IBJNews

Fortune turns profit in first quarter on higher revenue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Fortune Industries Inc. turned a profit in the first quarter after posting a loss during the same three months last year.

The professional employer organization said Tuesday that it had profit of $265,000, or 2 cents per share, compared with a loss of $426,000, or 3 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010.

Revenue for the quarter grew nearly 10 percent, to $16.8 million.

The company attributed the improvement in earnings to reducing expenses and renegotiating the company’s workers’ compensation policy.

“We are seeing evidence of the economy recovering slowly, as our same-store sales are increasing, which indicates the hiring of new employees and increased salaries for our existing clients,” Fortune CEO Tena Mayberry said in a written statement.

PEOs handle payroll, payroll taxes, Worker’s Compensation claims, health plans, and other employee benefits for employers. Fortune provides human resources consulting and management, employee-assessment, training and benefits-administration services to small- and medium-sized businesses in 49 states.

Shares of the thinly traded Fortune were priced at 68 cents each Tuesday morning.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 2 cents a share?
    Our company uses Fortune, we found them using peowiz.com. I know this is just a press release but I wish it went into more depth on why Fortune sees an uptick in employment when the BLS stats for Indiana are flat at best.

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

  2. An increase of only 5% is awesome compared to what most consumers face or used to face before passage of the ACA. Imagine if the Medicaid program had been expanded to the 400k Hoosiers that would be eligible, the savings would have been substantial to the state and other policy holders. The GOP predictions of plan death spirals, astronomical premium hikes and shortages of care are all bunk. Hopefully voters are paying attention. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare), where fully implemented, has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured and helped contained the growth in healthcare costs.

  3. So much for competition lowering costs.

  4. As I understand the proposal, Keystone would take on the debt, not the city/CRC. So the $104K would not be used to service the $3.8M bond. Keystone would do that with its share.

  5. Adam C, if anything in Carmel is "packed in like sardines", you'll have to show me where you shop for groceries. Based on 2014 population estimates, Carmel has around 85,000 people spread across about 48 square miles, which puts its density at well below 1800 persons/sq mi, which is well below Indianapolis (already a very low-density city). Noblesville is minimally less dense than Carmel as well. The initiatives over the last few years have taken what was previously a provincial crossroads with no real identity beyond lack of poverty (and the predictably above-average school system) and turned it into a place with a discernible look, feel, and a center. Seriously, if you think Carmel is crowded, couldn't you opt to live in the remaining 95% of Indiana that still has an ultra-low density development pattern? Moreover, if you see Carmel as "over-saturated" have you ever been to Chicago--or just about any city outside of Indiana?

ADVERTISEMENT