IBJNews

Remy International reports $138M annual profit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A one-time tax benefit more than doubled Remy International Inc.’s annual profit to $138.6 million, or $4.47 per share, the Pendleton-based manufacturer reported late Monday.

Sales slid 5 percent in 2012, to $1.1 billion, pushing down the company’s operating profit 19 percent, to $97.9 million.

But $71.2 million in income tax benefits helped boost the bottom line.

Remy also reported a $15.9 million profit on $268.3 million in sales for the fourth quarter. Fourth-quarter profit rose 33.6 percent over 2011, but sales declined 6 percent.

The company manufactures and remanufactures alternators, starters and electric traction motors. About 6,500 people work for the auto supplier worldwide, with about 400 of them in Indiana.

The hybrid vehicle market saw slower-than-expected  growth last year, but overseas sales helped boost sales, Remy CEO John Weber said in a prepared statement.

The Chinese market will be especially important to the company in the next few years, Weber said. The company finished building a factory and engineering center in Wuhan, China, in 2012.

Remy also completed an initial public offering last year.

Remy shares opened Tuesday at $18 a share, up from $15.85 on Dec. 13, the day of its IPO.

The company declared a 10-cent quarterly dividend, payable Feb. 28, on its common shares.

Other recent changes at Remy included Weber’s Feb. 1 announcement that he intends to step down as CEO at the end of February. He will leave his post after seven years and become a board director.

 

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