Can Fashion's ‘Bridges' Overcome Its ‘Barriers'?
Even Queen Mary of Denmark had nothing to say at this year's Global Fashion Summit, perhaps the industry's most boldface of sustainability conclaves.
The longtime patron of the Global Fashion Agenda typically delivers a brief speech to kick things off, usually along the lines of the need for collective action for transformation to occur. Or she might joke about her daughters stealing her shoes as a form of reuse. Somewhere between the opening smooth-jazz jam and a H&M Foundation-helmed panel on operationalizing circularity, however, the royal consort slipped away from her front seat at the Copenhagen Opera House, her exit barely announced by the fading click of her stilettos.
More from Sourcing Journal
Refiberd Wins Trailblazer 2025 With AI-Powered Textile Recycling
Global Fashion Agenda's Innovation Incubator Returns, Opens Call for Solutions
What Will a Second Trump Term Mean for Fashion's Sustainability Ambitions?
It was a stealthy retreat that, inadvertently or not, reflected the muted mood of the two-day conference, which one attendee described as 'somber,' another as 'a bit flat' and a third as evocative of a 'palpable decline of interest.' Fewer high-level brands abounded, a consequence of throttled travel budgets, a fear of appearing overtly political—and potentially ticking off a certain White House inhabitant—and cannibalization by concurrent events such as SXSW's first London foray and, we were told, an especially buzzy textile recycling expo in Brussels where shoulders were slapped and hands shaken over business deals.
For the thousand or so people who converged on Copenhagen, just a hair fewer than those who turned up for last year's 15th anniversary, there was very little to feel celebratory about. Geopolitical turmoil, tariff uncertainty and environmental deregulation hung heavily in the air. Even attempts to put a positive gloss on corporate efforts that were already lagging before the rightwing shift in both Europe and the United States, but could now be actively backsliding, felt more perfunctory than usual.
The same week, a Stand.earth analysis of more than 40 apparel companies found that 40 percent increased their carbon footprint versus their baseline, outlapping those on a 1.5-degree Celsius trajectory by a nearly six-to-one margin. In the latest iteration of the International Trade Union Confederation's global rights index, data showed a 'sharp escalation' in violations of fundamental labor rights, including freedom of association and collective bargaining.
'Apparently more was happening in the roundtables,' one attendee said of the closed-to-press executive-level sessions, which had the likes of Kering diving into what a just transition means in the age of climate change, Target speaking about moving production closer to consumer markets and The Fashion Pact hosting a conversation about corporate financial engagement in decarbonization. The more accessible stages—the concert hall, 'action' and 'ignite'—stuck to broader, more anodyne issues such as fiber innovations, resale, regenerative materials and the gender pay gap.
The biggest ripple in all that taut placidity was occasioned by Veja co-founder Sébastien Kopp, who described sustainability as a 'bag of vomit.' Kalpona Akter's heartfelt description of garment workers' struggles in Bangladesh produced little response and, by the time the 'celebration dinner' rolled around, no offers of help that might relieve her organization's loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID for short. Eileen Fisher's call for everyone to 'show up more and collaborate more' offered a burst of inspiration. Things flattened from there.
'Some feedback I heard is that some people feel the brands are too restrained and they prefer the speakers that are more candid and speak more openly,' an attendee said.
But the event's dour note was hardly unexpected. There is simply no way to spin the current climate, whether political, environmental or otherwise, no matter how many times someone insists that there is no business on a dead planet. For brands grappling with the existential threat of tariffs, sustainability has dropped several rungs in priority.
The Trump administration's crackdown on so-called 'woke' notions such as climate action or DEI in the United States isn't even the half of it. In Europe, the omnibus package, a series of amendments designed to simplify—and many say water down—the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, the corporate sustainability reporting directive and other legislative instruments, threatens to unravel years of progress holding corporations liable for their environmental and social impacts. It's still unclear how other forthcoming regulations involving extended producer responsibility, greener design requirements and traceability compliance will play out.
'There's a general backlash on sustainability in Brussels,' Lara Wolters, the Dutch politician who was the European Parliament's lead negotiator on the CSDD, said at a pre-game policy masterclass at the Danish Architecture Center. 'None of this is for a good reason, but maybe to take a step back. What the Commission has done is roll out a deregulatory agenda under pressure from a lot of large lobby groups in some of the member states. The intention, I think, is to give a political signal that we, too, are going to do things differently. I would even call it a sort of 'Trump Lite.''
She said that the result of this reversal would be more paperwork and less impact, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. For the politicians who have been clamoring for fewer guardrails, however, the 'intention is to do things as fast as possible, never mind the consequences.'
Across the Atlantic, the Trump administration has pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (again), dismantled critical climate safeguards and obliterated other regulations governing clean water, toxic pollutants and wildlife. It has clawed back most forms of foreign assistance, including grants for programs that strengthened workers' rights and combated child and forced labor.
'I spent a good chunk of my flight over breaking through President Trump's proposed 2026 budget,' said Chelsea Murtha, senior director of sustainability at the American Apparel & Footwear Association. 'And, of course, USAID is completely eliminated, and a lot of the functions that it had are not even fully being transposed over to the State Department. The U.S., in particular, was a very large funder of the [International Labour Organization's] Better Work program, and all of that funding is gone now.'
The outcome has been a 'sort of paralysis,' she said. Brands, squeezed by higher import costs, are hard-pressed to fill the breach. And while individual states could step up with rulemaking to counter the White House's actions, there's also only so much they can do.
'It's not like they can't step in and do things, but they're constricted in their authorities,' she said. 'They cannot negotiate trade deals, and they can't control imports. They can pass EPR programs, because EPR programs regulate products within their state, but what they can't do is institute something like an export ban.'
On the first day of the Global Fashion Summit, themed 'Barriers and Bridges,' Federica Marchionni, CEO of Global Fashion Agenda, didn't mince words, either, calling this an 'extremely challenging time for sustainability' that is hampering fashion's ability to be a 'force for good.' At the same time, she said, the only certainty in an uncertain world is climate change. And a 'strong absence' of leadership requires 'collective courage' to build supply chain resilience.
The few suppliers who spoke—their attendance likely, again, constrained by a lack of financial wherewithal—alluded to their struggles.
'The volumes are lower than they used to be a couple of years ago,' said Attila Kiss, CEO of Gruppo Florence, an integrated manufacturing hub in Italy. 'The brands are asking for lower prices because they have pressure on the margins. And from the other side, we have all the ethical issues, the social issues to manage.'
In a panel that discussed Arvind Limited and Fashion for Good's plans for 'near-carbon-neutral' textile factory in India that would bring online tested and emergent solutions that could collective slash greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 93 percent, Abhishek Bansal, the former's head of sustainability, said that most of the industry's climate mitigation efforts either involve setting targets or pushing the supply chain to do so.
'Unfortunately, I have seen very little money going into helping build the hard assets that are going to actually reduce emissions,' he said. 'If you honestly ask how many industry stakeholders have set aside funds to build plants or invest in technologies to achieve those targets, I think you can count them on the fingers of one hand.'
'It's a big thing to say,' Bansal added quietly, 'but I don't think we are going to meet 2030 targets.'
The dearth of representation—from suppliers, from economists, from investors—was noticeable, more than one attendee said. Speaking to an audience, Tara St. James, senior director of sustainability at the Canadian retailer Moose Knuckles, said that brands could take more responsibility for fostering inclusion by bringing their suppliers to conferences or having them speak on panels with them or in their stead.
'We talk about making changes in our supply chain, which is where most of the impact is, but then we don't invite suppliers into every conversation,' one attendee said. 'And when we do, it's usually farmers and manufacturers, which is great, but I want to hear from a mom-and-pop mill, a dye house. I want more doers on the panels. And that includes more brands.'
Yayra Agbofah, founder and creative director of The Revival, an organization that tackles global textile waste in Ghana, including through the Global Change Award-winning Revival Circularity Hub, said there's a difference between being ready—say, for circularity—and showing readiness based on actions. Fulfilling the second part requires reexamining fashion's business model, which he described as a failure because it fails to recognize communities like Accra's secondhand Kantamanto Market as stakeholders.
'We are dealing with the waste we didn't create, and not having a decision on how to deal with this crisis is a big problem,' he said. 'We need to be part of the decision-making. We shouldn't be left out and be an afterthought.'
It was during the Q&A portion of Agbofah's panel that Brooke Roberts-Islam, a sustainable fashion journalist and consultant, nearly leaped out of her chair. Just minutes before, Golnaz Armin, vice president of color and materials at Nike, was speaking about the footwear giant's efforts to 'imagine and create meaning' with post-consumer waste. She said that Nike's size was both its advantage and disadvantage.
'Kantamanto is the only example of a scaled circular economy,' Roberts-Islam said. 'It seems so strange to have this framing of 'Why can't we scale this up for Nike because we're such a large organization?' and, you know, a lot of Nike products end up in Accra. Kanatamanto has tens of thousands of businesses that do this. They know the answer, and Nike says you're trying to find the answer, so can you, Yayra, give Nike the answer?'
One of the most incisive sentiments of the conference was uttered during the very first session, but it remains to be seen if it made an impression.
'Someone told me once that a wall lying down is actually a bridge,' said Christiane Dolva, head of innovation, research and demonstration at H&M Foundation. 'I think that some of the barriers that a lot of us feel that we're running into, which literally can be like running into the wall, can be part of the solution if we shift our perspective. We need to shift our perspective.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are Investors Undervaluing Tapestry, Inc. (NYSE:TPR) By 31%?
Tapestry's estimated fair value is US$122 based on 2 Stage Free Cash Flow to Equity Tapestry is estimated to be 31% undervalued based on current share price of US$84.33 Our fair value estimate is 37% higher than Tapestry's analyst price target of US$89.08 Today we will run through one way of estimating the intrinsic value of Tapestry, Inc. (NYSE:TPR) by taking the expected future cash flows and discounting them to today's value. This will be done using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model. Don't get put off by the jargon, the math behind it is actually quite straightforward. We would caution that there are many ways of valuing a company and, like the DCF, each technique has advantages and disadvantages in certain scenarios. If you still have some burning questions about this type of valuation, take a look at the Simply Wall St analysis model. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. We are going to use a two-stage DCF model, which, as the name states, takes into account two stages of growth. The first stage is generally a higher growth period which levels off heading towards the terminal value, captured in the second 'steady growth' period. To begin with, we have to get estimates of the next ten years of cash flows. Where possible we use analyst estimates, but when these aren't available we extrapolate the previous free cash flow (FCF) from the last estimate or reported value. We assume companies with shrinking free cash flow will slow their rate of shrinkage, and that companies with growing free cash flow will see their growth rate slow, over this period. We do this to reflect that growth tends to slow more in the early years than it does in later years. A DCF is all about the idea that a dollar in the future is less valuable than a dollar today, and so the sum of these future cash flows is then discounted to today's value: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Levered FCF ($, Millions) US$1.15b US$1.20b US$1.33b US$1.43b US$1.52b US$1.60b US$1.68b US$1.74b US$1.81b US$1.87b Growth Rate Estimate Source Analyst x4 Analyst x4 Analyst x2 Est @ 7.68% Est @ 6.26% Est @ 5.26% Est @ 4.56% Est @ 4.08% Est @ 3.74% Est @ 3.50% Present Value ($, Millions) Discounted @ 8.4% US$1.1k US$1.0k US$1.0k US$1.0k US$1.0k US$985 US$950 US$912 US$872 US$832 ("Est" = FCF growth rate estimated by Simply Wall St)Present Value of 10-year Cash Flow (PVCF) = US$9.7b We now need to calculate the Terminal Value, which accounts for all the future cash flows after this ten year period. The Gordon Growth formula is used to calculate Terminal Value at a future annual growth rate equal to the 5-year average of the 10-year government bond yield of 2.9%. We discount the terminal cash flows to today's value at a cost of equity of 8.4%. Terminal Value (TV)= FCF2034 × (1 + g) ÷ (r – g) = US$1.9b× (1 + 2.9%) ÷ (8.4%– 2.9%) = US$35b Present Value of Terminal Value (PVTV)= TV / (1 + r)10= US$35b÷ ( 1 + 8.4%)10= US$16b The total value, or equity value, is then the sum of the present value of the future cash flows, which in this case is US$25b. In the final step we divide the equity value by the number of shares outstanding. Relative to the current share price of US$84.3, the company appears quite good value at a 31% discount to where the stock price trades currently. The assumptions in any calculation have a big impact on the valuation, so it is better to view this as a rough estimate, not precise down to the last cent. The calculation above is very dependent on two assumptions. The first is the discount rate and the other is the cash flows. Part of investing is coming up with your own evaluation of a company's future performance, so try the calculation yourself and check your own assumptions. The DCF also does not consider the possible cyclicality of an industry, or a company's future capital requirements, so it does not give a full picture of a company's potential performance. Given that we are looking at Tapestry as potential shareholders, the cost of equity is used as the discount rate, rather than the cost of capital (or weighted average cost of capital, WACC) which accounts for debt. In this calculation we've used 8.4%, which is based on a levered beta of 1.272. Beta is a measure of a stock's volatility, compared to the market as a whole. We get our beta from the industry average beta of globally comparable companies, with an imposed limit between 0.8 and 2.0, which is a reasonable range for a stable business. See our latest analysis for Tapestry Strength Debt is well covered by earnings and cashflows. Dividends are covered by earnings and cash flows. Weakness Earnings declined over the past year. Dividend is low compared to the top 25% of dividend payers in the Luxury market. Opportunity Annual earnings are forecast to grow for the next 3 years. Good value based on P/E ratio and estimated fair value. Threat Annual earnings are forecast to grow slower than the American market. Valuation is only one side of the coin in terms of building your investment thesis, and it shouldn't be the only metric you look at when researching a company. The DCF model is not a perfect stock valuation tool. Rather it should be seen as a guide to "what assumptions need to be true for this stock to be under/overvalued?" If a company grows at a different rate, or if its cost of equity or risk free rate changes sharply, the output can look very different. What is the reason for the share price sitting below the intrinsic value? For Tapestry, there are three additional factors you should further research: Risks: To that end, you should be aware of the 3 warning signs we've spotted with Tapestry . Management:Have insiders been ramping up their shares to take advantage of the market's sentiment for TPR's future outlook? Check out our management and board analysis with insights on CEO compensation and governance factors. Other High Quality Alternatives: Do you like a good all-rounder? Explore our interactive list of high quality stocks to get an idea of what else is out there you may be missing! PS. The Simply Wall St app conducts a discounted cash flow valuation for every stock on the NYSE every day. If you want to find the calculation for other stocks just search here. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Declining Stock and Decent Financials: Is The Market Wrong About Dayforce Inc. (NYSE:DAY)?
Dayforce (NYSE:DAY) has had a rough three months with its share price down 6.0%. But if you pay close attention, you might find that its key financial indicators look quite decent, which could mean that the stock could potentially rise in the long-term given how markets usually reward more resilient long-term fundamentals. Specifically, we decided to study Dayforce's ROE in this article. Return on Equity or ROE is a test of how effectively a company is growing its value and managing investors' money. In short, ROE shows the profit each dollar generates with respect to its shareholder investments. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. The formula for return on equity is: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Dayforce is: 1.0% = US$26m ÷ US$2.6b (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). The 'return' refers to a company's earnings over the last year. Another way to think of that is that for every $1 worth of equity, the company was able to earn $0.01 in profit. View our latest analysis for Dayforce Thus far, we have learned that ROE measures how efficiently a company is generating its profits. Based on how much of its profits the company chooses to reinvest or "retain", we are then able to evaluate a company's future ability to generate profits. Assuming everything else remains unchanged, the higher the ROE and profit retention, the higher the growth rate of a company compared to companies that don't necessarily bear these characteristics. It is quite clear that Dayforce's ROE is rather low. Even compared to the average industry ROE of 20%, the company's ROE is quite dismal. Dayforce was still able to see a decent net income growth of 15% over the past five years. We reckon that there could be other factors at play here. For example, it is possible that the company's management has made some good strategic decisions, or that the company has a low payout ratio. As a next step, we compared Dayforce's net income growth with the industry, and pleasingly, we found that the growth seen by the company is higher than the average industry growth of 11%. Earnings growth is an important metric to consider when valuing a stock. It's important for an investor to know whether the market has priced in the company's expected earnings growth (or decline). Doing so will help them establish if the stock's future looks promising or ominous. Is DAY fairly valued? This infographic on the company's intrinsic value has everything you need to know. Dayforce doesn't pay any regular dividends currently which essentially means that it has been reinvesting all of its profits into the business. This definitely contributes to the decent earnings growth number that we discussed above. In total, it does look like Dayforce has some positive aspects to its business. With a high rate of reinvestment, albeit at a low ROE, the company has managed to see a considerable growth in its earnings. Having said that, looking at the current analyst estimates, we found that the company's earnings are expected to gain momentum. To know more about the latest analysts predictions for the company, check out this visualization of analyst forecasts for the company. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
