Financial Strategy
Tapestry Teardown: When One Brand Carries the Portfolio
In FY2025 Coach produced about 80% of Tapestry's $7.0B revenue at a ~33% GAAP segment operating margin, while a $854.8M Kate Spade brand impairment wiped out consolidated GAAP earnings and Stuart Weitzman lost money before being sold. One hero brand was funding the whole portfolio, a pattern any multi-brand operator should watch for.
Key Takeaways
- Coach generated about $5.6B of Tapestry's $7.0B FY2025 revenue, roughly 80% of the top line, at a ~33% GAAP segment operating margin ($1,875.3M segment OI per 10-K Note 17). It is not one of three brands. It is the business, with two cost centers attached.
- Kate Spade posted a $(769.2)M GAAP segment operating loss in FY2025 on $1,197.1M of revenue (down 10% year over year), driven by an $854.8M brand-intangible and goodwill impairment. Excluding that charge, Kate Spade's non-GAAP segment margin was approximately 7.6%. Stuart Weitzman also posted an operating loss before Tapestry sold it to Caleres for $120.2M in August 2025.
- Consolidated gross margin climbed from 69.6% (FY2022) to 75.4% (FY2025), a 580 basis point gain, driven mostly by Coach taking more of the mix. But SG&A rose from 52.0% to 57.3% of revenue over the same window.
- GAAP operating margin fell from 17.6% to 5.9% in FY2025 and net income dropped 78% to $183.2M, driven chiefly by the $854.8M Kate Spade brand-intangible and goodwill impairment plus $23.7M in Stuart Weitzman divestiture charges. Non-GAAP operating margin held near 20%.
- Stuart Weitzman sold for roughly $450M less than Tapestry paid in 2015. The lesson is the gap between buying a recognizable name and buying a self-funding business unit.
Most of the teardowns operators actually learn from are not about the hero product. They are about what the hero is quietly paying for. Tapestry, Inc. (ticker TPR, the parent of Coach, Kate Spade, and until recently Stuart Weitzman) is the cleanest public example I have seen of a multi-brand house where one brand generates essentially all of the economics and the other lines ride along on its margin. The numbers are luxury handbags, but the lesson is portfolio math, and it applies just as hard to a founder deciding whether to launch a second brand or buy a struggling one.
What Coach actually carries
Start with the split, because it reframes everything else. In FY2025 (the fiscal year ended June 28, 2025) Tapestry did $7,010.7M in revenue. Coach generated about $5,598.5M of that, roughly 80% of the entire company. Kate Spade did $1,197.1M, down 10% year over year. Stuart Weitzman did $215.1M and was on its way out the door.
Revenue share is only half the story. The margins are where it gets stark. Per the FY2025 10-K Note 17, Coach reported a ~33.5% GAAP segment operating margin ($1,875.3M segment operating income on $5,598.5M revenue). Kate Spade reported a $(769.2)M GAAP segment operating loss ((64.3)% margin), driven by an $854.8M brand-intangible and goodwill impairment recorded in FY2025. Even stripping that impairment out, Kate Spade's non-GAAP segment margin was only about 7.6% ($91.3M). Stuart Weitzman posted a $(15.4)M operating loss. On a GAAP basis, Coach is not contributing 80% of operating income. It is contributing more than 100% of consolidated GAAP operating income, because the Kate Spade impairment plus corporate drag pull the total far below Coach's own segment result.
When I talk to founders running a house of brands at $20M to $80M, this is the exact shape I look for first. Not "what is our blended gross margin," but "which line is funding which." A healthy-looking 40% company average can be one line at 55% quietly subsidizing another at 15%. Tapestry is that pattern at the billion-dollar scale.
| Brand | FY2024 revenue | FY2025 revenue | YoY | FY2025 segment operating margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coach | $5,095.3M | $5,598.5M | +9.9% | ~33.5% GAAP |
| Kate Spade | $1,334.4M | $1,197.1M | -10.3% | (64.3)% GAAP* / ~7.6% non-GAAP |
| Stuart Weitzman | $241.5M | $215.1M | -10.9% | GAAP operating loss $(15.4)M |
| Tapestry total | $6,671.2M | $7,010.7M | +5.1% | 5.9% GAAP / ~20% non-GAAP |
Returns are quietly eating your margin. See by how much.
Get our Real Cost of Returns calculator: plug in your numbers, see the true hit per return.
Check your inbox. We'll send the Real Cost of Returns calculator shortly.
Gross margin rising, operating margin falling
Here is the part that fools people who only read the top of the P&L. Tapestry's consolidated gross margin has been climbing steadily: 69.6% in FY2022, 70.8% in FY2023, 73.3% in FY2024, and 75.4% in FY2025. That is a 580 basis point improvement in four years, and it is almost entirely the Coach effect. As Coach takes a bigger share of the mix and pushes average unit retail higher, the blended gross margin drifts up toward Coach's own.
But GAAP operating margin went the other way. It held at 17.6% in FY2022 and FY2023, slipped to 17.1% in FY2024, then fell off a cliff to 5.9% in FY2025. Net income dropped 78%, from $816.0M to $183.2M, and diluted EPS went from $3.50 to $0.82.
Two forces are in that gap, and you have to separate them. The first is non-cash and non-recurring: a $854.8M Kate Spade brand-intangible and goodwill impairment (per 10-K Note 17) plus $23.7M in Stuart Weitzman divestiture charges. Strip those out and non-GAAP operating margin stayed near 20%. So the FY2025 collapse is not the business falling apart. It is the accounting finally recognizing that two of the three brands were worth less than the balance sheet said.
The second force is structural, and it is the one operators should actually worry about. SG&A rose from 52.0% of revenue in FY2022 to 57.3% in FY2025. That is the standing cost of running three brand platforms: three marketing teams, three store fleets, three sets of management layers. When two of your three brands are shrinking, that overhead does not shrink with them. The pattern we see again and again with multi-brand groups is that complexity cost is sticky on the way down. You add the second brand's cost stack in a quarter and you spend two years trying to take it back out.
| Fiscal year | Revenue | Gross margin | GAAP operating margin | SG&A % of revenue | Diluted EPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY2021 | $5.75B | 71.0% | 16.8% | 54.2% | $2.95 |
| FY2022 | $6.68B | 69.6% | 17.6% | 52.0% | $3.17 |
| FY2023 | $6.66B | 70.8% | 17.6% | 53.2% | $3.88 |
| FY2024 | $6.67B | 73.3% | 17.1% | 56.2% | $3.50 |
| FY2025 | $7.01B | 75.4% | 5.9%* | 57.3% | $0.82* |
The Stuart Weitzman autopsy: buying a name vs. buying economics
Stuart Weitzman is the cautionary tale inside the cautionary tale. Tapestry paid roughly $574M for it in 2015. Revenue peaked around $345M, then slid to $215M in FY2025 even as the store count grew. In February 2025 Tapestry agreed to sell it to Caleres, and the deal closed in August 2025 for $120.2M. That is about $450M below the purchase price, and it came after a decade of the brand consuming corporate attention and overhead.
The lesson has nothing to do with footwear. It is the difference between buying a recognizable brand name and buying a self-funding business unit. Those are not the same asset. A name gets you awareness and a wholesale line sheet. A self-funding unit covers its own overhead and throws off cash you can redeploy. Stuart Weitzman was the former dressed up as the latter, and Tapestry paid a decade of subsidy plus $23.7M in FY2025 divestiture charges to find out.
When founders ask me whether to acquire a struggling brand at a "cheap" multiple, this is the case I bring up. The multiple looks cheap because it is priced on brand recognition. Whether it is actually cheap depends on whether the economics underneath can carry themselves inside your cost structure, or whether you are signing up to be its Coach. If you already have a hero line funding everything, a second weak brand does not diversify you. It just gives your hero one more mouth to feed.
Coach vs. Michael Kors: what the FTC fight revealed
The blocked $8.5B Tapestry-Capri merger is a gift for anyone trying to understand this category. When the FTC moved to block the deal in 2024, it defined Coach, Kate Spade, and Michael Kors as the three head-to-head competitors in "accessible luxury handbags." That regulatory framing tells you exactly who the shopper is cross-shopping.
And the divergence between those competitors is the whole point. In the most recent reported period, Coach grew about 10% while Michael Kors, under Capri Holdings, declined roughly 16%. Same category, same price tier, opposite trajectories. Part of that is brand heat, which is hard to model. But a big part is channel. Tapestry as a group sells approximately 86% of its net sales direct to consumer, through its own stores and site, versus a more wholesale-dependent mix at Capri.
Note: FY2024 and FY2025 brand revenue splits are from reported 10-K filings. FY2022 and FY2023 brand-level splits are derived from earnings-release growth-rate commentary and should be read as estimates.
That channel point deserves a beat, because it is the most portable lesson here. One operator I worked with put it bluntly: with beauty you can pull off 80 or 85 points of gross margin, but with apparel, by the time you have run it through wholesale, you are at 50 at best. Coach lands north of 75% group gross margin not because handbags are magically higher-margin than apparel, but because it keeps the sale direct and captures the wholesale spread itself. That is a positioning and channel-mix decision, not a category inevitability, and it is available to a $10M brand that decides to protect its full-price DTC channel. We saw the same full-price-DTC lever at work in our Ralph Lauren teardown, where pulling back on wholesale markdowns did more for margin than any single cost cut.
What this means if you run a multi-line or multi-brand business
Translate the Tapestry numbers into your own P&L and three moves fall out.
First, track contribution margin by line or brand separately, every month, and never let a blended number be the only thing you look at. Tapestry's 75.4% consolidated gross margin is genuinely good, and it also hides that one brand is carrying two. If your reporting only shows the company average, you cannot see which product is subsidizing which, and you cannot act until it is already a problem. The operators who catch this early are the ones who set up per-line contribution reporting before they think they need it.
Second, assume overhead scales with complexity, not with revenue. A second brand is not just a second product catalog. It is a second marketing motion, a second ops cadence, a second set of vendors and systems and people. Tapestry's SG&A climbed to 57.3% of revenue while two of its three brands shrank, and that is with a world-class operating team. If you are adding a line, budget the full cost stack, not the optimistic version where the new brand shares everything for free.
Third, price any acquisition or new-brand bet on the economics you can verify, not the story you want to tell. Ask the Stuart Weitzman question up front: is this a self-funding business, or a name I will be subsidizing out of my hero's margin for years? If it is the second, you had better be certain the hero can carry it, because that is what you are actually signing up for.
The uncomfortable truth in the Tapestry numbers is that a beautiful blended margin can be one brand's fiction. Coach at roughly 80% of revenue and more than 100% of consolidated GAAP operating income is not a diversified portfolio. It is a great business wearing a portfolio costume, paying for two cost centers it inherited. Before you fund your second brand, make sure your first one actually wants a roommate.
Related reading. For another look at how a accessible-luxury brand runs the same P&L math, see the Canada Goose teardown and the Movado teardown. For how we help brands model margin and cash, see our fractional CFO work.
Sources and methodology
Consolidated financials are pulled straight from SEC filings. Revenue, gross profit, operating income, SG&A, net income, and diluted EPS for FY2021 through FY2025 come from Tapestry's XBRL company-facts data on SEC EDGAR (CIK 1116132). These are the authoritative figures used throughout, including the 69.6%-to-75.4% gross margin arc and the 17.6%-to-5.9% GAAP operating margin move. See the SEC EDGAR filing index for Tapestry.
Brand-segment revenue and margins come from the FY2025 annual report. Coach, Kate Spade, and Stuart Weitzman revenue splits and segment operating income figures are from Tapestry's FY2025 Form 10-K Note 17 (segment information) and the Q4 FY2025 earnings release for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2025. These are reported GAAP segment figures; non-GAAP figures exclude the $854.8M Kate Spade impairment per Tapestry's own non-GAAP reconciliation table.
The Stuart Weitzman divestiture figures are from the acquirer's disclosure. The $120.2M sale price and August 2025 close are documented in the Caleres announcement of the completed acquisition. The roughly $574M 2015 purchase price is from contemporaneous financial press; the $23.7M in FY2025 divestiture-related charges is from Tapestry's own disclosures.
The competitive framing comes from the FTC. The definition of Coach, Kate Spade, and Michael Kors as the three accessible-luxury handbag competitors, and the $8.5B deal value, are from the FTC press release announcing the move to block the Tapestry-Capri merger. Michael Kors and Coach growth-rate comparisons are drawn from the two companies' most recent reported quarterly results.
Operator context is anonymized. The contribution-margin and channel-mix observations reflect patterns from our own advisory work with consumer brands, with all identifying details removed. No client is named, and the figures cited are illustrative of the pattern rather than tied to any single company.
Frequently asked questions
what is tapestry's operating margin for coach vs kate spade vs stuart weitzman?
In FY2025 Coach posted a ~33.5% GAAP segment operating margin ($1,875.3M on $5,598.5M revenue) per 10-K Note 17. Kate Spade recorded a $(769.2)M GAAP segment operating loss ((64.3)% margin), driven by an $854.8M brand-intangible and goodwill impairment; excluding that charge, Kate Spade's non-GAAP segment margin was approximately 7.6%. Stuart Weitzman posted a $(15.4)M GAAP operating loss. Consolidated GAAP operating margin was 5.9%, held down by these charges, while non-GAAP was about 20%.
why did tapestry sell stuart weitzman and how much did they lose on it?
Tapestry bought Stuart Weitzman for roughly $574M in 2015 and sold it to Caleres for $120.2M in August 2025, about $450M below the purchase price. Revenue had fallen from a peak near $345M to $215M in FY2025 even as the store count grew. The brand was consuming overhead without funding itself.
how did tapestry go from 17% operating margin in 2022 to 5.9% in 2025 if revenue grew?
Revenue did grow, to $7.0B. The GAAP operating margin drop is driven chiefly by a $854.8M Kate Spade brand-intangible and goodwill impairment (per 10-K Note 17) plus $23.7M in Stuart Weitzman divestiture charges. Strip those out and non-GAAP operating margin stayed near 20%. The structural pressure underneath is SG&A, which rose from 52.0% to 57.3% of revenue.
what's the difference between gaap and non-gaap operating income at tapestry?
GAAP includes one-time impairment and divestiture charges. Non-GAAP removes them to show the underlying run rate. In FY2025 the gap was huge: 5.9% GAAP vs about 20% non-GAAP operating margin. For an operator the honest read is somewhere in between. The charges are real cash-adjacent decisions even when the accounting calls them non-recurring.
what does it mean when one brand carries the whole portfolio?
It means your blended margin is a weighted average dominated by one line. At Tapestry, Coach at roughly 80% of revenue and an estimated 100%-plus of segment operating income masks two brands that would lose money on their own. If the hero stumbles, there is nothing underneath to catch the fall.
what can a $5m to $50m brand actually learn from tapestry?
Three things. Track contribution margin by line, not just a blended number. Assume overhead scales with complexity, not revenue, so a second brand means a second full cost stack. And price any acquisition on the economics you can verify, not on the name recognition you are excited about.
how does coach's margin compare to michael kors and capri?
In its most recent reported period Coach grew about 10% while Michael Kors (Capri Holdings) declined roughly 16%. The FTC named Coach, Kate Spade, and Michael Kors as the three head-to-head accessible-luxury handbag competitors when it blocked the proposed Tapestry-Capri merger. The divergence is largely a channel and brand-heat story.
why is tapestry's gross margin closer to beauty than to apparel?
Because approximately 86% of Tapestry's group net sales are direct to consumer, not wholesale. Selling your own product at full price through your own stores and site captures the wholesale margin you would otherwise give away. That group-level channel mix, more than the handbag category itself, is what puts consolidated gross margin above 75%.