IBJNews

Hill-Rom's fourth quarter profit exceeds expectations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hill-Rom Holdings Inc. topped analysts’ expectations as profit grew by double digits in its fourth quarter, the company announced late Wednesday.

The Batesville-based maker of hospital equipment reported profit of $26.4 million, or 42 cents per share, in the period ended Sept. 30.

The numbers excluded acquisition-related charges and marked an 11-percent increase from the same quarter a year earlier, when Hill-Rom earned $23.8 million, or 38 cents a share.

Analysts expected earnings of 28 cents per share. Revenue for the quarter fell 14.4 percent, to $363.3 million, compared with the same period last year.

Lower costs for commodities and other items offset the revenue decline, the company said. Hill-Rom also has been cutting costs, including moving manufacturing to low-cost regions, and diversifying its business.

“The global recession, uncertainty related to health care reform in the U.S. and health care spending pressures in other major countries continue to influence purchasing decisions of customers,” Hill-Rom President and CEO Peter H. Soderberg said in a prepared statement. “Accordingly, we have remained conservative regarding the speed of recovery.”

For its entire fiscal year, Hill-Rom reported a loss of $405 million, or $6.47 cents per share, compared with a profit of $67.1 million, or $1.07 per share, in fiscal 2008.

Revenue for the fiscal year fell 9 percent, to $1.3 billion.

Hill-Rom expects 2010 profit in the range of $124 million to $142 million, on revenue of $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion, translating to earnings per share of between $1.20 and $1.36.

“Our outlook for 2010 contemplates low single-digit market growth, as well as some continued improvement in market share as new product introductions across the portfolio take hold,” Soderberg said.

Shares of Hill-Rom were up 7 percent, to $23.12, in Thursday morning trading.


 

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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT