Macy´s Manhattan store in New York City

December 25, 2024

iStock.com/AlexandreFagundes

Should Macy’s Spin Off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury?

Share: LinkedInRedditXFacebookEmail

Activist investor Barington Capital, in partnership with Thor Equities, is urging Macy’s Inc. to explore spinning off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury as part of broader steps to enhance shareholder value.

The investor groups implied that new owners could better focus on unlocking the potential of Macy’s smaller banners, as the current executives are primarily occupied with revitalizing the core Macy’s brand.

“Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury have attractive growth prospects that we believe are being stunted by the Macy’s nameplate turnaround,” Barington said in a presentation to Macy’s shareholders issued Dec. 9, two days before Macy’s released third-quarter results.

The presentation added, “Macy’s has added slowly to its healthier Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury franchises.”

Barington estimated that Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury combined sales reached $3.2 billion in the last 12 months, representing about 14% of Macy’s overall sales. Macy’s doesn’t break out revenues by banner but noted that in 2023, active customers reached 41.2 million for the Macy’s banner, 4 million for Bloomingdale’s, and 711,000 for Bluemercury.

Barington also said that Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury would fetch higher valuations separate from the Macy’s banner. The presentation stated, “We believe Macy’s luxury operations would trade at a valuation well in excess of Macy’s current multiple levels.”

Earlier this month, Macy’s was trading at about 4.3 times its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), according to Women’s Wear Daily. One source familiar with the activists’ thinking told the outlet, “If Macy’s can’t trade at six-times EBITDA instead of 3.5 or four times and Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury can, then it’s a no brainer, of course it should be spun out. Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury should be spun out together.”

Bloomingdale’s Returns to Positive Quarterly Comps

In the third quarter, Bloomingdale’s returned to positive comparable sales, up 3.2%, supported by continued strength in advanced contemporary apparel as well as beauty and digital.

“At Bloomingdale’s, our aspirational to luxury positioning and associated price points are key differentiators,” said Macy’s recently appointed CEO Tony Spring on an analyst call.

Bloomingdale’s expansion efforts in recent years have focused on smaller formats: the specialty-focused Bloomie’s and off-price Bloomingdale’s Outlet concepts. Under Macy’s “Bold New Chapter” improvement plan introduced earlier this year, approximately 15 additional small format stores across Bloomie’s and Bloomingdale’s Outlet will open through fiscal 2026.

With 60 locations (33 full-line Bloomingdale’s, four Bloomie’s, 23 Bloomingdale’s Outlets), Bloomingdale’s competitors include Nordstrom (93 full-line stores, 258 Rack off-price stores), Saks Fifth Avenue (41 full-line stores in North America and about 100 Saks Off 5th off-price stores), and Neiman Marcus (38 full-line stores including two Bergdorf Goodman locations). Saks and Neiman’s are in the process of merging, with Saks Global finalizing its $2.7 billion acquisition of Neiman Marcus Group on Monday, Dec. 23.

Bluemercury Extends Positive Same-Store Streak

Bluemercury achieved its 15th consecutive quarter of comparable sales growth with a gain of 3.3% in the third quarter, driven by continued strength in skin care and the expansion of key brand partners. It now has 164 Bluemercury locations as well as 16 in-store shops inside Macy’s, up from 60 stores when Macy’s acquired the nameplate in 2015.

Under the “Bold New Chapter” strategy, at least 30 new Bluemercury stores, along with roughly 30 Bluemercury remodels, are planned through 2026. Bluemercury faces significantly larger rivals in Ulta (1,437 stand-alone locations, about 500 shop-in-shops in Target) and Sephora (nearly 600 U.S. stores, around 1,000 shop-in-shops in Kohl’s).

Comps at the flagship Macy’s banner were down 2.2% in the quarter. However, Macy’s also highlighted that comps at the first 50 locations being overhauled under the “Bold New Chapter” plan were up 1.9%, with investments in staffing, merchandising, visual presentation, and eventing resonating with customers.

Similar to several other activist pushes faced by Macy’s in the past, Barington is urging Macy’s to unlock the value of its real estate by creating a separate real estate subsidiary. The group said it was encouraged by the “early promise” seen in Macy’s “Bold New Chapter” strategic plan that also calls for the closing of about 150 underproductive locations through 2026, prioritizing investment in about 350 “go-forward” Macy’s locations, and expanding small-format concepts at the Macy’s banner. Barington further called for steeper cuts in capital expenditures and aggressive stock buybacks.

Macy’s responded in a statement that it is open to evaluating the Barington-Thor proposal: “The Macy’s, Inc. Board of Directors and management team are committed to delivering sustainable, profitable growth and driving shareholder value. We have consistently demonstrated open-mindedness, including with respect to regularly reviewing the Company’s strategy and capital allocation framework and exploring all paths to enhance value.”

BrainTrust

"Having a portfolio of properties is one of the few remaining differentiators and strengths of Macy’s. These provide diversification and help guide larger strategies."
Avatar of Brian Delp

Brian Delp

CEO, New Sega Home


"These People are whacky. Sell off the jewels and keep the junk drawer intact. No, they shouldn’t sell Bloomingdale’s. They should restore it to what it was."
Avatar of Paula Rosenblum

Paula Rosenblum

Co-founder, RSR Research


"I grow weary of schemes by “activist investors” who view retail companies as a collection of assets to be day-traded. Their motives are always transparent "
Avatar of Jamie Tenser

Jamie Tenser

Retail Tech Marketing Strategist | B2B Expert Storytelling™ Guru | President, VSN Media LLC


Recent Discussions

Discussion Questions

Do you see more benefits than drawbacks in Macy’s Inc. spinning off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury?

What synergies do you see in keeping the nameplates under one umbrella?

Poll

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paula Rosenblum

These People are whacky. Sell off the jewels and keep the junk drawer intact.

no, they shouldn’t sell Bloomingdale’s. They should restore it to what it was

Brian Delp

Having a portfolio of properties is one of the few remaining differentiators strengths of Macy’s. These provide diversification and help guide larger strategies. A spin off would likely only weaken each nameplate and eliminate any operational synergies.

David Biernbaum

Should Macy’s Spin Off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury?
Shareholders are urging Macy’s to spin off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury to boost shareholder value. While this move could potentially enhance value, any improvement may be short-lived.
However, shrinking the company to increase shareholder value doesn’t always align with long-term business goals. Bloomingdale’s remains a prestigious brand, and without it, Macy’s risks losing its competitive edge in the near-premium marketplace. Simply put, Macy’s alone may not be enough to thrive in today’s market.

Jeff Sward

The math is going to keep this conversation alive until the market figures out a new way to value the real sum of the parts. Valuing the under-performing Macy’s retail business while whispering about the real estate and divisions that could be free standing is an odd formula. I vote to monetize the real estate to some new model and reinvest in the remainng stores. Elevate the physical store experience. Keep closing stores that can’t be efficient and profitable in this century’s market. A department store chain invented in the year 2025 is going to look a lot different than one invented in 1965 or 1985 or……

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

Bloomingdale’s bigger long-term problem is to sufficiently differentiate itself from Macy’s, without negatively impacting the latter; and that problem will get even worse in June if/when Federated becomes Macy’s Group Inc. When the Bloomie’s spinoff finally comes, remember you read it here first!

I wrote that on RW…17 years ago (how’s that for a scoop?!)
https://retailwire.com/discussion/bloomies-seeks-success-where-others-failed/
So do I still stand by it ? Kind of: I think, in the long run Bloomies, will be stronger for it – tho vulnerable to meddlesome “activists” who will want to do who knows what with it – but I’m not sure how it will help macy*s (branded stores) any…their position has only deteriorated since I wrote that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Craig Sundstrom
Michael Zakkour
Michael Zakkour

I had no idea RW has been around that long.

Bob Amster

These suggested transactions are only advisable if it is deemed that Macy’s needs an significant influx of cash. As stated by other members of this illustrious panel, Bluemercury should be grown as shops-within-shops in Macy’s stores and by opening carefully-selected Bluemercury standalone locations. As for Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s should leverage the marketing value of the department store and select highly-qualified top management to run it, independently of the Macy’s Department Store chain, which has clearly shown that it doesn’t’ run a department store well.

Jamie Tenser

I grow weary of schemes by “activist investors” who view retail companies as a collection of assets to be day-traded. Their motives are always transparent – to “unlock” value so they can notch opportunistic wins and siphon off capital.
Macy’s, Bloomingdales, Blue Mercury have issues, no doubt, but the total company possesses powerful brand equity and scale. Varied banners and formats allow the business to adjust to market trends. Owned real estate provides some financial strength too. I like Macy’s as a “house of brands” and would like to see each banner developed to its full potential.
I concede that sometimes shareholders desire to stir a company out of torpor and complacency, but typically they propose blunt financial maneuvers that distract leaders from the core mission. Instead, why not demand actions to build merchandising relevance, shopper satisfaction and brand equity?

Last edited 1 year ago by Jamie Tenser
Michael Zakkour
Michael Zakkour

to explore spinning off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury as part of broader steps to enhance shareholder value.” – And there is your story. How about ‘enhancing’ the stores, the experience, and the websites, and then using the power combined data, back-offices, and creative brainpower to lift ALL THREE BRANDS that will enhance consumer, supplier, employee, and shareholder value over a much longer timeline?

Neil Saunders

Plain and simple, no it should not. Macy’s should not play stupid financial games. It should focus on enhancing and reviving the core Macy’s brand by focusing on restoring the retail skills that it lost over the past decade and more.

10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paula Rosenblum

These People are whacky. Sell off the jewels and keep the junk drawer intact.

no, they shouldn’t sell Bloomingdale’s. They should restore it to what it was

Brian Delp

Having a portfolio of properties is one of the few remaining differentiators strengths of Macy’s. These provide diversification and help guide larger strategies. A spin off would likely only weaken each nameplate and eliminate any operational synergies.

David Biernbaum

Should Macy’s Spin Off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury?
Shareholders are urging Macy’s to spin off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury to boost shareholder value. While this move could potentially enhance value, any improvement may be short-lived.
However, shrinking the company to increase shareholder value doesn’t always align with long-term business goals. Bloomingdale’s remains a prestigious brand, and without it, Macy’s risks losing its competitive edge in the near-premium marketplace. Simply put, Macy’s alone may not be enough to thrive in today’s market.

Jeff Sward

The math is going to keep this conversation alive until the market figures out a new way to value the real sum of the parts. Valuing the under-performing Macy’s retail business while whispering about the real estate and divisions that could be free standing is an odd formula. I vote to monetize the real estate to some new model and reinvest in the remainng stores. Elevate the physical store experience. Keep closing stores that can’t be efficient and profitable in this century’s market. A department store chain invented in the year 2025 is going to look a lot different than one invented in 1965 or 1985 or……

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

Bloomingdale’s bigger long-term problem is to sufficiently differentiate itself from Macy’s, without negatively impacting the latter; and that problem will get even worse in June if/when Federated becomes Macy’s Group Inc. When the Bloomie’s spinoff finally comes, remember you read it here first!

I wrote that on RW…17 years ago (how’s that for a scoop?!)
https://retailwire.com/discussion/bloomies-seeks-success-where-others-failed/
So do I still stand by it ? Kind of: I think, in the long run Bloomies, will be stronger for it – tho vulnerable to meddlesome “activists” who will want to do who knows what with it – but I’m not sure how it will help macy*s (branded stores) any…their position has only deteriorated since I wrote that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Craig Sundstrom
Michael Zakkour
Michael Zakkour

I had no idea RW has been around that long.

Bob Amster

These suggested transactions are only advisable if it is deemed that Macy’s needs an significant influx of cash. As stated by other members of this illustrious panel, Bluemercury should be grown as shops-within-shops in Macy’s stores and by opening carefully-selected Bluemercury standalone locations. As for Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s should leverage the marketing value of the department store and select highly-qualified top management to run it, independently of the Macy’s Department Store chain, which has clearly shown that it doesn’t’ run a department store well.

Jamie Tenser

I grow weary of schemes by “activist investors” who view retail companies as a collection of assets to be day-traded. Their motives are always transparent – to “unlock” value so they can notch opportunistic wins and siphon off capital.
Macy’s, Bloomingdales, Blue Mercury have issues, no doubt, but the total company possesses powerful brand equity and scale. Varied banners and formats allow the business to adjust to market trends. Owned real estate provides some financial strength too. I like Macy’s as a “house of brands” and would like to see each banner developed to its full potential.
I concede that sometimes shareholders desire to stir a company out of torpor and complacency, but typically they propose blunt financial maneuvers that distract leaders from the core mission. Instead, why not demand actions to build merchandising relevance, shopper satisfaction and brand equity?

Last edited 1 year ago by Jamie Tenser
Michael Zakkour
Michael Zakkour

to explore spinning off Bloomingdale’s and Bluemercury as part of broader steps to enhance shareholder value.” – And there is your story. How about ‘enhancing’ the stores, the experience, and the websites, and then using the power combined data, back-offices, and creative brainpower to lift ALL THREE BRANDS that will enhance consumer, supplier, employee, and shareholder value over a much longer timeline?

Neil Saunders

Plain and simple, no it should not. Macy’s should not play stupid financial games. It should focus on enhancing and reviving the core Macy’s brand by focusing on restoring the retail skills that it lost over the past decade and more.

More Discussions