Mon, Dec 22, 2014, 1:39 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 51 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

United Parcel Service, Inc. Message Board

dudesbag 21 posts  |  Last Activity: Dec 19, 2014 3:02 PM Member since: Oct 3, 2004
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • dudesbag dudesbag Dec 19, 2014 3:02 PM Flag

    rhinomd- according to the UPS website, in 2010 they had one of the youngest fleets in the air delivery sector at an average of 13 years. At that time we had 216 planes. Does anyone know of an update since that time? It does seem that FDX made a recent commitment to update their fleet and derived a nice tax benefit for doing so. We seem to have focused our capex spending this year on ground-related expansions to permit capacity to flex. Hopefully, those moves will serve us for a few years to come anyway. It is a curious questions about aircraft expenditures. I'm sure someone on this board knows the answer.

  • The midwest and east will be getting deteriorating weather conditions starting Tuesday later in the day. Looks like we avoided any weather disasters like last year.

  • Reply to

    ups will never catch fdx pps

    by booozer Dec 18, 2014 5:59 AM
    dudesbag dudesbag Dec 18, 2014 1:06 PM Flag

    Whambly- right on all counts. Somehow, Fred Smith is the darling of the business world despite such an exploitative business model for residential deliveries. Every state should be up in arms about it as it cost the taxpayers plenty.

  • A story says the USPS has been working closely with Amazon in metro areas to deliver packages on Sunday since mid-November. So, clearly Amazon, at least for a certain segment of its packages, has been using an alternative to UPS. The Post Office #'s are up double digits from 2013 volume-wise and I'm sure part of that has come from the FDX and UPS final mile programs. Also, Goldman Sachs added FDX to its conviction buy list with a 12 month target of $211. Meanwhile, our last analyst moves were downgrades. It is vital that we both perform well during peak while controlling our manpower costs at the same time. This is tricky because you need to use helpers to "keep them in the fold" but don't want to cut too many trips either. Any input on this from current or recently retired UPS'ers?

  • Reply to

    FDX earnings.

    by dudesbag Dec 17, 2014 7:09 AM
    dudesbag dudesbag Dec 17, 2014 7:35 AM Flag

    FDX misses by at least a nickle and comes up short on revenue too. Not a good sign when fuel prices are so low. providing great tailwinds. Is it a harbinger for UPS's report? One thing for sure, FDX shares were priced to absolute perfection. They actually had a pretty good Q but the expectations were absurd. AT least UPS is more reasonable that way. We'll probably still get hammered though.

  • dudesbag by dudesbag Dec 17, 2014 7:09 AM Flag

    At 7:30 we'll find out much about how the peak season is going as FDX reports their Q2. Many think their stock is priced to perfection and here's part of why. Analysts expect them to improve their EPS from last year's $1.57 to this year's $2.19 or 39.5%. Meanwhile, UPS is looking for about 1/2 that size of EPS increase for our peak. Having 1/3 the # of shares outstanding that UPS has makes a big difference but that is still a very impressive # if FDX pulls it off with revenues beating as well. Beyond that, they just announced 2 acquisitions ti improve their networks going forward.

  • To take our minds off what we hope will be a moderate weather peak season and therefore rewarding for both customers and shareholders alike, what are thoughts about the dividend increase? We average a 9% increase per year. If that were to apply to a $110 base, it would move the dividend up to $2.92 or plus $.06 a quarter. The new rate off that same base would be 2.65%. I'd be very pleased with that.

  • dudesbag by dudesbag Dec 7, 2014 12:36 PM Flag

    Something good to keep in mind. Our December fuel surcharge is based upon October fuel prices which were much higher. So, if we manage our peak well, we should have that nice margin expansion to throw into the mix.

  • dudesbag by dudesbag Nov 17, 2014 4:09 PM Flag

    3:30 today??? What was that all about?

  • Reply to

    Hedge on fuel vs. stock buybacks?

    by dudesbag Nov 3, 2014 6:57 PM
    dudesbag dudesbag Nov 14, 2014 5:23 PM Flag

    How about paying down future pension costs?

  • Here's something worth thinking about. With UPS shares approaching $106, it seems we might be better served spending some of the stock buyback $$ on hedging fuel costs at decidedly lower cost levels than in recent memory. How much lower than $78 can they go? Thoughts?

    Sentiment: Buy

  • dudesbag by dudesbag Oct 31, 2014 9:43 AM Flag

    Seems like a terrific one for UPS. The customers can drop off their units and not have to worry about shipping boxes as Comcast has supplied them to UPS. The simply bring them to any UPS outlet and don't have to pay a thing. A great logistics deal in that it helps Comcast begin to resolve their C/S issues and it's a consolidated pick-up deal for us.

  • Reply to

    News to me......................

    by upsoars Oct 30, 2014 8:16 AM
    dudesbag dudesbag Oct 30, 2014 11:34 AM Flag

    Incorrect data. According to the most recent SEC filing after the earnings call, the amount is 913M down just over 2% from Q3 2013.

  • Thinking back to last weeks earnings call, some real good things. Smart to allow people the option of a consolidated delivery point in urban areas. Nice to see us reverting back to the pre-B2C business model of consolidated delivery being the most profitable. Hopefully, people see this as advantageous to them. Then I'm thinking about our international strength in in Europe. Despite an ongoing malaise there, we did fine in the international export/import/intra-Europe business. Not too shabby.

  • You seem to be the person with the clarity on what's going on in the center/hubs so I have question for you. Historically, UPS has been a significant user of the TOFC network while FDX has not. Several times, inlcuding during the CC, there have been references to continued rail service disruption. I live near a freight train location and see a remarkable increase in the # of oil/chemical cars being transported. Is this at the expense of meeting their service capacity and obligation to us? Are we re-evaluating our approach to that type of service and perhaps moving into more sleeper tractor trailer operations? If so, wouldn't the expense be magnified?

  • Reply to

    Projections?

    by marcus.monsen Oct 24, 2014 11:10 AM
    dudesbag dudesbag Oct 24, 2014 12:23 PM Flag

    Interesting to think about. FDX projected 8.8% volume growth over peak and we're saying 11%. I love that we've warned large shippers that if they decide to do any late promotions that put our service commitments at risk, we'll charge a premium IF we can handle that late volume at all. This seems more than fair. In addition, I'm glad there were comments about holding our inter-modal counterparts accountable like the rail networks. Just like need to increase infrastructure spending to meet customer needs, so should they. BTW, we reported solid international growth despite a less than robust Europe, Japan and a slowing china. Not too shabby.

  • I'd like to think that with oil under $90, unemployment lowering (albeit not terrific jobs), inflation contained, peak season planning optimal, ORION build-out doing well and the larger # of packages falling under DIM rate configuration, the going forward advice for Q4 and beyond should be solid. GDP is OK, China has opened up previous restrictions vs UPS and FDX, on-line shipping (and therefore a healthy # of returns) continues to grow exponentially and healthcare logistics remains a high growth sector and we are the leader in that field. I find it hard to fathom how our report should not be solid. The only concerns are the Eurozone and China GDP growth. I think everything else should trump that although.

  • Reply to

    Gloom over Euriozone

    by dudesbag Sep 29, 2014 8:25 AM
    dudesbag dudesbag Sep 29, 2014 10:45 AM Flag

    BTW, GDP for Q@ was revised upwards to 4.6% so why the UPS malaise? Q3 is now expected to hit 3.1% with 2015 looking about the same. The only thing I can think of is that the Eurozone is killing us. Another thing is this term "full employment." The so-called strategists are lining up to say that there will be pressure on the Fed to raise the base interest rates when this happens supposedly in mid-2015. My question is how can anyone believe that sub-standard wage/bad benefits full time jobs and non-benefits part-time jobs have anything to do with a full employment scenario? But then again, the dual mandate part of the Fed's decision making includes the base inflation rate which is well below the magical 2% level. It just seems to me that until housing starts gets back to normal and disposable income (we are a 70% consumer driven economy after all) returns to a decent level based upon better paying and full-time jobs, UPS will not be able to reach revenue goals. How FDX did it is clearly infused by its ground operations. Their IC model has allowed them to increase margins significantly there and until the legal issues catch up with them, it will continue. Note that FDX is near their all-time highs again today.and we're- well, we are where we are.

  • UPS will be conducting an interesting CC in a few weeks. As we all know, FDX hit a home run during theirs. They hit on all cylinders including revenue/EPS beats, share buybacks, cost containment program proceeding as scheduled, volumes improved, margins improved- basically everything the analysts and investors wanted to hear. Somehow, their various legal problems- independent contractor legal losses, price fixing in France and the knowing delivery of illegal drugs within the U.S.- didn't seem to hit the radar screen. Meanwhile, our updates have included infrastructure expenditures for both peak and future needs, the better than expected rollout of ORION and the higher # of peak season hires. All these are costly items. Add to that the malaise in Europe (our area of supposed strength) and one must wonder how our Q3 will be described and the going forward advise for Q4 and beyond. We seem to always throw in the caveat that the stagnant GDP hurts our performance. OK- but why hasn't it hurt FDX in the same manner? Something needs to change and the best starting point would be with a significant revenue/EPS beat. Get our P/E down to FDX's level. When that happens we'll start to steadily climb into the $100's. We got there before backsliding. Meanwhile, FDX's recent performance has them with 12-month price targets over $200. C'mon guys......

  • dudesbag by dudesbag Sep 24, 2014 7:15 AM Flag

    Man, were we lucky that the TNT merger was scuddled by European regulators. TNT is getting creamed as they lowered guidance due to European malaise. They're off around 12%. An RBS analyst was highly critical of management pointing out a long period of under investment and the thought that things will be worse before they get better. In addition to all those problems, they are part of an ongoing French anti-competitive pricing probe (which includes FDX BTW) and due to expectations of culpability they have set aside $64M as their projected liability. So, in my mind this all really suggests that whoever was looking at the UPS/TNT merger may have been blinded by sheer size vs. getting a good deal. Essentially, we would have been paying an above-market premium for a decaying albatross. Not only that, but our debt would have been monstrous and we'd have had no operational flexibility to do some of the things we've had to do to improve this year's peak. I for one think there should be some review of the near disaster with those financial geniuses who would have supported the TNT merger. What were they thinking?

UPS
110.96+0.03(+0.03%)Dec 19 4:03 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.