While the SCOTUS deliberates, Wall Street has already voted. Could the stock picker think fewer people might attend a store where the “models” wear a veil or a headscarf?
Can a store or a brand protect its projected look?
This report says their stock fell after their 4Q report showed earnings missing analyst estimates.
Do you have any proof that the drop is somehow related to this case?
As an aside, I think A&F is a victim of the changing times. Big logos and stores that cater exclusively to jocks are losing favor with high school kids.
Proof? Let’s remain serious for a second. In the meantime, some journalists think so:
[QUOTE=""]
The company’s stock dropped on Thursday on news that the highest court would take up Elauf’s case and has suffered over the last month. The stock hit a one-year high in August, at nearly 45 points on the New York stock exchange, but careened down to less than 35 by mid-morning Thursday. <<<
[/QUOTE]
Feel free to think the media is right or wrong.
The stock drop has nothing to do with the supreme court case. It’s all about tanking same-store-sales in the US and Europe. As @Vyse says, ANF is no longer hot. Earnings estimates have dropped from $1.94 to $1.62 in the last 90 days, and they will be heading lower. Stocks are simply partial ownership of a business, and this business is shrinking.
Businesses should be able to dictate clothing if it is a part of their branding. Modestly covered waitresses are not going to bring in as many customers at Hooters.
Even in the Middle East (not subject to SCOTUS), airlines in this hyper-modesty part of the world have stewardess uniforms that bare hair & leg. It’s their brand.
Oh yeah, and sometimes a fish is just a fish-- but that’s the topic of another (funny) lawsuit…
I dont think the stock drop has anything to do with this case. Stores like A&F, Aeropostale, PacSun are all having problems. My teens used to shop at all three, but now they moved to Forever 21, and H&M