IBJNews

Profit plummets at ITT Educational, but tops analyst expectations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

First-quarter profit plunged nearly 29 percent at ITT Educational Services Inc., but still exceeded Wall Street’s dismal expectations.

The Carmel-based operator of for-profit technical colleges earned $61.1 million during the quarter ended March 31, down from $85.4 million in the same quarter a year earlier.

On a per-share basis, ITT Educational’s quarterly earnings fell from $2.91 a year ago to $2.38.

Wall Street analysts expected earnings per share of $2.13, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters. ITT was able to lifts its earnings by 8 cents per share by repurchasing more than 2 million shares of its common stock during the quarter.

Market expectations have been low mainly because enrollment of new students has been declining for seven straight quarters at ITT’s more than 140 campuses around the country. A recession-induced wave of students that flocked to the schools has been ebbing.

New-student enrollment declined 17 percent in the first quarter compared with a year ago, to 18,067 students. Overall enrollment fell 15 percent, to 71,123.

The Obama administration and Senate Democrats have focused a bright light on the recruiting practices of for-profit colleges and the debt loads their students rack up. That attention also slowed enrollment.

ITT’s revenue in the quarter fell 11 percent, to $341.8 million, but that also exceeded analysts’ expectations. They predicted revenue of $335 million.

The higher revenue was driven in part by ITT’s ability to generate more revenue from each of its students. Revenue per student rose 3 percent compared with the first quarter last year, to $4,666.

Shares of ITT Educational’s stock closed Wednesday at $62.41 apiece. The price has risen nearly 10 percent this year.
 

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. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT