IBJNews

HHGregg reports higher profit, lower same-store sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Soft demand for pricier televisions and appliances led Indianapolis-based HHGregg Inc. to slash its fiscal 2011 outlook on Tuesday after missing quarterly sales estimates.

The company’s profit in its fiscal third quarter increased 18.4 percent from the same period in 2009 due in part to the opening of four new stores.

For the quarter ended Dec. 31, HHGregg earned $26.9 million, or 66 cents per share, compared with $22.7 million, or 57 cents per share, in the 2009 period.

But same-store sales, which reflect revenue from stores open at least a year, fell 6.2 percent. Overall revenue in the quarter increased 30.6 percent, to $653.7 million, missing analysts’ estimates of $654.6 million.

“Through our fourth fiscal quarter to date, we have continued to see challenging top-line results due to industry headwinds along with experiencing the negative effects of inclement weather across our chain during our important Super Bowl selling season,” said Jeremy Aguilar, HHGregg’s chief financial officer, in a prepared statement.

For fiscal 2011, the company now forecasts profit in a range of $1.10 a share to $1.15 a share, down from its previous outlook of $1.15 to $1.23. Same-store sales are expected to fall 4 percent to 5 percent, worse than the prior estimate of 1 percent to 3 percent.

The company still remains on track to open a total of 43 new stores in fiscal 2011.

“We continue to be pleased with our new-store sales productivity and our team’s execution in both new and existing markets,” HHGregg CEO Dennis May said in a statement. “As a result, we remain confident in our ability to continue to gain market share as we enter new markets and move closer to becoming a national retail chain.”

HHGregg operates 174 stores in 15 states.

Company shares opened trading Tuesday morning at $18.67 each. By late morning, they had fallen more than 6 percent, to $17.51.


 
 

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT