This saves money?

[browniehound]

PCarlos,
I certainly can't argue with your above post because it makes sense and could be right on the money. However, does a UPS driver really make "2.5 times" more than a Fed-Ex Express or Ground driver? Even if you include the benifts its not even close. The Express drivers get about 22/ hour and our air drivers get about 15 PT and 20 FT. My wage would have to be $55/hour.

Also, we might work "twice as hard" but thats not what matters, I agree. However, I truly believe we are more than twice as efficient and that does count. The Fed-Ex Ground driver tells me he sees 6 different UPS drivers on his route in our town. That tells me the UPS routes are much more efficent than the Fed-Ex ground routes.

I don't have any numbers to back me up, I'm just using the eyeball test.
Thanks for your reply,

Brownie.

 

[JustTired]

Pob,

While your arguments sound good at first glance, I don't see it holding water in todays economic climate.

If you expect a workforce to go from $10-15/hr(just as an example) to $3 a day, then the price of your product better reflect that savings. Otherwise, who are you going to sell to.

What I've seen is, for the most part, a search for cheaper labor in other countries without a drop in price to the consumer here. That's fine for a while. But as more and more corporations jump on that bandwagon, their customer base here dwindles away.

Those same corporations and those with money made from those decisions are the first to complain about a "welfare state" or "redistribution of wealth" when in fact they are responsible for initiating it. Oh, they can blame the government, but in fact they are blaming themselves. After all, who really controls the government. They have tried to abolish all government regulation. That would be fine if they could act responsibly and not let greed control their actions. We all can see and are feeling the effects of (basically) an unregulated banking and investment industry. Talk about making money without actually providing any meaningful productivity.

As I've said before.....to compete in a global economy, you have to be on a level playing field. It's much easier to bring this country down to a 'third world country' status than to bring those third world countries up to us. And with the exodus of most of our manufacturing jobs, we're well on our way.

We will become a "service based economy". Only because those jobs can't be exported. But what good is a service if there is no one left who can afford it?

Sadly, I feel that we are on a spiralling down-spin that will continue until someone wakes up or it becomes too late even if they do. Then it won't matter if you're a teamster or a retired manager sitting at home. You can have all the money in the world and it won't really matter. Your heritage will be destroyed. Your country will lay in ruin. And it may take every penny you have to be allowed to live.

Sorry.....got a little carried away. Greed bothers me...in case you didn't notice.

 

[PobreCarlos]

brownie;

The "what if" ratio between UPS/FedEx drivers wasn't meant to be considered as a "fact"; merely a "what if" supposition, and what could lead from it.

As for efficiency, however, as a shareholder, I would be looking at financial return. And the fact is that, over the last decade, the financial return for the investor has been much greater with the FedEx model than that of UPS.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not belittling UPS or it's Teamster employees in any way, shape, or form. Rather, I'm simply indicating that absorbing higher-than-market costs over the long term is going to make things difficult at best. And for the Teamsters to expect UPS to continue to do so forever - without any REAL effort on it's part (either by member wage reductions or, hopefully, bringing up the competition's wage scale to parity via organization - is a strategy of failure. Already UPS has heavily migrated away from the Teamsters....and, as long as FedEx (and future competitive firms like it) are left to "clear the table without obstruction", so to speak, the Teamsters (and "yes", possibly UPS) are going to be on the decline.

Again, there's no free lunch.

 

[PobreCarlos]

JustTired;

I think you're making a couple of suppositions there. First of all, many prices HAVE been lowered...or haven't you noticed all the products that are produced overseas that are purchased here because they're cheaper...and, in many cases, so much cheaper that they drove the domestic production out of business. Just as a quick example, when was the last time anyone you know purchased a domestic-produced TV? Yet, for years, there was parallel production vis-a- vis domestic/foreign. Or CD/DVD players? The list goes on and on.

Secondly, I think you're of the mind that companies are somehow tied to nations...and that they don't exist internationally. "Yes", perhaps the consumer base DOES deteriorate here...but, like I said, labor has an INTRINSIC VALUE, and the producers of that value become the consumers based on the wealth the created. I.e. - while domestic markets may be going down here, they're going UP in the countries which are doing the "producing". For example, take that [alleged] $3/day wage in China. That $3/day wage can be quite equal - in terms of wealth created - to a wage 30 times that in the U.S. And that wealth, sooner or later, in one way or another, is going to benefit it's creators. Right now, those "$3/day" wage earners are SAVING money to the extent that they're subsidizing (via HUMONGOUS loans to our country) the American consumer. Meanwhile, their consumption is growing by leaps and bounds...and it's NOT based on being subsidized, but via actual wealth creation.

In short, companies can find a balance between production and consumption....and that balance does NOT have to be made in this country. Rather, it will be made where it's most financially suitable. And, if you think such enterprises can be tied-down over the long term via overly-restrictive governmental regulation, think again; all they'll do is simply pull-up stakes and go someplace where their wealth creation is appreciated. Look at DHL (primarily because it's already been brought up in this thread). When it began losing money on the basis of what it thought was excessive regulation (specifically airline ownership issues, and labor law), it pulled up stakes. And surely you're aware how much pressure was put on the government to FORCE it to keep operation here; hell, the entire governmental structure of Ohio was up in arms trying to keep Wilmington from closing down. Yet it closed down anyway.

The point being, of course, is that you can't FORCE companies to create wealth (or, over the long term, to maintain jobs, etc); at best, you can only create an environment in which it's to their ADVANTAGE to.

I kinda' agree with you (although not to the point that I used to; I'm pretty much convinced now that actual physical production of goods is going to parceled-out to emerging economies) that it would appear difficult to have solely a service-based economy. But if labor is unwilling to make the effort to retain goods production (i.e. - remain competitive on the world stage), then over the long haul, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO KEEP THAT PRODUCTION HERE!

That's simply a fact of economic existence. "Yes", if you don't produce, you'll find it difficult to consume. And those who do produce - again, over the long haul - aren't going to be willing to subsidize those who don't produce. Just the way things are.

Which brings me to the point that most large companies today are not only international in their operations, but international in their ownership as well. Like it or not, national "loyalty" isn't their primary concern, simply because they're not exclusively tied to any one nation.

You're right in that I don't like to see our country (or at least it's economy) destroyed....which is why I have the point of view that I do. One can point to industry after industry - auto, steel, ocean shipping, etc. - and readily see what's been the basis of destruction. And it has NOT been the investors or the firms they formed.

Sorry, but as I see it, until "organized" labor (I limit it to that because, in case you hadn't noticed, this countries "unorganized" labor is still extremely competitive...and I'm not just talking in terms of wages/hour) comes to it's senses and realizes that it's cutting it's own throat, then you're going to see more and more of the jobs they once held (and they hold far less than half of them now that they once did) disappear.

Again, just an economic fact of life. You (or I!) don't have to like it; but, if we want to succeed, we HAVE to recognize it. There's STILL no "free lunch".

 

[upsyo]

PCarlos,
I certainly can't argue with your above post because it makes sense and could be right on the money. However, does a UPS driver really make "2.5 times" more than a Fed-Ex Express or Ground driver? Even if you include the benifts its not even close. The Express drivers get about 22/ hour and our air drivers get about 15 PT and 20 FT. My wage would have to be $55/hour.



Brownie.

im a part time ups air driver and i make $22 dollars a hour, not 15.

 

[City Driver]

it doesnt save money but im sure it makes some very insignificant number .04% better or something

 

[browniehound]

im a part time ups air driver and i make $22 dollars a hour, not 15.

Horaay for you...

 

[browniehound]

brownie;

The "what if" ratio between UPS/FedEx drivers wasn't meant to be considered as a "fact"; merely a "what if" supposition, and what could lead from it.

As for efficiency, however, as a shareholder, I would be looking at financial return. And the fact is that, over the last decade, the financial return for the investor has been much greater with the FedEx model than that of UPS.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not belittling UPS or it's Teamster employees in any way, shape, or form. Rather, I'm simply indicating that absorbing higher-than-market costs over the long term is going to make things difficult at best. And for the Teamsters to expect UPS to continue to do so forever - without any REAL effort on it's part (either by member wage reductions or, hopefully, bringing up the competition's wage scale to parity via organization - is a strategy of failure. Already UPS has heavily migrated away from the Teamsters....and, as long as FedEx (and future competitive firms like it) are left to "clear the table without obstruction", so to speak, the Teamsters (and "yes", possibly UPS) are going to be on the decline.

Again, there's no free lunch.

I disagree Carlos. The only factors that have changed from 1999-2009 came in management. Until 1999 and into the early part of the decade, UPS was the top dog. Economy, stock price, profits, and volume were all growing. UPS used a teamster labor force during those fabulous days.

What changed in 1999 happened at the corporate level and had nothing to do with the teamsters. We've be doing the job the same every day. Yet, the UPS managers make the company public.

The stock spikes for a few months and then lingers in the "I would be better off in my checking account" area for 10 years.

Then management spends hundreds of millions on PAS/EDD. The idea being the UPS will be loaded stop-for-stop so the UPS driver will save time selecting packages. We all know this never happened. It was also designed to stop misloads. At my center we went from about 4 misloads/day to about 40 since being on PAS 4-5 years ago. Brilliant!

Now we have telematics. The truck is wired to show what the driver is doing at every moment. Magnets on the bulk-head door transmiting data to the center showing it is closed when the truck is moving. What do they expect at peak with the driver-helper team in dense residential areas? The door to be closed at every stop?

I think UPS screwed themselves on this one. Its peak, I have 350 stops with my helper and it benefits the company for me to have the bulk-head door closed at every residential stop? How? Thats 300 times I have to put the key in the door and fumble with the lock. If it takes 10-15 seconds each time, do the math and we are all screwed!

 

[PobreCarlos]

Brownie;

H.m.m.m.m......UPS was "top dog" until 1999? And it didn't lose any "top dog" status due to the '97 strike? REALLY! (Grin....I think you know better)

Actually, as I'm sure all too many here are all too aware, after the '97 strike, a significant amount of the CUSTOMER BASE (not just the company mgmt) decided that the Teamster labor force just wasn't cutting it anymore.

As for your claim of....

" We've be doing the job the same every day. "

....again, WHAT ABOUT THE '97 STRIKE? Were Teamsters "doing the job" then? Hell no they weren't! Fact is , THEY WEREN'T DOING THE JOB AT ALL!!!! Furthermore, the public perceived that the Teamsters couldn't be counted on "doing the job"...and made a significant turn toward entities that did NOT employ Teamsters. Or do you think that FedEx Ground took off like a sky-rocket because Teamsters were "doing the same job every day". Sorry if I'm going off like a sky rocket myself, but utter bs statements - read "outright falsehoods" - like "We've being doing the same job every day" will tend to make me act like that. The fact is, the Teamsters WEREN'T "doing the job"; in either "the job" they had at UPS, or "the job" of organizing FedEx...they utterly failed at both. And, in truth, they're STILL failures.

As for "making the company public"...well, that had to do a lot more with individuals such as myself getting tired of our share value being artificially depressed as a way of subsidizing others (particularly Teamsters) with unearned income. And while we took the company "public" in the sense of opening up the market, the actual determining power was kept in our (previous shareholders) hands...to the tune that each of our shares counts for 10 votes compared to one vote for "the public". Result; this company isn't "publicly run" in the sense of being answerable to the equity markets by any stretch of the imagination.

As for PAS, if you guys had been doing your job AS YOU SAID YOUR WERE, it wouldn't be ANY different than stop-for-stop sequential loading, which has been in place NOT for four or five years, but for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS!! There's a difference, you say? Well, pray tell, just what WAS the difference in terms of the driver, UNLESS he wasn't doing his job to begin with?

As for the door being closed at every stop...well, "yes", if that's what the methods call for, then I WOULD expect the door to be closed at every stop.

Lastly, you might consider "what changed" is the fact that the company had to subsidize the Teamsters to the tune of SIX BILLION DOLLARS (got that....$6,000,000,00!!!!!) because the Teamsters Fd UP! No other way to put it. Remember the codicil the Teamsters signed regarding full-funding of CSPF as part of the first contract signed this century? And did they ( the Teamsters) adhere to their word in that codicil? (every time I read here about the company supposedly not keeping it's word in minor terms of the contract, I just can't help but think back as to how utterly meaningless the Teamsters "word" was in some that was FAR from minor...both in terms of the company and Teamster MEMBERS) And do you think that the $6 billion (which was just really the tip of the iceberg) cost to UPS due to TEAMSTER dishonesty and incompetence was "working the same every day"? And don't you think that $6 billion might have made a difference in the way management views "the job" that Teamsters do?

Sorry, Brownie, "the fabulous days" weren't an aspect of hiring Teamsters at all, but rather in spite of them being hired. Frankly, I'm amazed at every additional day that the company is able to continue operating and providing what amounts to massive welfare to the union...if only because I know there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, like me who rue the day that the company settled the '97 strike (even if it was a case of the union "blinking"). We're only all too-to-well aware that if was have been MUCH LESS COSTLY to simply shut-down the company for a period of time - years even - and then starting "fresh". Not only could we have saved 5 of the 6 billion, but we could have had a much more cost-effective workforce and much sweetend future prospects....anything was better than continuing dealing with Teamsters and absorbing the massive liability they represented. $6 BILLION, remember...to say nothing of contributions already pissed-away, and pension funds lost to good UPS employees.

Right now, I'll admit it...I can't get rid of that concept of the $6 BILLION in totally wasted expense the Teamsters cost me and my associates. In light of that, please don't try to break my balls about locking your bulkhead, or whatever. Instead, why don't you figure out a way to pay back the money the Teamsters took from me and my associates.

Truthfully, I'm locked on this topic a bit because the TDU's website currently has a blurb up about the money UPS made, and how it's up over such and such a period. Meanwhile, it compares UPS with FedEx, which it said LOST money. Well, "on paper", FedEx DID lose money for a quarter or two....based on the one-time write-down expense of it copy/retail stores. But did the TDU (and other Teamsters, for that matter) consider that, for a year and more, UPS was on the books for LOSING MONEY AS WELL on the basis of a "one time expense". And, of course, that one-time expense was one Hell of a lot bigger than FedEx's....to the tune of $6 BILLION! Expense cause? 100% Teamster. Who benefited from it? Only those who were too lazy to cut it on their own, or help to preserve the companies they worked for; i.e. - the real "worthies" of our society. Makes a responsible person sick.

Anyway, before you sarcastically talk to me or my partners about what's "brilliant" and such, I suggest you return the BILLIONS of dollars you owe us. Until then, we're not likely to be very receptive to the type of discussion you propose.

 

[soberups]

As for PAS, if you guys had been doing your job AS YOU SAID YOUR WERE, it wouldn't be ANY different than stop-for-stop sequential loading, which has been in place NOT for four or five years, but for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS!! There's a difference, you say? Well, pray tell, just what WAS the difference in terms of the driver, UNLESS he wasn't doing his job to begin with?

Have you ever been involved in actual front-line package operations...or did you just learn about PAS/EDD from some training film or brochure and then decide to share your vast knowledge here?

Ive been doing this job in the real world for 22 years now, and your statement about PAS not being any different from stop-for-stop sequential loading is factually incorrect and completely divorced from reality.

 

[soberups]

Right now, I'll admit it...I can't get rid of that concept of the $6 BILLION in totally wasted expense the Teamsters cost me and my associates. In light of that, please don't try to break my balls about locking your bulkhead, or whatever. Instead, why don't you figure out a way to pay back the money the Teamsters took from me and my associates.

.

You and "your" associates made a business decision to enter into a labor agreement with me and "my" associates.

Your company actively encouraged the members of my union to vote "yes" on that agreement.

If you cant "get rid of" that concept...I guess thats just too damn bad. You arent a victim.

 

[PobreCarlos]

sobreups;

Exactly in what way - if implemented correctly, from the driver's perspective - is PAS significantly different from the way sequential stop-for-stop loading if performed as it should be? Pray tell - this individual who you seem to think lacks operational experience is just ACHING to know. Be specific...and don't tell me how it was different in the way YOU "did the job", but how it was SUPPOSED to be done. You DO know how it was supposed to be done, don't you?

As for "the agreement" in question - and here I'm speaking of the codicil the Teamsters signed regarding full-funding of CSPF - the problem is that THE TEAMSTER DIDN'T KEEP IT!!!!

Got that? The TEAMSTERS DIDN'T ABIDE BY THEIR WORD! Nor, for that matter, did they abide by their assertions made decades earlier that concerning organization of the competition.

As for your...

"I've been doing this job in the real world for 22 years now"

....beyond the obvious question of just WHAT "job" have you been doing, in that pleasing your employer is your ONLY job, just what has "doing this job" involved? Got a lot of operational experience, do ya'? How many drivers have you trained? How many areas have you run? How many have you run and/or trained on outside of your home center? Outside of your home division? Outside of your home district? Or, for that matter, outside of your home country? Or how many preloads have you implemented? Taken a sort from driver sort 'n' load to preload, have ya'? Or, beyond that, taken a preload from sectional load to sequential? How many loops have you traced and sequenced? How many center/route/unit boundaries have you defined from scratch when there was NO previous delivery experience in the geographical area whatsoever? What experience with work measurement do you have? What languages are you able to communicate in with the various nationalities UPS employees? Meaning I'm just dying to hear what "doing this job" means for someone like you.....and just how much of UPS "reality" you're aware of.

With that in mind, I'll be waiting for you to explain the substantive difference (from the drivers perspective, IF he did his job right!) between sequential stop-per-stop, as implemented when loop dispatch was introduced, than the intent of PAS today. With your vast 22 years of operational experience, that shouldn't be a problem, should it?

As for my "not being a victim"...well, perhaps you'll excuse me when I dare to propose that when an entity does NOT keep it's word, and DOES squander away billions of dollars of OTHERS money in the process, then those who's money was squandered have a RIGHT to feel "victimized". If you don't think that's the case, then perhaps you wouldn't mind coughing-up a million or so of your OWN money to ME by way of compensation. Then, after you've done so, tell me if YOU feel that you've been victimized or not.

Hopefully your response will NOT be that which is far-too-common amongst Teamsters, and you WILL be able to back-up your posturing. [smile]

Good luck.

 

[scoutjumper]

Anyway, before you sarcastically talk to me or my partners about what's "brilliant" and such, I suggest you return the BILLIONS of dollars you owe us. Until then, we're not likely to be very receptive to the type of discussion you propose. Pobrecarlos, I didn't know you were a billionaire. They took that money from you or the company? If the company then it was taken from all of us that own stock.However, keep posting I love the dose of reality that you do provide. The PASS/PAL system is flawed in MHO because dispatchers will not seek input from the drivers. Also, one question. Does it seem like we are becoming a top down authoritarian style in management? Will this work? Center managers and supervisers seem to make less and less daily decisons. If knowledge is specfic then the closest manger to that problem so solve it.

 

[PobreCarlos]

scoutjumper;

Not a billionaire by any stretch of the imagination. But I suspect that my UPS holdings were considerably greater than that of any hourly employee when the withdrawal fee/Teamster bail-out issue came up. Not that I don't think ALL shareholders were worthy of having that money in THEIR pockets - where it belonged by virtue of being EARNED, rather than in that of the Teamsters union, where it came to reside based on corruption and misrepresentation....but there were a lot of individual shareholders who gave up quite significant amounts (and we're talking a career Teamster's retirement level funding here) in making good that union cluster fudge. Again, $5 billion (the differential between the ultimate $6 billion withdrawal fee, and the $1 billion it would have been in '97) is one heck of a lot of money, even after being split up amongst a lot of shareholders.

As for the top down structure...yeah, I somewhat have to agree with you, although I'm long gone from experiencing it on a daily basis. On the other hand, I was hearing (and "making", if truth be told!) EXACTLY the same comments, expressed in the same way, well more than three decades ago....and, to be truthful, I expect (if I'm still around) to be hearing them more than three decades in the future. UPS has never been "easy", no matter what level you were at, and probably never will be. And "yes", the crap does tend to run downhill. Whether there's more of it headed in that direction today than in times past, I can't really say....although not denying for a minute that, for many observers, it sure seems that way.

 

[soberups]

Pobre,

As a shareholder...your best interests would be served by having UPS's union workforce replaced with employees earning minimum wage with no benefits. This would increase UPS's profitability and increase your bottom line.

As employees....our best interests would not be served by being a part of your fantasy.

10 years ago, UPS stock went public and skyrocketed in value...all while supporting the "inefficient, overpaid union workforce" that you so clearly despise. Many of the management people I work for became millionares on paper. Perhaps you did also. I, on the other hand, got the contractually agreed upon $.65 pre hour wage increase. I didnt complain then; I had made one choice, and my management had made another.

Choices have benefits, as well as consequences.

We are a union workforce. That isnt going to change. You need to accept that fact. I'm sorry your stock is in the tank, but that is the nature of capitalism. It will come back. UPS has continued and will continue to be a successful, profitable company even with its supposed "union cost disadvantage".

We are the hardest working and most productive employees in the industry. We earn every penny we make.

Do you want to increase productivity? Then quit whining about how much we are paid and find a way to train a functioning preload. Find a way to let your front line people actually manage their operations instead of being forced to spoon-feed irrelevant statistics to their corporate masters. Find a way to quit micromanaging every moment of every workday, and encourage your people to work smarter instead of mindlessly following a corporate mandate.

Set us up to succeed...and we will. Set us up to fail....and we will. The choice is yours.

 

[PobreCarlos]

soberups;

Again, Teamsters are not - repeat, *NOT* - the "hardest working and most productive employees in the industry". If they were, companies in the industry would be falling all over themselves in order to hire them. But, in case you hadn't noticed, the fact is that they're avoided like the plague. Nor do they "earn every penny [they] make". If they did, there wouldn't be example after example after example of employers that hired Teamsters having to go under BECAUSE they hired Teamsters.

Which brings us to your contention that...

"As employees....our best interests would not be served by being a part of your fantasy" (supposedly meaning NOT being Teamsters)"

...to which I would reply, "Oh, REALLY!?!?!?" Tell me of ALL the companies in the transportation industry in which being Teamsters has, over the long term, BENEFITED the employees? Give me a big count of 'em now, would ya'? Start out with all those remaining in the transportation industry that employee over a hundred thousand Teamsters. Then 10,000 Teamsters. Then on to one thousand...and so-on and so-on. The point? Well, I think it's obvious; being "Teamster" is *NOT* beneficial to the average transportation employee. As a matter of fact, it's the "kiss of death". How many millions of Teamster jobs need to be pissed-away before guys like you figure that out? And how is it that "hardest working and most productive employees in the industry" KEEP getting their asses kicked in terms of cost-effectiveness (the only meaningful measurement of "hardworking" and "productive" that I'm aware of). The FDX employees been "less productive", have they? If so, then why is the company that employees been so much MORE productive in terms of capital valuation?

In short, I'd propose that there are probably well more than a million once-upon-a-time Teamsters out there who might think that their interests WOULD have been best served by taking part in my "fantasy"...and *NOT* having their jobs pissed-away by the Teamsters union. You think otherwise?

Over the long term, I can't help but believe your claim of "**WE** [my emphasis added] are a union workforce. That isn't going to change" may be HALF correct. I fully expect a lot of the members of the Teamsters who currently work for UPS to remain "union"; I don't, however, expect them to work for UPS forever. Again, does it need to be pointed out that the company is predominately non-Teamster now? Or that the company is *NOT* primarily a "union workforce"? Iin that sense, you're claim that "we are a union workforce" isn't even correct NOW. And I think from the trend visible over the last few years one can see which way the future is going.

Lastly, 10 years ago the stock did *NOT* - get that? did *NOT*!!! - skyrocket in value. Rather, when the market was allowed to place a value on it, it migrated to it's natural LEVEL of value; a level of value which I and my associates, through our acceptance of risk created.

Then "lastly, lastly" [grin...wrote "lastly" a little to early, didn't I?), regarding your comment of....

"UPS has continued and will continue to be a successful, profitable company even with its supposed "union cost disadvantage"

...are you willing to guarantee the validity of that comment'? I ask only because I've heard so many other Teamsters over the years now talk down others "fantasies" when it came to defending their involvement with the companies that hired them. You know, guys from Consolidated, Red Star, Airborne, McLean, PIE, Interstate Motor Freight, Carolina Freight Systems, etc., etc., and - most recently, YRCW. And it turned out that they didn't know what the hell they were talking about. So what makes YOU different? What makes YOU know on what basis UPS will continue...or not continue, for that matter? Just curious.

 

[1989]

Lastly, 10 years ago the stock did *NOT* - get that? did *NOT*!!! - skyrocket in value. Rather, when the market was allowed to place a value on it, it migrated to it's natural LEVEL of value.




10 years ago the market more than doubled the value of the stock. Two times the value that UPS valued it at. And over the last 10 years you got over $14 in dividends. Sounds like a blue chip in purgatory to me. All it needs is some earnings growth.

 

[PobreCarlos]

1989;

You really don't know what the term "value" means, do you?

Sorry, but the market did *NOT* "doubled the value of the stock". The simple fact is that there was *NO* generally recognized market valuation in place PERIOD when the stock went public, and the market simply pegged the price AT it's value....the same value it - IN REALITY - was at the day before.

Of course, if you can prove me wrong, then "please"; proceed to do so. I.e. - show me a market-based valuation of the stock prior to it's going public...and how it was half of that "post-public". Personally, I don't think you can do it.

You see, there were those of us who KNEW (or at least had a pretty good idea!) of what the actual "value" of the stock was....and it WASN'T the artificially pegged MIP "10% forced buy-back this year price".

As for "earnings growth", I'm curious as to how you think that should - or could - come about? You know; how to get us out of this "purgatory"?

Guess what I'm saying is what I've been saying; i.e. - there's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[1989]

1989;

You really don't know what the term "value" means, do you?

I value a stock by it's earnings. How do you value it?

Sorry, but the market did *NOT* "doubled the value of the stock". The simple fact is that there was *NO* generally recognized market valuation in place PERIOD when the stock went public, and the market simply pegged the price AT it's value....the same value it - IN REALITY - was at the day before.

The stock split 2 for 1 the day before going public. The stock went public at $50 and closed in the 70's. If the IPO was overvalued the stock would closed under $50 within the next couple of months.

Of course, if you can prove me wrong, then "please"; proceed to do so. I.e. - show me a market-based valuation of the stock prior to it's going public...and how it was half of that "post-public". Personally, I don't think you can do it.

No company has a "market based valuation" prior to an IPO. Today at $53 it has a pe over 22. I'm sure you can look back somewhere and find a pe back in 1999.

You see, there were those of us who KNEW (or at least had a pretty good idea!) of what the actual "value" of the stock was....and it WASN'T the artificially pegged MIP "10% forced buy-back this year price".

Not sure what "value" you are talking about.

As for "earnings growth", I'm curious as to how you think that should - or could - come about? You know; how to get us out of this "purgatory"?

Purgatory gives you and nice 2-4% monthly return plus a 4% divy.

Guess what I'm saying is what I've been saying; i.e. - there's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Captain America]

Carlos get some therapy before you burst a vessel. geez. You type like you have a lot of anger and frustration (don't we all), and don't sound like you are dealing to well. I hope venting here is helping I know it has helped me. Good luck man.