IBJNews

Interactive Intelligence shares fall on smaller profit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shares of Interactive Intelligence fell as much 10 percent in early trading Thursday after the Indianapolis-based software maker reported lower earnings Wednesday after the market closed.

Interactive's profit in the first quarter fell to $189,000, or 1 cent per share, compared with $3 million, or 16 cents per share, in the same quarter of 2011.

Revenue grew 11 percent, to $52.8 million, compared to the previous year.

The company reported profit of 9 cents per share on a non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) basis, missing analyst estimates by 6 cents per share.

Interactive's short-term results appeared to be dinged by a higher percentage of cloud-based product orders, which resulted in more revenue being deferred to future quarters.

The company increasingly is making its communications software available as a service that is hosted and managed off-site instead of at the customer’s premises. The appeal of such cloud computing is that customers don’t have to allocate costly space on their own IT systems.

“For the first quarter, a higher mix of cloud-based orders and the structure of certain product orders resulted in more revenues being deferred to future quarters,” Interactive founder and CEO Donald Brown said in a prepared statement. "We are optimistic about our outlook for the remainder of the year, and we are maintaining our revenue, order growth and profitability guidance for 2012."

Unbilled future cloud-based revenues in the quarter jumped to $40.6 million, from $18.6 million during the first quarter of 2011.

Interactive stock fell as low as $27.27 per share Thursday morning before rebounding to $28.49, down 7.4 percent from Wednesday's closing price.

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