IBJNews

Cummins' profit more than doubles in first quarter

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Cummins Inc. saw profit more than double in the first quarter amid continued strength in key international markets and a recovery in the North American truck market.

The Columbus, Ind.-based engine maker on Tuesday reported profit of $343 million, or $1.75 per share, compared with $149 million, or 75 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010.

Revenue soared 56 percent, to $3.9 billion.

Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had expected profit of $1.44 per share on $3.6 billion in revenue.

The strong performance prompted the company to raise its sales forecast this year by $1 billion, to $17 billion.

“Our outstanding first-quarter results demonstrate that we are well-positioned to take advantage of our significant growth opportunities as markets around the world continue to recover,” Cummins CEO Tim Solso said in a prepared statement.

Sales in the engine segment climbed 68 percent, to $2.4 billion, compared with the first quarter last year, when sales suffered from a change in emission standards and the economic downturn, the company said.

Engine shipments in the global heavy-duty truck market more than tripled year over year, while medium-duty truck engine sales more than doubled.

Shares of Cummins were up nearly 7 percent, to $115.30 each, in mid-morning 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. Why should citizens rates increase forever to basically reduce Dukes cost to operate in the future? They will have no meter readers, no connect/disconnect personnel and will need fewer lineman to handle the same number of customers. Add to that the ability to replace customer service by giving detailed information electronically. Why do we have to subsidize the cost cutting measures of a Public Utility?

  2. In response to Sassafras, I have to ask if you relocated directly from Bloomington to Carmel? First, as you point out, Carmel is 48 square miles. Do you think it’s possible that some areas are more densely developed than others? That might explain traffic density in some places while others are pretty free moving. Second, your comment “have you ever been to Chicago--or just about any city outside of Indiana?” belies your bias. I don’t know, Sassafras, have you never been to Nashville, Columbus, OH, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Phoenix? They’re not a lot different in density than Indy. One more thing…I understand these comment sections are for expressing opinions, so those of us just looking for facts have to be patient, but you mention “low-density” Indy. How many cities in the US comprise 400 square miles with about 10% of that still being agricultural? Those facts certainly can impact the statistics.

  3. With all the past shady actions of Duke with utility regulators, one wonders do they really need such a huge amount? Concerned regulators not protecting ratepayers from the aggressive Duke monolith.

  4. I thought that had to be the way it was but had to ask because I wasn't sure. Thanks Again!

  5. I could be wrong, but I don't think Butler views the new dorm as mere replacements for Schwitzer and or Ross.

ADVERTISEMENT