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.



Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So, Pence wants the federal government to ignore the 2008 law that allows children from these countries to argue for asylum in front of a judge. How did this guy become governor? And how is that we'll soon be subjected to repeatedly seeing him on TV being taken seriously as a presidential candidate? Am I in Bizzaro-U.S.A.?

  2. "And the most rigorous studies of one-year preschool programs have shown short-term benefits that fade out in a few years or no benefits at all." So we are going down a path that seems to have proven not to work very well. Right intention, wrong approach?

  3. Well for Dunkin Donuts it might say that even a highly popular outlet can't make a poorly sited location work. That little strip has seen near constant churn for years.

  4. Years ago, the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device companies shifted their research investment away from Medical Institutions to focus more on private research centers, primarily because of medical institution inefficiencies in initiating clinical studies and their inability/commitment to enroll the needed number of patients in these studies. The protracted timelines of the medical institutions were prompting significant delays in the availability of new drug and medical device entities for patients and relatedly, higher R and D expenditures to the commercial industry because of these delays. While the above stated IU Health "ratio is about $2.50 in federal funding for every $1 in industry funding", the available funding is REVERSED as commercial R and D (primarily Phase I-IV clinical work)runs $2.50 to $1 for available federal funding ($76.8B to $30.9B in 2011). The above article significatly understated the available R and D funding from industry......see the Pharma and Medical Device industry websites. Clearly, if medical institutions like IU Health wish to attract more commercial studies, they will need to become more competitive with private clinical sites in their ability to be more efficient and in their commitment to meet study enrollment goals on time. Lastly, to the reference to the above Washington Post article headlined “As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias", lacks some credibility as both FDA and Institutional Institutional Review Boards must approve the high proportion of these studies before studies are started. This means that both study safety and science must be approved by both entities.

  5. ChIeF and all the other critics – better is better no matter what. Get over it; they are doing better despite you ?