IBJNews

WellPoint gains confidence as profits rise

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

WellPoint Inc.’s profit grew 4 percent in the second quarter and the company significantly hiked its full-year profit forecast.

The Indianapolis-based health insurer earned $722.4 million during the quarter, or $1.71 per share. Excluding investment gains that totaled 4 cents per share, WellPoint earned $1.67 per share.

On that basis, Wall Street analysts were expecting earnings of $1.55 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

"Our quarterly results exceeded our expectation primarily due to higher-than-anticipated favorable reserve development and continued strong performance in our capital management areas,” said WellPoint CEO Angela Braly in a statement. “We are also seeing positive results in our core operations from many of the strategic initiatives we put in place over the last two years.”

WellPoint now expects to post profits of $6.30 for the year, up from a forecast of $6 per share the company gave in April.

The company continues to boost its per-share profit by repurchasing shares. In the second quarter, WellPoint spent $2.9 billion to buy back nearly 50 million shares of its own stock.

But revenue is falling as unemployment zaps members from its health insurance plans. In the second quarter, WellPoint’s revenue was $14.2 billion, excluding investment gains, down 7 percent from the same quarter a year ago.

Analysts expected WellPoint to post revenue of $14.6 billion.

WellPoint lost 343,000 members from its insurance plans in the second quarter. The company reiterated its forecast of having 33.1 million health plan members by the end of 2010.

WellPoint’s customers have moderated their spending on health care, however. The company said it spent 82.9 percent of customers’ premiums on medical care during the second quarter, down from 83.9 percent during the same quarter a year ago.

For all of 2010, WellPoint now expects its so-called medical loss ratio to be 83.9 percent, down from its April forecast of 84.3 percent.

Medical loss ratios are a critical part of the new health reform law for WellPoint and its health insurance peers. The new law will require insurers to pay as much as 85 percent of premiums on medical care or else return the difference to customers.

Even as WellPoint’s profits have picked up this year, fears about health reform legislation’s impact on WellPoint has weighed on the company’s shares. They have lost 9.4 percent of their value so far in 2010, closing Tuesday at $52.80 apiece.

WellPoint stock was down 3.4 percent, or $1.80 per share, in morning trading Tuesday.

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