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. 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