Target (TGT) Offering Possible 24.07% Return Over the Next 7 Calendar Days

Target's most recent trend suggests a bearish bias. One trading opportunity on Target is a Bear Call Spread using a strike $84.00 short call and a strike $89.00 long call offers a potential 24.07% return on risk over the next 7 calendar days. Maximum profit would be generated if the Bear Call Spread were to expire worthless, which would occur if the stock were below $84.00 by expiration. The full premium credit of $0.97 would be kept by the premium seller. The risk of $4.03 would be incurred if the stock rose above the $89.00 long call strike price.

The 5-day moving average is moving down which suggests that the short-term momentum for Target is bearish and the probability of a decline in share price is higher if the stock starts trending.

The 20-day moving average is moving down which suggests that the medium-term momentum for Target is bearish.

The RSI indicator is at 30.41 level which suggests that the stock is neither overbought nor oversold at this time.

To learn how to execute such a strategy while accounting for risk and reward in the context of smart portfolio management, and see how to trade live with a successful professional trader, view more here

---

LATEST NEWS for Target

Cook Out, health clinic coming to revamped Triad shopping center
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:19:36 +0000
New businesses will continue to "Sprout" up at a Triad shopping center rejuvenated, at least in part, by the addition of a unique grocery store.

FedEx’s Amazon Freeze-Out Sets Up Delivery Wars
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 13:51:54 +0000
(Bloomberg Opinion) — FedEx Corp. seems to have finally realized it’s futile to label Amazon.com Inc.’s delivery aspirations as a “fantastical” threat. Now it’s waging an outright war on a company it appears to increasingly view as a competitor.FedEx won’t renew Amazon’s ground-delivery contract when the agreement expires at the end of this month, the company said in statement first reported by Bloomberg News on Wednesday. This follows a June announcement that FedEx would cease U.S. air-delivery services for Amazon.What’s curious is that FedEx was at pains at that time to emphasize that the “strategic decision” to curb its air-delivery relationship with Amazon didn’t affect other business units such as ground or international operations. It’s hard for me to believe that FedEx is simply finding its backbone and holding a firmer line on pricing with Amazon. The company added disclosures in its annual filing about the extent to which Amazon is developing in-house delivery capabilities that may make it a competitor. This could be an attempt to put Amazon in its place.  It reminds me a lot of the streaming wars. Just as traditional media companies were all too happy to pad sliding DVD sales with licensing fees from Netflix Inc. for years, FedEx and rival United Parcel Service Inc. have enjoyed the revenue fruits of the booming demand for e-commerce shipments ushered in by Amazon. But now, FedEx seems to be waking up to the fact that this relationship likely was never a two-way street. Like the media companies who are pulling their content from Netflix and launching their own streaming services, FedEx appears to no longer be keen to give Amazon a valuable base on which to build a rival logistics service. The question is whether it’s too late to turn the tables on Amazon.While Amazon has been moving aggressively to open fulfillment centers, build up a local delivery workforce and rent cargo planes, its network isn’t quite ready for prime time. The company last month said it ended up spending more than the $800 million it had planned in the second quarter to set up one-day delivery for Prime members. The push for speedier shipping was a “shock to the system” for its distribution and transportation network, and there had been some inventory and productivity setbacks, Chief Financial Officer Brian Olsavsky said on a call with analysts. The company also has to contend with the risk of pilot shortages and strikes at the third-party carriers it relies on to support its burgeoning air-cargo operations. Without FedEx as a backstop, the reliability of Amazon’s home-grown logistics operations will be put to a greater test. That said, I remain unconvinced that Amazon really wants or needs to develop a network on the scale of UPS or FedEx. It’s already disrupted the way those companies do business, forcing them to spend billions to retrofit their networks to handle ever-faster delivery times for a surge in e-commerce packages. While Amazon’s logistics operations aren’t ready to stand alone, the company can still lean on UPS and the Post Office. As FedEx itself is so quick to point out, Amazon only accounts for about 1.3% of its revenue.FedEx can’t give up on the e-commerce game entirely, though, and I am highly skeptical that with Amazon breathing down their necks, Walmart Inc., Target Corp. or anyone else is going to be that much easier of a customer when it comes to pushing for lower pricing and faster delivery times. Much like in the battle for video streaming dominance, it seems unlikely there will be any one winner in e-commerce logistics, but there will be plenty of losers, especially when it comes to profit margins.To contact the author of this story: Brooke Sutherland at bsutherland7@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at bewilliams@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Brooke Sutherland is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals and industrial companies. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Has Target (TGT) Outpaced Other Retail-Wholesale Stocks This Year?
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 13:30:01 +0000
Is (TGT) Outperforming Other Retail-Wholesale Stocks This Year?

Cybersecurity Pros Name Their Price as Hacker Attacks Swell
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 12:46:53 +0000
(Bloomberg) — It took a $650,000 salary for Matt Comyns to entice a seasoned cybersecurity expert to join one of America’s largest companies as chief information security officer in 2012. At the time, it was among the most lucrative offers out there.This year, the company had to pay $2.5 million to fill the same role.“It’s a full-on war for cyber talent,” said Comyns, a managing partner at executive search firm Caldwell Partners who specializes in information security. “CEOs know that, so they play hardball. Everyone’s throwing money at this.”The threat of digital breaches — and the fines, lawsuits and occasional executive resignations that sometimes follow — has left companies scrambling to scoop up scarce security experts. The growing compensation packages and broadened responsibilities are a dramatic shift for a group of workers who once confined to obscure IT departments, little more than an afterthought to senior management.Unfilled JobsIn the 12 months ended August 2018, there were more than 300,000 unfilled cybersecurity jobs in the U.S., according to CyberSeek, a project supported by the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education. Globally, the shortage is estimated to exceed 1 million in coming years, studies have shown.That’s coincided with increased frequency and sophistication of digital attacks, which range from disruption of computer systems to extortion and theft of sensitive personal information.In April, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon told shareholders that cybersecurity “may very well be the biggest threat to the U.S. financial system.” His counterpart at Bank of America Corp., Brian Moynihan, said previously that the lender’s cybersecurity unit operates with an unlimited budget.Just last week, Capital One Financial Corp. disclosed that personal data of about 100 million customers had been illegally accessed by a Seattle woman, possibly one of the largest breaches affecting a U.S. bank. The firm’s shares have fallen 8.9% since the intrusion was revealed.Equifax SettlementIn late July, credit reporting firm Equifax Inc. agreed to pay up to $700 million to settle federal and state investigations into a 2017 hack that compromised sensitive information of more than 140 million people and led to the resignation of the firm’s long-time CEO Rick Smith.High-profile breaches aside, myriad U.S. companies and employees are the subject of hacker attacks each day. Industry insiders joke that there are two types of companies: Those that have been hacked, and those that haven’t yet discovered that they’ve been hacked.“If you’re not careful, you can get numb to it,” said Andrew Howard, who leads the enterprise security division of Kudelski Group.Equifax paid Jamil Farshchi $3.89 million in 2018 to take the job as chief information security officer. He joined from Home Depot, which had hired him in the wake of a 2014 breach that exposed credit-card information belonging to 56 million customers.Directly InvolvedWhile most U.S. firms don’t disclose compensation for top information-security executives, Comyns said big tech firms on the West Coast can pay as much as $6.5 million, most of it in stock. In some cases, direct reports can make around $1 million — more than their bosses typically would have made just a few years ago.Aware of the challenges of replacing a security chief, many companies take unprecedented measures to keep them, with CEOs often getting involved in the negotiations. In one recent instance, Comyns said, a CISO who considered leaving was told to go home and write down 10 things that would change his decision. The list included a 50% increase in salary and bonus, more than doubling his long-term incentive award, a promotion and a new office. The CEO concurred, and the person stayed.Hefty raises can pale in comparison with the potential downside. The average cost of a breach for U.S. companies was about $8 million, according to a study from IBM Corp. and the Ponemon Institute. Equifax shows that the cost can be many multiples of that. This week, Marriott International Inc. reported they took a $126 million charge related to a 2018 breach of one of its reservations databases.Bigger PaychecksInsurance can cover financial expenses, but won’t help restore lost customer trust and a tarnished reputation, said James Lam, a director at E*Trade Financial Corp. who also advises companies on risk management, including cybersecurity.CEOs may be inclined to spend more because their own jobs and reputations could be on the line. Gregg Steinhafel resigned as CEO of Target Corp. in 2014 after a hacker attack that compromised 40 million credit card accounts rocked the already-struggling retailer.That episode “got everyone’s attention,” said Kudelski Group’s Howard, and led to scores of companies appointing people with cybersecurity expertise to their boards.It’s also pushed many companies to expand the responsibilities of information security staff, ensuring that their work spans the entire organization. To Comyns, that means their pay will continue to increase.“CEOs don’t know what it’s worth until it’s walking out the door,” Comyns said. “Then they stand in the door and say, ‘You’re not going anywhere.’”(Updates with Marriott breach in 15th paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Anders Melin in New York at amelin3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Pierre Paulden at ppaulden@bloomberg.net, Steven CrabillFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Where Will Target Be in 5 Years?
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 11:45:00 +0000
This national retailer has already laid the groundwork for a new way to sell products.

Related Posts