IBJNews

Lilly stock rises after drugmaker reports higher sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Investors responded favorably Thursday to Eli Lilly and Co.’s surprisingly strong second-quarter revenue, even though its profit fell due to rapid spending on marketing and research.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker also gave investors a couple hints of growth, even as it nears the October patent expiration of its bestselling drug, the $5 billion-a-year antipsychotic Zyprexa.

Lilly raised its 2011 profit forecast to a range of $4.25 per share to $4.35 per share, excluding special charges. In April, Lilly predicted it would earn $4.15 per share to $4.30 per share for the year.

Lilly saw its stock price rise as much as 1.8 percent Thursday morning after it reported results. Lilly’s stock has risen more than 10 percent this year. The stock traded for $38.77 per share just before midday.

Lilly earned $1.2 billion, or $1.07 per share, in the three months ended June 30, a decline of 11 percent compared with the same quarter a year ago.

The declines were driven mainly by a 16-percent rise in sales and marketing expenses—used to help launch a new diabetes drug Tradjenta, which Lilly is co-marketing with Germany-based Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH. Lilly also suffered increasing costs from the 2010 U.S. health care reform law, which mandated rebates and fees that cost Lilly $110 million in the quarter.

Excluding a $132 million restructuring charge for Lilly’s ongoing layoffs of 5,500 workers, the company would have earned $1.3 billion, or $1.18 per share, which represents a 4-percent decline in profit from the same quarter last year, when all special charges are excluded.

On that basis, analysts were expecting profit of $1.17 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Revenue for the quarter totaled $6.25 billion, up 9 percent from a year earlier. Analysts expected only $6 billion in revenue.

“Slightly better-than-expected revenues, that is the pattern we are seeing,” Tony Butler, an analyst with Barclays Capital in New York, told Bloomberg News.

Lilly achieved double-digit sales growth for seven of its eight best-selling drugs, including 18-percent growth for insulin Humilin, 16-percent for another insulin, Humalog, and 16-percent growth for its anti-depressant Cymbalta.

Cymbalta sales hit $1 billion in the quarter, second only to Zyprexa sales of $1.4 billion.

Sales of Lilly’s cancer drug Gemzar fell 62 percent, to $112.4 million, after generic copies hit U.S. markets in November. Lilly also faces generic competition for Zyprexa when its U.S. and European patents expire in October.

Noting the challenges from generic Gemzar and health care reform, Chief Financial Officer Derica Rice stressed that all other parts of Lilly’s business were performing well.

“We again delivered strong growth in the remainder of our business,” he said.
 

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