TJX Over-Budgeted Its Data Breach Costs Last Year By $30.5 Million

Written by Evan Schuman
February 25th, 2009

Although $19 billion retail chain TJX is suffering from the economy like all other chains, it recently got a $30.5 million financial windfall. How? By having underestimated how well it would do in court against various lawsuits and probes from the credit card industry’s worst-ever data breach. It impacted more than 100 million consumer cards, and some of the data grabbed came from as early as 2003.

According to TJX’s earnings statement issued Wednesday (Feb. 25), the chain had set aside significantly more money than it ended up needing to deal with the 2006 breach, thereby allowing the company to reallocate cash for other purposes and add about $18 million to the year’s net income.

“TJX was not able to reasonably estimate the losses it would incur as a result of the Computer Intrusion until the second quarter of fiscal 2008. Prior to establishing this reserve, TJX expensed the costs related to the Computer Intrusion as incurred,” the TJX earnings statement said. “The provision for Computer Intrusion related costs for the fiscal year ended Jan. 26, 2008, was a pre-tax charge of $197 million, which reduced net income for the fiscal year by $119 million, or $0.25 per share. TJX evaluates its provision for Computer Intrusion related costs on an ongoing basis as result of negotiations, settlement of disputes, insurance recoveries and other matters.”

The statement added that “TJX reduced the provision during the fiscal 2008 fourth quarter by $19 million, which increased net income by $11 million, or $0.02 per share, last year. During the current fiscal year, TJX reduced its provision for Computer Intrusion related costs by $23.5 million in the fourth quarter ended Jan. 31, 2009, and $30.5 million for the full year, increasing fiscal 2009 fourth quarter net income by $14 million, or $0.03 per share, and fiscal 2009 net income by $18 million, or $0.04 per share.”


One Comment | Read TJX Over-Budgeted Its Data Breach Costs Last Year By $30.5 Million

  1. Rob Martell Says:

    Probably because consumers who may have been involved couldn’t show the relationship for a claim, or were intimidated by the paperwork needed, as well as the resolution being a one-off shopping day to buy more stuff?

    How do they get away with this?



StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.