IBJNews

UPDATE: ITT Educational profit gives shares a boost

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shares of ITT Educational Services Inc. rose the most in a year Thursday after the for-profit educator reported a fourth-quarter profit that beat analysts’ estimates.

ITT shares jumped 8.5 percent to $68.10 at 11:15 a.m. and earlier reached $70, in the biggest intra-day gain since January 2010.

Early Thursday, the Carmel-based company said new-student enrollment fell for the second straight quarter, but it still turned a profit.

The company saw 9.4 percent fewer students sign up the three months ended Dec. 31 compared with the same period a year ago. In the third-quarter, ITT’s new-student enrollment fell 3.9 percent—the first decline the company had experienced since the recession began.

ITT’s profit for the quarter grew 4 percent to $97.5 million, compared with the fourth quarter a year earlier. Profit per share was $3.14, topping expectations of Wall Street analysts, which averaged $3.10 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Revenue for the quarter grew 9.5 percent to $410.1 million, also exceeding analysts’ estimates.

For all of 2010, ITT Educational grew profit by nearly 25 percent over the previous year to $374.2 million. Revenue surged 21 percent to nearly $1.6 billion.

Enrollment is declining at for-profit colleges after the U.S. Education Department increased restrictions on recruiting and U.S. Senate hearings featured testimony that students are lured into programs that leave them with federal loans they can’t repay. President Barack Obama’s administration is also proposing to restrict taxpayer funding to for-profit colleges, which rely on federal aid for as much as 90 percent of their revenue.

“There is a fundamental shift in consumer behavior,” Ariel Sokol, an analyst with New York-based UBS Investment Research, told Bloomberg News in a telephone interview. “Consumers in the past were concerned about getting funding. Now, they’re starting to ask the right questions: Is it worth it to take on this level of debt? Are their better alternatives? What’s their return on investment?”

Beginning this year, the Obama administration will require for-profit colleges to ensure that at least 45 percent of former students are paying down their loans four years after leaving school.

If schools’ former students fail to achieve that threshold, the government would not allow a for-profit education program to get student-loan funding to raise its enrollment levels. And if repayment rates fall below 35 percent, the government would cut off student-loan funding entirely for any new students.

The Department of Education believes the repayment rates are an indication of whether students at for-profit schools graduate at all and whether the degrees they earn lead to “gainful employment.”

According to data released by the government in August, ITT’s repayment rate is just 31 percent.

Bloomberg News contributed to this report.

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