Target Corporation TGT
The three reasons
- 1
Target board lacks senior operating experience in retail, credit cards, and real estate
- 2
Board mishandled credit card transaction and refused to explore real estate alternatives
- 3
Governance is insular: interlocking directorships, 9-year tenure, no shareholder representation
Primary demands
- Elect Pershing Square's five 'Nominees for Shareholder Choice' to Target's board
- Authorize a full review of real estate ownership alternatives (including TIP REIT spin-off)
- Transfer credit risk out of the credit card business
- Adopt a universal proxy card and improve board nominating process
- Add directors with senior operating experience in retail, credit cards, and real estate
KPIs cited
Pattern membership
Where this document fits across the library's 12 rhetorical / structural patterns.
Notable slides (8)
Notes
Proxy-fight deck for 2009 Target annual meeting; follows Pershing's October 2008 'A TIP for Target Shareholders' initial thesis. The argument is almost entirely about board composition/governance rather than valuation — three-pillar structure (Composition / Strategic Mistakes / Governance) organizes the whole deck. Notable rhetorical patterns: (1) 'Target's misleading stance vs The ACTUAL FACTS' two-column rebuttal slides, (2) category-by-category 'NO experience' callouts for Target board vs Wal-Mart board, (3) Wal-Mart as peer-gap foil on stock, SSS, EPS, and margins, (4) villain-naming of Sanger over Wells Fargo conflict. Campaign was ultimately lost — shareholders narrowly elected incumbent slate in May 2009.