IBJNews

Shares fall after Lilly earnings report

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Shares of Eli Lilly and Co. fell in morning trading after the company said health reform is taking a bite out of its business.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker also lowered its forecast for full-year profits because the new health care law grants larger rebates on prescription drugs to federal health insurance programs.

Such rebates already cost Lilly $60 million in the first quarter, even though the law was signed on March 19. Lilly expects to lose $350 million to $400 million in revenue this year and as much as $700 million next year.

Lilly stock traded as low as $36.16 Monday morning, down 1 percent, while the broader markets were up. The company released its first-quarter financial results before the markets opened.

“The U.S. health care reform clearly provides a near-term challenge,” said Derica Rice, Lilly’s chief financial officer, during a conference call Monday morning with Wall Street analysts.

That’s a problem for Lilly, which needs to build up all the cash it can before its bestselling drug Zyprexa loses sales to cheaper generic copies beginning in late 2011.

Lilly shareholders were set to gather Monday in Indianapolis to hear an update on the company’s performance, including how it will keep paying its generous dividend during the lean years after Zyprexa’s patent expiration.

Also, Lilly’s board of directors has bowed to pressure from investors in past years and is now recommending that shareholders remove a supermajority shareholder vote to approve a hostile takeover of the company.

This barrier to unwanted takeovers has been in place for 25 years. It will require the consent of 80 percent of shareholders to remove it.

In its first quarter, Lilly earned $1.25 billion, down 5 percent from the same quarter last year. On a per-share basis, Lilly’s profits shrank from $1.20 a year ago to $1.13 in this year’s first quarter.

Excluding expenses for an acquisition and severance payments as Lilly lays off employees, the company would have earned $1.18 per share in the quarter.

Lilly incurred charges of 12 cents per share from the cost of the rebates as well as an $85.1 million tax because the health reform law will reduce the tax benefit given to companies who provide prescription drug coverage to their retirees.

Lilly’s results beat the expectations of Wall Street analysts, who were expecting earnings of $1.10 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Financial Network.

Lilly’s revenue for the quarter rose 9 percent to $5.49 billion, slightly below analysts’ expectations of $5.54 billion.

“We expect that the new U.S. health care reform legislation, while not perfect, will help seniors in the Medicare system better afford their prescriptions and will provide greater access to our medicines for millions of Americans who are currently uninsured,” Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said in a statement. “However, as a result of the new legislation, Lilly will incur substantial costs to our business.”

For the year, Lilly expects the health reform law to slice 35 cents per share from its profits. Those costs forced Lilly to reduce its profit forecast to a range of $4.40-$4.55 per share. In January, Lilly predicted it would earn $4.65-$4.85 per share this year.

The company said its underlying business is performing better than expected, partially offsetting the impact of health reform. But Lilly’s international profits were tempered in the first quarter by a weaker dollar, which caused the company’s cost of sales spiked 37 percent.

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. If a television station wants to improve viewership, get rid of the local blackout. I was born by the brickyard, and have attended 15 or more races. I have children now, I won't attend unless circumstances are perfect. As those with growing families know, they never are. I'm always impressed that upwards of 250,000 people attend the 500. However, as a growing, or, more apt, sprawling city, Indianapolis and its immediate suburbs count almost 2.2 million. Show the race live, let the venue get a kick-back on revenues, and open-wheel racing might have a fighting chance to be relevant again. Just in time for those tax-payer lights to make sense.

  2. John Moore, I too have had the same issue recently. A property next to my house was on the Land Bank and I was interested in purchasing. When I tried to contact Reggie, I got back emails that had nothing to do with what I asked about. Actually my latest response from him was on this past Friday. I had asked about how to buy the property and if it was still available. His response to me was to contact the mayor's office to get the schedule of his appearances. (???) Hopefully the city is able to do something to fix what this guy has done, it would be nice if they would take the properties back and sell them properly so land owners like me and you mother would have a fair chance.

  3. I too work in the industry, with over 25 years of experience and your political spin has probably nothing to do with any rebranding. "Let's dress it up" would have nothing to do with the government "telling us how and what to eat." Give it a political rest. And being a producer for a radio show doesn't mean you've been involved in advertising and branding for 30 years.

  4. Ms. Morris did not understand the ways of the business world, otherwise, like the IMS, she could have petitioned the State Legislature for a handout of State Funds for her charity work. Ms. Morris should consider becoming a state lobbyist for Lemonade Stand Operators.

  5. David Copperfield!

ADVERTISEMENT