IBJNews

Finish Line reports rise in quarterly earnings, sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Athletic shoe and clothing retailer The Finish Line Inc. said Thursday that its fourth-quarter profit rose 12 percent, with strong sales at established stores.

Chairman and CEO Glenn Lyon said sales per square foot were "well below our historical highs," indicating room to grow.

The Indianapolis-based company reported net income of $34.3 million, or 63 cents per share, in the fiscal quarter that ended Feb. 26. That compared with $30.6 million, or 55 cents per share, a year earlier.

The Finish Line said that excluding a charge for writing down the value of stores, it would have earned 65 cents per share.

Revenue rose 2.7 percent, to $384.6 million.

Analysts expected the company to earn 65 cents per share on revenue of $376.2 million.

Revenue at stores open at least a year, a key indicator for retailers, rose 4 percent, slowing from a 10-percent jump a year ago. For the first three weeks of the current quarter, Feb. 27 through March 20, the figure rose 10.1 percent, compared with a 15.4-percent increase a year earlier, the company said.

The company said operating margins were 9 percent, near its goal of double-digit margins for the full year.

For the full fiscal year, the company earned $68.8 million on sales of $1.23 billion, compared with $35.7 million on sales of $1.17 billion the previous year.

The Finish Line's shares rose 54 cents, or 3 percent, on Thursday to close at $18.40 each before the company released its results.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT