Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management raised their bid for Macy's stock to $24 per share, valuing the company at $6.6 billion.
Macy's has been struggling to compete against younger, online competitors or peers with smaller brick-and-mortar footprints.
The new offer is a 33% premium to its last close on Friday at $18.01
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management, two real estate-focused investing firms, have raised their bid for Macy's stock they do not already own to $24 per share. The new offer values the company at $6.6 billion and is a 33% premium to its last close on Friday at $18.01 and represents an attractive alternative solution through a sale of the company.
The two investment firms had submitted a proposal in December last year to acquire shares of Macy's they do not already own for $21 per share but it was rejected by the department store operator due to concerns over financing and valuation. The new offer is now being reviewed by Macy's Inc Board.
Macy's has been struggling to compete against younger, online competitors or peers with smaller brick-and-mortar footprints. This has given Arkhouse and Brigade an opening to put pressure on the company to explore a sale.
Arkhouse Management also nominated nine director candidates including executives with retail, real estate and capital markets experience last month in order to gain more control over Macy's board.
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management have raised their offer for Macy's stock they don't already own to $24 per share, about 14% more than its previous offer of $21 per share. The new offer values the company at $6.6 billion.
The two investment firms had submitted a proposal in December last year to acquire shares of Macy's they don't already own for $21 a share but it was rejected by the department store operator due to concerns over financing and valuation.
Accuracy
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management raised their offer for Macy's stock they don't already own to $24 per share, about 14% more than its previous offer of $21 per share. The new offer values the company at $6.6 billion.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author does not disclose their sources or provide any evidence to support their claims about Macy's financial struggles and the need for a sale. Secondly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'pressure on Macy's to explore a sale', which is misleading and exaggerated. Thirdly, the article does not mention that Arkhouse Management has been trying to acquire shares of Macy's since December 2023 without disclosing this information or providing any context for why they are making another offer now.
The article does not mention that Arkhouse Management has been trying to acquire shares of Macy's since December 2023 without disclosing this information or providing any context for why they are making another offer now.
The author uses sensationalist language such as 'pressure on Macy's to explore a sale', which is misleading and exaggerated.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management have raised their offer for Macy's stock. The author does not provide any evidence or reasoning behind the claim that this is a good deal for Macy's shareholders.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the investment firms Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management who are trying to acquire Macy's. The language used in the article portrays them as offering a premium price for Macy's stock, which implies that they have an interest in acquiring it at any cost. Additionally, the article mentions that other legacy department store operators like Macy's have struggled to compete against younger online competitors or peers with smaller brick-and-mortar footprints. This suggests a negative bias towards traditional retail businesses and portrays them as outdated.
Arkhouse Management, a real estate focused investing firm said on Sunday it and Brigade Capital Management have raised their offer for Macy's after the department store chain rebuffed their prior proposal as too low. The firms are now offering to acquire Macy's stock they don’t already own for $24 per share, about 14% more than its previous offer of $21 per share.
Macy's is also facing a board challenge from Arkhouse Management after the investment firm nominated nine director candidates including executives with retail, real estate and capital markets experience, to the department store’s 14-member board last month.
The two investment firms had submitted a proposal in December last year to acquire the shares of Macy's they don’t already own for $21 a share but the offer was rejected by the department store operator due to concerns over the deal’s financing and valuation.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management have a financial interest in Macy's Inc. as they are the two companies that made an offer to buy out the company for $6.6 billion.
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management raised their bid for Macy's to $24 per share, valuing the retailer at $6.6 billion.
The new offer is a 33.3% premium to Macy's closing share price of $18.01 on Friday.
Arkhouse and Brigade named additional investors they had brought on as equity partners, Fortress Investment Group and One Investment Management.
Accuracy
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management have raised their offer for Macy's stock they don’t already own to $24 per share, about 14% more than its previous offer of $21 per share.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive because it does not disclose the sources of information for the claims made by Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management. The article also omits any counterarguments or alternative perspectives from Macy's or other stakeholders. The article implies that the investor group has secured financing from large global institutions, but does not provide any evidence or links to peer-reviewed studies for this claim. The article uses emotional language such as “pressure” and “increasingly shopping in an e-commerce world” to manipulate the reader's feelings about Macy's situation.
The article implies that the investor group has secured financing from large global institutions, but does not provide any evidence or links to peer-reviewed studies for this claim. For example, there is no citation or link to a study that supports their assertion that they have identified “large global institutional financing sources” that represent 100 percent of the capital required to buy Macy's shares.
The article does not disclose any information about the regulatory approval process for the proposed deal. For example, there is no mention of any antitrust issues, competition concerns, consumer protection implications, or other legal hurdles that might affect the outcome of this transaction.
The article does not disclose any sources for the claims made by Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management. For example, there is no citation or link to a study that supports their assertion that they have identified “large global institutional financing sources” that represent 100 percent of the capital required to buy Macy's shares. This is a lie by omission and leaves the reader without any way to verify or challenge this claim.
The article does not provide any context for the significance of the offer price of $6.6 billion. For example, there is no comparison to Macy's market capitalization, revenue, earnings, debt level, or other financial metrics that would help the reader understand how this valuation was arrived at and whether it reflects fair value.
The article does not provide any counterarguments or alternative perspectives from Macy's or other stakeholders on the investor group's proposal. For example, there is no mention of how Macy's board plans to respond to the increased offer, what steps they are taking to improve their business performance, or why they think that being a public company is better than being private.
The article does not disclose any details about the identity, background, or track record of Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management. For example, there is no information on how long they have been investing in this sector, what their previous successes or failures have been, or what their motives are for buying Macy's.
The article uses emotional language such as “pressure” and “increasingly shopping in an e-commerce world” to manipulate the reader's feelings about Macy's situation. For example, the word “pressure” implies that Macy's is under duress and has no choice but to accept the investor group's offer, while the phrase “increasingly shopping in an e-commerce world” suggests that Macy's is outdated and doomed to fail. These phrases are designed to elicit sympathy for the investor group and disdain for Macy's, without providing any evidence or context.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the activist investor group has identified large global institutional financing sources without providing any evidence or details about these sources. Additionally, the author quotes Macy's statement that it will carefully review and evaluate the proposal without providing any specific reasons for this evaluation.
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management said in a news release that they were now offering $24 per share, valuing the retailer at $6.6 billion.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the activist investor group that seeks to buy Macy's. The author uses language such as 'pressure', 'investors', and 'financing plans' in a way that portrays the investor group as having power over Macy's, which may not be entirely accurate.
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management said in a news release that they were now offering $24 per share, valuing the retailer at $6.6 billion.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Lauren Hirsch and Jordyn Holman have a financial interest in Macy's as they are part of the activist investor group that raised its bid for the company.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Lauren Hirsch and Jordyn Holman have a conflict of interest on the topic of Macy's as they are reporting for The New York Times which is owned by Fortress Investment Group. They also have a financial tie to Brigade Capital Management which has invested in Macy's.
Lauren Hirsch and Jordyn Holman report for The New York Times, which is owned by Fortress Investment Group.
, Macy's rejected the previous deal, which was valued at $5.8 billion, in January.
Accuracy
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management raised their offer for Macy's stock they don't already own to $24 per share, about 14% more than its previous offer of $21 per share. The new offer values the company at $6.6 billion.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that Macy's has rejected a takeover offer from Arkhouse and Brigade Capital Management when in fact they have only increased their offer to $6.6 billion after rejection of an earlier deal valued at $5.8 billion.
The title of the article implies that Macy's has rejected a takeover offer, but it hasn't.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management are upping their offer to acquire Macy's in a deal now valued at $6.6 billion without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, the author presents a dichotomous depiction of Macy's board as either being concerned about the financing plan or not having concerns about it, which is an oversimplification and ignores other factors that may be influencing their decision-making process. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management's actions as 'delay tactics' without providing any evidence to support this claim.
Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management are upping their offer to acquire Macy's in a deal now valued at $6.6 billion.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the takeover offer by Arkhouse and Brigade Capital Management. The language used in the article repeatedly portrays Macy's as being unreasonable and unwilling to engage with Arkhouse despite repeated attempts to address their concerns. Additionally, there are multiple instances where the author uses words like 'frustrated', 'delay tactics', and 'continued refusal' which all suggest that Macy's is not acting in good faith. The article also portrays Arkhouse as being a victim of Macy's actions.
Arkhouse moved to nominate nine people for Macy’s board.
Kahane and Blackwell added that they had repeatedly tried to address the company's concerns, and were open to increasing the purchase price more subject to customary due diligence.
Macy’s rejected the previous deal, which was valued at $5.8 billion, in January.
The investment firms announced Sunday that they had submitted an all-cash proposal of $24 for each of the remaining shares in Macy’s they don’t already own up from a earlier offer of $21 per share.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Arkhouse Management and Brigade Capital Management as they are involved in the acquisition offer for Macy's. The article does not disclose this conflict.
