Ulta Beauty raises annual profit forecast, posts upbeat quarter on resilient demand
Ulta Beauty raised its annual profit forecast after beating quarterly results on Thursday, as lower inventory losses as well as new launches such as Milk Makeup and K-Beauty skincare brands helped drive demand at its stores.
Shares of the company were up about 8% in trading after the bell.
Cosmetics retailer saw uptick in sales across its stores, especially from younger shoppers willing to spend on trendy and affordable brands such as Elf Beauty.
Ulta Beauty has strengthened customer traffic by introducing celebrity-owned brands, such as Rihanna's Fenty Beauty, along with investments in marketing and digital channels.
The company expects annual profit to be in the range of $22.65 to $23.20 per share, compared with a prior forecast of $22.50 to $22.90 per share.
It posted quarterly sales of $2.85 billion, compared with the analysts' estimate of $2.79 billion, as per data compiled by LSEG.
The company's comparable sales in the quarter ended May 3 rose 2.9% compared to a year ago, driven by a 2.3% increase in average ticket and a 0.6% rise in transactions.
It earned quarterly adjusted profit of $6.70 per share, topping the estimate of $5.81 per share.
Budget-cosmetic brand Elf Beauty posted an upbeat quarter on resilient demand, while luxury firms such as Estee Lauder's business remained pressured due to tariff uncertainty.
The Trump administration's unpredictable tariff shifts have disrupted businesses and shaken consumers worldwide, who are now bracing for an economic recession.
Ulta Beauty expects comparable sales for fiscal 2025 to be in the range of flat to up 1.5%, compared with the prior forecast of flat to up 1%.
"The operating environment is fluid, and our outlook reflects uncertainty around how consumer demand could evolve," said CEO Kecia Steelman.
Lower inventory losses or damages helped Ulta Beauty in countering higher store and supply chain-related costs.
Its quarterly gross profit increased 4.2% to $1.11 billion compared with a year ago.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) -- A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Where the Wild Children's Museums Are During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. Presidential Exception The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. Ideological Split So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' --With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? AI Is Helping Executives Tackle the Dreaded Post-Vacation Inbox ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Trump Questioned Extent Of Musk's DOGE Cuts, Report Says
President Donald Trump questioned the extent of the federal cuts made by billionaire adviser Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, the The Wall Street Journal reported, bringing the savings into doubt as Musk ended his short stint as special government employee this week after making controversial cuts and layoffs within the federal government. DOGE claims it has saved an estimated $175 billion through workforce reductions, grant ... More cancellations, contract cancellations. (Photo by) Trump asked, 'Was it all bull****?' according to unnamed administration officials cited by the Journal on Friday, referring to Musk's vow to cut $1 trillion in government spending. Musk reiterated the promise during an Oval Office press conference with Trump on Friday, saying he was confident DOGE will produce '$1 trillion dollars of waste and fraud reduction' over time. Musk has seemingly pushed back the deadline for the $1 trillion in savings, as the billionaire Tesla chief said in March the ambitious cuts would be completed in roughly two months. Trump's purported doubt came as Musk's time as a special government employee came to an end Friday, though he and the president have maintained he will continue visiting the White House and acting as a friend and adviser. Forbes asked for comment from the White House and Musk, the latter of whom did not respond to the Journal's request for comment Friday. 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. The Musk-led department says it has saved an estimated $175 billion through workforce reductions, grant cancellations, contract cancellations and more. It also claims it has saved $1,086 per taxpayer. DOGE's claims of savings have been rife with inconsistencies and errors, according to multiple reports, suggesting the true savings figures are lower than what the agency has reported. For example, DOGE once claimed it saved $8 billion by cancelling an immigration contract that actually had a value of $8 million. A BBC analysis from April found that only about half of the itemized savings published by DOGE were linked to receipts or other forms of evidence. DOGE lists some receipts as being 'unavailable for legal reasons.' Prior to Trump's election and his time in government, Musk pledged to erase $2 trillion from federal spending—a vow that has since been reduced to $1 trillion. Many of the DOGE-directed cuts have been contested, with federal layoffs in particular seeing challenges in court. Some 216,000 federal employees were laid off in March, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Agencies hit or expected to be targeted by the layoffs include the Department of Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and several others. The firings have been contested in court, going as far as the Supreme Court last month, when the high court blocked a judge's order requiring employees at six federal agencies to be rehired. Inside Trump and Musk's Complicated Relationship (WSJ) How much has Elon Musk's Doge cut from US government spending? (Forbes) Supreme Court Blocks Judge's Order Requiring Employees At Six Federal Agencies To Be Rehired—For Now (Forbes)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
German chancellor to travel to US to meet with Trump
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will travel to Washington next week for his first visit since taking office, where he is scheduled to meet with US President Donald Trump. Source: Politico, a Brussels-based politics and policy news organisation, citing the German government press service, as reported by European Pravda Details: Merz will travel to the US on 4 May for his first visit under the new German government. His meeting with Trump is set for Thursday 5 June, followed by a joint press conference. At the meeting with Trump, they will discuss the Russo-Ukrainian war, the situation in the Middle East and trade issues. Background: Merz has repeatedly engaged in public disputes with the US administration, particularly after criticism from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance regarding the classification of the far-right Alternative for Germany party as right-wing extremist. Merz stressed that neither Germany nor he personally interfered in the US election campaign or supported any candidate, and he expects the same attitude from the American administration. This week, the German chancellor stated that Europe is ready to fight for its fundamental values – freedom and democracy – thus responding to repeated criticism of the EU by the Trump administration and, in particular, Vice President Vance's infamous speech at the Munich Security Conference. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
