IBJNews

Cummins earnings widely miss predictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Cummins Inc. announced a larger-than-expected drop in quarterly earnings Tuesday morning, as revenue fell 12 percent on weak demand for its products in domestic and international markets.

The Columbus-based engine maker reported a first-quarter profit of $282 million, or $1.49 a share, down 38 percent from $455 million, or $2.38 a share, in the same quarter of 2012.

Analysts, on average, predicted Cummins would report a profit of $1.86 a share.

Revenue dropped to $3.9 billion, the company said.

“As anticipated, we experienced weak demand in the first quarter in many of our major markets,” Cummins CEO Tom Linebarger said in a written statement. “While uncertainty remains in a number of markets, we expect that the first quarter will mark the low point of the year for company revenues.”

Revenue declined by 15 percent in Cummins’ North America market and was down 10 percent internationally.

The biggest decline in demand came in the engine business, with unit volumes down 18 percent on a year-over-year basis, Cummins said. Shipments of high horsepower engines declined by 24 percent due to weakness in the mining, oil and gas, and power-generation markets.

The company forecasted full-year revenue to be either flat or down by as much as 5 percent.

“We expect moderately improving order trends in on-highway and construction markets in North America to be the most significant drivers of improvement in revenues going forward,” Linebarger said.

Cummins shares closed Monday at $113.25 each, but fell as much as 4.2 percent in premarket trading.
 

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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT