IBJNews

HHGregg reports smaller profit in fiscal third quarter

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Appliance and electronics retailer HHGregg Inc. on Wednesday reported a decline in fiscal third-quarter earnings due to lower-than-expected profit margins and higher spending on advertising.

For the three months ended Dec. 31, the Indianapolis-based company earned a profit of $22.5 million, or 60 cents per share, compared with $26.9 million, or 66 cents per share, in the same period in 2010.

Revenue increased 26.9 percent, to $829.5 million, thanks in part to the opening of 35 stores within the past year.

HHGregg in mid-January released a preliminary earnings report forecasting the disappointing quarter. Analysts were expecting earnings of 77 cents per share on revenue of $811.8 million.

“While pleased with our overall comparable store sales increase of 3.9 percent and market-share gains during the third fiscal quarter, we were disappointed with the macro trends across the video category,” company President and CEO Dennis May said in a prepared statement.”

Sales at stores open at least a year are a key measure of a retailer’s health because they excludes stores that opened or closed during the year.

The increase in same-store sales was driven by the major appliance and home-office segments, partially offset by a decline in video sales, which includes flat-screen televisions.

For the full fiscal year ending in March, HHGregg now expects earnings of $1.05 to $1.15 per share, down from its earlier outlook of $1.26 to $1.41.

HHGregg operates 208 stores in 16 states.

Company shares opened Wednesday morning at $10.59 each, down nearly 36 percent from as high as $16.45 in early December.
 

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