Target Corporation’s transgender bathroom pander costing its shareholders billions. Will corporate America learn that political correctness can be a disaster?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In the wake of its five-month long bathroom policy, Target (TGT) Corporation continues to implode.

Within a month after the misguided policy, the company’s market cap had already declined by $9 billion compared to where it should have been had Target kept its pre-April 19 correlation with its primary competitors, Walmart (WMT) and Costco (COST).

By late May, the market cap hit reached $10.5 billion. As of the second week of June, the loss was $11 billion.

Second-quarter earnings data are now out, showing Target’s earnings plummeted nearly 10%, with projected lower sales estimates for the remainder of 2016. Net sales declined more than 7% from the same period year-over-year.

Corporate executives are leaving in droves. Just 10% of the most senior executives in place two years ago remain with the company, including two major losses during the past month.

Had Target’s market cap continued to follow close pace with Walmart, as it had done in the months before the bathroom policy was implemented, it would have increased 1% compared to its value on April 19 of this year. Instead, Target’s market cap is now down 23.3% over this time frame.

This adds up to a $12.2 billion market cap decline that is likely to be directly attributable to the failed bathroom policy.

The American Family Association’s boycott of Target, which has collected 1.42 million signatures, appears to have driven much – if not nearly all – of this drop. In response, Target recently announced it would spend $20 million to install single-stall locking bathrooms for those customers who are concerned over its “inclusive” washroom policy.

Whether or not this bathroom investment can help recapture Target’s lost share of retail sales and more than $12 billion of market capitalization remains to be seen.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/09/target_corporations_transgender_bathroom_pander_costing_its_shareholders_billions.html#ixzz4LSdlE9Is
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/09/target_corporations_transgender_bathroom_pander_costing_its_shareholders_billions.html#ixzz4LScy9Zoy

There are some who continue to believe that the bathroom policy has nothing to do with Target's plunge into the abyss.

I'd say Target has set itself up for a pretty good lawsuit by shareholders disenfranchised by Target Management.

[thackney]

There are some who continue to believe that the bathroom policy has nothing to do with Target's plunge into the abyss.

I don't know how they compare the results with their competitors and come to that decision.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

"The American Family Association’s boycott of Target, which has collected 1.42 million signatures, appears to have driven much – if not nearly all – of this drop."

Except that 'much – if not nearly all – of this drop' happened based on results from sales (or lack thereof) from before the boycott.  Actually, if we're honest about it, the rate of Target's decline has DECREASED since their disgusting policy was implemented. 

How much of the drop since the boycott is because of the boycott?  I have no idea.  Hopefully, all of it.  But articles like this are simply dishonest.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I don't know how they compare the results with their competitors and come to that decision.

The only explanation is they choose not to believe their lying eyes.

I see no way the shareholders will allow Target mgt to escape from the folly of its decision making.

[driftdiver]

"The American Family Association’s boycott of Target, which has collected 1.42 million signatures, appears to have driven much – if not nearly all – of this drop."

Except that 'much – if not nearly all – of this drop' happened based on results from sales (or lack thereof) from before the boycott.  Actually, if we're honest about it, the rate of Target's decline has DECREASED since their disgusting policy was implemented. 

How much of the drop since the boycott is because of the boycott?  I have no idea.  Hopefully, all of it.  But articles like this are simply dishonest.

Near as I can tell AFA announced the boycott in April 2016, at least the page on their website to sign the boycott is dated in April.   AFA started pressuring Target right after Target announced their change in policy.   So if this article is correct the decline in sales has occurred AFTER the policy change and the boycott started.

So why do you think the drop in sales occurred before April?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Near as I can tell AFA announced the boycott in April 2016, at least the page on their website to sign the boycott is dated in April.   AFA started pressuring Target right after Target announced their change in policy.   So if this article is correct the decline in sales has occurred AFTER the policy change and the boycott started.

So why do you think the drop in sales occurred before April?

Because of the lag between when sales occur and when they are reported.  Target took a huge hit in the middle of May when it reported its FIRST QUARTER sales.  Those would not include late April.  The article above (which I can't see while I'm typing this, so I'm working from memory here) says they dropped about $10B by May, then another couple/few billion since second quarter (which would include the boycott).  Therefore most of the damage is, unfortunately, due to causes other than the boycott.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/target-stock-earnings/

[driftdiver]

Because of the lag between when sales occur and when they are reported.  Target took a huge hit in the middle of May when it reported its FIRST QUARTER sales.  Those would not include late April.  The article above (which I can't see while I'm typing this, so I'm working from memory here) says they dropped about $10B by May, then another couple/few billion since second quarter (which would include the boycott).  Therefore most of the damage is, unfortunately, due to causes other than the boycott.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/target-stock-earnings/

Other causes like Target announcing in early April.  But hey why celebrate a win for the country, for morals, for conservatism when you can instead spread doubt because the report wasn't based on a forensic level of accounting.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Other causes like Target announcing in early April.  But hey why celebrate a win for the country, for morals, for conservatism when you can instead spread doubt because the report wasn't based on a forensic level of accounting.

I'd love to celebrate an actual win.  I'm glad they are continuing to fall and I hope the boycott is the reason.  But this article makes the patently false claim that the majority of their fall was the boycott.  If we lie, or repeat the lies of others, we lose our credibility (and I'm sort of against lying on principle).

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'd love to celebrate an actual win.  I'm glad they are continuing to fall and I hope the boycott is the reason.  But this article makes the patently false claim that the majority of their fall was the boycott.  If we lie, or repeat the lies of others, we lose our credibility (and I'm sort of against lying on principle).

How is the graph demonstrate a patently false claim?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

How is the graph demonstrate a patently false claim?

I have no issue with the graph.  I do have an issue with this statement:

""The American Family Association’s boycott of Target, which has collected 1.42 million signatures, appears to have driven much – if not nearly all – of this drop."

Most of the drop was the result of weak earnings which happened before the whole queer bathroom thing and the boycott.  If neither had happened, Target's market cap still would have taken a huge hit in mid-May.  Just because the earnings announcement (about earnings that happened BEFORE the boycott) came after the boycott does not in any way shape or form imply that weak earnings were caused by the boycott, and to report that it does is dishonest.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Regardless of the statement, the graph pretty clearly shows a huge loss of value to shareholders since the announcement of the bathroom policy.

I believe you are mistaken when you say that weak earnings caused the loss of stock value.

It did not.

The announcement of weak earnings after it occurred may have contributed to the decline in stock price, as the forward perception of sales weakness for the company came to light.

The forward perception was strengthened by the realization of investors that this weakness would likely be exacerbated by the boycott of Target.

[driftdiver]

Regardless of the statement, the graph pretty clearly shows a huge loss of value to shareholders since the announcement of the bathroom policy.

I believe you are mistaken when you say that weak earnings caused the loss of stock value.

It did not.

The announcement of weak earnings after it occurred may have contributed to the decline in stock price, as the forward perception of sales weakness for the company came to light.

The forward perception was strengthened by the realization of investors that this weakness would likely be exacerbated by the boycott of Target.

You must not use any weakness of those that hate America to fight against the slide.   ANY perceived benefit or win MUST be watered down with doubts or misdirection.

[chae]

Target has been on thin ice with several people I know since the whole "merry Christmas is not allowed, say Happy Holidays instead" dust-up a couple years ago. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You must not use any weakness of those that hate America to fight against the slide.   ANY perceived benefit or win MUST be watered down with doubts or misdirection.

There are always those whose agendas drive the analysis of stark, naked facts to meet those agendas.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Regardless of the statement, the graph pretty clearly shows a huge loss of value to shareholders since the announcement of the bathroom policy.

Yes, it does.  And if we made a graph that went back one more day to April 18 it would show a huge loss of value to shareholders since tax day (actually April 19 in ME and MA this year).  But that wouldn't make most of their losses based on income tax.  Correlation != causation and all that.

Has Target taken a financial hit due to their disgusting policy?  I think so.  I hope so.  I know I won't shop there.  Can we quantify how much of their current financial troubles are due to said policy?  No, we can't, if we are honest anout it.   Should we just outright lie and try to claim credit for the downturn in sales that they had already experienced before the boycott?  I sure don't think so.  The left has to lie, they don't have the facts on their side.  We're better than that.  Or we used to be.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yes, it does.  And if we made a graph that went back one more day to April 18 it would show a huge loss of value to shareholders since tax day (actually April 19 in ME and MA this year).  But that wouldn't make most of their losses based on income tax.  Correlation != causation and all that.

Has Target taken a financial hit due to their disgusting policy?  I think so.  I hope so.  I know I won't shop there.  Can we quantify how much of their current financial troubles are due to said policy?  No, we can't, if we are honest anout it.   Should we just outright lie and try to claim credit for the downturn in sales that they had already experienced before the boycott?  I sure don't think so.  The left has to lie, they don't have the facts on their side.  We're better than that.  Or we used to be.

You are just not making any sense at all.

The article CLEARLY indicates that the timing of the Target stock drop correlates with its bathroom policy dictate, and yet you continue to express some disbelief or 'is patently false' or 'an outright lie' that this might be correlative.

It makes no sense to find some other reasons to make a claim otherwise.

Don't believe those lying eyes.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

You are just not making any sense at all.

The article CLEARLY indicates that the timing of the Target stock drop correlates with its bathroom policy dictate, and yet you continue to express some disbelief or 'is patently false' or 'an outright lie' that this might be correlative.

It makes no sense to find some other reasons to make a claim otherwise.

Don't believe those lying eyes.

Tampa Bay had never won a Super Bowl unfil W was elected as POTUS.  I can write a stupid online article or draw a graph which  CLEARLY indicates that the timing of the election of W correlates with TBB winning the SB.

[If we assume that two data points assume a correlation, and we're not stupid enough to assume that correlation implies causation.]

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Tampa Bay had never won a Super Bowl unfil W was elected as POTUS.  I can write a stupid online article or draw a graph which  CLEARLY indicates that the timing of the election of W correlates with TBB winning the SB.

[If we assume that two data points assume a correlation, and we're not stupid enough to assume that correlation implies causation.]

You go ahead and bet that Tampa Bay will win again when another Republican wins the WH, and I will bet again that Target stock drops when 1.4 million people boycott them, and we will see who has the best correlation.

[driftdiver]

Tampa Bay had never won a Super Bowl unfil W was elected as POTUS.  I can write a stupid online article or draw a graph which  CLEARLY indicates that the timing of the election of W correlates with TBB winning the SB.

[If we assume that two data points assume a correlation, and we're not stupid enough to assume that correlation implies causation.]

Sorry thats a truly asinine argument.  You have an obvious agenda.

[Rivergirl]

The numbers for retail sales across the country are dismal.  While the bathroom policy may add  downward pressure to Target it's not the primary reason for the stock dropping.
Over the years Target has been boycotted for refusing to say Merry Christmas, they have been sued for not hiring enough females, etc.  For whatever reason, Target has replaced WalMart as a target for activists.

[Restored]

Target, like all retailers, depends heavily on loyalty. If patrons look to other retailers, they will find what they find in Target. Probably cheaper as well. Target can't afford to lose loyal customers. They push the credit card because it rewards loyalty.
People like my wife have moved on to Amazon. It's cheaper and more convenient. And you don't have to deal with a man in the bathroom.
Target has taken a big financial hit for pushing a political agenda.The shareholders won't stand for that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The numbers for retail sales across the country are dismal. 

Really?

Did you happen to read this on one of Target's main competitors which came out yesterday?
Costco reports surpising rise in earnings
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/costco-reports-surpising-rise-in-earnings-2016-09-29-174853924

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The numbers for retail sales across the country are dismal. 

Or Target's other main competitor where store sales increased the highest in four years.
Wal-Mart earnings: $1.07 a share vs $1.02 estimate; raises guidance
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/18/wal-mart-reports-second-quarter-earnings.html

[IsailedawayfromFR]

with the strength of recent sales from Costco and Walmart, the main competitors of Target, and the weakness of Target's sales, one could very easily conclude that those competitors are absorbing the lost sales of Target as its customers seek other places to shop that are amenable to them.