Levi Strauss beat Wall Street’s quarterly expectations on the top and bottom lines on Wednesday, leading the retailer to increase its guidance and its dividend. 

The denim maker is now expecting full-year adjusted earnings per share to be between $1.46 and $1.52, up from a prior range of between $1.42 and $1.48. At the high end, that’s ahead of expectations of $1.50 per share, according to LSEG. 

Levi also raised its top-line outlook and is now expecting full-year sales to rise between 7% and 7.5%, compared with a prior range of between 5.5% and 6.5%. That’s ahead of expectations of 6.6%, according to LSEG. About half of that growth is expected to come from higher prices and the other half is expected to come from unit sales, said finance chief Harmit Singh. 

Here’s how Levi did in its second fiscal quarter compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

• Earnings per share: 28 cents adjusted vs. 24 cents expected
• Revenue: $1.56 billion vs. $1.52 billion expected

Despite the results, Levi’s shares dropped more than 5% in extended trading.

The company’s reported net income for the three-month period that ended May 31 was $87.3 million, or 22 cents per share, compared with $67 million, or 17 cents per share, a year earlier. 

Sales rose to $1.56 billion, up about 8% from $1.45 billion a year earlier.

In an interview with CNBC, CEO Michelle Gass said the company’s core consumer is proving to be resilient — even in the face of higher gas prices. She said about two-thirds of the quarter’s sales growth came from units — not just higher prices — giving the company the confidence to raise guidance and its dividend.

“Our demand remains healthy,” Gass said. “We’re seeing strength across our key segments of consumers, so we have our core Levi’s, but we’re also seeing strength in signature, as well as our new premium blue tab.” 

Move over, guys.

Iconic apparel brands that have historically been more popular with men are turning to women to help drive a new leg of growth.

The CEOs of Timberland owner VF Corp., Levi’s, and Columbia Sportswear have all recently highlighted women as a key focus as they look to boost revenues and broaden their customer bases.

The opportunity is sizable. Needham analyst Tom Nikic estimates the U.S. women’s apparel market is roughly 70% larger than the men’s apparel market. In other words, women spend substantially more on clothing than men.

“If you’re skewing very heavily towards men, then you’re essentially leaving behind half the population,” Nikic told CNBC.

The efforts at VF Corp., Levi’s, and Columbia reflect a broader trend across the apparel industry as brands search for growth in an increasingly competitive market, according to analysts. While these companies have sold women’s clothes and shoes for decades, executives are increasingly treating female consumers as a strategic priority rather than simply another customer segment.

For investors, the appeal is straightforward. Winning over more female shoppers allows brands to expand their addressable market without having to embark on a radical pivot.

“There was no good structural reason why some of these brands should skew as heavily male as they did,” Nikic said. “If they can successfully grow with women while maintaining strength with men, that’s a significant opportunity.”

VF Corp. CEO Bracken Darrell, who took over three years ago to reinvigorate the company after a period of declining sales, described women as a major “unlock” for several of its brands, including Vans, The North Face, Timberland, and shoe maker Altra Running.

Darrell said the opportunity stems from both women’s growing purchasing power and their influence on broader consumer trends.

“Women have influenced men’s choices in a bigger way than a lot of us who ran predominantly men’s brands gave credit for,” Darrell said in an interview. “We always had opportunities across all our brands that were bigger for us if we tried to get in with women.”

VF is incorporating that focus into more product development across its portfolio. Vans, a hallmark of skateboard culture, has introduced more women’s apparel, pearlized footwear and shoe jewelry. Known for its iconic yellow boot, Timberland has expanded its lineup with products such as its Stone Street platform boots and other women’s-focused silhouettes, leaning into elevated designs as it looks to broaden its appeal among female shoppers.

At The North Face, the company has collaborated with Kim Kardashian’s Skims and other fashion brands, while also expanding its offerings for female outdoor enthusiasts. Its Advanced Mountain Kit line, one of the brand’s premium performance collections, now includes a full women’s assortment.

The…

As people around the world tune into this summer’s World Cup, some of the brands generating the most buzz aren’t even official sponsors of the tournament.

The list of official sponsors for this year’s World Cup, hosted in cities across the U.S., Canada and Mexico, include global household names like Adidas, Coca-Cola and Qatar Airways.

But even before the tournament began, the spotlight fell on companies like Levi Strauss & Co., Taco Bell and Texas-based convenience store chain Buc-ee’s. Some have garnered traction on social media for their creative marketing strategies, while others have benefited from organic customer response with the influx of international players and fans.

McDonald’s celebrated the tournament with limited-time menu items and cups. Taco Bell leaned into a new campaign to support fans in celebration or support depending on the outcome of a match.

According to marketing research firm WARC Media, advertising spending on this year’s World Cup tournament is expected to reach $10.5 billion. That’s just below spending for the 2018 World Cup, hosted by Russia, which totaled roughly $12.6 billion.

Market intelligence firm Sensor Tower told CNBC that World Cup advertising spend increased 42% week over week in the days leading up to the first game. The firm tracked that Taco Bell and Duracell have both increased their advertising spend in the past few weeks, though the top 10 World Cup advertisers by spend over the past three months have been sponsors or broadcast partners of the event.

According to market research firm Meltwater, in the ramp-up to the World Cup, non-sponsor brand collaborations generated nearly double the engagement of official sponsors, reaching roughly 61 million engagements versus just 33 million.

The firm told CNBC that while sponsored advertisements led in volume, distribution and creative quality helped propel non-sponsors to higher engagement, with the most social media engagement coming from TikTok.

Since the tournament began, non-sponsor brands have surpassed 57,000 mentions on social media versus just over 43,000 for official sponsors, the company said.

“A big takeaway from this World Cup is that you don’t need an official sponsorship to own the cultural moment anymore,” Meltwater CEO John Box told CNBC. “The brands that will win the next tournament aren’t necessarily the ones with the biggest budgets, but instead the ones who are set up to see what’s trending in real time, the creativity to connect it back to your brand, and the speed to act before the moment passes.”

Conventional wisdom would suggest that Dan Goldman cruises to re-nomination in Tuesday’s Democratic primary for New York’s 10th congressional district. Scandal-free, two-term incumbent representatives who maintain a community presence, stay out of the national media spotlight and vote nearly entirely in line with their party rarely see bruising challenges from among their own ranks. And yet, Goldman finds himself in the midst of what has turned into an ugly, contentious battle for his political life. 

Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who finished a distant third in the Democratic primary for city mayor last year — after a cross-endorsement with Mayor Zohran Mamdani that consolidated the progressive vote — hopes to capitalize on the anti-establishment sentiment sweeping through Democratic primaries nationwide. With endorsements from progressive figures like Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and organizations like the New York Working Families Party, Lander has sought to position himself distinctly to Goldman’s left. 

Indeed, Lander’s candidacy serves as one of several crucial tests for Mamdani’s political influence to come this Tuesday, as well as a high-profile benchmark for how much division over Israel influences election outcomes among Democrats. Lander boasted the Mamdani endorsement on the very first day of his candidacy in December, before the new mayor had even been sworn in. “[Brad] has been a trusted ally and partner of mine, and I’m proud to support him,” Mamdani stated. “I know he’ll keep delivering for those who need government to show up for them the most.” 

In the 12th-most leftward-leaning congressional district in the country, one that backed Mamdani by nearly 25 percentage points in November’s mayoral general election, this message seems to be striking a chord. There are a limited number of polls covering the race, and they are split, but a recent Emerson College poll showed Lander holding a staggering 34-point lead over Goldman. Prediction markets believe the race has already been decided in Lander’s favor, with his odds on Kalshi nearing 100%.

As it became clear the race was going to be a tight one, Goldman — a Levi Strauss heir and one of the wealthier members of Congress — pledged to match up to $1 million in campaign donations.

To claw back lost ground, Goldman also has attempted to seize on an issue that has long been at the heart of American progressivism — a strong alliance with organized labor. Around 20% of workers in New York City are union-affiliated, doubling the nationwide rate. For political contests across the city, this fact makes unions key electoral allies, with…

Lululemon is showing its teeth. 

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based athleticwear company is taking its battle with activist founder Chip Wilson public, writing in a letter to shareholders on Monday he has “outdated perspectives” and “troubling conflicts of interest” that will derail its turnaround plan, materials reviewed by CNBC show. 

The letter, Lululemon’s first major public response to Wilson since his proxy battle ramped up late last year, comes after settlement talks with the retailer’s founder fell apart last week, the materials show. The missive lays out why the company’s strategy, its incoming CEO Heidi O’Neill and board nominees are ultimately best for shareholders as it urged them to vote in its favor and set June 25 as the date for its long-awaited annual meeting. 

“Wilson, who stopped serving on the Board over a decade ago for well-documented reasons, has been attacking the company and the Board for many years, damaging the brand and hurting shareholders. He has now put forward three opposing nominees in an attempt to regain increased influence over the company that he has coveted since he left,” the letter, viewed by CNBC, states. 

“Your Board firmly believes that replacing any of lululemon’s directors with Mr. Wilson’s less qualified nominees would endorse his misguided perspectives, deprive the company of critical skills and expertise, and risk derailing our progress in an especially pivotal time for our business and organization.” 

Wilson, Lululemon’s largest individual shareholder with a 8.97% stake, issued a press release later on Monday saying he thought he and Lululemon were in agreement as of Friday, and there is “no reason” why they can’t “reach a resolution to this fight quickly.”

“The Board has not provided me with detail on where our disagreements lie right now … I remain undeterred and willing to be constructive. I am confident in the skillsets of our highly qualified independent nominees that bring unmatched brand and marketing expertise,” said Wilson. “I stand ready to do what is best for all shareholders of lululemon with this campaign, be it a vote or resolution with the board.”

Lululemon’s business has been under pressure for around two years, particularly in the Americas, its largest market, as it navigates the impact of tariffs, a shaky U.S. consumer and a product assortment that’s failed to wow shoppers in the same way it once did. It has also faced steep competition in the athleisure space from upstarts like Vuori and Alo Yoga as the global athleisure market started to cool.

When reporting fiscal fourth-quarter earnings in March, Lululemon issued weak fiscal 2026 guidance and warned higher tariffs and its proxy battle with Wilson would weigh on its bottom line. As of Friday’s close, the company’s shares are down almost 43% this year.

Wilson, who founded Lululemon in 1998, stepped down as CEO in 2005 but stayed on as chairman until…

Lululemon on Wednesday named Heidi O’Neill as the athleisure company’s new CEO, effective Sept. 8.

The news comes after the company has seen more than a year of disappointing performance and is embroiled in a dramatic proxy battle, with founder Chip Wilson criticizing the business.

Shares of the company sank more than 5% in extended trading.

O’Neill has held multiple roles at Nike, contributing to the sportswear behemoth’s growth. She also held positions at Levi Strauss, Hyatt Hotels and Spotify.

“Heidi is an inspiring leader and proven, consumer-driven brand strategist, with a rare ability to both imagine a new future for a brand and to create the structure and processes to deliver on that vision,” said Marti Morfitt, Lululemon’s executive chair of the board of directors, in a statement. “We selected Heidi because of the breadth of her experience, her demonstrated success delivering breakthrough ideas and initiatives at scale, and her ability to be a knowledgeable change and growth agent.”

O’Neill said in a statement that she plans to focus on building off of the company’s core foundation and unlock growth in global markets. O’Neill will start with a base salary of $1.4 million, according to an 8-K filing.

“I am humbled by the opportunity and energized by what the team is already building,” she said in her statement. “I look forward to joining the company and helping to define and deliver the organization’s next chapter of success.”

Lululemon has been struggling with weak sales and increased competition, as well as mounting costs from tariffs. In its last earnings report, the retailer said it expects tariffs to cost the company $380 million this year.

Wilson, Lululemon’s largest shareholder, has also been placing increased public pressure on the company to make changes to its board of directors. He did not immediately respond to a request to comment on the appointment.

In a statement, GlobalData managing director Neil Saunders said O’Neill has “a very strong pedigree in the activewear and sporting space” and “has an intimate knowledge of how the industry works.”

“There will be some, mostly activist investors, who see O’Neill as something of a safe and traditional choice,” Saunders said. “This argument is partly valid as a lot of cultural change is needed at Lululemon in order to improve performance. However, in our view, O’Neill is her own person who will come with an agenda of change.”

While at Nike, O’Neill played a key role in the company’s doomed direct-to-consumer sales strategy, where the brand pivoted away from wholesale partners in favor of its own website and stores under former CEO John Donahoe. When current CEO Elliott Hill took over as Nike’s next chief executive, he made it a priority to walk back the direct-selling plan.

Prior to leaving Nike, O’Neill also oversaw product and innovation at a time when the brand faced criticism for falling behind on new…

President Donald Trump on Tuesday told CNBC that he will gratefully “remember” U.S. companies that do not seek refunds for the tariffs he unilaterally imposed, which the Supreme Court later ruled were illegal.

Trump’s comment on “Squawk Box” came a day after U.S. Customs and Border Protection opened a portal for importers to seek more than $160 billion in potential refunds for the so-called IEEPA tariffs.

He was asked about a number of large companies, among them Apple and Amazon, that have not filed requests for refunds for the tariffs they paid, potentially because they are worried about “offending” Trump.

Asked if he would find it offensive for them to seek a refund, Trump said, “Brilliant if they don’t do that.”

“Actually, if they don’t do that, they’ve got to know me very well,” he said. “I’m very honored by what you just said.”

“If they don’t do that, I’ll remember them,” Trump said.

The president again complained about the 6-3 Supreme Court decision that voided those tariffs. That ruling, he griped, did not include a sentence that said, “You don’t have to pay back tariffs that have already been received.”

“So, I’m not happy with the Supreme Court, I’ll be honest with you,” Trump said.

Major U.S. retailers have been crushed by Trump’s trade war and stand to benefit materially from refunds.

Earlier this month, Levi Strauss Chief Financial Officer Harmit Singh told CNBC that the company expects to receive around $80 million in refunds for tariffs it paid on importing denim and other apparel items from manufacturers around the world.

Gap, the retail giant whose brands include its namesake, Old Navy, Banana Republic, and Athleta, also has said that it stands to benefit from potential tariff refunds, but did not reveal an amount when the company reported fourth-quarter earnings in March.

“We’ve been clear that the tariff impact has been significant to our performance,” Gap CFO Katrina O’Connell told CNBC in March.

“As an importer of record, we’re definitely working on gaining clarity on whether we can recognize a refund,” O’Connell said. “Because the situation is fluid right now as to how, when, or whether any refunds will ultimately be realized.”

“We’ve not assumed that benefit in our outlook, but certainly we’re tracking it closely, realizing that it could be important to us,” she said.

Many retailers that reported earnings in recent months did not factor into their guidance either the Supreme Court’s decision to void the tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or potential refunds from that ruling.

As refunds start being processed, retailers do stand to benefit and could end up raising their financial outlooks for the year.

Levi Strauss saw another quarter of strong sales, helped in part by higher prices, and direct-to-consumer sales made up more than half of its overall revenue — a milestone for a company that has long relied on wholesalers.

The denim maker’s revenue grew by 14% while DTC sales through Levi’s own stores and website jumped 16%, bringing total DTC sales to 52% of overall revenue.

In an interview with CNBC, CEO Michelle Gass said she expects DTC revenue to make up more than half of overall sales for the duration of the year, even as its more traditional wholesale channel continues to grow.

The growth is not from increased sales volume alone: Levi is benefiting from higher prices and positive foreign exchange headwinds. Finance chief Harmit Singh, who announced plans to retire on Tuesday, said about half of Levi’s growth is related to recent price increases and half is tied to actual units sold.

Given its first-quarter beat, Levi raised its guidance. It’s now expecting full-year adjusted earnings per share to be between $1.42 and $1.48, shy of expectations of $1.47 per share on the low end, according to LSEG.

It’s expecting sales to rise between 5.5% and 6.5%, largely ahead of estimates of 5.6%, according to LSEG. 

Here’s how the apparel maker did in its first fiscal quarter compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

• Earnings per share: 42 cents adjusted vs. 37 cents expected 
• Revenue: $1.74 billion vs. $1.65 billion expected 

The company’s reported net income for the three-month period that ended March 1 was $175.8 million, or 45 cents per share, compared with $135 million, or 34 cents per share, a year earlier. 

Sales rose to $1.74 billion, up about 14% from $1.53 billion a year earlier. 

Levi’s DTC-first strategy comes with bigger margins but also higher costs in the short term as it changes its distribution system, which has weighed on earnings. However, Singh said its sales are becoming more profitable as DTC scales.

He also noted that Levi’s guidance could rise later in the year. Currently, it’s assuming a 20% global tariff, though President Donald Trump has for now set a 10% duty on U.S. imports after the Supreme Court rolled back so-called reciprocal tariffs earlier this year. If that 10% tariff remains in effect, it could boost full-year earnings by $35 million, or 7 cents per share. The company could also be refunded as much as $80 million after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s previous global tariff policy, Singh said.

While that could boost earnings, Levi could face weaker sales in the coming months as consumers digest higher gas prices and consider pulling back on nice-to-haves like new clothes. Gass told CNBC she has not seen a pullback in spending so far, and the business is segmented in a way that it’s reaching a wide array of consumer demographics.

For example, Levi’s value brand Signature saw sales rise 16% during the quarter and its middle market Red Cap was up 9%, while its…