IBJNews

ITT Educational's quarterly profit, revenue climb

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fourth-quarter earnings for ITT Educational Services Inc. topped analysts’ expectations, as profit rose 49 percent compared to the same period a year ago.

The Carmel-based for-profit educator said Thursday morning that its profit in the quarter climbed to $93.7 million.

ITT earned $2.56 per share, topping Wall Street analyst predictions of $2.36 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Financial Network. A year ago, the company earned $1.61 per share.

Revenue in the fourth quarter spiked 33.8 percent, to $374.4 million.

“We are very pleased with our results in the final quarter and full year of 2009, ITT CEO Kevin M. Modany said in a prepared statement. “As we begin the new year, we believe that we are well positioned to achieve our internal financial and operating goals for 2010.”

For the entire year, profit rose 49 percent, to $300 million. Revenue was $1.3 billion, a 29.9-percent increase over 2008.

Student enrollment in the fourth quarter increased to 19,563, up 31.2 percent from the fourth quarter in 2008. Total student enrollment for the year grew to 80,766, a 30.3-percent increase compared to 2008.

In spite of the growth, the company said its bad-debt expenses, as a percentage of revenue, grew to 6.9 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with 4.9 percent in the year-ago period.

Some analysts and investors are worried that the recession is keeping fewer ITT graduates from finding jobs, causing them to default on their loans.

ITT shares opened Thursday morning at $97.91 each, a 26-percent decline since they peaked in early February 2009.
 

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT