InPost S.A. Just Missed Earnings - But Analysts Have Updated Their Models
InPost S.A. (AMS:INPST) shareholders are probably feeling a little disappointed, since its shares fell 4.9% to €15.09 in the week after its latest quarterly results. Revenue of zł3.0b surpassed estimates by 2.2%, although statutory earnings per share missed badly, coming in 40% below expectations at zł0.37 per share. The analysts typically update their forecasts at each earnings report, and we can judge from their estimates whether their view of the company has changed or if there are any new concerns to be aware of. Readers will be glad to know we've aggregated the latest statutory forecasts to see whether the analysts have changed their mind on InPost after the latest results.
We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free.
Taking into account the latest results, the consensus forecast from InPost's 13 analysts is for revenues of zł13.5b in 2025. This reflects a notable 18% improvement in revenue compared to the last 12 months. Per-share earnings are expected to surge 33% to zł3.15. Yet prior to the latest earnings, the analysts had been anticipated revenues of zł13.5b and earnings per share (EPS) of zł3.26 in 2025. So it looks like there's been a small decline in overall sentiment after the recent results - there's been no major change to revenue estimates, but the analysts did make a minor downgrade to their earnings per share forecasts.
View our latest analysis for InPost
The consensus price target held steady at €18.92, with the analysts seemingly voting that their lower forecast earnings are not expected to lead to a lower stock price in the foreseeable future. It could also be instructive to look at the range of analyst estimates, to evaluate how different the outlier opinions are from the mean. The most optimistic InPost analyst has a price target of €21.94 per share, while the most pessimistic values it at €13.63. This is a very narrow spread of estimates, implying either that InPost is an easy company to value, or - more likely - the analysts are relying heavily on some key assumptions.
Another way we can view these estimates is in the context of the bigger picture, such as how the forecasts stack up against past performance, and whether forecasts are more or less bullish relative to other companies in the industry. The period to the end of 2025 brings more of the same, according to the analysts, with revenue forecast to display 25% growth on an annualised basis. That is in line with its 23% annual growth over the past three years. By contrast, our data suggests that other companies (with analyst coverage) in a similar industry are forecast to see their revenues grow 6.5% per year. So it's pretty clear that InPost is forecast to grow substantially faster than its industry.
The most important thing to take away is that the analysts downgraded their earnings per share estimates, showing that there has been a clear decline in sentiment following these results. Fortunately, they also reconfirmed their revenue numbers, suggesting that it's tracking in line with expectations. Additionally, our data suggests that revenue is expected to grow faster than the wider industry. The consensus price target held steady at €18.92, with the latest estimates not enough to have an impact on their price targets.
With that said, the long-term trajectory of the company's earnings is a lot more important than next year. We have forecasts for InPost going out to 2027, and you can see them free on our platform here.
You still need to take note of risks, for example - InPost has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: More people leave than arrive on current youth mobility schemes
On the BBC's Today programme on May 19, from around two hours and 21 minutes, Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the UK's youth mobility arrangements with other countries reduce net migration. Asked 'how do you know there will be fewer people coming here than leaving?' Mr Reynolds said: 'Well, I've got 13 schemes in action already and that's the evidence of them.' He later added: 'I tell you the evidence of the current schemes just so you know is that they're a net negative on immigration.' Around 24,400 youth mobility visas were issued to people wanting to come to the UK in 2024. Although figures are patchy for how many Britons go abroad, data from just three countries – Australia, New Zealand and Canada – suggests that 68,495 British citizens travelled to those countries in 2024 (the Australian data is for the 12 months to the end of June 2024). That would suggest that Mr Reynolds is right. However it does not take into account that Britons going abroad on these temporary visas will sooner or later come back, as will those who come to the UK. It is also not clear that this pattern will repeat in any similar deal with the EU. The UK population is much larger than those of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, so there are more Britons who can go to those countries than can come here. With the EU that is reversed. How many people come to the UK on a youth mobility visa? Government data shows there were 24,437 people who were handed a youth mobility visa last year. Most of these were from one of the 13 countries with which the UK has a reciprocal arrangement. A small handful of visas – 131 in total – were for people from countries other than the 13. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has suggested that these are the result of errors in data recording, or due to people having dual nationalities. The top three countries that sent people to the UK on youth mobility visas between January and December 2024 were Australia (9,754 visas), New Zealand (4,304 visas) and Canada (3,060 visas). How many Britons go abroad on youth mobility type schemes? Figures are patchy on how many British people have gone abroad on a youth mobility scheme. The Department for Business and Trade was unable to share data. Australia publishes a twice-yearly report into what it calls its working holiday visa programme. That is the Australian equivalent to the UK's youth mobility scheme. The latest such report covered the 12 months to the end of June 2024. That report showed that Australia issued 48,973 working holiday visas to UK citizens. Data from New Zealand is available on the website of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Using its migration data explorer produces a spreadsheet which shows that there were 9,486 working holiday visas granted by New Zealand to UK citizens in between January and December 2024. Canadian data does not appear to be publicly available, but the figures were provided to the PA news agency by the Canadian Department for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The data shows that in 2024 there were 9,972 work permits issued to UK and UK overseas territories citizens under the country's working holiday scheme, and a further 64 people had their permits extended. How do incoming youth mobility visas compare to outgoing? Net migration is a figure which subtracts the number of people coming into the country from the number of people leaving. The data cited above suggests that while 9,754 Australians came to the UK on youth mobility visas, 48,973 Britons went in the opposite direction. It must be noted that the time periods measured here are different, the Australian data is for the 12 months ending June 2024, while the UK data is for the 12 months ending December 2024. Meanwhile the data suggests that 4,304 New Zealanders came to the UK while 9,486 Britons went in the other direction. Data further shows that 3,060 Canadians came to the UK in 2024, while 9,972 Britons went in the other direction. This suggests that for each of these three countries the youth mobility schemes are – as Mr Reynolds suggested – reducing net migration. In fact Australia alone appears to receive twice as many Britons (48,973) as all people who the UK receives from all 13 countries added together (24,437). However, it should be noted that because youth mobility schemes are time-limited, Britons going abroad and people who have come to the UK on such visas will eventually be forced to return. This means the UK's inbound migration figures should take into account not just Australians and Canadians – for example – coming to the UK, but also Britons returning from Australia and Canada after their youth mobility visas expire. If it is assumed that everyone returns then over a longer time frame the youth mobility programmes will have a neutral impact on net immigration because every Briton who leaves the UK will come back and every non-Briton who comes to the UK will leave. This does not take into account the people – both Britons abroad and non-Britons in the UK – who apply for a different visa to stay in their adopted country. Do these conclusions also apply to the EU scheme? The impact on net migration of the potential EU scheme will depend on the details of the agreement between London and Brussels. Madeleine Sumption, director at the Migration Observatory, told the PA news agency that the size of the cap on the programme would be vital for the impact on net migration. She said the fact the UK sends more people to Australia, Canada and New Zealand than it receives from them 'probably results from the fact that the UK has a much larger population than they do, so we just have more young people potentially interested in moving'. With the EU scheme, Ms Sumption said, the population sizes are flipped – that is to say the EU's population is much bigger than the UK, leaving more young people who might be willing to come here. Therefore the smaller the cap on the number of visas is, the more likely both the EU and UK will fill their quotas. If both fill their quotas – and the quotas going both ways are the same – then the impact on net migration will be zero. However if the cap is large then it is more likely that there will not be as many Britons going to Europe as are coming in the opposite direction, which will bring up net migration. But, as with the existing schemes, both Britons in Europe and Europeans in the UK will eventually have to leave unless they find another visa, which over the long run should mean that the programme has a neutral impact on net migration. BBC – Today, 19/05/2025 Migration Observatory – What is the Youth Mobility Scheme and how does it work? (archived) – Entry clearance visas granted outside the UK (archived page and spreadsheet, using tab Data_Vis_D02) Australian Department of Home Affairs – Visitor visa statistics (archived) Australian Department of Home Affairs – Working Holiday Maker visa program report (archived) New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – Migration data explorer (archived page and downloaded spreadsheet. To download the correct spreadsheet, instructions can be found at (archived): In dataset select 'W1 work decisions', in time period select 'calendar year' and in variables select 'application substream', 'application criteria' and 'decision type') Canadian data provided to PA news agency (archived) Madeleine Sumption profile (archived)
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump urges Europe to reform unfair tax policies
The Trump administration's announcement last month that it was hiking tariffs on Europe is a wakeup call. For years, European governments have been treating U.S. tech companies as an ATM. Europe needs to come to the table on its discriminatory treatment of American businesses before the July 9 tariff deadline. To hear Europe's leaders howl over the latest tariff threat from President Trump, one might think that after putting the squeeze on the Old World, greedy Uncle Sam is coming back for more. The truth is that Eurozone bureaucrats have turned the targeting of U.S. companies into an art form. Consider the Eurozone's digital services taxes. Services such as content streaming, digital advertising and digital data provided by foreign companies working in Europe are taxed in addition to the tax they pay to their home countries. Naturally, as the global leader in tech innovation, it is American countries that disproportionately bear the burden. Brussels bureaucrats further hone the targeting by applying these taxes exclusively to companies above an arbitrary revenue threshold, ensuring that only large American tech competitors are hit. Six of the seven 'gatekeepers' subject to strict regulatory rules under the EU's Digital Markets Act are American. Likewise, the overwhelming majority of the companies that are subject to the most strident provisions of the EU's Digital Services Act are U.S. firms. Since 2018, U.S. companies have accounted for 83 percent of all EU data privacy fines. While U.S. regulators are satisfied with regulating domestic companies, Europeans are not shy about their extraterritorial shakedowns. French officials regularly call their digital service tax a GAFA or GAFAM tax, a the acronym being a reference to 'Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft.' Similarly, Europe's special levy on streaming services has been dubbed the 'Lex Netflix' after the American entertainment giant. Taxes and red tape might be economically-moribund Europe's only growth export industry. In a Truth Social post last month, Trump torched Europe's 'ridiculous corporate penalties' and 'unfair and unjustified lawsuits against American companies.' America's largest companies are singing the same tune. When EU regulators hit Apple and Meta with $800 million in fines last month, a Meta spokesperson called out the European money grab for what it is — 'a multi-billion-dollar tariff' on American companies. These fines do not take into account the enormous day-to-day compliance costs that U.S. firms must pay for the privilege of doing business in the Eurozone. Staying on top of EU digital rules runs Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Amazon and Microsoft $2.2 billion annually. American companies are forecasted to forgo more than $2 trillion of revenue due to Europe's massive regulatory burden. Apple and Meta recently chose to delay the launch of new features on their products in Europe rather than run afoul of the Eurozone's strict AI rules. To those watching Trump closely over the last decade, last week's escalation against Europe should have come as no surprise. In his first term, Trump initiated investigations into digital service taxes in Austria, France and Italy, issuing several reports on the findings. Since returning to office, Trump has complained that EU treats the U.S. worse than China. What's new is the convergence between the White House and Silicon Valley on Europe. Leading American tech executives have become increasingly outspoken on the regulatory hostility coming from Brussels. Meta's Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan recently criticized the European Commission for trying to 'handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards.' These concerns appear to be getting through to Team Trump. At last Friday's press conference, Trump cited the $14.4 billion European court judgement against Apple that has been a major thorn in the tech giant's side. The Trump administration's tariffs come at a near-term cost to American consumers. But it is equally clear that U.S. companies are getting the short end of the stick in Europe. The outcome of the trade negotiations between the U.S. and EU will tell whether the tariff bet pays off. A deal with Europe that's limited to industrial goods isn't good enough. The EU must end its discriminatory taxes and call a ceasefire on its lawfare against American innovation. Michael Toth is a practicing lawyer and a research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
EU could approve Mercosur deal by summer, agriculture chief says
By Kate Abnett BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Union could approve its planned trade deal with South American bloc Mercosur before summer, but it has not yet fixed a date to do so, EU agriculture commissioner Christophe Hansen told Reuters on Thursday. "It could be before summer," Hansen said in an interview. EU nations still need to approve the deal, which was finalised in December but has faced opposition from members including France, which argues that the pact would hurt European farmers who face stricter norms and regulations than their South American peers. French President Emmanuel Macron and Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva discussed their differences on the pact at a meeting in Paris on Thursday. Macron said the text could be improved with the insertion of mirror clauses. France has previously argued for the insertion of an emergency break clause to restrict imports if a sudden surge in imports destabilises certain EU markets. "This would indeed require that we go back to the table and reopen. I don't think that this would be helpful in this situation," Hansen said of the idea of resuming negotiations with Mercosur countries to add new safeguards to the deal. "I see from many different parts of the agriculture and food sector, they are really looking for having these new opportunities," he added.
