IBJNews

Hill-Rom profit drops, beat expectations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hill-Rom Holdings Inc. topped analysts' expectations in its fiscal third quarter even as hospital-spending cuts clipped its revenue by 9 percent, the company announced late yesterday.

The Batesville-based maker of hospital equipment reported profit of $20.2 million, or 32 cents per share, in the period ended June 30. The numbers excluded several charges and marked a 6-percent decline from the same quarter a year earlier, when Hill-Rom earned $21.5 million, or 34 cents per share.

Analysts expected earnings of 28 cents per share. Revenue for the quarter fell nearly 9 percent, to $334.7 million, compared with the same period last year.

However, President and CEO Peter H. Soderberg noted the earnings matched its fiscal second-quarter performance.

"While we cannot predict the timing of when hospitals and other providers around the world will return to more normalized capital acquisition behavior, we are using this recessionary period ... to prepare the company for strong and profitable growth once demand for our products inevitably return," Soderberg said.

Hill-Rom bumped up the bottom end of its profit forecast for the year. It now expects to earn from $1.03 per share to $1.13 per share. The company had anticipated earning 85 cents to $1.15.

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. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

  2. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

  3. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

  4. One option is to redistribute the payroll tax already collected by the State. A greater share could be allocated to the county of the workplace location as opposed to the county of residency. Not a new tax, just re-allocate what is currently collected.

  5. Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.

ADVERTISEMENT