UniFirst (UNF) Q2 Earnings Report Preview: What To Look For
UniFirst met analysts' revenue expectations last quarter, reporting revenues of $602.2 million, up 1.9% year on year. It was a strong quarter for the company, with a solid beat of analysts' full-year EPS guidance estimates and an impressive beat of analysts' EPS estimates.
Is UniFirst a buy or sell going into earnings? Read our full analysis here, it's free.
This quarter, analysts are expecting UniFirst's revenue to grow 1.9% year on year to $614.7 million, slowing from the 4.6% increase it recorded in the same quarter last year. Adjusted earnings are expected to come in at $2.09 per share.
Analysts covering the company have generally reconfirmed their estimates over the last 30 days, suggesting they anticipate the business to stay the course heading into earnings. UniFirst has missed Wall Street's revenue estimates twice over the last two years.
Looking at UniFirst's peers in the business services & supplies segment, some have already reported their Q2 results, giving us a hint as to what we can expect. MillerKnoll delivered year-on-year revenue growth of 8.2%, beating analysts' expectations by 5.3%, and Steelcase reported revenues up 7.1%, topping estimates by 2.5%. MillerKnoll traded up 12.2% following the results while Steelcase was also up 2.4%.
Read our full analysis of MillerKnoll's results here and Steelcase's results here.
There has been positive sentiment among investors in the business services & supplies segment, with share prices up 5.3% on average over the last month. UniFirst's stock price was unchanged during the same time and is heading into earnings with an average analyst price target of $181.67 (compared to the current share price of $188.74).
Here at StockStory, we certainly understand the potential of thematic investing. Diverse winners from Microsoft (MSFT) to Alphabet (GOOG), Coca-Cola (KO) to Monster Beverage (MNST) could all have been identified as promising growth stories with a megatrend driving the growth. So, in that spirit, we've identified a relatively under-the-radar profitable growth stock benefiting from the rise of AI, available to you FREE via this link.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
40 minutes ago
- The Verge
Ultra Mobile raised its data caps without a price increase
T-Mobile is bringing some of its Uncarrier energy to Ultra Mobile, the carrier's international-focused MVNO that operates on its network. It announced that its plans now have slightly higher data caps and more international perks, but with the same prices as before for new and existing subscribers — a rare thing to see these days. The plan with the most notable increase in data cap is its $39 per month tier, which jumps from 15GB to 24GB per month. It also includes 5GB of data you can use in Mexico before international data roaming charges kick in. If you're accustomed to churning through a ton of data every month, its $59 per month unlimited (talk, text, and data) plan is stuffed with more goodies. It includes a combined $20 in international calling and data roaming credits, plus 25GB to use as a mobile hotspot (it previously included 20GB). You'll also get 100 minutes to call 'nearly anywhere,' and either 500 texts or 500MB of roaming data to use while traveling abroad before you have to pay extra. Whichever plan is best for your budget, Ultra Mobile stands out from Mint Mobile and Metro (other T-Mobile-owned MVNOs), as well as other major carriers, by offering more perks for people who call and text folks in countries outside the US. In addition to unlimited talk and text to Mexico, Canada, and the UK, Ultra allows free calls to landlines and mobile phones in China, India, Australia, and many other countries. Plus, all of its plans support Wi-Fi calling, which makes it easy to take calls even if local coverage is spotty.
Forbes
41 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Dupe Lawsuits Like LuluLemon's Are Rare—And Hard To Win
Topline Luxury athletic wear brand Lululemon has sued Costco in federal court and accused the big box store of selling products that purposefully rip off some its most popular items for a fraction of the price—the latest lawsuit to come out of an increasingly prevalent 'dupe culture' that has left big-name companies with little recourse against brands that produce copycat products for less. A customer enters a Lululemon store in Corte Madera, California. Getty Images Key Facts In a lawsuit filed in California, Lululemon accused Costco of selling and, in one case, manufacturing knockoffs of its Scuba sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants. The complaint alleged trade dress infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, patent infringement and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, and asks that Lululemon be compensated for the lost profits and "significant harm" done to its brands and reputation. Costco, which did not respond to request for comment from Forbes on Tuesday, could be forced to pay up if Lululemon prevails, but winning a trademark infringement lawsuit over dupe products is a tall order. Dozens of successful brands have sued over the increasing production of dupes in the last several years, but proving a product was copied isn't enough to win—the original producer must also show that the copycat product could actually 'dupe' customers into believing the knockoffs are the real thing. The onus of proving the copycat product actually confused customers and impacted the original manufacturer's business falls on the originating company, New York trademark lawyer Karl Zielaznick told Forbes, and it's very hard to prove: 'Customers often know that they aren't buying a $5,000 watch for $100… They know it's a different, dupe product,' he said. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here. Key Background The prevalence of 'dupe culture' has skyrocketed in the last decade, largely thanks to TikTok, as customers search for and buy products that are cheaper, almost identical versions of high-end items. As opposed to generations before who "may have shopped for knockoffs on the sly," Jennifer Baker of creator management platform Grin told The Guardian, young people are now happy to buy knockoff products and share their finds with the world. TikTok videos with #dupe hashtag have racked up more than 6 billion views, and shoppers can easily find counterfeits for everything from a $600 hair tool to a $40 face wash. Because shoppers are happily and knowingly buying the fake products, nobody is actually being duped into thinking knock-offs are the real thing, Zielaznick explained, which makes it much harder to prove brand confusion. Surprising Fact In December, the e.l.f. Cosmetics company admitted in federal court that it created a mascara product called the Lash 'N Roll specifically meant to mimic the Hook N' Roll brush of Benefit Cosmetics' Roller Lash mascara, which has produced $278 million in revenue from U.S. sales since 2015. E.l.f released its product in 2022, and the two mascaras are packaged and marked similarly. Despite the admission and similarities, a judge ruled that the e.l.f. product did not infringe on the trademark or trade dress of Benefit Cosmetics because it was very unlikely customers would ever actually confuse the two products. To win, Benefit would have had to prove e.l.f. had managed to actually dupe buyers, which the company failed to do. Crucial Quote 'It's not enough to have someone admit they looked at or were inspired by your product,' Zielaznick said. 'You have to be able to prove in some other way that this is harming you. There has to be a true attempt by the dupe manufacturer to deceive, and it's very hard to prove that that intent exists.' What To Watch For The verdict in pending trademark lawsuits. Snack giant Mondelez International has sued grocery chain Aldi over claims the store is mimicking the packaging of cookies like Oreo, Chips Ahoy! and Nutter Butter with the intention of confusing customers. Williams-Sonoma is suing a website called which allows shoppers to search for products that look eerily similar to something they liked online, and American Eagle is suing Amazon over claims it ripped off branding from the Aerie clothing line to confuse online shoppers. Deckers, the parent company of Ugg, is suing Quince for alleged trademark infringement related to a copycat version of its UGG Classic Ultra Mini boots. Further Reading Forbes Do Trademarks Still Matter In 2025? Forbes Earth, Wind & Firing Off: A Cautionary Tale Of Trademark Infringement In The Music Industry Forbes Nike Stole Company's Trademark, Then Tried To Bury It In Legal Bills, Court-Ordered Report Says
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismisses $95M overdraft case vs. Navy Federal Credit Union
NEW YORK (AP) — Navy Federal Credit Union will no longer have to refund $80 million to servicemen and women for illegally charging them overdraft fees on their accounts, after the President Donald Trump-led Consumer Financial Protection Bureau moved to dismiss the case. It's the latest example of how the Trump-led CFPB is undoing much of the work it did under President Biden, even in instances where the bad actors agreed to provide redress and compensation to victims. The case dates from late 2024 and deals with an issue known as 'authorized positive overdraft fees,' which happen when a bank initially approves a debit card transaction but later charges the customer a overdraft fee when that earlier transaction settles, typically a couple of days later, and there's insufficient funds in the customer's bank account. Navy Federal was found to authorize these types of overdraft fees between 2017 and 2022, later stopping the practice and refunding some customers who were impacted. Under its previous settlement, Navy Federal would have needed to pay a $15 million fine to the CFPB and refund $80 million in illegally paid overdraft fees. At the time, Navy Federal said it 'fully cooperated with the CFPB's investigation and we will continue to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, just as we always have and as we believe we did here.' The CFPB gave little reason for withdrawing the consent order. Under Russell Vought, the president's budget director who is also the acting head of the bureau, the bureau has withdrawn roughly half a dozen consent orders and ended other settlements the bureau previously reached with financial services companies. The withdrawn order says that Navy Federal consented to have the order withdrawn. A spokesperson for Navy Federal did not immediately respond to comment on whether the credit union planned to keep refunding its customers, despite no longer having to do so. Navy Federal is, by far, the largest credit union in the country with roughly 14 million members and $180 billion in assets. If Navy Federal were considered a traditional bank, it would be the 24th largest bank in the country by assets.
