IBJNews

Lilly forecasts sales, profit drop in face of rival generic drugs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co., the leading U.S. maker of diabetes products, on Tuesday forecast a drop in 2014 profit and reduced its sales outlook because of generic competition to the its Cymbalta antidepressant and Evista drug for osteoporosis.

Sales will be between $19.2 billion and $19.8 billion, while profit will range from $2.77 to $2.85 a share, the Indianapolis-based company said in a prepared statement.

Analysts had predicted $19.6 billion in sales and profit of $2.78 a share, based on the average of 17 estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Lilly said in October that meeting its projection of at least $20 billion in sales in 2014 would be difficult. The company lost patent protection on Cymbalta, its best-selling drug, last month, leading to expectations that revenue will decline to its lowest level since 2007.

“We expect 2014 to be the most financially challenging year of Lilly’s current period of patent expirations,” Chief Financial Officer Derica Rice said in the statement.

The company plans to increase sales starting next year as it brings new products to market. Five Lilly drugs are being reviewed by regulators, and eight more are in the final of three stages of testing required before U.S. approval, according to the company’s web site.

Cymbalta generated $4.99 billion in 2012. Its 2014 sales are projected by analysts to fall to $1.43 billion. Revenue from Evista is expected to drop to $498.6 million this year from an estimated $997.1 million in 2013, according to analysts.

Lilly shares gained less than 1 percent, to $51.53 each, on Monday.

The shares had increased 1 percent in the the past 12 months through Monday, compared with a rise of 36 percent in the Standard & Poor’s Pharmaceuticals Index.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT