IBJNews

Lilly's profit drops 4 percent, but beats analysts' estimates

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Price increases and sales gains helped Eli Lilly and Co. offset declining revenue from its former blockbuster Zyprexa in the fourth quarter, allowing the company to beat analysts' expectations and raise its 2013 profit forecast.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker saw profit fall 4 percent, to $827 million, in the quarter, compared with the same period a year ago. That profit translated to earnings of 74 cents per share.

Excluding $204 million in charges for ending the development program of the pancreatic enzyme replacement drug liprotomase and further reducing employment, Lilly would have earned 85 cents per share in the quarter.

On that basis, analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters were expecting earnings of 78 cents per share.

Lilly shares rose 3.6 percent by early afternoon, to $54.56 each.

Lilly’s fourth-quarter revenue declined 1 percent from a year ago, to just less than $6 billion. Analysts were expecting revenue of $5.8 billion.

“Lilly delivered solid financial results in the fourth quarter of 2012, as we successfully offset a large part of the revenue decline from the Zyprexa patent expiration with growth in other products such as Cymbalta, Forteo, Alimta, Effient and our animal health portfolio," Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said in a prepared statement.

Lilly boosted its 2013 profit forecast by 7 cents per share because Congress delayed the expiration of the research-and-development tax credit by one quarter. The company now expects to earn in the range of $4.10 to $4.25 per share this year. That would represent a gain of 12 percent to 16 percent over 2012.

For all of 2012, Lilly posted profit of $4.1 billion, or $3.66 per share, down 6 percent from 2011. Excluding special charges, Lilly earned $3.39 for the year,  exceeding the predictions of analysts by 6 cents.

Lilly’s 2012 revenue totaled $22.6 billion, a 7-percent decline from 2011. Analysts had been expecting full-year revenue of $22.4 billion.

Lilly’s U.S. and European patents on the antipsychotic drug Zypexa expired in the fall of 2011. That allowed cheaper generic versions of the drug to sap two-thirds of the drug’s $5 billion in annual sales.

That $3.3 billion hole in Lilly’s income statement has been mostly but not entirely filled by rising sales of other products. Sales of the antidepressant Cymbalta rose 20 percent last year to $5 billion. Sales of the osteoporosis drug Forteo and Elanco animal health products each rose 21 percent, to  $1.2 billion and $2 billion, respectively.

Lilly’s shares have risen 40 percent over the past 12 months, closing at $52.64 on Monday.

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT