Lululemon offered a weak 2026 outlook on Tuesday as tariffs, higher expenses and a dramatic proxy battle with its founder weigh on its bottom line. 

The athleisure company’s guidance for both the current quarter and the fiscal year came in lower than expected on the top and bottom lines. 

Lululemon is expecting first quarter sales to be between $2.40 billion and $2.43 billion, weaker than estimates of $2.47 billion, according to LSEG. It anticipates earnings per share will range between $1.63 and $1.68, also weaker than estimates of $2.07. 

For the full year, Lululemon is expecting sales to be between $11.35 billion and $11.50 billion, below expectations of $11.52 billion. Earnings guidance of $12.10 to $12.30 per share was also far weaker than estimates of $12.58. 

“The work is really underway in terms of our action plan, and we’re really focused on the importance of course correcting on a number of fronts,” interim co-CEO Meghan Frank told CNBC in an interview. “We’ve got a new creative director, his first line is hitting in Q1, we are seeing some green shoots, I would say, from the product in Q1 so we’re excited about some of the momentum we have on that line item. We have had some great response from some of our recent product activations, and then we’re also reducing our speed to market timeline.”

During Lululemon’s holiday quarter, the company beat estimates on both the top and bottom lines, though Wall Street had lowered its expectations for the period in recent months.

Here’s how the Vancouver-based retailer performed during its fiscal fourth quarter compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

• Earnings per share: $5.01 vs. $4.78 expected
• Revenue: $3.64 billion vs. $3.58 billion expected 

The company’s net income for the three-month period that ended Feb. 1 was $586.9 million, or $5.01 per share, compared with $748.4 million, or $6.14 per share, a year earlier. 

Sales rose slightly to $3.64 billion, up about 1% from $3.61 billion a year earlier.

Lululemon raised its fiscal fourth-quarter guidance during the ICR conference in Orlando earlier this year, so all eyes were on the company’s 2026 guidance following more than a year of underperformance. 

The retailer, always considered a premium brand that rarely offered promotions, had been leaning on discounts to drive sales and move inventory. The company is now working to pull back that strategy this year, Frank said. Lululemon expects the move will weigh on sales in the near term, but it will bring the company back to a full-price business over time, she said. 

Meanwhile, it’s seeing a number of pressures on its bottom line. Higher tariffs and the end of the de minimis exemption continue to be a major cost for the company.

This year, Lululemon expects tariffs to cost the company $380 million, up from $275 million last year, on a gross basis. Once mitigation efforts are taken into account, the net impact is expected to be $220 million in 2026, up from $213 million in 2025. 

Lululemon has been negotiating with suppliers and taking other actions to reduce its exposure to tariffs, but it isn’t increasing prices to offset the added costs, especially as it looked to promotions to drive sales in recent months. The brand was already priced toward the high end of the market prior to President Donald Trump’s tariff hikes last year, leaving it with fewer tools in its arsenal to offset the duties, especially as it faces intense competition and a slowdown in the athleisure market. 

Last year, the company raised prices on a select number of items. Shoppers are still responding favorably so far, but there are no plans to build on those increases for now, said Frank. 

Beyond tariffs, the company is also seeing higher expenses from marketing, labor, incentives and costs related to its proxy contest with founder Chip Wilson. Wilson, Lululemon’s largest independent shareholder, has been pressuring the company to make changes to its board of directors and has criticized it for losing sight of its creative vision.  

Just before releasing earnings, Lululemon announced it was adding former Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh to its board of directors. Bergh was not among the candidates Wilson put forward for consideration, but he does have considerable public company experience and spent around 13 years as Levi’s CEO. During his tenure with the company, Levi began pursuing a more profitable direct selling strategy and sales rose by around 30%.

As part of the announcement, Lululemon said board member David Mussafer, managing partner and chairman of private equity firm Advent, will not stand for re-election during the company’s upcoming 2026 shareholder meeting at the conclusion of his current three-year term. The announcement marks a win for Wilson, who has criticized Mussafer publicly. In a letter to shareholders last month, Wilson pointed out that Mussafer was overseeing the board’s interview process for prospective nominees at a time when he was up for election, creating a potential conflict of interest.

A source familiar with the matter said Wilson had called on Mussafer to step down from the board because he lacks independent leadership, among other issues.

Mussafer didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Prior to the earnings announcement, Wilson issued a statement saying shareholders will be “critically evaluating” any claims of success or improvement from Lululemon when it released results.

“The core issue at lululemon is one the Company has struggled with for years: there is a disconnect between the Company’s creative engine and the Board’s understanding for how brand power and product excellence fuel cultural strength, margin durability and long-term shareholder value,” he said.

Lululemon declined to comment. 

While parts of Lululemon’s business are still growing, it has primarily seen that expansion in China and in other international regions, which make up a fraction of overall revenue. Same-store sales in its largest region, the Americas, haven’t grown in around two years, and Lululemon is expecting another year of declines in 2026. 

The company said it expects sales in the Americas to decline between 1% and 3% in 2026. 

Meanwhile, sales in China are expected to grow around 20%, and the rest of the world by a mid-teens percentage.

Petrol prices are now 10p higher than before the Iran war escalated, and diesel costs have shot up by 20p a litre, according to new figures.

The RAC said prices at the pump were “really starting to hurt drivers” as they continue to rise amid the conflict in the Middle East.

The average price of unleaded petrol at UK forecourts was 142.3p a litre on Tuesday, up 7.1% since February 28.

Average diesel prices had jumped by nearly 14% over the roughly two-week period to 162.1p per litre.

RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: “Petrol has now increased by 10p a litre since the start of the conflict in Iran and diesel by double that.

“This is really starting to hurt drivers who do a lot of miles, and especially for those with diesel vehicles.

“At 162p a litre they’re now paying £11 more than they were at end of February at £89 a tank.

“If oil stays around the 100 dollars a barrel mark, then the price of petrol should not go above 148p a litre.

“The outlook for diesel is worse as it appears to be on a crash course to an average price of 170p.”

Mr Williams said it was “more important than ever” to shop around for prices at different forecourts when people are filling up their cars.

Oil prices – which have a significant effect on the cost of wholesale fuel – have been hovering above 100 dollars a barrel in recent days, having exceeded the mark for the first time since 2022 last week.

Disruption to supply of the commodity because of Iran’s stranglehold on oil tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a key international shipping route, has sent prices soaring.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves told petrol retailers last week they had a “shared obligation” to keep prices down for motorists.

And energy minister Michael Shanks said on Tuesday that the Government “stands ready to provide whatever support is needed to consumers” over energy bills, but asserted that there were “no concerns at all about fuel supply”.