Have you figured it out yet, breaks everything down for you in the articlemontecarlo12 said:
Monte, you are making an easy mistake in your math. You are thinking that a percentage growth in one sector is equivalent to a growth in total volume, which is incorrect. An 8% increase in international volume does not mean an 8% growth in total volume. I don't know the exact numbers are for each segment, so here's a very simple example. Say your total volume is 100 packages, of which 1 is international and 99 are domestic. If you gain 1 more package in each segment, it means a 1% increase in domestic volume and a 100% increase in international volume, but you don't add those together and tell people you had a 101% increase in total volume, because your increase in total volume was actually just 2%.montecarlo12 said:Fedex Express
International priority daily express package volume grew 8% year over year for the 2nd quarter. Domestic express package grew 1% year over year for 2nd quarter (which gives you a 9% package volume increase for Fedex Express for the 2nd Quarter year over year.)
Fedex Ground,
Daily ground package volume grew 4% year over year for 2nd quarter.
Tie guy,
that will give you a combined package volume increase of 13% for the 2nd quarter year over year.
If you want to take it a step further you will see that the TOTAL COMBINED DAILY PACKAGE VOLUME INCREASED BY 3% OVER LAST YEARS SWEET 2ND QUARTER NUMBERS.
Have you figured it out yet, breaks everything down for you in the article
look at the package volume numbers from the year before in the second quarter. It had a combined volume increase of 8% from the year before. this years number improved 3% over last years 8% Its not rocket science Tie
Jones said:
montecarlo12 said:If you read Tieguys post #4 on this thread you will see he makes a claim that Fedex had a bad 2nd Quarter, and lost package volume. If you read my Post #17 I think you will see I am on the money as far as my math.
Monte why are you doing this? What is your obsession with me? You start out by popping in on another thread and claiming you caught me in three lies in one two day period and now you make the above claim which you clearly know you are taking out of context with what I said on this thread.
Reading the earnings release broken down into individual operating companies you will also see that the Express division had a daily pack volume increase of 9% between intl and domestic volume which makes Ties theory of lost package volume incorrect. It was just the opposite.
Now you again misrepresent what I said. When you read through my posts I clearly make the case that your OVERALL volume growth was about 3 percent. Not a negative number. You now partition one segment of fdx in rebuttal to the overall number of 3 percent that was clearly spelled out in your earnings statement. I didn't make that number up, In fact I posted a copy of the fdx earnings statement that showed the number was 3 percent. I asked you to dispute it.
Looking into Fedex Grounds daily package volume they also enjoyed an increase of 4% for the 2nd quarter. Again package increase over last years 2nd Quarter which seems to also blow Ties theory out of the water of lost volume that he claimed.
Again you blatantly misrepresent my point of view.
Tie also posted that not only did Fedex have a terrible quarter but Its GDP was less than the growth of the economy for 2005. Fedex had a GDP of 3.6 U.S despite hurricane-related setbacks and dramatic run-up of energy cost. Would that be better or worse than the growth of the economy for 2005.
Now you say that I said fdx had a gdp of 3.6 when I actually said the gdp for the US economy was going to come in around 3.5 for the year 2005 and that fdx at 3 percent was less than gdp. You really appear to be going out of your way to now misrepresent what I said?
In short Jones, Tie was wrong about Fedex having lost volume (in any of its operating companies), a bad 2nd quarter, and a poor GDP for 2005.
At least Tieguy is consistent about his theories and facts being incorrect.
in short you blatantly misrepresented what I said on this thread. In fact I have never met someone who is as dishonest with the truth as what you showed here. In the process you never answered the key point of this discussion. Ready here it is:
Your earnings statement said fdx grew 3 percent for the quarter in overall volume growth. Are you disputing this number?
If on the chance you actually realize ups is kicking your but ( fdx) and you're responding out of fear for your survival then let me know and I'll show you some sympathy. If however you don't feel that way then I hope your dishonesty is not representative of fdx employees in general.
Then again maybe it is which explains the overembellished earnings statement. When fdx was showing overall growth of 10 to 20 percent per quarter they focused all their excitement on those numbers. When fdx's growth comes in at 3 percent they instead talk about how they were able to squeeze more profit out of the packages they handled. Eventually you guys have to learn how to deal with real numbers and not how to slant each earnings statement. Investors are starting to see through your games which may explain why you little pop this time fizzeled.
In either case ease up. I'm not the guy that caused fdx to come in at a less than gdp growth rate of 3 percent. Well actually I guess I do share some responsibility for that result.
tieguy said:
then you claim I misrepresent you....another LIE
montecarlo12 said:Tieguy, this is your post....remember??????? YoU said LOSS OF VOLUME!!!
I think I have narrowed down your problem. Its either you have a reading comprehension problem or your a habitual liar. I have made several points on the volume issue which equated to the above comment where I basically tried to end this conversation because of your obsessive tendencies with the issue.
1) Your earnings statement shows 3 percent overall growth.
2) Your previous quarters have shown much better overall growth often as high as 8 to 10 percent a quarter. Therefore your volume growth has lessend considerably from previous quarters.
3) Your volume growth as reported directly by fdx on a press release shows 3 percent for the year while gdp is around 3.5 percent for the year. One analysis tool we use to measure volume growth internally is to compare it to gdp. If its less than that means our volume growth is not keeping up with the growth of the economy. This can be a strong indication that you are losing overall market share to your competitors.
4) I stated I have seen fdx loose many large high volume high revenue shippers to us in my area alone. This would appear to support the above 3 factors mentioned.
In that context i abbreviated the above quote when I referenced a loss of volume. for you to try to take that quote out of context with the other posts where I detailed your volume loss is blatantly dishonest. I never said you had a negative growth in overall volume.
My post 17 also clearly states the 3% volume gain.....then I take it a step further breaking down the intl packages, domestic, and ground to show you that NOT ONLY WAS THERE NO LOSS OF VOLUME IN ANY OF THE SERVICES BUT IT WAS UP FROM ONE YEAR AGO...REMEMBER, YOU COULDNT FIND AND OBVIOUSLY STILL CANT FIND THOSE %'S.
Yes part of your little dishonest routine was to try to compare apples to oranges. You then further embellished as pointed out by jones. You tried to add up the growth rates of seperate fdx services to then lead us to believe your growth rate was much higher than the 3 percent overall growth.
Tie...said it before and I will say it again "you have no credibilty
And I'll say it in no uncertain terms you are a blatant liar. Your company sucks. you suck. your company is dishonest in how it represents its earnings and you are every bit the liar that fdx is.
have a nice weekend in your world of make believe.
