UPS stock price

could the reason that the price is down, be do to the fact that the company is buying it back?

Usually a company buy-back will raise stock price because Wall St. sees that the company is investing in itself. This is good news and signals a buy condition.

UPS_ADVISOR - where are you? What is the perception on Wall St. with regards to UPS and FedEx?

Nice increases in the stock price the last two days. Some of the anal-ysts out there are finally climbing on board and declaring UPS a "buy".

It's about time!

It's also nice to see this board talk about stock price instead of the usual bickering!!

Cheers

What do you think about splitting the UPS stock into UPS CAPITAL (credit cards and the like) and UPS Package. Ever since we went public, we have to worry about the media.

We are amassing large amounts of cash from UPS capital. We would not have to worry about that and the media. Leave that part public and buy back ALL shares of UPS Package and take the package business private again. Investors would still feel they own a piece of the company, and we could leave the operations alone.

This would be very hard to do considering we are one of the market indeces, but I think it would be a good idea.

Atanaman....You say: We are amassing large amounts of cash from UPS capital.

Can you please clarify what you are asserting? I am interested in this information and where it is available. Thanks for any information you may provide

I do not have the figures here, but a growing percentage of our profits are coming from our UPS Capital division, or whatever you would like to call it. It is growing much faster than our package business (partly because it is new) and is a huge asset to the company.

Im sorry I dont have the figures now. Ill try to do a bit more research and get back with you. The reason it makes so much money is because it is basically a bank. There is no union, no packages, no gas, no trucks, just plastic cards. Looks like we got something right.

I don't know just how accurate my figures are....but....based on numbers for the year 2002, our revenues for "non package" business was 9 percent of the total revnues. Our profits for "non package" profits was less than a half of a percent of the total profits. I just do not see how our bank could buy all the UPS stock and privatize the package side of the company. That would be a far stretch.

Yes, it would. Very expensive. I think the main reason we did it was because of the money awhile back that we had set aside for the government lawsuit. Also, with the contract that was coming up, they probably thought public would be a good thing.

It just seems like since the company went public... there has been even more stress on NUMBERS rather than business. If we somehow went back private... who knows... longshot I guess.

When your a company that's a relative newcomer to being publicly traded,it's paramount to establish a track record of meeting and beating the analysts estimates.Proof in Wall Street's mind takes time and there's no way to speed up time,which means the patient investor will be rewarded.So far,it seems Eskew and company have executed the bussiness plan in a challenging environment.The cost for jet fuel alone can skyrocket in proportion to an increase in oil prices,and that is only one out of a thousand variables these guys have to keep an eye on constantly.I've been picking stocks for years and I'll say this much;If you look at companies with a similar market capitalization as UPS,there are CEO's that are pulling down much more than Eskew while the companies they run are laying off people,closing facilities,missing estimates,experiencing increases in accounts recievable,etc.At least you can say "brown" has a master plan and isn't just winging it.

Good post EZ . why don't you create a permanent ID and stay awhile.

Could it be the FEDEX measly 1% growth on the ground is a sign of UPS recovery in that area? UPS has gotten favor from ANALysts this week, if we have a solid quarter, we could get a nice move in the price.

Go UPS!
P71

I'm buying stock for the first time next quarter.

Would you all suggest the teamster 401k if I am planning to go company one day?

johnny b,

If you decide to enroll in the Teamster 401(k) and later decide to accept a management position (go company?), you should be able to roll over the balance into the company-sponsored 401(k) without any difficulties. Seperately, whatever Teamster pension credits you have earned however, are not portable. If you buy shares, you will have to pay taxes on dividends and if you decide to sell, possible capital gains taxes. Simply put, the 401(k) is a pre-tax plan, while purchasing shares is an after-tax plan.

Don't take this post as gospel, read the 401(k) and stock purchase plan prospectuses yourself to determine what is best for you. If you enroll in both, you may want to consider how to diversify your holdings. UPS stock is a component of the S&P 500, for example.

.... If you decide to enroll in the Teamster 401(k) and later decide to accept a management position (go company?), you should be able to roll over the balance into the company-sponsored 401(k) without any difficulties....

Unfortunately that isn't true. When a teamster becomes a member of management they need to open a new 401(k) account. They cannot roll their teamster 401(k) into the UPS Savings Plan.
In effect they end up with 2 401(k)'s

Thanks for the information smf0605. I assumed incorrectly one could perform this rollover under general 401(k) rules. Do you know the reason why the funds can't be rolled over? At any rate, I don't like this rule because by creating a second 401(k), you lose some of the value of compounding and you have to start over from scratch with the second account. Makes no sense to me.

Tieguy I just might accept that offer.I'm on vacation so I might be running the financials a little closer after the girlfriend goes back to work.The only short-term movement in price that I can possibly see is if and when judge Kolko makes a decision on the DHL hearing.With $3billion in cash and AAA-credit,the brain trust in Atlanta will not make knee-jerk reactions with shareholder money.My hat is off to you on consecutive silver medal finishes in your audits.Two in a row is something I would imagine doesn't come around all that often for very many.Gotta go...Carpe Diem!

i might be confused but does not the rate of compounding remain the same whether you have one account or two. depending whether the investments are paying the same rate of return. but if yield per year is the same in both accounts the rate of compounding would be the same with one account or two. i think?

I don't get it. I wish I could ask a question, but I can't even get that far!

my2cents - Changing jobs within the company is not considered a qualifying event, which you need in order to do a rollover. The plans are just written that way.
Even though you can no longer contribute to the Teamster 401(k) when you are no longer a teamster, you can still direct how your investments are handled.

Thanks again smf0605. Much appreciated. Changing jobs within a company isn't a "qualifying event" in this case. Something I wasn't aware of.

Johnny b, I don't understand your concerns because your previous query was vague to begin with. I'm glad I responded however, because I was able to learn from smf0605's posts.

In regards to compounding ups79, I would prefer to keep my 401(k) plan under one roof where all the money can be dynamically managed, as opposed to one active account and one frozen account, even though you can still manage the balance. I haven't performed a mathmatical calculation for the example you laid out, although I would think in the long run, the overall account balance would be greater if all funds stayed in one account. Capital gains, co-mingled with new funds via payroll deduction would provide better ongoing momentum I believe, than having one active account that you would have to rebuild and one frozen that you would have to manage.

my2cents: it might be easier to understand. you have $100,000 in one account and $100,000 in a second. if each acccount is paying 6% it would take you 12 years to double your money in both accounts(the rule of 72), thus you would have $400,000 in investments. if you had $200,000 in one account paying 6% it would take you 12 years again to double your money $400,000. i might be wrong again.