Roots Announces Details of its Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2024 Results Conference Call
About Roots
Established in 1973, Roots is a global lifestyle brand. Starting from a small cabin in northern Canada, Roots has become a global brand with over 100 corporate retail stores in Canada, two stores in the United States, and an eCommerce platform, roots.com. We have more than 100 partner-operated stores in Asia, and we also operate a dedicated Roots-branded storefront on Tmall.com in China. We design, market, and sell a broad selection of products in different departments, including women's men's, children's, and gender-free apparel, leather goods, footwear, and accessories. Our products are built with uncompromising comfort, quality, and style that allows you to feel At Home With Nature™. We offer products designed to meet life's everyday adventures and provide you with the versatility to live your life to the fullest. We also wholesale through business-to-business channels and license the brand to a select group of licensees selling products to major retailers. Roots Corporation is a Canadian corporation doing business as 'Roots' and 'Roots Canada'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
37 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Politicians overstating benefits of scrapping internal trade barriers: think tank
OTTAWA – A new report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is dismissing moves by the federal government and Canada's premiers to break down internal trade barriers as little more than 'political theatre.' It lands just ahead of the country's internal trade ministers meeting in Quebec City this week, where they are expected to talk about their next steps as they rush to remove rules hampering cross-provincial trade. Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed throughout the spring election to forge 'one Canadian economy' with the premiers by eliminating internal barriers to trade and labour mobility in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs. Internal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has pointed to studies that say internal trade barriers amount to a seven per cent tariff that Canada imposes on itself, and that removing them could boost the economy by up to $200 billion. But the left-leaning think tank's report released this morning reviews the steps taken by Ottawa and the provinces to remove red tape and argues they will do little to mitigate the tariff threat or significantly boost the economy. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. The study authors say federal and provincial politicians have only been able to point to a handful of examples where getting rid of overlapping regulations could have an impact. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 7, 2025.
Winnipeg Free Press
41 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Elbows up, even when you're holding a book
Opinion Taylor Swift recently made headlines when she purchased back her musical catalogue, after re-recording masters that shot to the top of the Billboard charts. Swifties collectively understand that ownership equals control, and that to be in a position of not having control over your work is somehow sad, and merits economic allyship. These headlines about the popstar coincided with anxieties about 'ownership' north of the border, too, as U.S. President Donald Trump began threatening annexation with his '51st state' comments. 'Canada is not for sale,' declared Prime Minister Mark Carney in a visit to the White House. Canadian book buyers who happily hem and haw over labels at the grocery store seem blissfully unaware of the elephant in the room— that 95 per cent of the Canadian book market is already controlled by foreign-owned multinational publishers. Russell Wangersky / Free Press Trying to keep from buying American products? Consider who is publishing the books you're reading. Mark Carney's Values was published by the Canadian branch of Penguin Random House (headquartered in New York City, themselves a holding of German-owned Bertelsmann), so was Wab Kinew's memoir, The Reason You Walk. I don't blame the authors. Multinational publishing houses offer them a megaphone that amplifies their work a thousandfold. For the biggest names, the most BookTok-worthy titles, and the lucky few who are published by the branch plants, their advances (money offered upon signing a contract, before a book is published) far exceed what Canadian independent publishers can offer. Books published by The Big Five (Penguin Random House, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette and Macmillan) are regular fixtures on awards and bestseller lists, so my quarrel isn't with the books themselves, or with their authors, or even with the people who work on those books in the glass towers of Toronto offices. It's with those Five's complete and utter dominance of the publishing industry. Roughly 115 independent English-language publishers operate in Canada. According to the BookNet report The State of Publishing in Canada 2023, Canadian companies published an average of 35 books in 2023, while multinationals published an average of 752 books — a few token Canadian-authored titles, and a veritable firehose of books authored elsewhere, distributed into Canada, and marketed with budgets that far exceed those of their Canadian-owned and operated 'competitors.' So why, when branch plants exist, are indies important at all? Indies push the envelope. As an industry, we have a collective track record of recognizing cultural and historic value before multinationals recognize the commercial potential of the same authors/topics. Debut authors are risky, while those with an existing platform represent a surer return on investment. University of Manitoba Press published John Milloy's A National Crime in 1999 — years before truth and reconciliation became part of the national discourse. Even working at a small university press, I've seen agents and editors browsing our digital review copies and buying from our website. I met a Big Five editor recently who came to our booth at a conference book fair, no doubt scoping out the university presses to see if any titles held trade-crossover appeal. I don't doubt the intentions of the editors and publishers working for the branch plants. They're doing good work. But at some point, the further up the chain you go, somebody's (likely New York-based) boss cares more about shareholders than readers. In the book business, which teeters on razor-thin margins, and in a country where the total population is roughly the size of a single U.S. state (California) — that's a dangerous problem. To be a branch is to be vulnerable. As any arborist will tell you, you don't make cuts from the trunk. To be sure, fears over foreign ownership are long-lived and perhaps easy to dismiss as nationalistic pearl clutching, but I question whether the C-suite has any sort of genuine concern for the cultural value of stories from Canada. Valuations are more central to their philosophies. The Big Five all have far-right imprints under their domain, suggesting that the corporate powers-that-be are equal opportunists when it comes to ideology. Just look at the websites of imprints Forum, Signal or Broadside Books: their author lists read like a veritable who's-who of American conservatism. If book buyers seek out a Canadian-authored book published by a branch plant — in the same spirit of 'sticking it to the man,' that one might select a Canadian alternative to Cheez-Its — I'm afraid they are putting their loonies far closer to the regime most of us are trying to resist than if they had indulged their cravings at the grocery store. I spent much of my 20s working in the Toronto office of an American-owned multinational education publisher. During my years of service, I watched that company shrink as subsequent restructurings designed to 'optimize' and 'introduce efficiency' shuttered first the warehouse, then the trade division, then accounting, then the Higher Ed Division's Canadian editorial department, and eventually closed the office leaving a handful of sales reps scattered across the country, whose job is now mostly to sell American textbooks to Canadian students. Talk to anyone at a multinational publisher — education or otherwise — you'd be hard pressed to find a branch plant that hasn't been restructured in the last decade. The once venerable bastion of Canadian literature, McClelland and Stewart — copyright holders of the works of Margaret Atwood, Leonard Cohen, Michael Ondaatje and Mordecai Richler (to name but a few) is now an imprint of Penguin Random House. They continue their rich tradition of publishing great Canadian writers, but they're doing so in much smaller numbers than they once did. Weekday Mornings A quick glance at the news for the upcoming day. Where once they published a list of more than 100 books per year and were leaders in publishing new Canadian voices, their fall catalogue boasts 17 currently announced Canadian-authored titles — nine of which are by Margaret Atwood. For the C-suite, valuations proceed values — and they always will. That imprint recently announced an exciting forthcoming title Elbows Up, ostensibly a collection of reflections about Canadian sovereignty from a collection of well-known Canadians (including Margaret Atwood — so make that 10/17). The irony of a multinational publisher issuing this work was lost on all who excitedly commented on the social media announcement, pledging their Canadian pride and promising to order a copy. Canadians do not own the bulk of their cultural output. Our stories are not our own. To be sure, the Big Five are unlikely to exit the Canadian marketplace any time soon. Their books (Canadian-authored and otherwise) will continue to dominate Indigo shelves, media coverage and bestseller lists. Indie publishers will continue to do the important work of lifting debut and midlist authors, and doing so in a marketplace that does them no favours. But if mention of the 51st state churns your stomach enough that you make choices at the grocery or liquor store, consider adding an independently published book to your summer reading list. Stephanie Paddey is the sales and marketing supervisor at University of Manitoba Press.
The Market Online
3 hours ago
- The Market Online
The 5-Minute Investor Podcast, Ep. 18: Theatre stocks post-COVID - recovery, or just for show?
This content has been prepared in collaboration with Cineplex Inc. and AMC Entertainment Holdings, third-party issuers, and is intended for informational purposes only. As the world gradually reclaims its pre-pandemic rhythms, the cinema industry—once among the hardest hit—has begun to flicker back to life. For investors, this resurgence presents a compelling opportunity to reassess the prospects of two of North America's most prominent theatre chains: Cineplex Inc. (TSX:CGX)in Canada and AMC Entertainment Holdings (NYSE:AMC) in the United States. Cineplex: A Canadian comeback story? Cineplex, Canada's largest movie theatre operator, has shown notable signs of recovery since the pandemic's peak. In its Q4 2024 earnings, Cineplex reported: Revenue of C$362.7 million , up 15 per cent year-over-year , up 15 per cent year-over-year Earnings per share (EPS) of $0.05, a significant turnaround from a loss of -$0.14 the year prior of $0.05, a significant turnaround from a loss of -$0.14 the year prior Box office revenue per patron rose to C$13.26, while concession revenue per patron increased to C$9.41 Fast-forward to Q2 2025, the theatre chain recently reported nearly 170 per cent growth compared to last year's Q2. Attendance has steadily improved, with January 2025 box office revenue nearly matching that of January 2024, signaling a stabilization in consumer demand. Cineplex stock has responded positively. Cineplex is also diversifying. Its location-based entertainment segment and Scene+ loyalty program are helping to drive engagement beyond traditional moviegoing. A recent refinancing initiative aims to extend debt maturities and reduce equity dilution risk, setting the stage for potential dividend reinstatement. Cinepelx stock (TSX:CGX) has fallen 5.6 per cent since the year began but is up 36.54 per cent since this time last year, last trading at C$11.51. AMC Entertainment: From meme stock to market resilience AMC, the world's largest cinema chain, has had a rollercoaster ride since 2020. After surviving the pandemic with the help of retail investors during the 'meme stock' frenzy, AMC has focused on operational efficiency and strategic closures. In Q3 2023, AMC posted its best quarterly earnings in its 103-year history, driven by the massive success of films like Barbie and Oppenheimer , which grossed a combined US$2.3 billion globally. Key highlights include: Revenue of $1.4 billion , up over 45 per cent year-over-year , up over 45 per cent year-over-year Closure of 156 underperforming locations, offset by 57 new openings Rent renegotiations yielding tens of millions in annual savings Despite these gains, AMC still carries a deferred rent balance of $74.2 million and a significant debt load. However, its leaner operations and improved cash reserves suggest a more sustainable path forward. More recently, AMC's Q1 2025 numbers had total revenues of US$862.5 million compared to US$951.4 million for Q1 2024, coupled with a net loss of US$202.1 million compared to net loss of US$163.5 million in Q1 2024. CEO Adam Aron blamed it on the poor performance of the box office at large from January to March this year, which he called 'the lowest it has been since 1996' in a media release. He went on to explain, 'If that level of activity were to continue, of course it would be highly problematic for movie theatres. But to the contrary, since April 1, movie theatre demand has been booming AMC stock (NYSE:AMC) has fallen 25.88 per cent since the year began and is down 41.35 per cent since this time last year. It has seen some growth in the past three months, rising 11.74 per cent since May. AMC last traded at US$2.95 (C$ 4.01). The investment angle: A slow but steady return to the big screen Both Cineplex and AMC are navigating a transformed entertainment landscape. While streaming remains a formidable competitor, the enduring appeal of the theatrical experience—especially for blockbuster releases—continues to draw audiences back. Cineplex offers a more traditional recovery play with a focus on operational diversification and financial restructuring. AMC, on the other hand, presents a higher-risk, higher-reward scenario, buoyed by its brand recognition and aggressive cost-cutting. The cinema industry's revival is far from complete, but the trajectory is promising. As attendance rebounds and studios ramp up content pipelines, both Cineplex and AMC are working out a way to benefit. Investors should dig deeper—analyzing debt levels, content slates, and evolving consumer behavior—to determine which stock best fits their portfolio. Whether you're drawn to Cineplex's steady Canadian comeback or AMC's bold American reinvention, the curtain is rising on a new act in theatrical investing. Here's a list of past episodes: Thanks for listening! The 5-Minute Investor is on Spotify, YouTube, iHeartRadio, Podbean, Stockhouse or wherever finer podcasts are found. Join the discussion: Find out what investors are saying about The 5-Minute Investor Podcast and this week's stocks in focus on the Cineplex and AMC Bullboards, and make sure to check out the rest of Stockhouse's stock forums and message boards. Stockhouse does not provide investment advice or recommendations. All investment decisions should be made based on your own research and consultation with a registered investment professional. The issuer is solely responsible for the accuracy of the information contained herein .
