Holding the Number After a Six-Million Miss
It is July. A specialty retailer budgeted FY revenue of $128.9m with H1 at 45% ($58.0m) and H2 at 55%. H1 actuals came in at $52.0m. Management blames a competitor's March-April liquidation sale; the same-store index has been negative for five straight months, and two stores opened in May are tracking 18% below underwriting. Weekly run-rate is roughly $2.4m. Gross margin has held at 41.5%, but the buying team has already committed H2 receipts at plan volume, and last year's H2 revenue was $67.4m. The sales team's reforecast keeps FY at $128.9m by loading a 12% H2 growth rate, against a trailing rate of about 5%.
1. Build the three plausible FY landings and state what each one requires.
Read the worked answer
- Sales team's number ($128.9m): requires H2 of $76.9m. That is +8.5% versus the H2 plan of $70.9m and +14.1% versus last year's $67.4m - at a point when comps have been negative for five months. This is not a forecast, it is a plug.
- Hold H2 at plan ($122.9m): 52.0 + 70.9. That is -4.7% versus plan and implies the entire H1 miss was timing that reverses in H2. Only credible if the miss is fully explained by the liquidation overlap.
- Run-rate ($115.6m): 52.0 / 0.45 = 115.6, implying H2 of $63.6m, which is -10.3% versus the H2 plan and -5.6% versus LY. This is the right shape if the miss is structural.
- Present a range, not a point. $116-123m is the defensible band and the width of it is the message. A single $128.9m number after a 10% H1 miss signals that the forecast is a target, not an estimate.
2. How do you split the $6.0m H1 shortfall between the one-off and the structural, and does it change your base case?
Read the worked answer
- Size the one-off with data, not narrative. Eight weeks of liquidation overlap at a $2.4m weekly run-rate and roughly 10% suppression = about $1.9m. Test it properly: compare comps in trade areas that overlapped the liquidation stores against control stores with no overlap. If the control stores also went negative, the one-off story collapses.
- The residual is structural: $6.0m - $1.9m = $4.1m, before you count the two new stores at 18% below underwriting, which is a persistent drag rather than a one-month event.
- Base case moves. If $1.9m is genuinely non-recurring, the honest landing is roughly $120-122m, not $128.9m. If the control-store test fails, it is closer to the run-rate case of $115.6m.
- The judgment the exam is testing: a one-off must be evidenced by a discrete, datable event with a measurable window and a control group. 'The competitor was promotional' is a hypothesis until the control-store comparison is done. Management's incentive to classify a miss as one-off is precisely why the classification cannot be accepted on assertion.
3. What does the committed H2 receipts position do to the forecast, and what do you recommend?
Read the worked answer
- Translate the revenue miss into margin risk. A $8.9m revenue shortfall versus plan at 41.5% gross margin is $5.2m of cost of goods arriving with no matching sale. At a 30% markdown, recovery is $3.6m and the gross margin lost is roughly $1.6m - enough to absorb most of a second-half EBIT buffer.
- Inventory is the binding constraint, not the P&L. The forecast is now a joint decision between demand and committed supply. The first action is not a revenue revision, it is a conversation with buying about which purchase orders can still be deferred, cancelled, or shifted to better-performing categories.
- Recommendation: reforecast to a $116-123m range; require the sales team to rebuild H2 store-by-store (comp plus new-store ramp) instead of a top-down 12%; quantify and disclose the markdown exposure from committed receipts as a separate line rather than burying it in gross margin; and pre-agree with the board which cost actions trigger at which revenue level so the decision is not made in the middle of a bad month.
- Flag the compensation angle: if the bonus plan is still funded off $128.9m, the forecast will keep being a target.