BUSINESS

Republican strategist and Executive Director of Principles First Brittany Martinez joined “Forbes Newsroom” to discuss the GOP’s first-ever midterm convention.

The updated match card for AEW All Out 2026 features Will Ospreay defending the AEW World Championship against Jon Moxley.

While I buy most of my clothes from Amazon, when I needed a new wardrobe for a video shoot, my wife and I went on a tour of local retailers.

Since I needed shirts that would hold up well in hot weather, we went to Target and Bass Pro Shops, and as much as I don’t like trying clothes on, I took advantage of the stores’ dressing rooms.

I’m not alone in wanting to try things on before I buy.

“The opportunity to try on clothes and test products is a major driver of store traffic,with 52% of consumers surveyed saying they go to stores instead of shopping online because of this. References to trying on/testing products surged 32% YoY on average at retailers and were up 58% at beauty retailers,” according to a Chatmeter report published last year.

People, me included, like seeing what they’re buying before committing to a purchase.

“When asked about their favorite part of a recent store visit, 21% mentioned trying aproduct while 25% mentioned seeing a product in real life,” the data showed.

Once I picked out the shirt I liked, I bought a few from the store, went back a week later to buy more, but then ordered more colors online. And since we no longer live near Bass Pro Shops, I’ll likely become an online customer.

That’s the problem facing retailers like Torrid. Physical stores deliver a better experience, because they introduce customers to merchandise and allow them to leave the store with their size. But if customers buy in-store once and then order online, that dramatically changes the economics for brick-and-mortar locations.

That’s at least part of the struggle for Torrid, a women’s specialty retailer featuring plus-sized clothes, which has closed 20% of its stores.

Torrid has shrunk its store base

In June 2025, Torrid shared a plan to close around 180 underperforming stores from its fleet of just over 620.

Torrid CEO Lisa Harper shared her company’s plan in its first-quarter earnings release.

“Digital continues to be our customers’ preferred channel, now approaching 70% of total demand. We’re accelerating our transformation to a more digitally-led business, which includes optimizing our retail footprint,” she said.

Harper then got specific about the planned shutdowns.

“We now plan to close up to 180 underperforming stores this year — allowing us to reduce fixed costs and reinvest in areas that drive long-term growth, including customer acquisition and omnichannel enhancements,” she added.

More Retail:

Home Depot is making a big bet on cautious consumers

Another state just banned a controversial retail pricing practice

JPMorgan just flagged a slow-build food crisis

Those closures have rolled out slowly, but are now mostly complete, and the company’s challenge is keeping the sales those stores generated.

“As I mentioned on our Q1 call, we substantially completed our store optimization program. To date, we’ve closed an additional six structurally unproductive locations, bringing the total to 177 closures since we initiated the program. Customer retention through this transition has remained strong, with our marketing efforts successfully redirecting traffic both online and to nearby stores,” she said during the company’s second-quarter earnings call.

Torrid has closed about 20% of its retail stores.Shutterstock

Torrid has seen mixed results

Harper tried to sell Torrid’s Q2 results as the company delivering on its plans.

“Our second quarter results were in line with guidance. Sales trends improved meaningfully as the quarter progressed, with July marking a clear inflection point. This improvement reflects early traction from our customer growth strategy and the merchandising course corrections we have made,” she said in a press release.

The results showed that while sales were down, margins and profits improved, suggesting the store closures are helping the company’s bottom line.

Net sales decreased 11.8% to $231.7 million compared to $262.8 million for the second quarter of last year.

Comparable sales decreased 6.3% in the second quarter.

Gross profit margin increased to 38.7% compared to 35.6% in the second quarter of last year.

Gross profit margin, excluding the benefit of tariff refunds received, was 33.9%

Net income was up to $5.2 million, or $0.05 per share, compared to net income of $1.6 million, or $0.02 per share, in the second quarter of last year.

“Torrid shedding a huge chunk of its stores is a brutal, necessary acknowledgment that physical stores were becoming a drag on their bottom line. When over 70% of your sales are happening online, maintaining hundreds of low-productivity mall leases is just burning cash,” RTM Nexus CEO Dominick Miserandino told TheStreet.

He thinks the chain matches the needs of its customer base.

“These are Plus-size specialty shops which rely heavily on deep customer loyalty, and Torrid already retains the majority of those shoppers digitally whenever a local store closes. Trimming underperforming physical locations lets them cut massive real estate overhead and pour capital back into e-commerce, digital marketing, and product,” he added.

Torrid serves a growing market

Torrid describes itself as a direct-to-consumer apparel, intimates, and accessories brand in North America for women sizes 10 to 30.

The plus-size women’s clothing market has been steadily growing.

“Plus-size clothing for women market revenue was valued at $23.6 billion in 2024 and is estimated to reach $37.4 billion by 2033, growing at a CAGR of 6.5% from 2026 to 2033,” according to data from Verified Market Reports.

CAGR, or compound annual growth rate, shows that the market will be expanding.

The report also shared some other key facts about the growing women’s plus-sized fashion market.

E‑commerce channels are growing at the fastest pace, comprising more than 60% of sales and outpacing traditional brick‑and‑mortar outlets.

North America currently dominates the market, accounting for more than 35% of total revenue, with Europe and Asia Pacific following closely.

The shift to online sales has been noticeable, even as more traditional retailers, including Target, have broadened their in-store selections to be more size-inclusive.

Over a year ago, when the shutdowns were announced, GlobalData Managing Director Neil Saunders shared his support for the chain’s actions.

“The closures are largely sensible, since they will free up capital to invest in things like better marketing and product development,” Saunders told NewJersey.com. “Money will also go into stores that are showing potential.”

ALSO READ: Costco fixed the one thing members hated about shopping there

Over the last few years, Starbucks made several operational moves that frustrated its core customers. To cut operational delays and improve profit margins, the chain has repeatedly overhauled its offerings, pricing, and rewards program. 

About three years ago, Starbucks increased the number of loyalty “stars” required to redeem free drinks, food, and merchandise, and it also angered iced-drink fans by introducing a mandatory $1 charge for customers who ordered Refreshers with “no water,” according to Entrepreneur.

In 2023 and 2024, Starbucks spent heavily to promote olive-oil-infused coffee, a pet project of former CEO Howard Schultz. The drinks sparked viral mockery and widespread complaints about stomach issues before the company finally abandoned the lineup in late 2024 to simplify its menu, reported CNN. 

Earlier this year, Starbucks made major menu cuts, under CEO Brian Niccol’s “Back to Starbucks” turnaround strategy, slashing its menu by 25% to 30%. The chain cut 13 drinks to reduce waste and speed up drink preparation for baristas, reported TheStreet. 

Now, the chain’s latest menu change has once again frustrated some of its loyal customers, and they are calling headquarters to complain. 

Starbucks reinvents iconic chai recipe 

In March 2026, Starbucks revealed a change to its chai latte recipe, saying it was “reinventing an icon.”

The chain said the overhaul will make it a less sweet chai base to allow customers to customize the beverage to their own preference. 

“The updated chai recipe allows spices like cardamom, cinnamon and ginger to take center stage while giving customers more control over their preferred sweetness level by adjusting the number of pumps. Or they can adjust the flavor by swapping classic syrup for a flavored one. Vanilla, for example, will dial up the spicy notes. The beverage is also delicious unsweetened,” Starbuck stated. 

The change, however, didn’t sit well with some customers. 

Starbucks tweaked its iconic chai recipe, angering some customers.NicolasMcComber / Getty Images

Starbucks’ chai change angers some customers 

A number of customers took to social media, or called corporate and signed petitions to reverse what they are calling the “Great Chai Incident of 2026,” highlighted The Wall Street Journal. 

Ricki Fairley, a 70-year-old customer, sent a formal complaint to Starbucks’ CEO demanding that the company “turn this unnecessary mess around.” 

Another loyal customer, Adam Benson, mourned the loss of his usual order, stating, “I had found my drink, my happy place. Now it’s been taken away.”

Desperate fans have even started swapping recipes on platforms like Reddit to figure out how to replicate the original taste. Baristas are doing their best to help, but finding the exact match is proving difficult. One Reddit user shared their best workaround, posting, “The closest I’ve been able to get to bringing its sparkle back has been no classic, half vanilla, half cinnamon dolce.”

Facing backlash, Starbucks tweaked the recipe again about a month later, removing water from the hot chai to make it creamier and spicier. Still, for many loyal tea drinkers, the magic is gone, and they have resorted to making it at home. 

A number of customers suspect the change aimed only to reduce costs, since adding flavors such as vanilla or brown sugar costs an extra 80 cents. 

“They may have cut costs but they’ve lost me as a customer. For the past 20 years I’ve gotten a Starbucks chai almost every single day, and I’ve been back 3 times now since March,” wrote one Reddit user. 

Not everyone is displeased with the change, however. 

Some customers actually like the new chai better 

In matters of taste, there can be no disputes, the old saying goes, and it holds true in this case. 

In another Reddit thread (though one that got significantly fewer reactions), a few customers shared that they prefer the new chai. 

“All the customers I’ve talked to today love the change,” the Reddit user who started the thread shared. 

Related: 29-year-old casual dining chain closes 4 locations after acquisition

What’s particularly interesting is the comment posted by a user identifying as a Starbucks barista who said that what seems to be happening is that customers who didn’t like the chai before now think it’s good, while those who liked it previously don’t like it now. 

The user added that there’s “definitely a higher percentage of people that dislike it.” 

It appears that this latest Starbucks change has managed to gain some new chai fans, but at the same time, it has lost a number of old ones.

Why product changes trigger deep customer anger

When an iconic brand changes a popular product, it can disrupt a daily emotional ritual, and the effect on customers can be overwhelming. Market research shows that consumers don’t buy a beverage just for its ingredients. They buy it for psychological comfort and predictability. 

When that changes without warning, customers may register it as a betrayal.

“Brands are key in building customer-brand relationships, yet organisations change their product lines by reformulating or discontinuing brands. This results in negative customer emotions, including pain and grief,” according to a study on product changes published in the Journal of Business Research. 

In 1985, Coca-Cola discontinued its original formula and introduced a sweeter “New Coke” after blind taste tests showed consumers preferred the new flavor over both the original recipe and Pepsi. 

However, the company drastically underestimated the emotional attachment its loyal customers had to the classic beverage. Following severe public backlash, Coca-Cola brought back the original formula just 79 days later, according to History.com.

Coca-Cola went back to its original recipe to retain its customers. Whether Starbucks follows suit may depend on how much the chai backlash ends up hurting its bottom line. 

Related: Fast-food chain quietly exits an entire state after 50 years

Scrap your “AI Personalization” playbook. I’m going to show you how to get personal and build genuine relationships with potential clients.

If you want website visitors to actually buy from you, build a site that engages them on all fronts — both online and off.

Estate-planning crises usually come down to small oversights.

Novartis (NVS) had a disappointing Tuesday, Sept. 8. Shares dropped nearly 14% on one of the company’s worst trading days on record.

The sell-off followed news that a closely watched experimental drug failed its main goal in a late-stage trial. The timing was bad, since the company was already dealing with a trial failure from days earlier.

Novartis is one of the largest drugmakers in the world. It develops and sells prescription medicines across cancer, heart disease, immunology, and neuroscience.

Because the company earns most of its money from a handful of popular branded drugs, its business model depends heavily on new drugs reaching the market. So when a major drug trial fails, investors pay attention.

Why the del-desiran trial failure hit Novartis stock so hard

The drug in question is del-desiran, an experimental treatment for myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1).

DM1 is a genetic disease that causes progressive muscle stiffness and weakness. There are no approved treatments for it.

Novartis said its Phase III HARBOR study found no real improvement over patients who got no active treatment. 

The trial’s primary test was on video hand opening time, which tracks how well patients can relax their hand muscles.

More Pharma Stocks:

Eli Lilly raises the stakes in $2.88 billion autoimmune buyout

BofA makes bullish call on newly public biotech stock

BofA biotech scorecard: two buys and odd one out

Del-desiran was the main asset from the company’s roughly $12 billion purchase deal with Avidity Biosciences completed in February 2026, according to Novartis. 

The drug had won FDA Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy status, so hopes for approval ran high.

Although the primary test failed, Novartis noted some encouraging signs in secondary measures, along with a clean safety record. 

The company plans to review the full data before it decides what comes next.

Novartis shares fell nearly 14% on Sept. 8, 2026, after a second late-stage drug trial failure in days.SOPA Images / Getty Images

A rough stretch for the Novartis pipeline

This was the second late-stage failure in a matter of days.

Just before it, Novartis’s heart drug Pelacarsen failed to reduce the risk of major cardiac events in a large trial, Bloomberg reported. 

Analysts had estimated peak sales of roughly $4 billion to $6 billion for that drug, which the company developed with Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

Related: Morgan Stanley uncovers major Bristol Myers stock signals

Novartis also recently paused several trials in its experimental CAR-T cancer therapy program after patient deaths. 

Three setbacks in quick succession is a lot for any drugmaker to absorb, and shareholders are recalculating what the pipeline is really worth.

What Novartis investors should weigh now

Analysts at Jefferies and Barclays are openly questioning whether Novartis can hit its target of 5% to 6% annual sales growth through 2030, Reuters reported.

That target looks harder to reach with key patents expiring soon. The company’s top-selling heart drug, Entresto, has already begun to lose exclusivity, and more blockbuster drugs are set to follow.

Here is what shareholders should keep in mind.

Key risks and takeaways for Novartis stock

More deals may be coming. Because internal research has stalled, Novartis may likely buy more biotech firms at high prices to refill its pipeline, which can dilute existing shareholders.

The premium is fading. Investors treated Novartis as a stable giant, and that reputation is now being repriced lower.

The dividend is still solid. The stock offers a yield of about 3.4%, which is a cushion for patient holders.

Volatility is real. Big pharma stocks can swing hard around trial results, so position sizing matters.

Novartis remains profitable and pays a healthy dividend.

But the steady reputation that justified its premium price is under pressure, and rebuilding trust in the pipeline will take time and probably more expensive acquisitions.

For now, cautious investors may want to watch how the company’s management handles the full del-desiran data before they make any big moves.

Related: Novo Nordisk CEO resets expectations for Wegovy’s explosive growth

A former Anthropic employee said he was quitting this week and that AI companies are “gambling with our lives.”

Wall Street analysts almost never announce that they were wrong. They reprice instead.

That habit is worth keeping in mind whenever a bank moves a stock two full rating notches before the opening bell, because the useful information is usually buried underneath the rating, not in it.

Consider the corner of the market that has spent three years absorbing punishment for a sin it stopped committing a while ago.

Life sciences tools companies sell the instruments, reagents, and outsourced lab services that drug developers can’t operate without. They boomed through the Covid pandemic, then fell hard when biotech funding dried up, academic budgets froze, and Chinese demand went quiet.

Earnings, though, never actually broke. They just stopped getting paid for. Revenue continued compounding, margins kept widening, and the multiple kept shrinking anyway.

That gap between profits and price is the setup behind one of the more aggressive analyst calls of the week, and behind a price target that landed a long way from where the rest of the Street is standing.

Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO), the largest company in the group, was upgraded to Buy from Neutral at UBS on Sept. 9, and the firm boosted its price target on the shares to $730 from $540, according to 24/7 Wall St.

That is roughly $190 added to a number the firm had been sitting on. Banks do not usually move that far in one motion, and the reason this one did has almost nothing to do with the last earnings report.

Why life sciences tools stocks stopped working

Thermo Fisher’s earnings per share has grown about 7% a year over the past three years while the share price has gone essentially nowhere, according to Simply Wall St. That is a de-rating, not a deterioration.

The cause, when I went back through the demand picture, was that every customer group went cold at once.

Pharma and biotech, which account for roughly 60% of Thermo Fisher’s revenue, cut discretionary spending. Academic and government labs sat on frozen budgets. China, once the group’s growth engine, contracted for several straight quarters.

Related: UBS revamps S&P 500 target for rest of 2026

Instrument purchases are the first line item a lab defers and the last one it restores. That turned a health care name into something that trades like an early-cycle industrial, which is exactly what happened to the multiple.

The wider market spent the same stretch paying up for anything with an artificial intelligence (AI) attachment, a rotation that left slower compounders stranded. 

UBS upgraded Thermo Fisher Scientific to Buy and lifted its TMO price target to $730 from $540.Boston Globe / Getty Images

What UBS actually changed on Thermo Fisher

The upgrade did not come out of the second-quarter print. It came out of the 2027 model.

Thermo Fisher is positioned for “a durable return to 5%-6%-plus organic growth in 2027,” the firm told investors in a research note, reported TheFly.

More Wall Street:

SpaceX investors get bold Wall Street price target for 2027 year-end

Anthropic sends clear message to Wall Street ahead of IPO

Bank of America’s unique take on Apple stock as Ternus takes reins

Alongside that growth call, UBS projects operating margin expansion of at least 50 to 70 basis points and double-digit earnings per share growth, according to Investing.com.

The drivers it lists are better pharma and biotech funding, reshoring investment, sustained bioprocessing demand, AI-driven gains in research and development returns, market share gains, and stabilization in China and in academic and government spending.

Here is where the number sits relative to everyone else’s:

UBS raised its target to $730 from $540 while moving to Buy from Neutral, according to 24/7 Wall St.

CLSA analyst Michael Luo started coverage at Outperform with a $748 target on Sept. 3, above the UBS number, according to StockAnalysis.

The average 12-month target across the 29 analysts covering the stock is about $638, according to StockAnalysis.

When I lined the $730 up against that $638 average, the spread was the tell. UBS is not nudging a model. It is sitting roughly 14% above where the rest of the Street has settled, and it got there in one jump rather than through the usual quarterly drift.

The analyst handoff hiding inside the upgrade

Most of the coverage treated this as a bank changing its mind. That is not quite what happened.

The rating change arrived as UBS assumed coverage of the stock with a new analyst, according to Investing.com.

That distinction matters more than it sounds. A coverage transfer means the person who defended the Neutral rating is no longer the person writing the note. Incoming analysts routinely reset a predecessor’s stance in their first publication, and those resets tend to be large precisely because they are catching up all at once, instead of adjusting a quarter at a time.

My read is that UBS is not calling a bottom in laboratory demand. It is calling the end of a de-rating, and it is doing it through a fresh set of eyes. Anyone treating this as a firm publicly reversing itself is reading the wrong signal.

What a 2027 growth reset would mean for the stock

The recovery evidence is already on the tape, which is part of why the target moved so far.

Second-quarter revenue grew 10% to $11.99 billion, including 5% organic growth. Adjusted operating margin expanded 90 basis points to 22.8%, and adjusted earnings per share rose 13% to $6.03, according to the company’s second-quarter results. Chairman and CEO Marc Casper cited “outstanding performance in the second quarter” in that release.

Full-year guidance went to $47.4 billion to $48.1 billion in revenue, with adjusted earnings per share of $24.93 to $25.33.

The detail that should interest anyone modeling 2027 is geographic. China grew in the low single digits for the first time in several quarters, and academic and government spending returned to growth, reported GenomeWeb. Management stopped short of calling the academic recovery durable.

Two things have to hold for the UBS math to work:

Pharma and biotech budgets need to keep loosening into next year.

That academic thaw must prove structural rather than seasonal.

For a reader with a retirement account rather than a trading screen, the practical version is simpler. This is the kind of position that quietly underperformed for three years while its profits did not, and a growth reset in 2027 would close that gap without management doing anything heroic.

Shares traded near $606 on Sept. 9, putting the UBS target about 20% above the market. None of the 2027 thesis becomes testable until well into next year, which makes the next four quarters a referendum on whether the funding thaw is real.

That, not the target, is the number worth watching.

Related: UBS sends investors strong message about the economy