Chasing Passive Income, Americans Turn to Vending Machines

With a brick of cash in his hand and a grin on his face, Jaime Ibanez shows his half-million YouTube subscribers a path to earning money without burning many calories: Vending machines.

In videos with titles such as “This Is HOW MUCH My Vending Machines Made IN 7 DAYS!!” the swoopy-haired 23-year-old Texan makes the rounds to his 51 machines, stocking them and taking the profits.

His channel promotes the idea that with diligence and luck, anyone can go from snacks to riches.

Vending machines might seem an unlikely candidate for trending investment of the 2020s, but the idea has captured the imagination of Americans dreaming of easier money. Some pursue chips and soda as a side hustle because their regular paychecks aren’t enough for them to get by. Others bet on vending machines as a ticket to upward mobility, to quitting their jobs and becoming their own boss.

The startup cost is low and the formula simple. Buy a used machine for $1,500, load it up with products from Costco , charge a 100% markup and let the crinkled dollars roll in. But turning a profit takes real work, and the machines can be a losing proposition when stuck in locations without enough hungry foot traffic.

There is a fair amount of competition, too. America has three million vending machines, an $18.2 billion industry, with the average machine generating about $525 in monthly revenue, according to the National Automatic Merchandising Association.

More than half of operators bring in less than $1 million a year, according to trade publication Automatic Merchandiser. Many are individuals who have other jobs.

Social media has fuelled the notion of finding financial freedom in vending machines. Between 2019 and 2023, the number of posts or comments mentioning passive income and vending machines more than tripled on X and increased by a factor of six on Instagram, according to Sprinklr, a social-media management platform. Google search interest in passive income increased some 75% during that same period.

“There’s a real sense that doing things the so-called right way won’t necessarily land you in the middle class,” said Lana Swartz, a media-studies professor at the University of Virginia who researches financial technologies. “If the old rules no longer apply, then there’s a searching for new rules to get ahead or to get by.”

Some vending-machine newbies say they are on their way to building an automated empire. Others’ dreams get snagged like a bag of Funyuns on a faulty coil.

Making sales while you sleep

Last spring Rob Smith, a 30-year-old truck driver in Orlando, Fla., spent $4,000 on his first machine, a credit-card reader and a load of snacks and drinks.

He recently acquired his fourth machine, which is at an industrial bakery. His first three machines take up three to five hours of his week and bring in about $1,500 a month in revenue, which works out to roughly $750 in profit.

“I’ve made sales at four o’clock in the morning, when I was sleeping,” he said. “That machine is still working whether I’m there or not.”

He hopes to scale up to 30 machines and quit his job.

Smith started looking for extra income because his goal of buying a house felt out of reach with only his day job’s pay. He chose vending specifically after he witnessed a colleague complain about a malfunctioning machine at work and then use it anyway.

“He still put his $2 in,” Smith said. “I was like, ‘I need to get a vending machine as soon as possible.’ ”

Some budding vendors pay $300 or more for online courses to learn the trade. Smith relied on YouTube, Instagram and Reddit to get going.

At one point, he stocked a machine with orange soda against the advice he got in an online forum. When it didn’t sell, he and his family had to drink three dozen cans themselves.

Empty calories

Tom and Missi Hakes of Midway, Ala., started vending after Missi, 40, saw videos on YouTube about the business. The idea seemed more appealing than their stints driving for Uber, shopping for Instacart and trying to make it as YouTubers.

The Hakes, who both have full-time jobs in health insurance, scouted out locations in Atlanta, the closest big city and two hours away. After their best lead fell through, they paid a woman they found on Facebook Marketplace $500 to find a location for them.

She sent them to two spots that didn’t work out, including a cheerleading gym. The manager there was on board until she learned that the Hakes hadn’t operated a vending machine before.

Tom, 48, posted on a forum wondering how to address questions about their industry experience. At their next meeting, with the owner of a gym, they reluctantly followed some of the forum’s advice: They lied and said they had a few machines.

“We didn’t want to get another no,” said Tom.

He then spent a month repairing a used machine they bought for $1,400, staying up on some nights until 2 a.m.

When it was ready, Tom and Missi struggled to wrangle it into the 15-foot U-Haul truck they rented.

“Two people is not enough to move an 800-pound machine,” she said.

The Hakes spent about $2,500 on their vending business, as well as 20 to 30 hours a week for much of last fall.

They pay $50 a month to park it in the gym and it costs about $330 to fill up. It is currently grossing about $30 a week.

If anything, the income has been too passive, Tom said, “because it’s not really doing a lot of sales.”

If the machine isn’t selling more by summer, the Hakes will consider leaving the location, or perhaps vending machines overall.

Hit Facebook Marketplace, then Costco

Used vending machines of questionable quality sell online for as little as $500. More reliable ones cost in the range of $1,000 to $2,000, according to veteran vendors. A new machine with a touch screen and a robotic arm could cost upward of $7,000.

Many used machines have a maintenance issue about once a year, and they need to be cleaned. Cash is dirty, said Ben Gaskill of Everest Ice and Water Systems, a vending-machine maker. “Somebody digs around for coins in the bottom of their purse and it’s got grape jelly on it.”

Vendors shop warehouse stores like Costco and Sam’s Club to stock up. One machine’s worth of snacks or drinks can cost $200 to $300 a month. Owners then charge about twice what they paid for each product, or more. Prices of food from vending machines were up 10.6% year over year in January, according to Labor Department data.

The top-selling items in vending machines are cold drinks, snacks and candy, according to the latest data from Automatic Merchandiser magazine.

“No matter how healthy you try to make the machines, people are going to buy that Snickers bar,” said Lory Strickland, who sells courses and one-on-one coaching with her husband, Barry, under the name The Vending Mentors.

A never-vending story

Selling online classes and coaching can sometimes be more lucrative than a given moneymaking idea itself, said Swartz, the University of Virginia professor.

In online forums, she said, “there’s the joke that if there are people making courses about it, then it’s already oversaturated as a side hustle.”

To capitalise on interest in vending, some experienced operators started selling their expertise to supplement the income coming in from their machines. Some transitioned primarily to training.

Hyping the vending-machine dream predates the internet, though. The first machines in the U.S. sold gum and appeared on train platforms in 1888.

In the 1940s, media outlets cautioned about “get-rich-quick schemes” promoted by “unscrupulous agents involving vending machines.” In 1960, the magazine now known as Kiplinger Personal Finance warned of “vultures in the business” who promised “that an $800 investment may produce $200 a month, and that only a few hours of work a week are required to enjoy such rich pickings.”

Reporting season has once again reminded investors that a strong profit does not guarantee a rising share price, and a large loss does not always trigger a sell-off. What matters most is how each result compares with expectations and, increasingly, what management says about the year ahead. During the August 2026 season, companies offering credible turnarounds or unexpectedly strong guidance were rewarded handsomely, while those flagging weaker margins, slowing demand or greater uncertainty were punished.

The following ranking draws on Morningstar’s review of 164 ASX-listed companies and measures each company’s share-price movement on the day it reported. This captures the market’s immediate response to the earnings announcement, before subsequent economic developments, dividends and company-specific news cloud the picture. Here are the five biggest winners, and the five hardest-hit losers, of the season so far.

The five winners

1. Bapcor (ASX:BAP): +41.0%

Bapcor delivered reporting season’s largest relief rally after presenting early evidence that its troubled automotive-parts business was stabilising. Although underlying revenue fell 1.8% to $1.92 billion and underlying NPAT collapsed 85% to $10.8 million, underlying EBITDA of $152.5 million exceeded guidance.

More importantly, working-capital initiatives released $68.5 million in the second half, lifting cash conversion to 109.4% and reducing net debt by 63% to $135 million. The statutory loss was $431.6 million, largely because of non-cash impairments. Investors focused on improving operational momentum, stronger liquidity and management’s expectation of modest FY27 revenue growth.

2. Zip Co (ASX:ZIP): +18.2%

Zip comfortably surpassed its FY26 targets, sending the buy-now-pay-later provider’s shares sharply higher. Transaction volume rose 23% to $16.7 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortisation jumped 58% to a record $268.9 million. Statutory profit climbed 46% to $116.4 million, and the cash operating margin expanded by 4.2 percentage points to 20%.

The strongest signal was guidance for FY27 cash earnings of $340 million—around 26% growth and above analysts’ forecasts. US transaction volume increased 42.5% and now represents three-quarters of group volume, offsetting weaker customer activity in Australia.

3. CSL (ASX:CSL): +17.3%

CSL’s result was hardly spectacular in isolation, but it cleared a market bar that had fallen dramatically following earlier downgrades and restructuring announcements. Underlying NPATA was US$3.1 billion, down 2% in constant-currency terms, while operating cash flow reached US$3.51 billion.

CSL maintained its full-year dividend at US$2.92 per share and completed a A$1 billion buyback. The real catalyst was FY27 guidance for approximately 5% underlying profit growth, compared with market expectations closer to 2%. After an extended period of earnings disappointments, investors interpreted the outlook as evidence that CSL’s core plasma business was approaching a sustainable recovery.

4. Judo Capital (ASX:JDO): +16.9%

Judo Capital demonstrated strong operating leverage as its specialist business-lending franchise expanded. Full-year profit before tax rose 34% to $168.1 million, while pre-provision profit increased 42%. Gross loans and advances grew 18% to $14.7 billion, reaching the top of the bank’s guidance range and comfortably exceeding broader system growth.

Deposits increased 24% to $12.2 billion, return on equity improved by 1.1 percentage points to 6.4%, and earnings per share rose 29% to 9.9 cents. Reaffirmation of the FY27 outlook gave investors confidence that loan growth could continue without sacrificing margins or credit quality.

5. Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL): +15.8%

The owner of Supercheap Auto, rebel, BCF and Macpac reported record sales of $4.2 billion, up 3.2%, despite cautious discretionary spending. Profitability went backwards: normalised profit before tax fell 7% to $306 million and normalised NPAT declined 2.8% to $226 million as transformation spending weighed on margins. Nevertheless, the result exceeded subdued expectations, online sales grew 5.3% and membership across the group’s loyalty programs reached 13.1 million. Investors were also encouraged by positive early FY27 trading, stable gross margins and continued market-share gains. A fully franked 33-cent final dividend added to the appeal.

The five losers

1. Hansen Technologies (ASX:HSN): –21.2%

Hansen’s historic result met expectations, but investors recoiled from its outlook. The utility and communications software provider achieved an underlying EBITDA margin of 31%, exceeding its 30% target, while generating strong cash flow. However, management designated FY27 an “investment and transition year”, signalling a roughly five-percentage-point margin contraction as spending on products, sales capabilities and organisational changes increased.

Revenue had already been broadly flat, leaving investors concerned that the investment program would depress earnings before new growth appeared. Leadership changes, including the chief executive’s departure, added uncertainty. Management expects revenue growth and margins above 30% to return in FY28, but the market was unwilling to wait.

2. Life360 (ASX:360): –19.4%

Life360’s headline growth was impressive: quarterly revenue rose 38% to US$159 million, subscription revenue increased 31%, and adjusted EBITDA climbed 53% to US$31.1 million. Monthly active users reached 102.4 million and paying circles grew 27% to 3.2 million. The sell-off reflected expectations rather than a collapsing business.

Net income fell 18%, the net margin contracted from 6% to 3%, hardware shipments dropped 18%, and full-year EBITDA guidance was merely maintained. After a strong valuation run, investors wanted a larger upgrade and clearer evidence that heavy investment in advertising, international expansion and artificial intelligence would generate additional earnings.

3. PEXA Group (ASX:PXA): –17.0%

PEXA reported a 7% increase in continuing-operations revenue and 12% EBITDA growth to $152 million, accompanied by a two-percentage-point margin expansion. Free cash flow increased 39%, suggesting the core Australian electronic-conveyancing platform remained highly profitable. Investors instead concentrated on management’s warning that property-transfer volumes could decline, alongside regulatory uncertainty surrounding the fees PEXA can charge.

The company is also continuing to invest heavily in its loss-making international expansion. Morningstar considered the market reaction excessive, arguing that structural transfer-volume assumptions had not materially changed, but the combination of softer near-term activity and regulatory risk overwhelmed the respectable headline numbers.

4. SEEK (ASX:SEK): –14.3%

SEEK produced solid FY26 figures, including 10% revenue growth to $1.20 billion, a 15% rise in EBITDA and 28% growth in adjusted earnings per share. It also lifted its fully franked annual dividend by 13% to a record 52 cents. Those achievements were overshadowed by falling paid job-ad volumes and cautious FY27 assumptions.

The statutory accounts included a $201 million loss from the SEEK Growth Fund and $377 million of significant items, making the headline result considerably less attractive. Investors were particularly concerned that economic weakness could limit volumes while the company continued investing in platform integration and artificial-intelligence products.

5. JB Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH): –12.3%

JB Hi-Fi’s full-year result was broadly respectable, with group sales rising 5% to $11.1 billion and underlying earnings per share increasing 6% to $4.48. The damage came from its current-trading update. Australian sales were almost flat during the June quarter and deteriorated further in July, while earnings in the core Australian electronics business fell 3.6%.

Housing-related categories were particularly weak as higher living costs and interest rates constrained household budgets. With JB Hi-Fi entering the season on a demanding valuation, an in-line historic result was not sufficient: the loss of sales momentum prompted investors to rapidly reduce their expectations for FY27.

Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations. Bapcor was rewarded for being less troubled than feared, while several fundamentally profitable companies were punished because their outlooks failed to justify elevated valuations.