US' Revolve Q2 FY25 sales rise 9%, net income dips on one-off charges
The active customers rose 6 per cent to 2.74 million, with total orders placed growing 7 per cent. Despite these operational gains, net income fell 35 per cent to $10 million due to a swing in other income to a $2.9 million expense, higher foreign exchange losses, a $2.4 million non-cash charge from a subsidiary disposal, and an increased effective tax rate of 33.7 per cent.
Revolve Group has reported a 9 per cent YoY rise in Q2 FY25 net sales to $309 million, with strong growth in both Revolve and Fwrd segments. Gross profit rose to $167.1 million, while net income dropped 35 per cent to $10 million. Adjusted EBITDA increased 12 per cent. The company raised its FY25 gross margin outlook and highlighted continued investment in AI, new brands, and retail expansion.
Adjusted EBITDA improved 12 per cent YoY to $22.9 million, reflecting improved fulfilment and distribution efficiency. Diluted EPS dropped to $0.14 from $0.21 in Q2 FY24, Revolve said in a press release.
The international net sales grew 17 per cent to $67.3 million, outpacing the 7 per cent growth in domestic sales. Cash and cash equivalents stood strong at $310.7 million, up 27 per cent YoY, with the company maintaining a debt-free balance sheet. Free cash flow for the quarter was $9.6 million.
In Q2 FY25, the Revolve segment generated net sales of $268.4 million, marking a 9 per cent YoY increase. The Fwrd segment followed with $40.6 million in net sales, up 10 per cent. Domestically, sales reached $241.6 million, a 7 per cent rise, while international sales surged 17 per cent YoY to $67.3 million.
'This is our highest Adjusted EBITDA margin in three years, and our highest operating cash flow for any second quarter in the past four years,' said Mike Karanikolas co-founder and co-CEO at Revolve . 'I am especially proud of the team for delivering the strong second quarter results within such a volatile environment and amidst all the macro uncertainty surrounding tariff policy announcements in early April.'
Looking ahead, Revolve expects gross margin for FY25 between 52.1 to 52.6 per cent—raised from the prior forecast of 50 to 52 per cent—while maintaining guidance for fulfilment, selling, and marketing expenses. The company also noted that July 2025 net sales grew approximately 7 per cent YoY.
Revolve's Q3 FY25 guidance includes a gross margin between 51.2 and 51.7 per cent and G&A expenses of $38.5 million.
'Our ability to deliver profitable growth and market share gains in the second quarter, while at the same time continuing to invest in exciting long-term growth drivers, is a true reflection of the platform we have built, our operating excellence, and the team's ability to execute,' said Michael Mente, co-founder and co-CEO at Revolve . 'Importantly, our healthy cash flow generation gives us the capacity to continue to invest in exciting initiatives such as AI enhancements, developing new owned brands, physical retail exploration, and category expansion that collectively have the potential to accelerate our profitable growth and market share gains for years to come.'
Fibre2Fashion News Desk (SG)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Why India can't afford to jettison its relationship with Russia
US President Donald Trump is using the threat of stiff tariffs to try to peel India away from Russia, as he attempts to boost pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. But decades of close economic, political and military relations between New Delhi and Moscow mean Trump faces a challenge in persuading Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to drop a partnership that has survived great geopolitical turmoil. In recent days, Trump has blasted India for its heavy reliance on Russian oil imports, as well as its longstanding purchases of Russian military equipment. On Wednesday, the president slapped India with an additional tariff of 25% on its exports to the U.S.—doubling the existing 25% duty that went into effect earlier this month—as punishment for its continued purchasing of Russian oil. Despite tariffs that could inflict real damage on the Indian economy, Modi has stood firm in the face of rising American pressure—a sign of how important relations with Russia are for the South Asian giant. India's foreign ministry called the penalty 'unfair, unjustified and unreasonable" and promised that India will 'take all actions necessary to protect its national interest." Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier in the week that 'sovereign countries should have and do have the right to choose their own trading partners." On Friday, Modi wrote on X that he had a 'good and detailed conversation with my friend President Putin." 'I thanked him for sharing the latest developments on Ukraine," the prime minister wrote, adding that the leaders had 'reaffirmed our commitment to further deepen the India-Russia Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership." He said he expected Putin to visit India later this year. Since the Cold War, Russia has been one of India's most constant partners in a relationship anchored by arms deals, economic cooperation and diplomatic support for New Delhi as it faces off with regional rivals China and Pakistan. For its part, Moscow drew close to India after tensions grew in the 1960s between the Soviet Union and Beijing. In the decades that followed, Russia extended more than a billion dollars' worth of loans for the purchase of Russian military and nonmilitary goods. The charm offensive was further sweetened by Russian crude, which Moscow sold to New Delhi in the 1960s at a 10% to 20% discount to prevailing world prices. 'This was all part of the Soviet 'oil offensive,'" said historian Sergey Radchenko, Cold War expert and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Moscow even sent geologists to India to search for oil and, when little was found, the Soviet Union allowed India to purchase Siberian crude with shipments of tea so that New Delhi could conserve its cash reserves, he said. The bonds grew closer after the U.S. backed Pakistan—a bitter rival of India—and imposed a slew of sanctions on New Delhi in 1974 after its first nuclear test and in 1998 when India again tested its nuclear weapons. 'Many Indians still find Russia today, because of the history, a reliable partner," said Harsh V. Pant, head of strategic studies at the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank in New Delhi. 'Many in India believe that America has always been more favorably disposed towards Pakistan." Even Russia's invasion of Ukraine hasn't pushed Modi to repudiate Moscow. India—which has long pursued a strategy of avoiding alignments with other major powers—has stayed neutral on the Ukraine war, abstaining from United Nations votes to condemn the invasion and declining to join successive waves of Western sanctions. Meanwhile, India—a net energy importer with a voracious and growing appetite for energy—benefited from a shift by Western countries away from Russian oil, as well as a price cap that the U.S. and its allies have imposed on the country's crude. Sanctions targeting Russia's oil industry have increased Moscow's reliance on friendly nations such as India. Over the past several years, India has begun buying massive amounts of Russian oil. Last year, India accounted for more than one-third of Russia's oil exports, second only to China at nearly 50%, according to the Observer Research Foundation. Steep discounts have saved Indian refineries $17 billion over the past three years, according to credit-rating firm ICRA. Indeed, India isn't the only Asian country to benefit from Russia's increasing economic isolation. Rival China has likewise bought crude and scooped up assets inside Russia. But a creeping wariness in Moscow of overdependence on Beijing makes Russia's relationship with India all the more important. The cheap oil is critical for a country of 1.4 billion that is growing rapidly. The South Asian nation is the world's fastest-growing consumer of oil, behind only the U.S. and China in total consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Its vast energy needs are met by importing 90% of its crude oil from overseas. Over the past three years, trade between the two countries skyrocketed to $69 billion, a record figure pushed higher by India's purchases of Russian crude. Those imports have allowed New Delhi to sell gasoline at a cheaper rate domestically and resell its oil products abroad at a fatter margin. 'It's not going to be shutting off the Russian tap in the immediate future," said Syed Akbaruddin, former Indian permanent representative to the U.N. and dean of the Kautilya School of Public Policy in Hyderabad. 'There is no way, given the cost differential and the impact on the budget." To be sure, Indian refineries have already started hedging their bets by curbing their purchases in recent weeks, according to data and analytics firm Kpler. Imports of Russian crude oil fell about 500,000 barrels a day in July to a five-month low of 1.6 million. According to the company's analysis, India's private refiners, which process over 50% of imported Russian crude, are expected to boost their imports from other sources including the Middle East and West Africa—but can't cut off Russian oil completely. 'Replacing Russian barrels is no easy feat—logistically daunting, economically painful and geopolitically fraught," Sumit Ritolia, Kpler's lead research analyst in refining and modeling, wrote in a research note. Meanwhile, Trump has also taken aim at India's historic reliance on Russia for military equipment. Although New Delhi has been trying to diversify its suppliers in recent decades, Russian and Soviet-made equipment still makes up over 50% of India's arsenal. New Delhi continues to be a loyal customer of Russian arms. Part of the appeal is Moscow's willingness to share technology and help India manufacture arms domestically. In contrast, under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. signaled its openness to technology transfers, but Washington has dragged its feet on some projects. Last month, the Indian navy commissioned a new stealth frigate purchased from Russia. Two more frigates are being built in India with technical assistance from Russia's Yantar shipyards. In 2018, during Trump's first term, India bucked threats of sanctions from the U.S. to agree to buy five squadrons of Russia's top shelf S-400 air-defense system. Three of those squadrons so far have been delivered—and stationed along India's borders with China and Pakistan. 'It will be many decades before India can actually replace the Russian kit in their inventory, if they can replace it at all," said Ashley J. Tellis, an expert on geopolitics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
‘We'll all be poorer with Donald Trump's tariffs — but he can't halt clean energy'
Gernot Wagner Gernot Wagner is a climate economist at Columbia Business School and faculty director of its Climate Knowledge Initiative. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das at Times Evoke, he discusses Donald Trump 's tariffs — and their implications for the net zero movement: Donald Trump has called the Indian economy 'dead' — how do you analyse that? I take Donald Trump's comment about India being a 'dead economy' about as seriously as anything else he says — the 50% tariffs on India and Brazil are now his latest instance of economic arson. Nobody even knows how long these tariffs will last, how high they'll be in a month, who will get exemptions or why. The tragedy is, Trump holds real power to damage the US — and the global — economy. BLOWING IN THE WIND... Donald Trump dislikes wind turbines, which he considers a blot on the landscape — yet, these are actually far better at preserving nature, a fact many nations accept by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This new air conditioner cools down a room in just seconds News of the Discovery Undo What are the key economic implications of Donald Trump's tariffs for America — and the world? The main implication is higher inflation — we will all be poorer for them. 'Price up, quantity demanded down' is a steadfast economic principle. It applies here too. Of course, there are complexities — are there ever smart tariffs, for instance? The answer can be 'Yes' in, say, a climate context with carbon tariffs like the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism ( CBAM ). These are the kind of tariffs which even writers of The Economist can get behind because they help level the playing field for a policy that is a step in the right direction, internalising negative externalities and ensuring the market functions better. Once, John Stuart Mill and Alexander Hamilton, both philosophers of liberalism, wrote favourably about setting tariffs for infant industry protection. A fledgling United States of America was extremely dependent on England — tariffs were the only way to jumpstart certain industries. Today, fastgrowing economies like India can benefit up to a point from intelligently applied targeted tariffs to foster domestic industry. However, things are different with Trump's tariffs — these do not benefit anyone. Consider the deal struck between the European Union (EU) and the US now — tariffs essentially went from almost 0 to 15%. US consumers buying European products are paying more while European consumers buying American products are also doing the same — everyone is poorer. Trump says the tariffs will boost US manufacturing and competitiveness — will they? There might have been a grain of truth to that, had the tariffs not come hand in hand with measures that actually hurt our competitiveness and manufacturing. The One Big Beautiful Bill passed recently removes many incentives that, under the Inflation Reduction Act of the Biden administration, helped onshoring the solar manufacturing supply chain in America. Five years ago, the US produced 13.5 new gigawatts of solar panels — this year, the US surpassed 50 gigawatts worth of domestic solar panel assembly. China dominates the global solar panel manufacturing supply chain. But this change in the US was because of concerted industrial policy, guiding things in the right direction on manufacturing, climate and competitiveness. Now, Donald Trump famously hates wind turbines. He also hates solar panels. Why? These cut into the profits of the fossil fuel industry. So, this is a double whammy for the US clean energy transition. It is now more costly to import solar panels — it is also more costly to manufacture them domest-ically. Yet, the clean energy transition is the inevitable future for business and manufacturing — there is only so much the Trump administration can do to stand in its way. The big winner from all these measures is China — the big loser is the US. The most worrying feature for businesses here is the random process of setting tariff levels, the inadequacy of the reasoning behind them and the erratic nature of it all. Businesses crave policy certainty. If you were to announce a complete phase-out of internal combustion engines by, say, January 1, 2035, as discussed and instituted in the EU, companies can say, 'Alright, that's 10 years from now, let's figure out how to adjust.' They can rework their investments and then strategise how to gain. Here, we have the administration saying, 'Tariffs are coming on this date — oh, now they're delayed by 90 days. Now they're on, now they're off'. Such uncertainty is hardly likely to benefit US competitiveness. How do you see the global energy transition? I am optimistic on some fronts. India and China have net zero goals. However, I am pessimistic about what is happening politically in the US at the federal level — plenty of damage will be done. But while those in charge are taking steps backward in the US, globally, the transition is accelerating in the right direction. You mentioned the EU's CBAM — this was recently rejected by BRICS which called it unilateral and discriminatory. What is your view? Of course those on CBAM's receiving end have obligations to their own citizens and would quite prefer CBAM to not exist. However, there are two important points here. First, the planet benefits overall because CBAM expands the carbon club or the set of nations willing to work on the best policies and nudge things in the right direction. Second, CBAM enables certain countries and industries to gain — for example, the Korean steel industry basically has two major companies. Those two groups export only about 5% of their production to the EU. So, only 5% of South Korea's steel production is directly affected by CBAM. That said, the prospect of CBAM coming along has been in place for a while. This prompted both these leading producers in the South Korean steel industry to invest in lower carbon steel production technologies that will help them avoid those carbon tariffs — CBAM justifies such investments, subsidies and domestic policies, all of which help the planet. BRICS could see that as a key result. India already has many climate-oriented policies, like the electrification of two- and three-wheelers, that are in many ways more advanced than anywhere else in the world. These have a clear rationale to them — electric motors are fundamentally better technology, a much more efficient mode than internal combustion engines. Why shouldn't a rapidly growing economy like India not jump for that, instead of locking itself into inefficient old technology? Why not use CBAM as an opportunity to do exactly that?
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
'India Is A Great Power': American Economist Calls Donald Trump's Tariffs 'Unconstitutional'
Jeffrey Sachs criticized Trump's decision of imposing 50 per cent tariff on Indian imports. He said that US politicians does not care at all about India and it is a great power. Noted economist Jeffrey Sachs said 'US politicians does not care about India" and 'it is a great power" that would not reap any security benefits by siding with US in a quad against China. Sachs reacted to US President Donald Trump's 50 percent tariff imposition on imports from India. In an interview with Hindustan Times, Sachs said, 'US politicians don't care at all about India. Please understand this. India is not going to reap long-term security by siding with the United States in the Quad against China. India is a great power that has an independent standing in the world. Everything that Trump is doing on tariffs is unconstitutional." After imposing 50 per cent tariff on Indian imports, US President Donald Trump has also ruled out any trade talks between the two countries until the tariff issue is resolved. 'No, not until we get it resolved," Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. Trump reacted sharply on India's oil and arms deal with Russia. 'I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care," Trump had said in a social media post on August 3. Pominent American Congressman Representative Gregory Meeks, a Democrat, meanwhile, said Trump's latest 'tariff tantrum' risks years of careful work to build a stronger US-India partnership. Over the last few months, India and the US have held several rounds of negotiations for a bilateral trade deal, but it could not be sealed in view of sharp divergences in certain critical areas, including agriculture and dairy. The next round of bilateral talks for an initial trade agreement was scheduled to be held in August 25 in New Delhi, two days before the 25 per cent penalty on India, which is on top of a 25 per cent tariff, for continued purchase of Russian oil kicks in. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: August 10, 2025, 07:51 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
