IBJNews

Profit falls at Dow AgroSciences even as sales rise

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Strong demand from farmers boosted sales by 8 percent at Dow AgroSciences LLC in the third quarter, but continued investments in new technologies slashed profits by 16 percent.

The Indianapolis-based company, a unit of Michigan-based Dow Chemical Co., brought in revenue of $1.3 billion in the three months ended Sept. 30. The increase over the same quarter last year was driven mostly by higher volume and only slightly from higher prices.

Sales grew by double-digit percentages in both North America and Latin America, the company reported on Wednesday morning.

“The segment continues to benefit from solid industry fundamentals, with elevated farm income levels providing strong incentive for farmers to maximize yields,” Dow officials said in a prepared statement.

Earnings in the quarter totaled $63 million, before accounting for interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. On that same basis a year ago, Dow AgroSciences earned $75 million.

Sales of Dow Agro Sciences’ crop-protection products grew by 6 percent during the third quarter, while sales of  seeds, genetic traits and oils enjoyed growth of 21 percent.

Overall, Dow Chemical’s earnings fell by 39 percent in the third quarter to $497 million, or 42 cents per share. Excluding special charges from the same quarter a year ago, Dow’s profit would have been down by 32 percent. On that same adjusted basis, the company’s revenue would have fallen by 7 percent.

Growth in the global chemical business has been anemic, which forced Dow to announce Tuesday that it will close 20 manufacturing plants and cut 2,400 jobs.
 

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT