Face it folks: Less for you means more for Wall Street. The majority of this company is no longer owned by those who manage it. This is just another "cost cutting". Cut expenses, increase the Mgmt's % of health care contributions and boost the bottom line at all costs. I almost wouldn't mind except the stock price doesn't really move any way. I really hope I'm able to cash in someday.
I do not know where the future leaders of this company are going to come from. Supervisor's pay a high price in loss of personal life with the # of hours worked but you used to be able to point at the compensation as making it worthwhile. What incentives are there for someone to enter management now?
Look at this and let me ask you where you think your MI incentive went. According to others, since I'm too lazy to calculate it myself, was a savings of 250 million to the UPS. UPS made a billion dollars this year. But if you remove from that profit the MI incentive then a equal comparison of profit to last year would be 750 million dollars more or less.
Which if we made 950 million dollars last year is a decrease of 200 million of profit dollars this year. I guess the question is where did that profit go?
This would shouw a negative eps from 86 cents per share (of the 950 million last year) to some lower number this year. This supposes many things being equal. A quarter billion dollars is not bad but is the company in a period of negative growth? Most likely from the competition? Is that why they raided your MI?
If your MI occurs only once year, and if the shortfall in earnings is an indicator the market and competition, what will happen or is happening right now in the 4th quarter operating enviroment?
And if this momentum or lack of give similar earnings in the next earnings release, what will UPS use to pump up earnings and cover up their business enviroment?
I'm trying to understand where UPS grows? If Fed Ex is gaining business and growing their domestic ground market and it shows in their results, then UPS must be experiencing volume loss? Is Fed Ex using their competivet cost advantage of lower costs due to their non-union enviroment to their benefit in attracting more volume from UPS? The Fed Ex ground side has shown good growth but at whose expense?
If UPS does't grow then the only way to shore up the balance sheet, at least for a little longer, is the expense side. Cut costs (capital expenditures) and cut people. Or get rid of unprofitiable business like their logstics side.
But they still have the Fed Ex ground issue? Am I overstating the threat here?
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- United Parcel Service's third-quarter earnings rose on higher average package volume, but the delivery giant also promised Thursday to cut 20% of costs from a money-losing supply chain and freight division.
UPS said third-quarter net income rose about 9% to $1.04 billion, or 96 cents a share, from $953 million, or 86 cents a share in the same period a year earlier. The Atlanta-based company's revenue rose 10.5%, reaching $11.66 billion from $10.55 billion.
Analysts polled by Thomson First Call had forecast, on average, earnings of 90 cents a share and revenue of $11.65 billion.
In addition, UPS stuck to a 2006 forecast of 11% growth in per-share earnings. The stock rose 3.9% to finish at $75.25.
"The small package business should be strong in the fourth quarter as we expect international deliveries and the U.S. holiday shipping period to be solid," said Scott Davis, chief financial officer.
The company's third-quarter daily ground volume increased 3.6%, while average daily volume for its next-day delivery by air service rose 1.0% and deferred air volume climbed 3.4%.
Management also promised to eliminate 20% of non-operating expenses in its supply chain and freight unit, which reported a more than 25% rise in revenue but a loss.