TASER maker Axon raises annual revenue forecast, shares jump
(Reuters) -TASER maker Axon Enterprise raised its full-year revenue forecast on Wednesday, banking on sustained demand for its software products and security devices, sending its shares up more than 7% after the bell.
The Arizona-based company makes law enforcement technology such as body cameras, drones and sensors.
Axon expects 2025 revenue to be between $2.60 billion and $2.70 billion, compared with its prior range of $2.55 billion to $2.65 billion. Analysts on average estimate of $2.62 billion, according to data compiled by LSEG.
The company is the leading maker of police body cameras in the U.S. and supplies drones to law enforcement authorities across North America, Europe and Australia.
Capital expenditure for the year is expected to be in the range of $160 million to $180 million, excluding costs related to investments in a new headquarters, the company said.
On an adjusted basis, Axon earned $1.41 per share for the first quarter ended March 31, while analysts estimated $1.27 per share.
Its quarterly revenue was $603.6 million, compared with the estimate of $583.8 million.
(Reporting by Aatreyee Dasgupta and Abhinav Parmar in Bengaluru; Editing by Shilpi Majumdar)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Advertisement Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Advertisement Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Advertisement Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Advertisement Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Advertisement Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___ AP college sports: Eddie Pells, The Associated Press
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___ AP college sports:
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
I landed a remote job for a European company, and now I'd find it hard to go back to a US-based company — I feel spoiled by the perks
This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with 34-year-old Meghan Gezo, from Michigan. The following has been edited for length and clarity. In 2022, I left my job working remotely in people operations for a US company. Juggling my job and raising my one-year-old wasn't working. I wanted to take a break while I looked for another opportunity that would allow me to have better work-life boundaries. After a few months of job hunting, I started as a people experience manager at Storyblok, a fully remote content management company based in Austria. I'd never worked for a company based in Europe before. Living in the US, most jobs that pop up are US-based. People have come to expect more work-life balance in Europe, as the employment laws differ from the US. For me, there have been perks related to my life as a parent, my working hours, and my professional growth. I was immediately drawn to the benefits of working for a European company I've been working in remote jobs for tech companies since 2016. I'd previously worked in an office, but thought a remote job meant I could focus on higher-impact work than the office administration that usually fell to HR, as well as branch out beyond the manufacturing and automotive industry jobs in my area. It was easier to find a remote job in 2022 than in 2016. I found the listing for Storyblok on a job board. The people I spoke with were genuine and direct. In the first interview, they talked about time off norms and said the standard workweek is 38.5 hours. They seemed to emphasize work-life balance and gave me concrete examples of how it worked at the company. I was optimistic I could be successful in the role while staying involved in my daughter's life. In the US, the norm on paper is a 40-hour workweek, but in practice, people often work until they finish their tasks, especially in tech. I used to work, feed my daughter, put her to bed, and then work some more. It felt normal. At my current company, you focus on work when you're at work and then log off until the next day. There have definitely been times when I've had to work extra hours, but overall, I'd say that my work-life balance is better. In the US, it can often feel that your work is your identity. My European colleagues take pride in their work and are extremely hard workers, but their job is one facet of their identity. Working for a European company has pushed me in new ways I've gained experience working with people from other cultures. Learning about Austrian law has also pushed me to expand my HR knowledge beyond US employment law. One thing I've noticed about the company culture is that when people are on vacation, they're on vacation. Meanwhile, it's more the norm in the US to answer messages on vacation. I've not completely broken this habit, but it has felt more attainable for me to delete work communication apps from my phone when I'm away. I've felt very supported in my role as a parent at my European company The Austrian norm of " care leave," which isn't a norm in the US, is a great part of working for a European company. Because I have kids under a certain age, I get to use two paid weeks off a year for days when my kids are sick and I need to take them to a doctor or take care of them. Having this bucket to pull from is a huge weight off my shoulders as a parent. My previous employers had generous parental leave policies. However, at Storyblok, I got slightly more time — 16 weeks. I went on maternity leave at a previous company with my firstborn and again at my current job in 2023. During my most recent maternity leave, people in the company treated it very seriously. I got a lot of support from my manager and team to help plan for my leave and assign my tasks to others. During my first maternity leave for a previous company, I didn't mind answering a few questions as needed to support my team, but at Storyblok, no one asked me work-related questions while I was away. There are some downsides While my working hours suit my season of life, there are days when I wish I could start later at 9 a.m. However, I don't think I'd be as effective without overlap with my European colleagues. Right now, I work 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. ET. Sometimes, if I have a question I want to ask colleagues in Europe during my afternoons, I'll know that I won't be getting an answer until the next day because of the time zone difference. I've learned to work these expectations into my regular workflow. It does make me sad that I don't live near my colleagues. I've built strong relationships with these people, but they're an ocean away. I'd find it hard to go back to a US-based company Working for a European company didn't occur to me as an option before I interviewed for this job. Having worked here for over two years, I feel spoiled by the benefits and perks of European working culture, and it would be hard for me to go back to working for a US-based company.
