ITT Educational's profit plunges, but tops analyst expectations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

ITT Educational Services Inc. saw its profits drop 22 percent in the fourth quarter, but still exceeded analysts' expectations.

The Carmel-based operator of for-profit colleges earned $76 million in the quarter, or $2.87 per share, compared with $97.5 million, or $3.14 per share, in the same quarter of 2010. The per-share profit decline shrank because ITT has reduced its number of outstanding shares by about 4.5 million in the past year.

The per-share profit performance far exceeded ITT’s own predicted range of $2.13 to $2.33, which the company issued in October. The company also topped the predictions of Wall Street analysts, who were expecting profit of $2.31 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Revenue in the quarter totaled $368.3 million, a 10-percent decline from the $410 million ITT brought in a year ago. The company has been suffering enrollment declines as the wave of students that went back to school in the recession has been subsiding. Congressional scrutiny of the value of for-profit degrees also has taken its toll on enrollment.

ITT’s enrollment of new students totaled 15,125 in the fourth quarter, down by 14.7 percent compared with the same quarter a year ago.

For all of 2011, ITT posted revenue of $1.5 billion and profit of $308 million, a 17.7-percent decline from the previous year. Overall student enrollment fell in 2011 by 13.5 percent, to 73,255.

ITT’s earnings per share for the year totaled $11.13, a slight decline from the year before, when it posted earnings of $11.17 per share.

Shares of ITT closed Wednesday at $69.40 apiece. The stock price has soared by nearly 38 percent in the past five weeks, although it is still far below its July peak of $95.44.


Post a comment to this story

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

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.