IBJNews

Cummins' earnings, revenue fall on weaker demand

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Engine maker Cummins Inc. saw profit sink 30 percent in the fourth quarter as demand for its products fell in both domestic and international markets.

Columbus-based Cummins said Wednesday that fourth-quarter profit was $381 million, or $2.02 per share, compared with $548 million, or $2.86 per share, a year earlier.

Revenue fell 12.8 percent, to $4.29 billion.

Despite the decline, adjusted earnings and revenue outperformed analyst estimates.

Cummins also warned that sales could fall as much as 5 percent in 2013 because of  falling demand for its heavy truck engines.

"After a strong start to the year, demand declined across most geographies and end markets in the second half of 2012 as the global economy slowed," CEO Tom Linebarger said in a prepared statement. "The work we have undertaken to reduce costs and lower inventory should benefit the company when the global economy improves, however, there is uncertainty surrounding the timing and pace of improvement in end markets in 2013."

The company said it trimmed its work force by about 650 employees, or 3 percent, in 2012 while also eliminating about 650 hourly positions.

The company blamed the quarterly revenue decline on weaker demand in truck, construction, and oil and gas markets in North America, as well as lower demand in international markets for power-generation equipment and construction, truck and mining engines.

Full-year revenue was $17.3 billion, down 4 percent from 2011. Revenue in North America rose 9 percent, but was offset by international sales that fell 15 percent, with the most significant declines in Brazil, China and Europe.

Full-year earnings were $1.66 billion, or $8.74 per share, down from $1.85 billion, or $9.55 per share, in 2011.

Cummins shares rose $2.51, or 2.1 percent, Wednesday morning, to $119.90 each.



 

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT