IBJNews

Eli Lilly's profit shoots up despite lackluster sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shares of Eli Lilly and Co. fell about 3 percent in morning trading Wednesday after the drugmaker reported better-than-expected earnings, but flat revenue, for the first quarter.

Lilly also said regulators had agreed to a priority review of the company's potential stomach cancer treatment.

The Indianapolis-based company said the Food and Drug Administration will evaluate ramucirumab under a program designed for drugs that treat serious or life-threatening diseases for which there are few other therapies. Fast-track, or priority, status gives companies extra meetings and correspondence with regulators throughout the review process, and it allows the drugmaker to submit data as it compiles it.

Lilly is seeking approval for ramucirumab as a second treatment in patients with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers that have spread. Gastric cancer affects the stomach lining and often goes undetected while developing slowly. Gastroesophageal junction cancer forms where the esophagus connects to the stomach.

The company said last year that the experimental drug met goals for improved patient survival in late-stage clinical research.

Lilly also recently submitted a new type 2 diabetes treatment it developed with German drugmaker Boehringer Ingelheim to the FDA. The company said Wednesday that treatment and ramucirumab are the first two of what could be five drugs submitted to U.S. regulators this year.

Investors are watching Lilly's pipeline of developing drugs closely because the company is losing U.S. patent protection for some key products, and it needs to replace that revenue. Lilly lost patent protection for its all-time best selling drug, the antipsychotic Zyprexa, in late 2011, and its sales have plunged since being exposed to cheaper generic competition. The company also loses protection at the end of this year for current top-seller, the antidepressant Cymbalta.

In the first quarter, Lilly's earnings jumped 53 percent largely due to a $495 million payment for the transfer to former drug development partner Amylin Pharmaceuticals of commercial rights outside the United States for the diabetes treatment exenatide.

Lilly earned $1.55 billion, or $1.42 per share, in the three months that ended March 31. That compares to $1.01 billion, or 91 cents per share, in last year's quarter.

Not counting the exenatide payment, Lilly reported adjusted earnings of $1.14 per share. Analysts expected, on average, earnings of $1.05 per share, according to FactSet.

The drugmaker said its revenue stayed flat at $5.6 billion, as lower sales volume and unfavorable foreign exchange rates countered gains from higher prices. Analysts expected $5.67 billion in revenue.

Revenue from Cymbalta rose 19 percent, to $1.33 billion, and sales of the erectile dysfunction drug Cialis climbed 11 percent, to $515 million. But revenue from Zyprexa tumbled 49 percent, to $284.8 million.

The drugmaker also reaffirmed its forecast for 2013 earnings to range between $3.82 and $3.97 per share on $22.6 billion to $23.4 billion in revenue.

Analysts expect, on average, earnings of $3.90 per share on $23 billion in revenue.

Lilly shares were down 2.8 percent near midday, to $56.75 each. The company's stock price had risen 18.3 percent this yea after closing Tuesday at $58.33. It has been lifted by the broader markets and by investors’ rising hopes in the pipeline potential of all pharmaceutical companies.

 

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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT