Bridgford: Fiscal Q2 Earnings Snapshot
DALLAS (AP) — DALLAS (AP) — Bridgford Foods Corp. (BRID) on Monday reported a loss of $3.9 million in its fiscal second quarter.
The Dallas-based company said it had a loss of 43 cents per share.
The frozen and snack foods company posted revenue of $50.6 million in the period.
Bridgford shares have dropped 25% since the beginning of the year. In the final minutes of trading on Monday, shares hit $8.05, a decline of 20% in the last 12 months.
_____
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Why the Democratic NYC mayoral candidates have housing all wrong
The Democratic primary candidates for mayor all agree: the city faces a housing cost crisis. Brad Lander says it requires declaring a 'state of emergency.' Andrew Cuomo fears losing the 'soul of our city.' Scott Stringer insists 'the housing system is broken.' Unfortunately, the solutions which they — and especially Queens Assembly member Zohran Mamdani — offer will only make matters worse. They're ignoring the financial distress of private residential property owners, many operating at a loss, which could lead them simply to walk away from their buildings and bring New York back to the 1970s days of 'the Bronx is burning.' 6 Democratic mayoral candidates Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani (second from right) present arguments as Whitney Tilson and Michael Blake look on during a Democratic mayoral primary debate this past week. AP What's more, they overlook the damage and high costs of their preferred solution: still more subsidized, rent-regulated 'affordable housing.' By far the most potentially dangerous idea is the centerpiece of the Mamdani campaign: a freeze on all rent-stabilized rents. A rent freeze would be a quick way to drive those struggling small landlords out of business altogether. That's what the city's Rent Guidelines Board, which sets the rents for nearly a million rent-stabilized buildings, heard at its April 10 meeting. They were told by Mark Willis of the Furman Center on Real Estate at NYU that owners of rent-stabilized properties in The Bronx are, on average, losing a stunning $120 per month on every apartment, such that 200,000 units, concentrated in that borough, are under 'severe distress.' Their income has simply not kept up with rising costs — property taxes and utilities, whose prices are definitely not frozen. They've been hit hard, too, by the 2019 state Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act, which limited any rent increases even for building improvements. Yet Mamdani asserts that 'our government works for the landlords.' 6 Brad Lander says NYC housing requires declaring a 'state of emergency.' AP 6 Mayor Eric Adams has recently acknowledged the tension between tenants' costs and building maintenance. Luiz Rampelotto/ZUMA / Ann Korchak, who heads the Small Property Owners of New York, disagrees. 'The costs of everything are rising. We're not in a vacuum. A freeze would crush us. You'd see foreclosures and abandonment.' A squeeze on operating income also decreases the value of a building, and makes banks unwilling to make loans for repairs. It's a vicious downward spiral — that's already left rent-stabilized buildings in bad shape. In its 2023 New York Housing and Vacancy Survey, the Census Bureau found that rent-regulated buildings had higher rates of rodents, leaks, mold, and heating breakdowns than market-rate units. These are the real housing emergencies. Eric Adams has at least acknowledged the tension between tenants' costs and building maintenance. He's defended a potential 1.75 to 4.75% rent increase approved by the RGB as 'protecting the quality of rent stabilized homes as costs continue to rise without overburdening tenants with unreasonable rent increases.' Instead, Democratic Socialist Mamdani proposes to 'unleash the public sector' and build 200,000 new units of public housing — despite the fact that NYCHA has struggled to maintain its existing 177 properties and faces a multi-billion-dollar repair backlog. Nationwide, public housing authorities, including NYCHA, are turning to the private sector to renovate and manage their buildings, not returning to Mamdani's Stalinist housing socialism. The debt financing he'd use would drain city funds from schools, parks, and police. Even less extreme Democrat proposals threaten to perpetuate housing problems. Cuomo, Lander, and Stringer all advocate building hundreds of thousands of costly new 'affordable' units, which, in exchange for property tax abatements, will be rent-stabilized. 6 Mamdani is proposing both a rent 'freeze' and the construction of hundreds of thousands of affordable housing units. Paul Martinka As those units age, they'll face the same revenue problems as older buildings in The Bronx. And they'll distort the city's housing market in a way that locks out talented newcomers the city needs. The proposed units are also costly, at least $500,000 a piece. Per Census data, turnover in rent-regulated units is half that of market-rate units, one of the reasons the city's overall turnover is 46% lower than the national average. 6 New public housing might sound logical, but NYC can barely manage and maintain the 117 existing public housing buildings already in operation. OLGA GINZBURG FOR THE NEW YORK POST That helps explain why the city's vacancy rate is so low and young adults must double and triple up in small apartments while Boomers age in place with empty bedrooms. Then there's 'inclusionary zoning' — a centerpiece of Council Speaker Adrienne Adams' housing policy. It actually drives up rents. Requiring that 20% of units be 'affordable' means that rents must be higher for the market-rate units for construction to make financial sense. 6 Supporters were seen holding signs in Bedford Stuyvesant during Zohran Mamdani's campaign rally. MediaPunch / BACKGRID Smart Democrats are backing what's been dubbed the 'abundance' agenda, which emphasizes the importance of building, not just redistribution. They should realize we need to encourage the construction of any and all housing. More supply will bring down the price of new housing and old, and help to meet demand. That would actually solve the housing crisis. Howard Husock is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Did Mark Cuban Get Rich by ‘Scamming' Other Billionaires?
Mark Cuban has offered business advice to millions of people through his 'Shark Tank' appearances and has a partial stake in the Dallas Mavericks. However, some people — especially on Reddit — questioned his path to wealth, accusing the billionaire of scamming people to achieve his fortune. Cuban's initial riches didn't come from 'Shark Tank' or owning a basketball team. You need a lot of money to have those types of opportunities. The entrepreneur's big payday came in 1999 when Yahoo acquired his internet radio startup for $5.7 billion. Read Next: Check Out: The startup went out of business in just three years, but Cuban already made his money. It's regarded as one of the worst internet acquisitions during the dot-com bubble and some people view it as Cuban scamming people on the way to success. Although didn't live up to its price tag, it's hard to call it a scam — below is some important context to keep in mind. Also here's more on how Cuban became a billionaire. Cuban knew that his startup and most of the dot-com companies were overpriced. That's part of the reason he was eager to sell his company to Yahoo for $5.7 billion. Yahoo was making acquisitions left and right and lost a lot of money on a lot of deals. just happens to be a stand-out that is connected with Cuban. It's similar to when an investor sells a stock before it drops by 80%. It's not a scam, but the investor wanted to part ways with an asset before it lost significant value. Cuban knew this risk and used options to hedge his position in Yahoo stock. He received $1.4 billion in shares that he couldn't sell right away, so he bought Yahoo stock puts and sold calls leading up to the crash. See Next: Furthermore, was only started in 1995, so a $5.7 billion selling price is phenomenal after just two years of work. Financial markets rarely present those types of opportunities and Cuban was quick to pounce on it. It's not like Cuban forced Yahoo to buy his company for $5.7 billion. The company's executives had plenty of time to conduct due diligence and if they rushed the process, then that's on them. Not every business investment pans out and doing some due diligence can minimize the chances of making a mistake. Yahoo made several acquisitions during the dot-com bubble. It was a period of great irrationality that hurt many investors, but a few investors made out of that environment with a lot of money, including Cuban. It's well known that Yahoo executives also had the opportunity to buy Google for $1 million in 1998 but turned it down. They also had another chance to acquire Google for $5 billion in 2002. You can't miss out on more money than Yahoo did, even if you tried. The same management team that refused to buy Google at $5 billion in 2022 gave Cuban and his team $5.7 billion to acquire It's hard to call Cuban a scammer when the executives didn't do sufficient due diligence. There's nothing wrong with Cuban accepting a favorable deal if a company provided it to him after doing their research. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 7 Luxury SUVs That Will Become Affordable in 2025 I'm a Retired Boomer: 6 Bills I Canceled This Year That Were a Waste of Money This article originally appeared on Did Mark Cuban Get Rich by 'Scamming' Other Billionaires? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
2 hours ago
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
