|Bid||0.00 x 1300|
|Ask||152.26 x 1400|
|Day's Range||151.55 - 155.09|
|52 Week Range||137.78 - 234.49|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.72|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||89.47|
|Earnings Date||Dec 17, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||2.60 (1.67%)|
|1y Target Est||171.81|
FedEx isn't the first company to battle the media, but few have thrown down the gauntlet like its CEO, Fred Smith. In an open letter on FedEx's website Monday, Smith challenged the publisher of The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger, and the paper's business section editor to a public debate in Washington, DC. The dramatic move came one day after The Times published a front page story titled, "How FedEx Cut Its Tax Bill to $0", alleging the courier service's taxes dropped from $1.5 billion in 2017 to nothing in 2018, thanks to President Trump's tax cut - something Smith had lobbied hard to pass. Despite the huge tax savings, the Times claimed FedEx, quote, "did not increase investment in new equipment and other assets in the fiscal year that followed, as Mr. Smith said businesses like his would." That appears to have incited Smith, who called The Times piece, quote, "a distorted and factually incorrect story." In a further retort, Smith claimed the Times itself, "paid zero federal income tax in 2017 on earnings of $111 million, and only $30 million in 2018...." and that its capital investments paled in comparison to the $6 billion Smith says FedEx invested in the U.S. economy. Smith then called for the public debate with the Times, and said he would be joined by FedEx's corporate vice president of tax. In an email to Reuters Monday, The Times responded by writing: "FedEx's colorful response does not challenge a single fact in our story. We're confident in the accuracy of our reporting. FedEx's invitation is clearly a stunt and an effort to distract from the findings of our story."
FedEx CEO Fred Smith called out 'The New York Times' after the publication published a report detailing how FedEx slashed its tax bill from $1.5 billion to $0 in one year. Yahoo Finance’s Zack Guzman and Brian Cheung are joined by Retail Expert Erin Sykes on YFi PM.
UPS' new Flight Forward initiative made its first drone delivery in its partnership with CVS. The delivery beat out FedEx, Google, and Walgreens' Wing initiative in the medicinal delivery race.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- It’s a grim time in Washington, and not just because of the impeachment hearings. The Washington Redskins, for decades the city’s most beloved institution, are simply awful.So far this season, they’re 1-9, and with six games left, they’ll be lucky to win another. Last Sunday they were thoroughly outplayed by the lowly New York Jets, losing 31-17. That loss prompted the Washington Post’s great sportswriter Thomas Boswell to declare that, with the Washington Nationals winning the World Series this year and the Washington Capitals the Stanley Cup in 2018, Washington no longer lives and dies by the Redskins.The game photograph that accompanied Boswell’s column showed something that has rarely been seen at Redskins games: lots and lots of empty seats.Everyone in Washington knows exactly who to blame for this state of affairs: 54-year-old billionaire owner Dan Snyder. After making his fortune with a marketing business (he eventually sold it for $2.1 billion), Snyder bought the Redskins in 1999 for $750 million. In the subsequent 20 years, they’ve had six winning seasons, eight last-place finishes, and exactly two playoff victories — and the last one was in 2005.Snyder has hired bad coaches and fired good ones. He’s made terrible free-agent signings. He would sometimes dictate to his coaches who to bench and who to play. In early October, when Snyder fired head coach Jay Gruden five games into the season, Mark Cannizzaro, the New York Post’s pro football columnist, wrote, “If the Redskins owner truly wanted what was best for his franchise, he would have fired himself.”But why would he? Despite Snyder’s 20-year record of football ineptitude, he’s made a boatload of money as the team’s owner. Last year, according to Forbes, which publishes annual rankings of sports franchises, the Redskins had $120 million in operating income(1)on $493 million in revenue. Among the 32 teams in the National Football League, only six teams earned more. Forbes also ranks the Redskins the seventh-most-valuable franchise, with an estimated valuation of $3.2 billion. (The Dallas Cowboys are ranked first with a $5.5 billion valuation.) Last year, despite another losing record, the team still rose 10% in value, according to Forbes.Which leads to the obvious question: Does it even matter whether Snyder — or any other pro football owner — has a winning team or a losing one? From a financial standpoint, the answer, plainly, is no. As the sports consultant Marc Ganis told me, “NFL teams don’t lose money.”This is in large part because the NFL has a “share the wealth” philosophy. (Or to put it the way the late Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell once did, the NFL is run “by a bunch of fat-cat Republicans who vote socialist on football.”) The NFL has multiyear, multibillion-dollar contracts with CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV. That money is equally divided among the 32 teams, along with certain marketing and licensing deals negotiated by the NFL. In 2018 that pool of money amounted to $8.1 billion, or $255 million per team.The biggest expense for any team is player contracts. But don’t forget the salary cap, which places a limit on how much any NFL team can collectively pay all the players on its roster. It is currently $188.2 million. Michael Ozanian, who compiles the sports franchise rankings at Forbes, told me that when you include insurance, pensions and the like, most teams pay well over $200 million in salary-related expenses. Even so, the national TV contract alone more than covers the owners’ biggest expense.Then there’s gate revenue. In the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball, the home team keeps all the money generated from ticket sales. In the NFL, the visiting team gets 40 percent of the gate. The Redskins, for instance, had $43 million in gross ticket sales last year, and netted $28.5 million after giving the visiting teams their cut.All told, about 75% of the revenue that a team gets comes via money that is shared among all the teams. That still means that the other 25% has to be self-generated. Here is where you would think the Redskins would have a problem, given the way they’ve alienated their fans.But you would be wrong. One of the first things Snyder did after buying the team was cut a $205 million, 27-year deal with FedEx Corp. to change the name of the team’s stadium in Landover, Maryland, from Jack Kent Cooke Stadium to FedEx Field. (Cooke owned the team from 1974 until his death in 1997.) Snyder has since plastered FedEx Field with corporate sponsorships. In 2002, he cut a deal with Diageo Plc, the big liquor company, to put billboards in FedEx Field; they were strategically located to make sure that TV cameras would have to show them.The median ticket price for a Redskins game is $235. By one estimate, when you throw in parking and food, two people will pay $567 to attend a game, the ninth-highest cost for attending a league game. Snyder charges for fans to attend preseason practices (he charges for parking, too). He has come up with all kinds of schemes to extract fees from fans: fees to cut the security line on game day, for instance, or to get season tickets ahead of people who had signed up earlier. Indeed, all those empty seats may be held by season ticket holders who decided not to bother going to the game.One area where revenue has fallen for the Redskins is their haul from premium seating and luxury suites. In 2016 and 2017, that number was around $70 million, according to league data. More recently, it has dropped to around $65 million. It is hard to know whether that’s a function of the Redskins’ losing ways or the result of the elimination of the 50% tax deduction for client entertainment expenses that was part of the 2018 tax bill (corporations have traditionally liked booking suites to entertain clients).Of course, what smart team owners understand is that the best way to field a winning team is to hire really good football minds — and get out of their way. Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, was a meddler like Snyder in the early years of his ownership. But once he hired Bill Belichick as his head coach, he stopped getting involved in most football decisions.Twenty years in, it seems unlikely Snyder will ever learn that lesson. Redskins fans loathe him and most other NFL owners view him as a lightweight. But given the NFL’s business model, none of this matters. Most likely, Snyder will keep wrecking a once-great franchise while he keeps raking in the profits. Why should he change when there’s no consequence?(1) Forbes defines operating income as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Customers of FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX) and UPS Inc. (NYSE: UPS) that tender a lot of packages weighing 50 to 70 pounds are in for some price pain in 2020 unless they are excellent contract negotiators. The reason: For the first time, FedEx and UPS will slap an "additional handling surcharge" on air and ground deliveries of parcels in that weight range. Currently, shipments up to 70 pounds are exempt from the surcharge.
UPS Inc. (NYSE: UPS) is adding another e-bike delivery pilot to its roster of cycling services, this one involving an electric-assist cargo trike that will deliver packages to the Portland State University campus. The new project comes as the company and its competitors — including FedEx Corporation (NYSE: FDX)— are ramping up efforts to cut delivery costs and vehicle emissions. UPS has launched e-bike and e-trike delivery programs in recent years in Pittsburgh, Seattle and Washington, D.C. The logistics giant now offers delivery on foot and by bike in more than 30 major cities worldwide, a spokesperson told FreightWaves.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Has corporate America failed to make good on its promise to increase investment after getting a huge tax cut in 2018? That’s the premise of an article that so outraged FedEx Corp. CEO Fred Smith that he has challenged the editor of the New York Times, where it was published, to a debate over it.The best way to judge the effect of 2017’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act is to compare what has happened since to what would have happened if it hadn’t been passed. This is by nature a speculative exercise, but several lines of evidence suggest that the cuts are working as intended, even as other factors are slowing investment growth.The case that the tax cuts are not having their intended effect comes in two parts. First, investment growth was higher before the tax cuts than afterward. Second, there is no correlation between the companies that received the largest tax cuts and those that have increased investment the most. Those assertions, while true, miss the point.The implicit model here is that the tax cuts would fund greater investment by leaving corporations with more cash on hand. But that isn’t the primary way that tax cuts are supposed to influence investment, and none of the models that predicted a larger economy as a result of the tax cuts were based on such effects.The idea, rather, is that the tax cuts stimulate investment through related channels — by making it easier for companies to recover costs associated with new investment, and by increasing the market value of business capital.Both effects raise Tobin’s Q, the economics of which are complex but can be summarized this way: As the market value of assets rises relative to the cost of replacing those assets, investment increases. So soaring tech stock prices in the 1990s led to an enormous investment in Silicon Valley startups, while a run-up in home prices in the early 2000s led to record construction of single-family homes.In both of these cases, the boom was based on bubble-driven price increases. The goal of tax reform was to create a more sustainable increase in asset prices by cutting business taxes. It did exactly that.But as business investment was climbing through 2018, there was something else happening: President Donald Trump was continuing to ramp up his trade war. By the end of the year the effect had begun to hit stock prices, which fell in the fourth quarter. Business investment likewise peaked in the first quarter of 2019 and has declined since. The evidence strongly suggests that both the tax cuts and the trade war have had their predicted effect on business investment — the first positive, the second negative.Comparisons with the Congressional Budget Office forecasts bear that out. In 2017, before the tax cuts passed, the office predicted that growth in business investment would accelerate to nearly 6% by the end of the year before slowly declining to 2% by the third quarter of 2019. Instead business investment has been more volatile, though it remains above what the original CBO projections.Economists, finance ministers and business leaders all blame the trade war for worsening investment conditions. And there is ample indication that an end to trade conflicts would allow business investment to return to the higher trajectory of 2017 and 2018.In his statement about the Times article, Smith called for a debate about “federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments.” He might want expand the discussion to include U.S. trade policy as well.To contact the author of this story: Karl W. Smith at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Karl W. Smith is a former assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina's school of government and founder of the blog Modeled Behavior.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
ZTO Express earnings growth accelerated, but the Alibaba-backed delivery giant missed on sales. ZTO Express stock was up-and-down near a buy point after briefly clearing a buy point Monday.
In a competitive labor market, FedEx plans to increase its 401(k) match for employees as a way to attract and retain talent.
The package delivery firm's financial filings showed it owed no taxes in the 2018 fiscal year overall due to President Donald Trump's tax overhaul, according to the NYT story published on Sunday. Smith late on Sunday called the story https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/business/how-fedex-cut-its-tax-bill-to-0.html "distorted and factually incorrect" and challenged NYT's publisher A.G. Sulzberger and the business section editor to a public debate in Washington.
Do warehouse workers want amenities like basketball courts, a soccer field, a gym, a pizza and grill station, and a pop-up nail bar? Clothing company ASOS seems to think so because it recently designed a warehouse with those perks, according to an article in Material Handling & Logistics. The author, Adrienne Selko, took a dim view of such trends. What warehouse workers really want, she said, is "to be paid well, receive good health insurance, have a safe work environment, predictable schedules, reasonable policies and room for advancement." The magazine asks readers every year what benefits they would appreciate, and none have said "pop-up nail bar," she wrote. Did you know?
FedEx Corporation (NYSE: FDX) shares were trading down Monday after the company and its CEO Frederick Smith were the subject of a new New York Times article highlighting how the Trump administration's 2017 corporate tax cuts have pushed FedEx’s taxes down to zero. The policy change saved FedEx at least $1.6 billion in taxes, and the company is not investing that money as the administration had suggested companies would, the Times reported. The delivery company shows the failure of the tax cuts to stimulate corporate investment in jobs and wages.
In another salvo in the decade-long, low-level war between the two leading U.S. parcel carriers and a cluster of consultancies that work on behalf of carriers' customers to optimize their parcel shipping spend, UPS Inc. (NYSE: UPS) said it will waive its money-bank guarantee on late or missed deliveries if customers use a third party to track UPS shipments. There are questions as to whether shippers could bargain that language out of their contracts or whether it would withstand a legal challenge. Mike Erickson, president of parcel consultancy AFMS LLC, said that FedEx Corp., (NYSE: FDX), UPS' chief rival, has a similar policy and that the language is becoming more commonplace in both carriers' contracts.
In a front-page story Sunday, The New York Times reported that FedEx reduced its federal tax bill to zero in 2018 following the Trump tax cuts. In a Sunday evening response, FedEx clapped back at The New York Times — hard.
FedEx Corp. Chief Executive Fred Smith had a curious response to a New York Times report that detailed how the delivery giant cut its tax bill to zero: Debate me!
Investors may want to think about who picks the next leader of the United States Postal Service. Any change in strategic direction has implications for parcel shippers as well as e-commerce and maybe even banking.
Investing.com – Wall Street fell on Monday after reports that Chinese officials are pessimistic about a trade deal spooked investors.
Lange, the newly promoted president and CEO of FedEx Logistics, said that in business, you can’t just look at the opportunities ahead, you have to anticipate the risks all around. Lange became the leader of FedEx Logistics in August 2019. The role was previously held by Richard Smith, son of FedEx founder, Fred Smith.
The Board of Directors of FedEx Corporation today declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.65 per share on FedEx Corporation common stock. The dividend is payable January 2, 2020 to stockholders of record at the close of business on December 9, 2019.
STOCKSTOWATCHTODAY BLOG Three numbers to start your day: The U.S.Postal Service Had a Loss of $8.8 Billion —over the past year. The post office reported its fiscal fourth-quarter numbers on Thursday. The enormous loss comes with a simple explanation: People are sending less mail every year.
How does a person from a small town in Bavaria one day find himself living in Memphis? The answer: FedEx. Here's part one of MBJ's one-on-one with Dr. Udo Lange, CEO of FedEx Logistics.