IBJNews

CNO profit jumps 17 percent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

CNO Financial Group's profit rose 17 percent in the second quarter, partly on lower expenses and higher investment income.

The Carmel-based insurer and financial services company reported on Monday morning earnings of $77.1 million, or 34 cents a share, for its second quarter—compared with $65.7 million and 24 cents a share in the second quarter of 2012. On average, nine analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected earnings per share of 26 cents for the quarter.

Net operating income per share was 30 cents in the quarter, a 50-percent rise from 20 cents in the period last year.

Total revenue for CNO grew 1.5 percent to $1.08 billion.

“The vitality and stability of CNO’s business model continues to produce solid results, with sales momentum increasing, and consistent growth in core business premium income and profitability,” CEO Ed Bonach said in a statement. 

Sales, as defined by new annualized premium, rose 5 percent to $102.3 million. 

Bankers Life, CNO’s Chicago-based unit that sells insurance to consumers at or near retirement age, saw a gain of 6 percent in new annualized premium, totaling $63.2 million.

Bankers Life opened nine new sales offices in the first six months of this year, CNO reported.

By contrast, new premium at CNO's Colonial Penn unit rose 1 percent to $15.8 million, “in line with our expectations given our advertising spend this quarter,” the company said.

Colonial Penn life insurance products are heavily touted over television and sold direct to consumers.

CNO shares were up about 2 percent at midmorning amid a broader market decline.

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