Torrid Quantifies China Exit as Tariff Refund Uncertainty Spreads
Torrid Holdings disclosed a concrete drop in Chinese sourcing while Oxford Industries and V F Corp flagged new uncertainty over whether tariff refunds owed to them will ever arrive.
Torrid Holdings (CURV) put a number on its retreat from China that few peers matched in specificity: the plus-size apparel retailer said China accounted for roughly 19% of its product receipts in fiscal 2025, falling to approximately 11% as of March 2026. Torrid still called tariffs on imports from its sourcing countries "at least 10 percent," with some countries facing "significantly higher country-specific reciprocal tariffs", but the sourcing-mix figure is the rare instance in this filing window of a company translating a supply-chain pivot into an actual percentage rather than describing diversification in the abstract.
Build-A-Bear Workshop (BBW) told a similar story without the same granularity. The toy retailer said it has "reduced China sourcing by shifting primarily to Vietnam", but added in both its June risk factors and an earlier management discussion that "the latest tariffs implemented by the U.S. continue to have an impact on our cost structure and product margins". That language moved from conditional to present tense between the two filings — the April excerpt framed the impact as something tariffs "would have", while the June filing stated the tariffs "continue to have" that impact, a shift from anticipated to realized cost pressure inside a two-month span.
A second thread centers on tariff refunds, and it surfaced only at companies with the most tariff-exposed apparel supply chains. Oxford Industries (OXM) disclosed "ongoing uncertainty regarding the availability, timing and administration of any refund processes associated with tariffs that have been invalidated or otherwise modified," adding there is "no assurance" any refund would arrive "in amounts or within timeframes that would meaningfully offset the impact of tariffs". V F Corp (VFC), the apparel and footwear holding company behind brands including Vans and The North Face, separately disclosed that "the timing of any tariff refunds that are legally owed to VF is uncertain as it is subject to the establishment of processes and systems by the U.S. government". Both companies grounded the same underlying condition — money owed but not yet flowing — in their own words, without referencing each other, which suggests the refund-timing gap has become a live balance-sheet question across companies whose tariffs were later altered or struck down.
Retaliation risk also carried into 2026 filings, though few companies pointed to specific retaliatory measures already taken. V F Corp said tariff changes "have in the past triggered, are currently triggering and could continue to trigger retaliatory actions by affected countries," and noted that "certain foreign governments have instituted, considered or are considering imposing retaliatory measures on certain U.S. goods". Kohl's (KSS) and Torrid used comparable conditional language about retaliatory measures raising costs or disrupting supply, but neither cited a specific retaliatory tariff already in effect against their own goods.
Kohl's disclosure is notable less for its content than for its appearance. Its June 10-Q stated there had been "no significant changes" to the risk factors in its prior annual report "except as follows," then added a new passage: "changes in global trade policies and the imposition of tariffs could increase our costs and disrupt our supply chain", paired elsewhere with a warning that if the department-store chain cannot "divert production or sourcing away from specific countries to avoid tariffs," its gross margins and competitive position could suffer. That a large apparel retailer felt the need to add tariff language as an explicit exception to an otherwise unchanged risk-factor section marks a hardening of disclosure practice, even without a change in the substance of the risk described.
Outside retail, the tariff narrative reads differently. SITime (SITM), a maker of precision timing semiconductors, filed near-identical tariff risk language in May and again in August, warning that "reputational harm" could follow if tariff-driven price increases are "poorly received by customers" and that trade tensions could cause customers to face "decreased demand for our products or extended sales cycles as customers assess the impact of evolving trade policies on their operations". The repetition without material revision points to a risk factor still treated as standing exposure rather than a live, quantifiable cost. Flex (FLEX), the electronics manufacturer, took a more assertive posture, stating plainly that tariffs and trade restrictions "have in the past adversely affected" its results and specifying that "throughout 2025 and into 2026, the U.S. administration imposed various" trade measures against which it is now measuring impact. Standard Biotools (LAB) kept its disclosure at the macro level, warning that tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico and the "possible countermeasures by these countries could increase costs, disrupt the global supply chain, and create additional operational challenges", without describing any operational response.
Daktronics (DAKT), the sign and display manufacturer, disclosed one of the more specific competitive concerns in the window: rivals may benefit from "near-shoring or alternative supply chain structures" or qualify for "tariff exemptions or more favorable trade treatment that are not available to us", a competitive-disadvantage framing not matched elsewhere in the excerpts. American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) tied tariff cost pressure directly to potential reputational harm if the retailer cannot deliver products on expected timelines because of supply-chain disruption, echoing SITime's language almost verbatim despite operating in an unrelated industry.
The common thread running through the disclosures with the most operational detail — Torrid's sourcing-mix shift, Oxford and V F Corp's refund uncertainty, and Kohl's newly added risk language — is that tariff exposure is shifting from a hypothetical cost to a set of specific, sometimes financial, unresolved questions. Whether those refunds materialize, and whether sourcing shifts like Torrid's continue past the 11% mark, are the disclosures most likely to move again before the companies' next filings.