Duckhorn to consolidate portfolio, close tasting rooms
The Duckhorn Portfolio plans to focus its investment on a clutch of wineries and close some of its tasting rooms in a bid to "profitably scale".
The US luxury wine group said it will prioritise its spend on "four core wineries" – Duckhorn Vineyards, Kosta Browne, Decoy, and Sonoma-Cutrer, as well as the Goldeneye Calera, and Greenwing brands.
Duckhorn's CEO Robert Hanson said the move was part of the group's regular evaluation of its portfolio 'to ensure it is well-positioned to expand and profitably scale'.
The wineries account for 96% of the Californian company's net sales and represent the 'biggest growth opportunity' within its portfolio, it said.
The seven wine brands the company has chosen to prioritise operate within the $15-50 premium and luxury wine segments.
Over the last 24 months, Duckhorn said its portfolio accounted for 37% of growth in the premium and luxury price segment and 'continues to gain market share'.
Hanson added that the seven brands had 'tremendous potential' to support Duckhorn's ambition of becoming the 'leader in American luxury wine'.
Consequently, Duckhorn will pull resources away from brands including Canvasback, Migration, Paraduxx, and Postmark.
These labels, which generated just 3.9% of Duckhorn's total gross profit over the past nine months, 'have been declining on a trailing 12-month basis,' the company said.
They will continue to be available in the wholesale market for the next few years.
The Californian group will also close tasting rooms that are not 'generating significant revenue or contributing to profitability' by June.
Closures include Californian locations Migration in Napa and Sonoma-Cutrer in Windsor, plus Canvasback in Walla Walla, Washington.
Despite the closure of the Sonoma-Cutrer tasting room, its wholesale business, membership club, and winemaking operations will remain the 'primary focus of this growth brand within the portfolio', Duckhorn said.
The news follows recent management shifts in the business. Hanson, a former Constellation Brands executive, was appointed CEO in January, while Duckhorn appointed former WC Brands executive Jeff Ngo as its new chief growth officer last month.
"Duckhorn to consolidate portfolio, close tasting rooms " was originally created and published by Just Drinks, a GlobalData owned brand.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mom buys product she thought was U.S.-made, but warns of misleading labels
As President Trump's trade war continues, some consumers are searching for products made in the U.S. When Mary Schubart set out to buy bedding for her twins heading off to college, she was looking for products that were safe, provided comfort and, if possible, she wanted to buy American-made. "I like the idea of buying to support the local economy, but my overriding concern was safer," Schubart said. Schubart said she thought she found the perfect mattress pads from Pottery Barn Teen. It was advertised online as "crafted in the USA," but when they arrived, she was surprised to see one of the tags read "made in China." "I knew it is one of the countries that has less stringent regulations pertaining to health and pertaining to final product production, so I was disappointed," she said. Schubart reported her findings to Truth in Advertising, a nonprofit watchdog group that investigates when companies make false claims. Laura Smith, the Truth in Advertising legal director, said they had already flagged false claims by Pottery Barn Teen to the Federal Trade Commission. "We had found 800-plus examples of products marketed as 'made in the USA' or 'crafted in America' when they were actually imported," Smith said, of the merchandise found on seven William Sonoma websites in 2019. Schubart's complaint led to the largest "Made in the USA" civil penalty in history, with more than $3 million against Williams Sonoma, the parent company of Pottery Barn Teen. In a statement, Williams Sonoma apologized for what it called an "administrative mistake," saying, "Last year, we received an FTC fine due to an unintentional administrative mistake associated with the online product descriptions of seven items we sell. We are deeply sorry for any confusion that may have been caused by the inaccurate information that was shared, and we have improved our processes to help prevent similar incidents in the future." "Civil penalties, as long as they're more than a slap on the wrist, they can have a real impact. But it needs to be a fine that's big enough to hurt," Smith said. What qualifies as "Made in the USA?" The Federal Trade Commission requires that products advertised as "Made in the USA" be all or virtually all manufactured domestically. Plus, the ingredients or components must be made and sourced in the United States, which is the issue in a current lawsuit against Reynolds Aluminum foil for its "Made in the USA" label. The suit claims the product's key raw material, Bauxite, is not mined in the U.S. Reynolds says the claims have no merit and it will defend the case. How to know if a product is American-made Amid Mr. Trump's tariffs on certain products, some companies have said they plan to invest more in U.S. manufacturing. To verify if a product is "Made in the USA," check the label for that exact wording. Beware of qualifying language like "Assembled in the USA" or "with imported parts." If you're unsure, consumers can verify with the brand by going to its website or calling directly. Australian reporter covering Los Angeles protests shot with rubber bullet by police officer Kristi Noem says "we are not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen" amid L.A. crackdown Magic in the dark: The fantastical worlds of Lightwire Theater
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump may have to choose: Making trade deals or keeping his car tariffs
President Donald Trump is telling domestic audiences he won't cut his 25 percent tariffs on foreign cars as part of any trade deals he negotiates. But other countries — who collectively send millions of vehicles to the U.S. each year — haven't gotten that message. Trading partners like the EU, Japan and South Korea are laboring under the impression that the auto tariffs, which Trump imposed in April, are still on the table, according to two people familiar with the talks between Trump officials and those countries, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. If Trump is really unwilling to lower or eliminate his tariffs on foreign cars, it could prove to be a major hurdle to securing meaningful trade deals with some of the country's top trading partners. Japan, South Korea and Germany sold more than $121 billion in cars and car parts in the U.S. in 2024. The White House did not answer when asked if auto tariffs were on the table for negotiations and instead reiterated the goal of the tariffs. 'No president has taken a greater interest in reviving America's once-dominant auto industry than President Trump, and the auto industry is a key focus of the Trump administration's trade and economic policies,' said Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson. 'Discussions with our major trading partners continue, and the Trump administration continues to seek better trade deals for American industries and workers.' A decision to lift the tariffs for more countries, particularly those whose companies compete most fiercely with American carmakers, risks alienating a powerful manufacturing bloc and undercutting a central tenet of Trump's trade agenda — forcing companies to build more products in the U.S. The Trump administration has assured American automakers that when it comes to auto tariffs being used as a bargaining chip, they have 'nothing to worry about,' according to a person familiar with discussions between the administration and Detroit's 'Big Three' auto companies, granted anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks. Trump has said a deal to lower the tariff on a small number of British cars, announced last month, was an exception. 'I won't do that deal with cars' for other countries, Trump said when announcing the terms of negotiation with the U.K. on May 8. The British auto brand Rolls-Royce is 'a very special car and it's a very limited number too. It's not one of the monster car companies that makes millions of cars,' he noted. Even that agreement, which lowered the tariff on 100,000 cars, less than 1 percent of total U.S. annual car sales, drew a sharp rebuke from U.S. automakers. 'This hurts American automakers, suppliers, and auto workers,' the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, said at the time, saying they hoped it 'does not set a precedent for future negotiations with Asian and European competitors.' The tension between the two goals — boosting domestic auto production while also negotiating delicate agreements to lower trade barriers — highlights the challenge facing the administration as it races to secure deals with dozens of countries before the president's double-digit 'reciprocal' tariffs are slated to kick back in next month. 'To ease the sting of those tariffs on the auto sectors for Korea and Japan is of course a high priority for them,' said Michael Beeman, a former assistant U.S. trade representative who focused on Japan and South Korea. 'I think for those countries, to be able to declare success from the talks at home, they would expect some sort of consideration." The auto tariffs have already been a sticking point in negotiations with Japan and South Korea, both of which are invested in maintaining a high level of domestic auto manufacturing. Auto exports from South Korea to the U.S. have exploded over the past 20 years, from $8.7 billion in 2005 to $37.3 billion in 2024, according to data collected by the Census Bureau. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has said publicly that any trade deal with Japan would have to result in lower auto tariffs. Now, as the two countries are on their fifth round of talks, with a planned meeting between Ishiba and Trump at the G7 in Canada in two weekends, both countries are projecting optimism about a deal. "I think we'll also need to address, at a minimum, the auto [Section] 232 tariffs,' said Wendy Cutler, a former negotiator with the U.S. trade representative's office and the vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said when asked what it would take to get a deal with Japan. Cutler said any deal with Japan or South Korea could have a lower tariff for a certain number of vehicles, similar to the deal with the U.K. Or, 'they could also just be very vague and say that the U.S. notes Japan's concern on the auto tariffs, and both sides agree to negotiate possible lowering of the tariffs in this detailed negotiation to follow," she said. Trump has already agreed to lower tariffs on automobiles once. In his first trade agreement since imposing a global 10 percent tariff on nearly every U.S. trading partner and potentially higher rates on more than 60 countries, Trump struck an agreement with the U.K. that would allow the country to ship 100,000 vehicles into the country at a 10 percent tariff — lower than the current 25 percent tariff on automobiles and auto parts. The deal drew condemnation from American automakers, who noted that it meant a lower tariff on cars imported from the U.K. than on North American-made cars that include U.S.-made parts. They expressed concern that lowering tariffs with major auto manufacturing countries like Japan, South Korea and Germany would make it more expensive to build cars with parts from North America — creating an unfair playing field and effectively undercutting the administration's effort to boost domestic auto manufacturing. Vehicles made across the integrated North American supply chain still face a 25 percent tariff on non-U.S. made content, even if the vehicle is compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term. The Trump administration has continued to press foreign automakers to move production to the U.S. Last week, Trump met with German automakers, who offered $100 billion in investment in the U.S., according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Trump — and Republicans on Capitol Hill — say those commitments are a sign that tariffs are working. "They make BMWs in South Carolina, Volvo. They make Mercedes in Alabama,' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pointed out during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday. Under Trump, 'They're talking about making the engine now in South Carolina. They're talking about more content in South Carolina.' There has yet to be an uptick in U.S. auto manufacturing, however, a reminder that the investment pledges will take years to fully develop. Auto manufacturing jobs held steady between April and May, though there were 2,240 fewer auto manufacturing jobs in May, compared to 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While welcoming the announcements, the Trump White House has given no indication the investment pledges will convince the president to lower auto tariffs on foreign countries. 'I mean, unless somebody shows me that there's another kind of a car that's comparable to a Rolls-Royce,' Trump said in May, 'and there aren't too many.'
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
When Should I Start Taking Social Security?
The question of starting claims early or late is a common one among those eligible - or about to ... More become one. As an American citizen who has earned wages, you're eligible to begin receiving Social Security benefits as early as age 62. However, if you delay your first payment, your monthly benefit will increase, reaching its maximum at age 70. Somewhere between 62 and 70 you'll reach your Full Retirement Age (FRA), which is based on your birth year. FRA is important because the Social Security Administration (SSA) typically bases your reported benefit amount based on that age. This is what the SSA calls Primary Insurance Amount, or PIA. The PIA also determines the benefit your spouse could receive before or after your death. When considering taking Social Security early, you may want to think about how it might affect your spouse. A spouse may be eligible to receive up to 50% of your PIA, but only if they claim at their own FRA. If either of you claims early, the spousal benefit will be reduced accordingly. Also, spousal benefits are based on your PIA and do not include any delayed retirement credits you earn by waiting past your FRA. Survivor benefits work differently. If you claim early and pass away, your surviving spouse generally receives the reduced amount you were receiving. But if you delay benefits beyond your FRA, your survivor may receive up to 100% of your higher, delayed benefit — including any delayed retirement credits — subject to SSA rules pertaining to the surviving spouse. A key consideration is longevity—how long you expect to live. If you don't live long after claiming benefits you might receive less over your lifetime. Conversely, starting too early and living a long life could lock you into reduced payments for decades. So, what's the right move? Let's consider those born on September 1963, turn 62 this year after September 1st. Their FRA is 67. Starting benefits at 62 and one month—the earliest allowed—results in a 30% reduction from PIA. Waiting until 70 yields a 24% increase (8% per year). SSA's full table is here. If they claim at 62 and live to 78, they'll receive 16 years of benefits at 70% of PIA—totaling 11.2 years' worth. Claiming at 67 yields 11 years at 100%, or 11 total. Waiting until 70 gives 8 years at 124%, or 9.9 total. In this case, starting at 62 or 67 gives nearly the same outcome, while waiting until 70 means missing more than a full year of PIA. If they live to 80 the differences narrow even more: The differences are modest unless they live well beyond average life expectancy. For those who live into their 90s, waiting can result in over five years' worth of PIA because of the extra credits. Ultimately, since no one knows how long they'll live, the decision comes down to personal factors: current income needs, health, family history, lifestyle, taxes and risk tolerance. Some people are comfortable starting early, accepting lower payments in exchange for peace of mind. Others prefer to wait, betting on longevity and maximizing their future benefits. Some people, thanks to savings or family wealth, don't need their Social Security right away. They often choose to wait until 70 to receive the largest possible benefits, which they then invest alongside their other assets. Investing your Social Security benefits can significantly boost their value over time. For example, someone who starts benefits at 62 and simply puts the money in a no-interest checking account will receive the equivalent of 14 years of PIA by age 82 (20 years × 70%). But if those benefits earn a 2% real return annually, that total amount during those 20 years goes up by more than three years' worth of PIA. You will be better off claiming Social Security benefits early if you don't expect a long life, or ... More if you can invest those benefits. The higher the rate at which you invest them, the better off you will be if you claim early. So does it matter if you plan to invest your benefits? Absolutely. If benefits aren't spent but invested, starting earlier is often the better option because the breakeven point (the age after which having waited would have been the better move) is pushed out further. This makes intuitive sense: Early payments have more time to grow through compounding. For example, if someone lives to 80, the difference between starting early or late is minimal, as we saw earlier. But at a 2% real return, that point of indifference goes up to 83. At 4%, it moves to 87. That means investing your benefits makes early claiming increasingly the better choice, especially when investing in U.S. Treasuries or high-quality bonds held to maturity that minimize or even eliminate the introduction of market risk.
