IBJNews

Conseco's quarterly profit trimmed by legal costs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Conseco Inc. made money in the fourth quarter, but that profit was cut in half by the costs of pending legal settlements, the Carmel-based insurance company announced Wednesday night.

The company earned $18.2 million, or 9 cents per diluted common share, compared with a whopping loss in the same quarter a year ago of $453.3 million, or $2.45 per share.

Revenue for the quarter rose 1 percent, to $1.06 billion.

Profits were pared in the most recent quarter by investment losses, additional debt payments and a change in the value of tax assets. Excluding those effects, Conseco would have earned $32 million, or 15 cents per share, down by 4 percent from a year ago.

Conseco's operating results were dampened because it set aside $16 million to settle legal cases. One case involves 700 former life insurance policyholders who opted out of a previous class-action settlement. The other cases concerns 15,000 former customers who held Conseco’s Lifetrend insurance. This spending reduced earnings by 4 cents per share.

Excluding all those special items, Conseco would have earned 19 cents per share. On that adjusted basis, Wall Street analysts expected Conseco to earn 20 cents per share, according to a survey by Thomson Financial Network.

"We are pleased to report that Conseco delivered its fourth consecutive profitable quarter," CEO Jim Prieur said in a statement. He highlighted that Conseco’s sales of new life and health insurance policies surged 18 percent in the quarter, compared with the same period a year ago.

Conseco posted sales gains of 28 percent at its Chicago-based Bankers Life unit and a gain of 4 percent at its Carmel-based Conseco Insurance Group. However, the company’s Colonial Penn subsidiary, based in Philadelphia, saw its sales drop 22 percent compared with the fourth quarter last year.

For the year, Conseco’s profits totaled $85.7 million, or 45 cents per share, compared with a loss in 2008 of $1.1 billion, which was fueled by a major restructuring that transferred a block of money-losing policies to an aging trust.

Income from operations totaled $164.6 million last year, up 20 percent from 2008 operating income of $137 million.

Revenue in 2009 clocked in at $4.3 billion, up nearly 4 percent from 2008.

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. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT