Tariffs are about to separate real pricing power from fake pricing power
Retailers can absorb tariff costs long enough to protect traffic, but that is not the same as preserving earnings power. The next reports from Home Depot, Lowe’s, Target, and Walmart should show who can pass through costs and who is buying volume with margin.
Tariffs are turning retail pricing power into an earnings test. Home Depot’s decision to retain its outlook while introducing modest price increases on some imported products shows the transition already underway: retailers can no longer treat higher costs as a temporary supply-chain nuisance, but they also cannot raise every price without risking demand. The key question in the next reports is therefore not whether sales are growing. It is whether higher tickets are translating into durable gross profit, or merely disguising the margin damage underneath.
We view Home Depot’s latest signal as the template for the entire group. The company had previously indicated that it would generally maintain pricing, then moved toward selective pass-through as tariff costs came in higher than expected. That is not evidence of tariff immunity. It is evidence that pricing power is granular: a retailer may be able to raise prices on certain imported products, but only where customers are willing to accept the increase and alternatives are limited. Home Depot still delivered U.S. comparable sales growth of 1.4% and retained its annual outlook, which makes the setup more revealing, not less. Demand has held so far, but the next question is whether the economics of that demand have held too.
The market is already drawing a line between retailers it believes can defend earnings and those it sees as more exposed to discounting or weak traffic. On the supplied valuation data, Walmart trades at 42.69 times earnings, TJX at 30.42 times, Home Depot at 23.26 times, Target at 19.36 times, and Lowe’s at 17.62 times. That hierarchy is not a verdict that the highest multiple retailers can simply raise prices at will. It is a signal that investors are paying for confidence in traffic, assortment, sourcing, or mix. The lower multiples attached to Target and Lowe’s leave room for a recovery, but they also reflect a more difficult proof point: can these chains pass through cost without asking already-sensitive shoppers to absorb the difference?
The cleanest positive case is TJX, although the argument is more subtle than a conventional pricing-power story. Off-price retail does not depend on raising every shelf price. It depends on finding desirable merchandise at the right cost, presenting value clearly, and giving shoppers a reason to keep buying even when budgets are tight. TJX’s 7.1% revenue growth and 9.4% net margin stand out against the more fragile economics of traditional discount retail. Its recent outlook increase was tied to resilient demand for value and to mitigation of tariff pressure, not to an assumption that consumers would accept unlimited price increases. That distinction matters. TJX may be better positioned to manage tariffs through sourcing and product mix, which is a real form of pricing power even if it does not look like a clean pass-through at the register.
Walmart is the warning that scale alone does not guarantee real pricing power. The company can defend traffic more effectively than almost anyone, but its recent decision to cut prices on many summer barbecue items shows how category-specific that power can be. When a retailer lowers prices on highly visible staples after previously warning that tariffs could push some prices higher, it is prioritizing customer perception and volume over a uniform attempt to protect margin. That may be strategically correct. It is also a reminder that reported sales can remain healthy while the retailer absorbs cost in the categories shoppers watch most closely. Walmart’s premium valuation assumes strong execution; the earnings test is whether that execution protects profit as well as traffic.
Target faces a different version of the same problem. Its revenue declined 1.7% in the supplied data, and its 3.2% net margin leaves less room to absorb a prolonged cost shock than the operating model of a stronger value or off-price chain. A retailer with weak traffic cannot easily lead with price increases, because the price increase may become another reason for customers to delay a purchase or switch stores. Target can still benefit if its assortment gives shoppers a reason to stay, but the burden of proof is higher. Management needs to show that tariff-related increases are selective, that promotions are not eroding the benefit, and that any nominal sales improvement reflects units and mix rather than inflation alone.
Lowe’s will provide a useful comparison with Home Depot because the two operate in the same broad home-improvement market while facing similar questions about imported products, big-ticket demand, and project timing. Lowe’s also sources more than half of its products from North America, while Home Depot sources more than half in the United States. That flexibility can blunt the tariff hit, but it does not settle the pricing-power debate. Procurement discipline can protect margins without proving that customers will accept higher prices. Lowe’s lower 17.62 times earnings multiple and negative 11.5% year-to-date performance suggest the market is demanding evidence that cost management can translate into renewed demand, not merely a slower decline.
Yes, the bullish counterargument is credible: consumers are still trading toward value, and retailers with strong sourcing networks may absorb much of the tariff burden before it reaches the shelf. TJX’s resilient demand supports that view, while the North American sourcing exposure at Home Depot and Lowe’s gives both companies a way to reduce the shock. But absorbing costs is not a free pass. It transfers the tariff from the consumer’s basket to the retailer’s margin, and it can conceal the problem until promotions, mix shifts, or weaker traffic expose it. The 2018–2019 experience followed the same sequence: companies initially promised to absorb costs, then selectively raised prices as tariffs persisted, forcing investors to judge both pass-through and demand elasticity.
The macro data makes the distinction more urgent. Recent retail sales growth was stronger than expected, but part of that increase appeared to reflect tariff-driven price increases rather than higher volume. That is the environment in which fake pricing power looks strongest at first: revenue rises because tickets rise, while units and margins deteriorate quietly. The next reports need to separate those effects. Watch comparable sales, commentary on units and promotions, gross-margin pressure, and whether management is raising prices broadly or only on selected products. A retailer that preserves traffic by cutting price may be making a rational investment, but investors should not confuse that choice with the ability to pass through costs.
Our view is that the winners will not necessarily be the retailers announcing the biggest price increases. They will be the ones that preserve economics through a combination of selective pass-through, sourcing, mix, and credible value. Home Depot has already shown that the conversation is moving from absorbing tariffs to testing customer elasticity; Walmart has shown that even a dominant retailer may need to defend traffic through price cuts. The next earnings sequence should reveal whether Target and Lowe’s can manage the same trade-off without sacrificing too much margin or demand.
We would change our mind if the coming reports show that price increases are holding without weaker units, heavier promotions, or margin compression across the group. Until then, rising retail sales should be treated cautiously. A higher ticket is not proof of pricing power unless the retailer keeps the customer and the profit.
Our take, not advice. This is opinion commentary — informational only, not personalized investment recommendations. Markets carry risk. Do your own research and consider your own situation before any trade.
▌The Daily Briefing · Free
A new stock idea, every evening.
One stock worth watching each weekday, plus the analysis behind it. Free, in your inbox.
