IBJNews

Hurco profit inches higher on stronger European sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hurco Cos. Inc. saw profit rise 7 percent in its second fiscal quarter on revenue that increased at a similar rate, the Indianapolis-based machine tool maker announced Friday morning.

Hurco earned $3.2 million, or 48 cents per share, for the period ended April 30 after making $3 million, or 45 cents per share, in the same quarter a year earlier.

Sales and service fees totaled $49.6 million, an 8-percent jump from $46 million.

Hurco designs and produces computerized controls, machinery and software used for metal cutting and forming. Its customers tend to be independent job shops or short-run manufacturing operations within large corporations in industries such as aerospace, defense, energy, and medical equipment.

Sales and service fees in Europe, Hurco’s largest market, picked up 20 percent, to $31.9 million. Sales in North America rose 9 percent, to $13 million.

"The second-quarter order activity in Europe was positive in light of the lingering recession in the region, and performance in North America was steady,” Hurco CEO Michael Doar said in prepared comments.

Revenue slid 37 percent in the Asia Pacific market, from $7.3 million to $4.6 million. Slowing economies and more restricted credit conditions in the region have pushed small and medium-sized companies to hold off on purchase of equipment, the company said.

Company officials told IBJ in January that they expect a new image and new products to re-energize sales at the 45-year-old company.

Hurco shares slipped 4 cents, to $27.30 each, in early Friday trading.

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. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT