3 ms·

> based on calculations from the company’s financial filings. With the anticipated increase, shrink this year would surpass $1 billion. >It can be difficult to

> based on calculations from the company’s financial filings. With the anticipated increase, shrink this year would surpass $1 billion. >It can be difficult to quantify theft, since shrink includes inventory loss from other causes, such as employee theft or damage, too. Based on this story it seems like they could just totally fabricate this number? Surely such numbers would spur a deluge of police reports or at the minimum a wave of insurance claims. Are those signals also present?

qeternity 3y ago
Could they fabricate the numbers? Perhaps, although this is what auditors do. More bizarrely is what incentive they would have to artificially reduce their reported earnings? You seems to be suggesting that you know more about Target’s business than Target does, and I have to believe you’ve already come to the conclusion that retail theft hasn’t increased because that’s a social narrative that suits you.
- lmm 3y ago
  > More bizarrely is what incentive they would have to artificially reduce their reported earnings? The overall shrink number is known and auditable, but they have plenty of incentive to adjust which proportion of shrink they attribute to external theft vs internal theft vs damages if they think one will play better with shareholders than the other. (E.g. external theft is likely to be an industry-wide problem, whereas an increase in internal theft might indicate that Target specifically is struggling to hire high-quality staff)
  - qeternity 3y ago
    RTFA. They haven’t done any of this. The headline is for their shrink number, which they said is fueled by theft. But theft and looting is 10x more difficult to solve than other shrink. It plays worse with investors. If their stores are indeed becoming dangerous, that might also reduce sales from normal customers. All other kinds of shrink they can implement internal processes to reduce. This narrative makes no sense.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Extraordinary claims (this year they will have had $1 Billion in assets stolen) need extraordinary proof

qeternity 3y ago

Could they fabricate the numbers? Perhaps, although this is what auditors do. More bizarrely is what incentive they would have to artificially reduce their reported earnings? You seems to be suggesting that you know more about Target’s business than Target does, and I have to believe you’ve already come to the conclusion that retail theft hasn’t increased because that’s a social narrative that suits you.

lmm 3y ago
> More bizarrely is what incentive they would have to artificially reduce their reported earnings? The overall shrink number is known and auditable, but they have plenty of incentive to adjust which proportion of shrink they attribute to external theft vs internal theft vs damages if they think one will play better with shareholders than the other. (E.g. external theft is likely to be an industry-wide problem, whereas an increase in internal theft might indicate that Target specifically is struggling to hire high-quality staff)
- qeternity 3y ago
  RTFA. They haven’t done any of this. The headline is for their shrink number, which they said is fueled by theft. But theft and looting is 10x more difficult to solve than other shrink. It plays worse with investors. If their stores are indeed becoming dangerous, that might also reduce sales from normal customers. All other kinds of shrink they can implement internal processes to reduce. This narrative makes no sense.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Extraordinary claims (this year they will have had $1 Billion in assets stolen) need extraordinary proof