- United States
- /
- Luxury
- /
- NYSE:CRI
Return Trends At Carter's (NYSE:CRI) Aren't Appealing
There are a few key trends to look for if we want to identify the next multi-bagger. Ideally, a business will show two trends; firstly a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and secondly, an increasing amount of capital employed. This shows us that it's a compounding machine, able to continually reinvest its earnings back into the business and generate higher returns. However, after briefly looking over the numbers, we don't think Carter's (NYSE:CRI) has the makings of a multi-bagger going forward, but let's have a look at why that may be.
Understanding Return On Capital Employed (ROCE)
Just to clarify if you're unsure, ROCE is a metric for evaluating how much pre-tax income (in percentage terms) a company earns on the capital invested in its business. Analysts use this formula to calculate it for Carter's:
Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities)
0.16 = US$308m ÷ (US$2.4b - US$484m) (Based on the trailing twelve months to September 2024).
Therefore, Carter's has an ROCE of 16%. On its own, that's a standard return, however it's much better than the 13% generated by the Luxury industry.
View our latest analysis for Carter's
Above you can see how the current ROCE for Carter's compares to its prior returns on capital, but there's only so much you can tell from the past. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Carter's .
So How Is Carter's' ROCE Trending?
We're a bit concerned with the trends, because the business is applying 22% less capital than it was five years ago and returns on that capital have stayed flat. To us that doesn't look like a multi-bagger because the company appears to be selling assets and it's returns aren't increasing. You could assume that if this continues, the business will be smaller in a few year time, so probably not a multi-bagger.
The Key Takeaway
In summary, Carter's isn't reinvesting funds back into the business and returns aren't growing. And investors appear hesitant that the trends will pick up because the stock has fallen 38% in the last five years. Therefore based on the analysis done in this article, we don't think Carter's has the makings of a multi-bagger.
Carter's does have some risks, we noticed 2 warning signs (and 1 which makes us a bit uncomfortable) we think you should know about.
For those who like to invest in solid companies, check out this free list of companies with solid balance sheets and high returns on equity.
New: AI Stock Screener & Alerts
Our new AI Stock Screener scans the market every day to uncover opportunities.
• Dividend Powerhouses (3%+ Yield)
• Undervalued Small Caps with Insider Buying
• High growth Tech and AI Companies
Or build your own from over 50 metrics.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
A landmark settlement is meant to punish Meta (META). If the 1998 tobacco deal is any guide, it might protect it.

Any moat with an opt-out clause for your competitors is just a fence around your own garden.
Worth looking at what previous legal action actually did to Meta rather than reaching for tobacco. The FTC's record five billion dollar privacy fine in 2019 was met with the stock rising, because it came in below fears and removed an open question. GDPR was designed to constrain large platforms and increased their share of the European ad market, because compliance cost fell hardest on small intermediaries. The FTC's antitrust case, the one that could genuinely have broken the company up, was decided in Meta's favour last November. The only thing that ever meaningfully hurt the business was Apple changing a tracking default, and Meta out-spent that too, while the ad-tech firms that could not afford to rebuild disappeared. The pattern is not that Meta survives regulation. It is that regulation keeps costing its smaller competitors more.
Andrew LeggetGreat earnings season, but are the earnings real?

About NYSE:CRI
Carter's
Designs, sources, and markets branded childrenswear in the United States and internationally.
Flawless balance sheet, good value and pays a dividend.