IBJNews

Shares fall after Lilly earnings report

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT