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. In reality, Lilly is maintaining profit by cutting costs such as Indiana/US citizen IT workers by a significant amount with their Tata Indian consulting connection, increasing Indian H1B's at Lillys Indiana locations significantly and offshoring to India high paying Indiana jobs to cut costs and increase profit at the expense of U.S. workers.

  2. I think perhaps there is legal precedence here in that the laws were intended for family farms, not pig processing plants on a huge scale. There has to be a way to squash this judges judgment and overrule her dumb judgement. Perhaps she should be required to live in one of those neighbors houses for a month next to the farm to see how she likes it. She is there to protect the people, not the corporations.

  3. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-111.htm Corporate farms are not farms, they are indeed factories on a huge scale. The amount of waste and unhealthy smells are environmentally unsafe. If they want to do this, they should be forced to buy a boundary around their farm at a premium price to the homeowners and landowners that have to eat, sleep, and live in a cesspool of pig smells. Imagine living in a house that smells like a restroom all the time. Does the state really believe they should take the side of these corporate farms and not protect Indiana citizens. Perhaps justifiable they should force all the management of the farms to live on the farm itself and not live probably far away from there. Would be interesting to investigate the housing locations of those working at and managing the corporate farms.

  4. downtown in the same area as O'malia's. 350 E New York. Not sure that another one could survive. I agree a Target is needed d'town. Downtown Philly even had a 3 story Kmart for its downtown residents.

  5. Indy-area residents... most of you have no idea how AMAZING Aurelio's is. South of Chicago was a cool pizza place... but it pales in comparison to the heavenly thin crust Aurelio's pizza. Their deep dish is pretty good too. My waistline is expanding just thinking about this!

ADVERTISEMENT