IBJNews

Lilly's 2013 profit forecast tops expectations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Eli Lilly and Co. unveiled a better-than-expected 2013 earnings forecast Friday, in part because the pharmaceutical company expects growth from several established drugs to help make up for revenue lost to generic competition.

The Indianapolis drug developer saw sales for its all-time best-selling drug, the antipsychotics Zyprexa, crater in 2012 after it lost U.S. patent protection. Lilly will take another hit next December when it loses patent protection for its current top seller, the antidepressant Cymbalta.

But company executives told analysts Friday morning they still expect Cymbalta and another product that loses patent protection in 2013, the insulin Humalog, to help drive revenue growth along with products like the cancer treatment Alimta and the erectile dysfunction drug Cialis.

Lilly also expects more growth from Japan, developing countries and its animal health business.

All told, the drugmaker forecast 2013 adjusted earnings of between $3.75 and $3.90 per share on a range of $22.6 billion to $23.4 billion in revenue.

That topped analyst expectations, on average, for earnings of $3.72, according to FactSet. Analysts also expected $22.87 billion in revenue.

Company shares climbed $1.86, or 3.7 percent, to $51.58 in midday trading Friday, while broader indexes rose less than 1 percent.

Lilly said it expects operating expenses will be flat or drop slightly compared with 2012, and that was slightly better than what Edward Jones analyst Judson Clark expected.

He called Lilly's 2013 forecast "a pleasant surprise," but he also noted that plenty of long-term concerns remain. Lilly won't feel the brunt of the Cymbalta patent loss until 2014, and Clark expects the company's earnings to shrink then. What remains to be seen, he said, is whether the drugmaker is willing to preserve its dividend and cut expenses enough to tame that loss.

"We think the real question marks are in 2014," he said.

Lilly also expects to counter the patent expirations by developing new drugs, and the company said Friday it has 13 experimental drugs in late-stage testing, the last phase before a company seeks regulatory approval.

Lilly reiterated on Friday that it expects at least $3 billion in net income and revenue of at least $20 billion through 2014. It also expects to keep paying shareholders a dividend and to complete a $1.5 billion share repurchase program this year.

Zyprexa once brought in more than $5 billion in annual revenue for Lilly, but its sales sank 66 percent through the first nine months of 2012 after generic competition entered the market. The company also expects revenue from Cymbalta, which topped $4 billion in 2011, to start falling in this year's fourth quarter.

Humalog, Lilly's best-selling insulin, brought in about $1.4 billion in total revenue in 2011, but that product may take less of a sales hit after it loses U.S. patent protection in May because it's a biologic drug made from living cells instead of a chemical formula. Those are harder for generic drugmakers to replicate.

The company cannot expect to replace blockbuster drug revenue with another round of blockbusters, said WBB Securities analyst Steve Brozak. He said Lilly's success will depend on a combination of drug development, partnerships with other companies and acquisitions that help stoke its product pipeline.

But that approach will be difficult because other drugmakers also are facing patent expirations and will be competing with Lilly on those deals.

"If (Lilly executives) think that business as usual applies, their shareholders are going to vote with their sell orders," he said.

The company reports fourth-quarter and 2012 results Jan. 29.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Lilly is Back, thank goodness
    Given Lilly mgmt successfully navigated through this past field of land minds, sounds like Brozak has an interest in driving down the value of the stock, as "business as usual" couldnt be a modus operandi given that they weathereed the incredible beating they just took. Yeah, its not over Steve, but Duh?

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT