IBJNews

North American growth propels Cummins' profit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Cummins Inc.'s profit jumped 33 percent in the first quarter due to strong demand for its engines in the North American market, the Columbus-based manufacturer said Tuesday morning.

Profit rose to $455 million, or $2.38 cents per share, compared to $343 million, or $1.75 per share, in the same quarter a year ago.

The company’s earnings came from $4.5 billion in sales, a 16-percent increase over the same quarter in 2011.

Cummins' results beat analyst expectations of $2.22 per share and $4.4 billion in revenue.

The company has seen double-digit year-over-year percentage growth in revenue for five straight quarters, it said. Earnings have risen in three straight quarters.

Cummins said its growth was driven by higher demand in truck, power-generation and construction markets in North America.  The company also saw growth in global mining markets.

Cummins said that growth offset weaker demand in the Brazilian truck market, Chinese construction market, and the European construction and power-generation sectors.

"Cummins continues to benefit from its geographic diversification and its leadership position in a number of end markets as evidenced by our very strong first quarter results," Cummins CEO Tom Linebarger said in a prepared statement. “Revenues in North America grew 40 percent in the first quarter, offsetting near-term softness in some emerging markets."

Cummins also affirmed its 2012 revenue forecast of 10-percent growth for the year.

The engine maker reported quarterly financial results before markets opened Tuesday.Cummins stock closed Monday at $115.83 per share.

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. 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.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. 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.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT