IBJNews

Klipsch purchase helps fuel Audiovox sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Audiovox Corp.’s purchase of high-end speaker maker Klipsch Group Inc. early this year seems to be paying off for the New York company.

Audiovox President and CEO Pat Lavelle, in announcing the company’s fiscal second-quarter earnings late Tuesday, credited the former Indianapolis firm with helping Audiovox report strong financials.

“Our international operations are performing well, despite weakness in some European countries, and our Klipsch acquisition is meeting plan with a lot of potential to grow in the years ahead,” Lavelle said in a prepared statement.

For the fiscal period ended Aug. 31, Audiovox reported profit of $3.4 million, or 15 cents per share, compared with $600,000, or 3 cents per share, for the same time frame in 2010.

Second-quarter revenue increased 22.5 percent, to $158.3 million.

Sales of electronics accounted for $126.7 million of Audiovox’s total quarterly revenue. The addition of Klipsch had a favorable impact on the division, the company said.

Audiovox paid $166 million in March to buy Klipsch, which became a subsidiary of the company and operates in Indianapolis as a stand-alone operation under the leadership of the previous management team.

Audiovox had sales of $573 million and Klipsch had sales of $169 million in the 12 months ended Nov. 30, the companies said.

Klipsch Group, founded in 1945 by Paul Klipsch, has 210 employees, including 130 in Indianapolis. Its brands include Jamo, Mirage, Energy and Athena.
 

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