, clinical capabilities, and scalable model offer strong visibility into cash flow and earnings. Trading at ~15.4x 2025 owner earnings with a 17.4% expected IRR, OPCH represents a high-quality compounder with an entrenched moat and significant upside. Previously, we covered a bullish thesis on Chemed Corporation by 310 Value in April 2025, which highlighted the durability of its earnings, temporary volatility in its subsidiaries, and disciplined share repurchases. The company's stock price has depreciated by approximately 29% since our coverage. This is because temporary segment headwinds persisted longer than expected. The thesis still stands as Chemed's core fundamentals remain intact. Brian Flasker shares a similar view but emphasizes OPCH's capital-light model and payer-aligned infrastructure. Option Care Health, Inc. is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 40 hedge fund portfolios held OPCH at the end of the first quarter, which was 40 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the potential of OPCH as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. 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

The Revision Economy And The Retraction Life
The Revision Economy And The Retraction Life

Forbes

time11 minutes ago

  • Forbes

The Revision Economy And The Retraction Life

Last Friday, we learned we are less employed than we thought we were. A quarter million jobs vanished, yet no one new was fired and no one new quit. Those jobs never existed in the first place. Only our estimate of the truth changed, not the truth itself. This was definitely a large revision. The two-month downward revision in jobs hadn't been this negative since Covid, and before that, the global financial crisis in October 2008. Before that, it hadn't happened in decades, with only a handful of occurrences in 1979, 1980, and 1982. In response, the US equity market fell between one and two percent and Treasury bond yields collapsed, especially in the front-end, as the market began pricing in a substantially higher expectation of Fed rate cuts. President Trump ordered the firing of the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), citing 'a lengthy history of inaccuracies and incompetence.' Should he have? Revision History Usually, revisions are frequent and fairly modest. The monthly nonfarm payroll report is always revised twice, so there are three numbers: the preliminary estimate, the first revision the following month, and the second revision in the month following that. There are also annual revisions. The average magnitude of the revisions since 1979 are between 40,000 and 60,000 jobs. Sometimes we find out we are more employed than we thought we were, and sometimes less. On Friday, the May 2025 seasonally adjusted estimate was revised down 120,000 jobs from its first estimate and the June 2025 estimate was revised down 133,000 jobs. Each of those was historically extreme, worse than 95% of relevant monthly revisions since 1979. The two-month combination was basically a once-in-a-decade event, as the chart above shows. Big numbers. But ultimately, they are just one source of data. Jobs numbers help us think about the economy, but they are just one piece of the puzzle. What makes job numbers particularly useful is they may be forward-looking: rather than estimating historical consumer purchases, job creation can presage future spending. That's why revisions could matter too. You drive differently if you think your exit is three miles away than if you think it's a quarter mile away. But we can't live our lives in the past, constantly revising what we used to think about ancient history. So, when should a revision of the past change your perspective of the future? Estimates vs. Reality Surely, it should have some effect. One famous quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes summarizes this view: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' Of course, not all facts matter the same amount or at the same time. Yesterday's future is tomorrow's past. Eventually, other data should matter more than the jobs numbers. If the BLS announced an inadvertent and unnoticed typo in a jobs number from eight years ago, that should presumably have almost no effect on your views today, since so much additional data has already come in, about spending, saving, production, consumption, inflation, and more. In other words, those quarter million jobs either existed or not. Estimates and revisions won't change what actually happened. Even knowing the exact true number is only a proxy for the actual information you would be interested in, and as time has gone on, other data has come out that can be more valuable and important than a more accurate but more historically distant estimate. There is a devastating counterpoint, however, as anyone who has ever been in any kind of personal or professional relationship would know. If a piece of information about the ancient past can change or color your perception of the entire relationship, then almost no amount of time can reduce that emotional impact. In any fight with a loved one, the biggest pain isn't whatever action they did or did not do, or your best estimate of their action, or even the revisions of your best estimates of their actions: it's the possibility that they never loved you at all. Was it all a lie? President Trump's firing of the BLS commissioner may be controversial. But both the administration and its critics worry about the same thing: data ought to be as accurate and objective as possible. This issue is a lot like reading the news. The loud front pages say one thing, usually preliminary news. Later retractions or corrections are quiet and unnoticed. As a society, we can begin to split and live in two different worlds: those that did not know the truth and did not see the retraction, and those that knew the truth or saw the retraction. Therefore, we no longer even have the same facts. Some of us begin to live in the hallucinated, unrevised, unretracted world, a world much like the Mandela effect, where we swear we remember things that in fact never happened. Trust is a fragile thing. A good-faith revision here or a revision there can be fine. But if you notice a consistent bias or pattern in the revisions and retractions, if the errors are rarely in your favor, you may stop subscribing to that source of news or data. If you are in a relationship, you may look to end or fix it. If you are the President of the United States, you may seek a new commissioner. The primary challenge in all these cases is then the same: restore the trust. In the revision economy and the retraction life, beliefs can bend, but faith can snap.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store