Connect with us

Business

Retailers could face cost cuts and slower sales this year

Published

on

107194996-1676473044538-gettyimages-1245867318-US_RETAIL_SALES.jpeg


Advertisement
Shoppers walk past a Bloomingdale’s store in the SoHo neighborhood of New York, US, on Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2022.
Advertisement

Victor J. Blue | Bloomberg | Getty Images

After benefitting from a pandemic-era shopping spree, retailers are preparing for a reality check.
Advertisement

Walmart and Home Depot will kick off retail earnings season Tuesday by sharing holiday-quarter results. Other big-name retailers will follow, including big-box players like Target and Best Buy, and mall staples like Macy’s and Gap.

The companies’ reports will come as recession fears cloud the year ahead. Americans are more worried about inflation now than they are about Covid. People are choosing to spend more on dining out, traveling and other services while cutting back on goods. Higher interest rates threaten the housing market.

Advertisement

A slowdown in sales growth also seems likely after the sharp increases of the past three years.

For investors, the end of retail’s sugar high brings a mixed picture. Companies may share modest sales outlooks. Yet healthier profit margins could be a silver lining, as freight costs fall and retailers have less excess merchandise to mark down. Plus, companies may have more cautious spending plans, such as smaller inventory orders and a slowdown in hiring. That could boost profit margins, even if consumers don’t spend as freely.

Advertisement

“The world is focused on top-line momentum,” said David Silverman, a retail analyst at Fitch Ratings. “So many market participants are focused on what revenue is what revenue is what revenue is.”

But, he added, “it’s the operating profit that could bounce back nicely from a difficult 2022.”

Advertisement

Silverman said retailers’ strategies have flipped from a year ago. Then, they bet on sky-high sales becoming the new normal and made riskier bets, from placing bigger orders to paying extra to expedite shipments. That hurt companies’ margins, as unsold merchandise wound up on the clearance rack and costs crept up, along with sales.

A dose of reality over the holidays

Already, retailers have gotten a dose of reality. Walmart, Target and Macy’s are among the companies that have spoken about a more careful consumer.

Advertisement

Several retailers already previewed holiday results. Macy’s warned that holiday-quarter sales would come in on the lighter side of its expectations. Nordstrom said weaker sales and more markdowns hurt its November and December results. Lululemon said its profit margins would be lower than anticipated, as the athletic apparel retailer juggles excess inventory.

Industry-wide holiday results fell below expectations, too, according to the National Retail Federation. Sales in November and December grew 5.3% year over year to $936.3 billion, below the major trade group’s prediction for growth of between 6% and 8% over the year prior. In early November, NRF had projected spending of between $942.6 billion and $960.4 billion.

Advertisement

Retail leaders have looked closely for clues, as they gear up for the coming fiscal year. (Most retailers’ fiscal years end in January.)

Macy’s CEO Jeff Gennette told CNBC last month that the department store operator noticed fewer holiday shoppers buying items for themselves while shopping for gifts. He said those lower purchases “more than offset the good news that we were getting on gifting and occasion.”

Advertisement

The company’s credit card data flashed warning signs, too, he added: Customers’ balances on Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s and co-branded American Express credit cards are rising and more of those balances are getting carried to the next month rather than paid off.

“When we look at our credit portfolio, you’ve got a customer that’s coming under more pressure,” he said.

Advertisement

Tough calls, cautious outlooks

Some retailers have already made some difficult moves to prepare for what could be a tough year. Luxury retailer Neiman Marcus and Saks.com, the e-commerce retailer spun off from Saks Fifth Avenue stores, have both had recent layoffs. Stitch Fix laid off 20% of its corporate workforce. Wayfair laid off 10% of its global workforce. Amazon began cutting over 18,000 employees, including many in its retail division.

Bed Bath & Beyond, which has warned of a potential bankruptcy filing, recently cut its workforce deeper as it also shutters about 150 of its namesake stores.

Advertisement

Target in November said it would cut up to $3 billion in total costs over the next three years, as it warned of a slower holiday season. It did not provide specifics on that plan. The company will report its fourth-quarter results on Feb. 28.

Many retail leaders said they anticipate cost-cutting measures for their workforces in the next 12 months, too, such as hiring temporary workers rather than full-time employees, according to a survey of 300 retail executives in December by consulting firm AlixPartners. Thirty-seven percent said they expect slowing raises or promotions and 28% said they expect cutting benefits at their companies in the coming year.

Advertisement

Of those surveyed, 19% said layoffs had happened at their companies in the last 12 months and 19% said they expect layoffs to happen in the next 12 months.

Marie Driscoll, an analyst covering beauty, luxury and fashion for retail advisory firm Coresight Research, said she expects companies to give other line items a closer look, such as free shipping and returns, as well as digital marketing expenses.

Advertisement

As interest rates rise, she said retailers may “find operating religion.”

“Retailers are looking at their businesses and saying not every sale is worth having,” she said. “The fact that there is a real cost of money is changing the way that companies are looking at their business.”

Advertisement

Yet some factors still work in retailers’ favor, she said. The tight labor market could give consumers the confidence to spend, even as inflation remains hot. People are dressing up and buying fragrances as they go out again, a factor that may have lifted January retail sales along with more spending at bars and restaurants.

She said the earnings season will bring surprises and show which companies can navigate choppier waters. Nike, for instance, raised its outlook after topping Wall Street’s expectations in December.

Advertisement

“A lot of it is dependent on their consumer and the strength of their brand,” Driscoll said. “There’s strength out there.”

Shop or Drop? WMT, HD, LOW & TGT



Source link

Advertisement

Business

Here’s what went wrong with Virgin Orbit

Published

on

By

106998454-1641581462128-gettyimages-1237587303-AA_07012022_567801.jpg


Advertisement
Virgin Orbit crew poses at the opening bell ceremony as a 70 foot model rocket with satellites is placed in front of the NASDAQ in Times Square of New York City, United States on January 7, 2022.
Advertisement

Tayfun Coskun | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

Not too long ago, Virgin Orbit was in rarified air among U.S. rocket builders, and executives were in New York celebrating its public stock debut.
Advertisement

The scene was true to the marketing pizazz that has helped Sir Richard Branson build his Virgin empire of companies, showcasing with a rocket model in the middle of Times Square.

The deal, facilitated by a so-called blank check company, gave Virgin Orbit a valuation of nearly $4 billion. But that moment in December 2021 – when the craze surrounding public offerings centered on special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, was dying out – previewed the pain to come.

Advertisement

Now, Virgin Orbit is on the brink of bankruptcy. The company on Thursday halted operations and laid off nearly all of its staff. Its stock was trading around 20 cents Friday, leaving it with a market value of about $74 million.

When Virgin Orbit closed its SPAC deal, it raised less than half of the nearly $500 million expected due to high shareholder redemptions, shortening its runway. With the broader markets turning against riskier yet-unprofitable assets like many new space stocks, Virgin Orbit shares began a steady slide, further limiting its ability to raise substantial outside investment.

Advertisement

Branson, Virgin Orbit’s largest stakeholder, was unwilling to fund the company further, as CNBC previously reported. Instead, he began hedging against his 75% equity stake through a series of debt rounds. That debt gives the flashy British billionaire first priority of Virgin Orbit assets in the event of the now-impending bankruptcy.

While Virgin Orbit touted a flexible and alternative approach to launch small satellites, the company was unable to reach the rate of launches necessary to generate the revenue it sorely needed.

Advertisement

Sign up here to receive weekly editions of CNBC’s Investing in Space newsletter.

Virgin Orbit’s technical staff acquitted themselves well over the company’s brief existence, but were ultimately undone in by its leaders’ financial mismanagement. It’s a story too often told in the history of the space industry: Exciting, or even innovative, technologies do not necessarily equal great businesses.

Advertisement

It became one of a few U.S. rocket companies to successfully reach orbit with a privately developed launch vehicle. It launched six missions since 2020 — with four successes and two failures — through an ambitious and technically difficult process known as “air launch,” with a system that uses a modified 747 jet to drop a rocket mid-flight and send small satellites into space.

But Virgin Orbit had dug a nearly $1 billion hole, flying missions just twice a year while its payroll expenses climbed. The company’s leadership was aware of the deteriorating situation and lack of progress, and even considered changes last summer to make the business more lean. But no clear or dramatic plan came to fruition – leading to Thursday’s fall.

Advertisement

This story collects insights from CNBC’s discussions with company insiders and industry investors over the past several weeks, as well as from regulatory disclosures, to explain where things went wrong for Virgin Orbit. Those people asked to remain anonymous in order to discuss internal or competitive matters.

A Virgin Orbit spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

Advertisement

Lacking execution

The company’s 747 jet “Cosmic Girl” releases a LauncherOne rocket in mid-air for the first time during a drop test in July 2019.

Greg Robinson / Virgin Orbit

Advertisement

Virgin Orbit was spun-off from Branson’s space tourism company, Virgin Galactic, in 2017, after a team within the latter sister company saw potential in using an aircraft as a platform to launch satellites. While “air launching” satellites was not a novel idea to Virgin Orbit, the company aimed to surpass the air-launched Pegasus rocket – developed by Orbital Sciences, which is now owned by Northrop Grumman –for a fraction of the cost per mission.

Headquartered in Long Beach, California, Virgin Orbit flew most of its missions out of the Mojave Air and Space Port. The exception to that was its most recent launch, which took off from Spaceport Cornwall in the United Kingdom. Virgin Orbit had been working with other governments to provide launches by flying out of airports around the world, signing agreements with Japan, Brazil, Australia and the island of Guam.

Advertisement

The advertised flexibility and potential of Virgin Orbit’s approach attracted quite a bit of attention from leaders in the U.S. national security community. Following meetings with top Pentagon brass in 2019, Branson proclaimed that Virgin Orbit is “about the only company in the world that could replace [satellites] in 24 hours” during a military conflict.

At the time, the Air Force’s acquisition lead, Will Roper, said he was “very excited about small launch” after meeting with Branson. He said the U.S. military had “huge money to invest” in buying rocket launches.

Advertisement

The company had hoped to launch its debut mission as early as 2018, but that goal kept moving every six months or so. Eventually, Virgin Orbit launched its first mission in May 2020, which failed shortly after the rocket was released from the jet. It got to orbit successfully for the first time in January 2021.

Given the company’s burn rate near $50 million a quarter, Virgin Orbit was targeting profitability once it got beyond a launch rate, or cadence, of a dozen missions per year. When it went public, Virgin Orbit CEO Dan Hart told CNBC that the company was aiming to launch seven rockets in 2022, to build on that momentum.

Advertisement

At the same time, Virgin Orbit was already in a deep financial hole – with a total deficit of $821 million at the end of 2021, due to steady losses since its inception. While Virgin Orbit had aimed to launch seven missions last year, that number was steadily guided down quarter after quarter, closing out 2022 with just two completed lunches – the same as the year before.

Some people within the company who had been critical of Virgin Orbit’s execution pointed to several executives’ backgrounds at Boeing, which has had its share of space-related snags over the years.

Advertisement

Virgin Orbit CEO Dan Hart had spent 34 years at Boeing, where he was previously the vice president of its government space systems. COO Tony Gingiss joined Virgin Orbit from satellite broadband company OneWeb, but before that had spent 14 years in Boeing’s satellite division. And Chief Strategy Officer Jim Simpson had also spent more than eight years in Boeing’s satellite division before joining Virgin Orbit.

As one person emphasized, the company launched the same amount of rockets in a year with a staff of 500 as it did with a workforce of over 750 people. Others complained of a lack of cross-department coordination, with projects and spending done in silo of each other – leading to a disconnect in schedules.

Advertisement

Two people mentioned wastefulness in ordering materials. For example: The company would buy enough expensive items with limited shelf-life to build a dozen or more rockets, but then only build two, meaning it would have to throw away millions of dollars’ worth of raw materials away.

When Virgin Orbit announced an employee furlough March 15, people familiar with the situation said the company had about half a dozen rockets in various states of production in its Long Beach factory.

Advertisement

As the lack of a financial lifeline made the situation increasingly more desperate, multiple Virgin Orbit employees voiced frustration with how Hart communicated the company’s position – and even more so with the lack of clarity after the furlough.

The day of the initial pause in operations, people described company leadership running around frantically while many employees stood around waiting for word on what was happening. One person emphasized the tumultuous and sudden furlough happened because executives tried to keep the company alive as long as possible. Several employees expressed disappointment with Hart holding the March 15 all-hands meeting virtually, speaking from his office rather than face-to-face, and not taking any questions after announcing the pause in operations.

Advertisement

That frustration continued after the pause, with employees confused by the lack of specifics about which investors were speaking to Virgin Orbit leadership. Thursday’s update that a deal fell through came as little surprise to a workforce that was largely in limbo. Many were already hunting for new jobs.

Deal efforts fall apart

The rocket for the company’s second demonstration mission undergoing final assembly at its factory in Long Beach, California.

Advertisement

Virgin Orbit

A pivot in Virgin Orbit’s strategy became apparent and necessary shortly after it went public.

Advertisement

Virgin Orbit aimed to raise $483 million through its SPAC process, but significant redemptions meant it raised less than half of that, bringing in $228 million in gross proceeds. The funds it did raise came from the minority of SPAC shareholders who stuck around, as well as private investments from Virgin Group, the Emirati sovereign wealth fund Mubadala, Boeing, and AE Industrial Partners.

Unlike its sister company Virgin Galactic, which built its cash reserves to more than $1 billion through stock and debt sales after going public in October 2019, Virgin Orbit did not build its cash coffers. And that meant leadership should have buckled down and made changes to run the company in a more lean way, one person emphasized, to rebuild momentum.

Advertisement

And then Virgin Orbit’s apparent strength in the national security sector began to falter. Despite half of its missions flying Space Force satellites, the company lost out to competitor Firefly Aerospace for a launch contract under the “Tactically Responsive Space” program. Awarded in October, the mission seemed right up Virgin Orbit’s alley, especially since the prior mission under that Space Force program flew on the similarly air-launched Pegasus rocket.

As the financial situation worsened, a few bankers who spoke to CNBC wondered why the search for a deal was dragging on. According to one banker, Virgin Orbit could raise anywhere from $10 million to $15 million quickly to stop-gap the situation while it found a larger buyer. Another investor estimated that Virgin Orbit had about $270 million in net tangible assets, further sweetening the potential for a wholesale deal even despite its plunging market value.

Advertisement

A white knight seemed to appear last week in the form of Matthew Brown, who discussed making an 11th-hour deal with Virgin Orbit, to reportedly inject as much as $200 million into the company. However, within days, the talks fell apart. The company continued to discussions with another, unnamed investor this past week.

But in the words of Hart on Thursday, Virgin Orbit was “not been able to secure the funding to provide a clear path for this company.”

Advertisement

And while the 675 employees laid off Thursday likely have strong job prospects, Virgin Orbit seems now destined for bankruptcy.



Source link

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Judge rejects Fox motions, allows Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation suit to go to trial

Published

on

By

107200424-1677524534644-gettyimages-1468322869-032a9768_24f64da5-3a57-4235-a9fb-2368f4c845d4.jpeg


Advertisement
A Delaware judge on Friday said Dominion Voting’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox Corp. and its networks could go to trial in April.

Judge Eric Davis of Delaware’s Superior Court rejected Fox’s arguments that it should bypass a trial since it’s protected by the First Amendment. The judge granted some of the voting machine maker’s motions, with the exception of its argument that Fox and its hosts acted with malice in broadcasting false claims about the 2020 presidential election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Advertisement

The ruling comes more than a week after Fox and Dominion’s attorneys met before Davis over two days in Delaware, urging him to make a ruling rather than go to trial with jury in mid-April.

“We are gratified by the Court’s thorough ruling soundly rejecting all of Fox’s arguments and defenses, and finding as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. We look forward to going to trial,” Dominion said late Friday afternoon.

Advertisement

Fox also weighed in on the judge’s ruling.

“This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news. FOX will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” the company said.

Advertisement

Dominion brought its lawsuit against Fox News and Fox Business, as well as their parent Fox Corp., in 2021, arguing the channels and their hosts pushed false claims that its voting machines were rigged in the 2020 election that saw Biden triumph over Trump. The former president, who was indicted Thursday in an unrelated criminal matter, has repeatedly made false claims about the election being rigged against him.

Last year, as part of Dominion’s evidence gathering, the company deposed executives at both Fox Corp. — including Chairman Rupert Murdoch and his son and Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch — and Fox News, as well as the top hosts on the network. In recent weeks, a trove of evidence has been released as part of the case, showing the hosts, as well as Rupert Murdoch, were skeptical of the election fraud claims being made on air.

Advertisement

Dominion has argued Fox defamed the company, affecting its business, and acted with malice. Fox has argued it was reporting on newsworthy allegations, at the time stemming from Trump and attorneys, and is protected by the First Amendment.

The judge pointed to the statements regarding election fraud, that Dominion manipulated vote counts through software and algorithms, that it was founded in Venezuela to rig elections on behalf of late dictator Hugo Chavez, and that it paid kickbacks to government officials who used the machines in the election – all of which were said on air on Fox – to be defamatory.

Advertisement

“The statements also seem to charge Dominion with the serious crime of election fraud. Accusations of criminal activity, even in the form of opinion, are not constitutionally protected,” Davis said in court papers.

While the judge on Friday granted summary judgement on some of Dominion’s arguments, including defamation, he didn’t grant one on actual malice.

Advertisement

In order to win a defamation case, a plaintiff needs to prove that the individual or business they are suing knowingly made false statements that caused harm, and that it acted with “actual malice,” meaning the speaker knew or should have known what they were saying to be untrue.

In the evidence released in recent weeks, internal text messages and emails between Fox executives and its hosts have shown they were skeptical of the claims being made on air. Still, Dominion argues, Fox continued to host guests such as Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who repeated erroneous claims of election fraud.

Advertisement

Fox argued last week in court that the basis of its case was “whether the press accurately reports the allegations, not whether the underlying allegations are true or false.” Attorneys have built the media company’s case around the notion that “any reasonable viewer” of the news would be able to discern what was allegations or facts on Fox’s networks.

In Friday’s opinion, Davis, the judge, aid there was “no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.” Instead, Davis said it is a matter a jury should decide.

Advertisement

Similarly, on Fox’s arguments against the $1.6 billion in damages Dominion is seeking in this case, Davis said the matter is for a jury to decide – including the calculation of how much the damages should be.

The trial, which is expected to last for weeks, is set to begin on April 17, with a pre-trial conference and jury selection taking place the week before.

Advertisement

Dominion is requesting Fox’s top hosts, including Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro, as well as former host Lou Dobbs and Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott, appear on the stand for questioning. The depositions of both Murdochs, as well as other Fox Corp. executives, are to be included in the trial, too.

Former Fox producer Abby Grossberg was also added to Dominion’s witness list. Grossberg, who worked on the shows of Bartiromo and Carlson, filed a lawsuit against Fox alleging she was coerced into providing misleading testimony as part of the Dominion lawsuit.

Advertisement

Read the ruling.



Source link

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Nikola shares sink after its $100 million stock offering priced at 20% below market

Published

on

By

106587105-1592834759853nikola_tre3.jpg


Advertisement
Nikola Motor Company
Advertisement

Source: Nikola Motor Company

Electric heavy-truck maker Nikola said that its planned $100 million secondary stock offering, announced on Thursday after U.S. markets closed, has priced at $1.12 per share – 20% below the stock’s Thursday closing price of $1.40.
Advertisement

Nikola’s shares closed on Friday at $1.21, down over 13%.

Even with the discount, there appears to have been very limited interest in the shares on Wall Street. Nikola’s underwriter, Citigroup, was only able to place about a third of the shares with its clients. An unnamed private investor has agreed to buy the remainder directly from Nikola, the truck maker said.

Advertisement

Nikola plans to use the money raised for working capital and other general purposes. The company is preparing to launch a new long-range electric semitruck powered by hydrogen fuel cells later this year. The new truck will complement Nikola’s shorter-range Tre battery-electric heavy truck, which began shipping last year.

Nikola had $233.4 million in cash and equivalents available as of Dec. 31. The truck maker lost $222.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2022.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending