IBJNews

Lilly's second-quarter profits surge 16 percent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co.’s profits spiked 16 percent in the second quarter and the company raised its forecast for the rest of the year.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker recorded profits of $1.3 billion, or $1.22 per share, during the three months ended June 30. Excluding a $27 million charge for severance payments to employees Lilly is laying off, the company’s earnings per share were $1.24.

On that basis, Wall Street analysts expected Lilly to earn just $1.10 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Financial Network.

Lilly’s revenue for the quarter rose 9 percent to $5.7 billion, also beating analysts’ expectations of $5.6 billion.

Sales growth in the quarter was led by Lilly’s lung cancer drug Alimta (up 43 percent), followed by its antidepressant Cymbalta (up 17 percent) and its anti-impotence pill Cialis (up 15 percent). Lilly’s bestseller, the antipsychotic Zyprexa, saw its sales rise 5 percent.

"Lilly continued to deliver solid financial results in the second quarter, driven by volume-based revenue gains and ongoing cost-containment efforts that resulted in double-digit earnings growth," Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said in a statement.

He added, “This strong financial performance enables us to fund our R&D pipeline of nearly 70 clinical stage assets and make strategic acquisitions in order to deliver an increased number of innovative medicines to patients in the future."

Lilly’s lack of new medicines to replace Zyprexa and Cymbalta, which will lose their patent protection in 2011 and 2013, respectively, has spooked investors. Lilly’s shares have essentially treaded water this year, falling 2 percent to $34.95 apiece.

Lilly no longer gives quarterly profit forecasts. But in April, it said it expected to earn $4.40 to $4.55 per share this year, excluding special items but including a 35-cent-per-share hit from the new health reform law.

Thursday, the company raised its forecast by a dime a share, to a range of $4.50 to $4.65, excluding special items.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Zyprexa profits
    Eli Lilly Zyprexa Claims Still Unresolved



    Eli Lilly Zyprexa can cause diabetes I took Zyprexa a powerful Lilly schizophrenic drug for 4 years it was prescribed to me off-label for post traumatic stress disorder was ineffective costly and gave me diabetes.

    This is a powerful drug that can damage a young person physiologically for life. Please take with caution and learn as much as you can about side effects. Eli Lilly's #1 cash cow Zyprexa drug sale $40 billion dollars so far,has a ten times greater risk of causing type 2 diabetes over the non-user of Zyprexa. So,here we have a conflict of interest that this same company also is a big profiteer of diabetes treatment.

    Daniel Haszard Zyprexa whistle-blower

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. to mention the rest of Molly's experience- she served as Communications Director for the Indianapolis Department of Public Works and also did communications for the state. She's incredibly qualified for this role and has a real love for Indianapolis and Indiana. Best of luck to her!

  2. Shall we not demand the same scrutiny for law schools, med schools, heaven forbid, business schools, etc.? How many law school grads are servers? How many business start ups fail and how many business grads get low paying jobs because there are so few high paying positions available? Why does our legislature continue to demean public schools and give taxpayer dollars to charters and private schools, ($171 million last year), rather than investing in our community schools? We are on a course of disaster regarding our public school attitudes unless we change our thinking in a short time.

  3. I agree with the other reader's comment about the chunky tomato soup. I found myself wanting a breadstick to dip into it. It tasted more like a marinara sauce; I couldn't eat it as a soup. In general, I liked the place... but doubt that I'll frequent it once the novelty wears off.

  4. The Indiana toll road used to have some of the cleanest bathrooms you could find on the road. After the lease they went downhill quickly. While not the grossest you'll see, they hover a bit below average. Am not sure if this is indicative of the entire deal or merely a portion of it. But the goals of anyone taking over the lease will always be at odds. The fewer repairs they make, the more money they earn since they have a virtual monopoly on travel from Cleveland to Chicago. So they only comply to satisfy the rules. It's hard to hand public works over to private enterprise. The incentives are misaligned. In true competition, you'd have multiple roads, each build by different companies motivated to make theirs more attractive. Working to attract customers is very different than working to maximize profit on people who have no choice but to choose your road. Of course, we all know two roads would be even more ridiculous.

  5. The State is in a perfect position. The consortium overpaid for leasing the toll road. Good for the State. The money they paid is being used across the State to upgrade roads and bridges and employ people at at time most of the country is scrambling to fund basic repairs. Good for the State. Indiana taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the toll roads to the tune of millions a year as we had for the last 20 years because the legislature did not have the guts to raise tolls. Good for the State. If the consortium fails, they either find another operator, acceptable to the State, to buy them out or the road gets turned back over to the State and we keep the Billions. Good for the State. Pat Bauer is no longer the Majority or Minority Leader of the House. Good for the State. Anyway you look at this, the State received billions of dollars for an assett the taxpayers were subsidizing, the State does not have to pay to maintain the road for 70 years. I am having trouble seeing the downside.

ADVERTISEMENT