Editor’s Note: Generally we do not celebrate coming hardship for anyone. Americans will be affected by this if The Economic Ninja and Zero Hedge are correct. With that said, bad coffee by a woke company could only head in the negative direction eventually. That eventuality may be upon them. Here’s Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge for more…
Starbucks shares plummeted by 16% during the early cash session, approaching the -16.2% level last seen during the Covid crash. If intraday losses surpass 16.2% and remain above this level at closing, it would mark the company’s worst single-day loss since the Dot Com crash in early 2000.
“Starbucks reported what’s perhaps the worst set of results of any large company so far” this quarter, analyst Adam Crisafulli of Vital Knowledge wrote in a note. William Blair downgraded the coffee chain, citing last quarter’s “stunning across-the-board miss on all key metrics.”
Starbucks reported a 4% drop in same-store sales in the second quarter compared with the same period last year, while analysts tracked by Bloomberg were expecting growth. In China, same-store sales plunged 11%. The company’s top geographic segments are showing a pullback in consumer spending.
On Tuesday evening, CEO Laxman Narasimhan started the earnings call with investors by clarifying his unhappiness with last quarter’s results.
“Let me be clear from the beginning. Our performance this quarter was disappointing and did not meet our expectations,” Narasimhan said.
He said major headwinds originate from a “cautious consumer,” adding, “A deteriorating economic outlook has weighed on customer traffic and impact felt broadly across the industry.”
Here’s a snapshot of the second quarter’s earnings results (list courtesy of Bloomberg):
- Comparable sales -4%, estimate +1.46% (Bloomberg Consensus)
- North America comparable sales -3%, estimate +2.05%
- US comparable sales -3%, estimate +2.31%
- International comparable sales -6%, estimate +1.36%
- China comparable sales -11%, estimate -1.62%
- Adjusted EPS 68c, estimate 80c
- Net revenue $8.56 billion, estimate $9.13 billion
- Operating income $1.10 billion, -17% y/y, estimate $1.35 billion
- Adjusted operating margin 12.8%, estimate 14.5%
- Operating margin 12.8%, estimate 14.4%
- North America operating margin +18%, estimate +19.5%
- International operating margin 13.3%, estimate 15.2%
- Channel development operating margin 51.7%, estimate 43.6%
- Average ticket +2%, estimate +2.41%
- North American average ticket price +4%, estimate +4.15%
- International avg. ticket -3%, estimate +0.1%
- North America net new stores 134, estimate 144.33
- International net new store openings 230, estimate 429.23
- Comparable transactions -6%, estimate -0.27%
- North America comparable transactions -7%, estimate -1.86%
- International comparable transactions -3%, estimate +1.37%
Goldman analysts Eric Mihelc and Scott Feiler told clients, “Expectations were for a clear sales miss and a modest EPS miss, but both came worse than the lowered bar.”
They added, “The miss was across geography and was as bad, if not worse, than worst fears.”
Other Wall Street analysts shared the same gloom and doom about the coffee chain (list courtesy of Bloomberg):
Deutsche Bank analyst Lauren Silberman cuts Starbucks to hold from buy
- Says the “challenging” results was a sign “headwinds are more pervasive and persistent than we expected, and we have limited visibility into the pace and magnitude of a recovery”
- Had thought comparable sales deceleration in the US was more transitory and isolated to a specific cohort
- However, with the decline in 2Q traffic and what seems to be limited improvement from Lavender and Spicy Refreshers, Silberman sees it being difficult to “underwrite a meaningful reacceleration,” which is key to the bull case
William Blair, Sharon Zackfia (cuts to market perform from outperform)
- After healthy demand over the past three years, Zackfia says the “tide has turned quickly,” with Starbucks posting the weakest traffic performance outside the pandemic or Great Recession
- China now “looks more fragile,” with comparable sales down 11%, and even Starbucks Rewards members “took a rare dip,” she adds
Jefferies, Andy Barish (hold)
- There was a “notable” miss on US and international comparable sales as well as EPS, and Barish says there is “no easy fix in sight to reaccelerate SSS near-term”
- Notes that international comparable sales was “similarly weak,” with traffic and comparable transactions both declining; China’s comparable sales miss and Middle East volatility more than offset positive comps seen in Japan, APAC and Latin America
- PT cut to $84 from $94
Citi, Jon Tower (neutral)
- Starbucks is “putting a lot of oars in the water to try and paddle” its way back to a stable comparable sales outlook that investors would be willing to underwrite
- However, Tower expresses concern that there is not enough “coxswain keeping oarsmen working in unison/with accountability”; adds that it ignores the “true leak in the bottom of the boat,” flagging broad consumer pushback to cumulative transaction growth and the value equation
- Notes China store margins are still in the double digits and the segment is profitable despite top-line declines
- PT cut to $85 from $95
Cowen, Andrew Charles (hold)
- “We believe 2024 guidance has been derisked as we model 0% NA comps & 3% EPS growth, the high end of the range”
- Expects shares to be in a “holding pattern” as Starbucks restores credibility while competition and tough macroeconomic conditions present headwinds
- PT cut to $85 from $100
Bloomberg Intelligence, Michael Halen and Jennifer Bartashus
- “Starbucks slashed fiscal 2024 same-store sales, revenue and EPS guidance and lacks a cogent plan to boost demand”
- “We believe several initiatives, including targeting overnight sales, dozens of new products and a four-week mobile- app upgrade cycle are overkill — a distraction unlikely to boost traffic”
On Tuesday, a similar story occurred at McDonald’s when the burger chain reported lower-than-expected quarterly sales growth.
Notably, working-poor consumers are pulling back spending in a period of stagflation (read here & here).
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.

They face multi prong headwinds. Coffee is getting more global, surpassing tea. That drives up commodities for retailers. But, Bidenomics and global Ukraineflation are reducing demand for overpriced trendy food.
Real inflation is over 17% and real unemployment is almost 25%. Who can afford $7 coffee drinks?
In my area here in Idaho/Oregon they cost more than the other chains. They are my last choice every time.
Never could tolerate their swill or their leftard politics. My message is IT’S OK TO CIRCLE THE DRAIN!
I go to Starbucks whenever I’m in the mood for mediocre coffee and poor service from a clerk with an attitude.
I have never one time, since the opening the first franchise, walked in the door, driven through its drive-thru, or tried to bum a sip from a friend. I don’t drink communist coffee.
When you’re struggling to make your car and rent payment, increased insurance premium, keeping the utilities on and occasionally eating, giving up an expensive cup of coffee is a no brainer.
With “Bidenomics” being such a raging success, who can afford $5 for a cup of cofefe anymore? When could they ever, but did it anyway?