Accounting charge dents Zimmer's fourth-quarter profits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Profits fell at Warsaw-based Zimmer Holdings Inc. as it wrote down the value of its spine unit.

But excluding that and other accounting charges, the maker of orthopedic implants saw profits rise 5 percent to $236 million, or $1.12 per share.

Those results exceeded the expectations of Wall Street analysts, who predicted profits of $1.08 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Financial Network.

Zimmer forecast 2010 profits of $4.15 to $4.35 per share. In all of 2009, its profits totaled $3.94 per share, excluding 62 cents per share in accounting charges.

Fourth-quarter sales totaled $1.11 billion, an increase of 7.5 percent over the same quarter last year. Much of that growth came from currency fluctuations. Excluding them, Zimmer’s sales rose 2.5 percent.

Reported profit for the quarter was $155.2 million, or 74 cents per share, down 7.3 percent from the same quarter a year ago.

In the fourth quarter, Zimmer took a charge of $73 million to reduce the value of its spine business, which saw its sales drop 12 percent in the quarter.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.