IBJNews

Allison Transmission finishes lackluster year with bang

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Allison Transmission Holdings Inc. kicked its fourth quarter into overdrive with a 70-percent increase in profit over the same quarter in 2012, the firm reported Thursday.

The Indianapolis-based manufacturer of transmissions and propulsion systems drove in $491 million in revenue for the quarter, a 1-percent increase from $487 million from same quarter in 2012.

Profit for the quarter reached $78 million, compared to $46 million for the same period in 2012. Earnings per share for the quarter were 23 cents, topping consensus analyst estimates of 18 cents.

Allison shares rose nearly 1 percent in early-morning trading on Friday, to $29.95 per share.

“Allison continued to demonstrate strong operating margins and cash flow during the fourth quarter by executing initiatives to align costs and programs across our business with end markets demand conditions, while investing in growth opportunities,” said CEO Lawrence E. Dewey in prepared comments.

Allison said that it expects 2014 revenue to increase 3 to 6 percent, but did not provide specific guidance for its first-quarter results.

Sales picked up significantly (12 percent) in Allison’s North American On-Highway division, with higher demand for rugged-duty vehicles and bus models. Another area of strength was its segment for service parts and support equipment (an increase of 37 percent).

The strong fourth-quarter helped end a lackluster year with some momentum. Revenue for 2013 hit $1.93 billion, compared with $2.14 billion in 2012. Profit for 2013 limped in at $165.4 million, compared with $514.2 million in 2012.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT