IBJNews

Cummins' stock sinks after worse-than-expected quarter

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shares in Cummins Inc. slid more than 9 percent Tuesday morning after the Columbus-based engine manufacturer reported weaker-than-expected sales and profit in the third quarter, and lowered its outlook for the rest of the year.

Cummins' profit rose less than 1 percent, to $355 million, or $1.90 a share, compared with $352 million, or $1.86 a share, a year ago.

Excluding one-time items such as tax adjustments, profit rose to $1.94 per share, up from $1.78 a share last year. On that basis, analysts had been expecting earnings of $2.11 a share.

Revenue rose 3.6 percent, to $4.27 billion, missing analyst expections of $4.38 billion.

Cummins said it now expects 2013 revenue to decline 3 percent from 2012 after it previously predicted 2013 revenue would be flat. That implies sales of $16.81 billion this year, below Wall Street's forecast of $17.37 billion.

The mining industry — a key market for Cummins — has been slowing. Revenue from engines fell 1 percent, to $2.5 billion, because of lower demand for mining and light-duty highway engines, the company said.

Sales of power generators dropped 13 percent, to $712 million, while parts sales rose 14 percent, to $1.1 billion.

North American revenue rose 11 percent, but international revenue fell 4 percent because growth in China and Brazil was offset by weak demand in India, Australia, and Europe.

Cummins' stock was down $10.80, or 8 percent, about an hour after the market opened, to $124.11 per share. The stock was up 25 percent this year through Monday's close.


 

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT