A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

And now, the main event…

On Friday, Saks Global chairman Richard Baker finally became the C.E.O. of the conglomerate that he willed into existence a year ago after he spun off Hudson’s Bay Company and acquired Neiman Marcus Group with a $2.2 billion junk bond. Marc Metrick, his decades-long deputy, left the role after a decidedly unmagical year defined by floundering relations with brands over an elongated payment schedule, a summertime restructuring, and incessant chatter about the servicing of the company’s debt. Last week, I first reported that Metrick was a goner around the same time that Saks declined to make a $100 million-plus payment on said debt.

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

In many ways, it’s only natural that Baker would take over his creation, despite having little on-the-ground experience. Consolidation, itself, is an ongoing and necessary evil in the department store space—there are too many physical locations, which are too big, and the logistics of the surprise-and-delight business are an endless nuisance, especially as shopping behavior irreversibly changes. And Baker, a retail real estate scion who unsuccessfully tried to own and operate both Lord & Taylor and the now-liquidated Hudson’s Bay Company, created an onerous debt structure that made a Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing a distinct possibility.

It appears the company will file sooner rather than later. My partner Bill Cohan, who presciently reported on the precarious nature of the Saks bonds and the logic of the deal, has noted that Saks Global has a 30-day grace period on its $100 million-plus interest payment. But the company also needs cash for all kinds of other business necessities. In particular, Saks Global urgently needs spring product to fill Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, and Bergdorf Goodman. This weekend, Bloomberg reported that the company is negotiating a $1 billion loan to continue operating during Chapter 11 proceedings. Bondholders have also discussed a debtor-in-possession loan structure combining “at least $750 million in new money and a roll-up of existing debt.” A rep for Saks Global had no comment.

Baker is telling vendors that he has a plan, but the validity of any strategy depends on who takes control of the business after a potential filing. There’s been a lot of speculation that Amazon, which has already sunk $500 million into the project, might step up. Today, WWD reported whispers about some sort of deal with Authentic Brands Group, another partner, which I’d been hearing about for weeks. Given the complex structure of the business and the range of ownership stakes, I expect that Saks’ ownership structure could look pretty complicated on the other side of this.

This matters, of course, because Saks Global is effectively a systemically important institution in this industry. Brands are relying on the company to recoup millions in payments for their product. Will they ever see that cash—and when? During a Chapter 11 filing, vendors typically form a committee to lobby for payment, and those with the greatest leverage come out on top. A lot of small brands might not be repaid, though, and I suspect some that relied on Saks Global to float their business will shut down. This will be painful, but not catastrophic—and, perhaps, a reminder that a lot of these small brands were started by people blessed by generational wealth, and premised on a false model. Perhaps the new leadership of Saks Global, or whatever it becomes, might view this crisis as an opportunity to finally rethink how this whole industry works.

One trickle-down effect could be a reset on pricing. No, I don’t think that $1,300 shoes are going to suddenly cost $900, as many of us believe they should. But the retail pricing of Jonathan Anderson’s Dior, which just hit stores, indicates that the big groups are starting to realize that even the least price-sensitive consumers don’t want to feel like they’ve been taken for a ride. Many of the items in Anderson’s first men’s collection, for instance, have been reduced significantly from the preorder prices. One denim jacket is now €3,000, down from €3,800 on the preorder line sheet. A Dior-branded knit cape is €6,500, down from €12,000 in pre-order. (I reached out to a Dior rep and a rep for LVMH to ask about the changes. They did not respond.)

Of course, discrepancies in initial preorder prices and final retail prices aren’t totally abnormal. In many cases, during the months in between the runway debut and the sales floor debut, a brand will change the materials or the manufacturer. But we also know that prices of most luxury goods are not typically related to the actual costs of raw materials. Anyway, this was intentional, and indicates that Dior is testing the market. Meanwhile, Anderson rolled out a new campaign by David Sims, and I was struck by how pretty everything looks on Dior.com. (As I’ve mentioned, Dior is a pretty brand, and Anderson needs to lean into that on the women’s front.)

I’m not a psychic, but when it comes to what I think will actually sell in large volumes? The strength is once again in the shoes (many of which are around $1,000), bags (the $4,300 bow clutch), and costume jewelry (especially the daisy chain pieces, many of which are around $500). We’ll have to watch this spring to see if fashion insiders buy into the more directional pieces, and if clients are charmed by $1,700 book-cover sweaters.

But even if the new Dior is wildly successful, the lesson may be that these brands do have a size cap. At the beginning of this journey, Anderson’s mandate was to get Dior to €14 billion in annual sales. That will happen naturally along the way, but there’s no point—at least at this point—in rushing it. And that should be the mantra for the entire fashion industry in 2026, as these debut collections hit stores. I know that everyone is desperate for some good news right about now, but over-accelerating is what started this trouble in the first place.

After all that, Horses has closed! Sounds like they might get a new investor? It’s too bad, there really aren’t a lot of places to eat at the bar in Los Angeles. [The Angel]

I loved Marty Supreme, but I also agree with Joyce Carol Oates’s review! [X]

I honestly had never heard of Mirror Palais before I read this article. [N.Y. Times]

Aurora James wrote about why the conversation around whether fur is okay needs to be more nuanced. [Curious]

Remember the editor Luke Crisell, who was famously hired by Hearst to create that doomed Snapchat “brand”? He now exclusively posts pools. [Instagram]

Super fun story with stylist and Prada obsessive Nicoletta Santoro. [Shop Rat]

A great 2000 interview with Jacqueline de Ribes. [The Style Files]

Until tomorrow,
Lauren

P.S.: We use affiliate links because we are a business. We may make a couple bucks off them.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St., New York, NY 10006