The moment an analyst raises a price target on a company that many had quietly written off has an almost theatrical quality. Michael Baker of D.A. Davidson did just that on March 9, 2026, raising his Target Corporation price target from $120 to $140 while maintaining his Buy rating. Although it didn’t come as a huge surprise to everyone on Wall Street, it had a significant impact. For the better part of two years, Target has been plagued by a question that has involved more than just numbers. It has been about faith.
Baker’s new goal is based on a fairly simple valuation framework: sixteen times D.A. Davidson’s projected earnings per share for 2027. According to the firm, this multiple is defensible rather than speculative because it falls comfortably within Target’s five-year and ten-year average valuation ranges.
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Company Name | Target Corporation |
| Stock Ticker | NYSE: TGT |
| Headquarters | Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA |
| CEO | Michael Fiddelke (also former CFO) |
| Industry | Big-Box Retail |
| Founded | 1902 (as Dayton Dry Goods Company) |
| Analyst (Referenced) | Michael Baker, D.A. Davidson |
| Previous Price Target | $120 |
| Revised Price Target | $140 |
| Rating | Buy (Maintained) |
| Target Multiple Used | 16x 2027 EPS Forecast |
| Date of Analyst Call | March 9, 2026 |
| Reference Website | Target Corporation Investor Relations |
To put it another way, Baker isn’t requesting that investors factor in a miracle. He is requesting that they acknowledge Target’s return to something that is similar to its own historical norm. That is a more nuanced but, in some respects, more convincing argument.
The background is what adds interest to the timing. Target hosted a financial community meeting on March 3, 2026, just days before the price target revision. It was one of those meticulously planned investor days where executives give presentations, answer questions, and attempt to maintain composure in the face of skepticism. In that room, Baker did more than simply nod in agreement.
He put direct pressure on management, questioning why the turnaround push was taking place at this time, considering that the majority of the leadership team had overseen the company’s recent difficulties. It was the kind of question that slices through well-crafted presentations. Actually, the kind of question a journalist might pose.
Michael Fiddelke, CEO, gave a calm but direct response. Depending on your personality, his admission that management had taken a hard, honest look at what wasn’t working may sound like a well-rehearsed talking point or true self-awareness. Additionally, he pointed out that during the previous 18 months, over half of Target’s leadership team had either joined the company completely or taken on new roles. If true in reality rather than just on an organizational chart, that is a significant assertion.
For those who don’t know, Target is a big-box store in Minneapolis that offers everything from groceries and household necessities to clothing and cosmetics. It has been a mainstay of American shopping for decades, a slightly more aspirational version of Walmart, where customers come in for a single item and leave with a full cart.
However, this cultural affinity did not shield it from the forces that have transformed retail in general: changing consumer behavior, margin compression, inventory errors, and the unrelenting growth of digital commerce. Target wasn’t killed by Amazon, but the narrative was greatly complicated.
As this develops, it seems that Target’s e-commerce push is more of a long-overdue recalibration than a reinvention. For years, the company has pursued digital goals, such as same-day delivery, drive-up services, and app integrations; some of those investments have actually paid off.
However, it is more difficult to manage physical store performance and execute consistently, quarter after quarter, than investor presentations suggest. There’s a chance that Fiddelke’s updated leadership bench will significantly alter the internal culture. The actual test might still be months away.
In a sense, Baker’s readiness to increase the goal after putting a lot of pressure on management is a signal. Open skepticism isn’t always rewarded with improved numbers by analysts. It appears that whatever Fiddelke and his team said in the meeting had some credibility because he left the March 3 meeting feeling more confident rather than less. It’s another matter entirely whether the larger market comes to the same conclusion. Retail sentiment can change quickly, and Target’s stock has been erratic.
It’s difficult to ignore the fact that Target is negotiating this situation against a more general backdrop of consumer spending uncertainty. Uneven inflation has occurred, some demographics’ discretionary spending has decreased, and online and off-price retailers continue to put constant pressure on businesses. That hasn’t vanished. However, Baker’s call suggests that Target’s valuation may have overcorrected, with the market discounting the company as though the worst-case scenario was already certain, even though the reality is more ambiguous and messy.
The $140 price target does not imply that Target has solved every problem. It’s more akin to a claim that the new leadership energy, regardless of how one evaluates it, merits at least a fair hearing, that the discount was excessive, and that the fundamentals at a 16x multiple are reasonable. Only the upcoming earnings reports will reveal whether this is the start of Target’s true e-commerce renaissance or just a fleeting moment of analyst optimism. As of right now, the number is on the board, and the company is under more pressure to defend it.
