W
wondering
Guest
any thoughts on how the change in MIP distribution will affect the future of the org.?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I
isdrone
Guest
Honestly, probably nothing in the long term. This only affects people who sell their MIP every year. I do not have a problem with the change (half now, half whenever)- except for the scorecard. Now it is people (Soupata, Davis & Eskew) who determine the MIP number, not the amount of profits. The MIP will be highly scrutinized from now on out. For new management it means nothing - that is just the way it is.
H
had_enough
Guest
Is there any thing in writing stating that 5 years from now UPS can't change the rules and not pay that money because the stock is not doing well (if there is something in writing, I would bet there is an out clause for UPS). Atlanta has been lying to mgmt for years now, I would not trust that money to be there in 5 years.
I
isdrone
Guest
The approval to change the MIP was granted in 1998 or 99. Did anyone know that before the MIP change? I doubt it. The plan can be changed at any time.
S
speeddemon
Guest
UPS has a track record of changing the rules to benefit them whenever they see fit, no matter what affect it has on others.
D
desert
Guest
From my understanding the vote to change the MIP in 98 was actually an attempt to do away with it completely!!! Supposedly there was enough feedback from this that the committee decided the repercussions would not be worth the money saved.
UPS will take care of UPS and no one else. Don't ever forget that.
We are all just tools that the company uses to make money and we are all expendable.
UPS will take care of UPS and no one else. Don't ever forget that.
We are all just tools that the company uses to make money and we are all expendable.
S
smf0605
Guest
I am not sure why anyone is surprised that UPS is interested in taking care of UPS - it is a business after all.
If the board of directors were not concerned with the bottom line, where would the company be?
If the board of directors were not concerned with the bottom line, where would the company be?
S
swingdriver
Guest
smf0605:
Well said.
Well said.
I
isdrone
Guest
smf0605,
I agree about the bottom line. I do not think that anyone will disagree that the MIP change was good for the bottom line - at least over the next 5 years. However, it is offensive that we were told that this is a great thing - tax advantages, blah, blah, blah. It would have been easier if they would have just told us to suck it up and move on. I hate the double talk. This was about shaving $300M off the bottom line this year. How it personally benefits management is beyond me.
Keep an eye on the pension - it is next......
I hope I am wrong.
I agree about the bottom line. I do not think that anyone will disagree that the MIP change was good for the bottom line - at least over the next 5 years. However, it is offensive that we were told that this is a great thing - tax advantages, blah, blah, blah. It would have been easier if they would have just told us to suck it up and move on. I hate the double talk. This was about shaving $300M off the bottom line this year. How it personally benefits management is beyond me.
Keep an eye on the pension - it is next......
I hope I am wrong.
P
pretzel_man
Guest
Isdrone:
Its very clear to me how this helps management. While others may not agree, I am stating my personal beliefs.
First, yes I believe MIP will be less than its has been. Not $300M less however. UPS gave out $750M in MIP this year. Even if MIP were to drop by 20%, the overall liability would reduce by $150M.
I recognize that 1/2 of this is deferred payment, but am ignoring that since its not relevent in the long term.
In my opinion, the key to why this is good is in the company focus on what's important. What's important is not keeping profits steady. Its growth.
The six elements are the same elements that Wall St. thinks is important. If those six elements grow so will stock.
From my perspective, if management is focused, the short term reduction in MIP will be much more offset in stock growth. Said differently, if I got more MIP every year, and the stock did not grow, we're much, much worse off.
If the presentation you were given tried to explain that the tax advantages would offset any possible loss they missed the mark.
I gave the presentation to many people and explained that its a short term loss trying to enhance long term gain.
Again, I'm personally in favor of the change because I think its good for UPS and management in the long term and the long term is what matters to me...
P-Man
Its very clear to me how this helps management. While others may not agree, I am stating my personal beliefs.
First, yes I believe MIP will be less than its has been. Not $300M less however. UPS gave out $750M in MIP this year. Even if MIP were to drop by 20%, the overall liability would reduce by $150M.
I recognize that 1/2 of this is deferred payment, but am ignoring that since its not relevent in the long term.
In my opinion, the key to why this is good is in the company focus on what's important. What's important is not keeping profits steady. Its growth.
The six elements are the same elements that Wall St. thinks is important. If those six elements grow so will stock.
From my perspective, if management is focused, the short term reduction in MIP will be much more offset in stock growth. Said differently, if I got more MIP every year, and the stock did not grow, we're much, much worse off.
If the presentation you were given tried to explain that the tax advantages would offset any possible loss they missed the mark.
I gave the presentation to many people and explained that its a short term loss trying to enhance long term gain.
Again, I'm personally in favor of the change because I think its good for UPS and management in the long term and the long term is what matters to me...
P-Man
T
tieguy
Guest
"In my opinion, the key to why this is good is in the company focus on what's important. What's important is not keeping profits steady. Its growth."
Yes pretzel man thats what the wizard of OZ would like you to believe. They could have changed the goals at any time without overhauling the rest of the MIP. Therefore they clearly had other objectives then the company line they fed you. The changes to the MIP plan did nothing to impress investors at earnings time. In fact one analyst said he was not crazy about companies that raised their earnings by screwing their management. However buying a frieght company clearly helped the stock. We did not have to change the MIP process to grow the business in this case. I love your attitude. I think its great you're willing to throw yourself on the grenade for the common good. Only in this case the only thing the grenade was getting ready to blow up was the latrine.
Yes pretzel man thats what the wizard of OZ would like you to believe. They could have changed the goals at any time without overhauling the rest of the MIP. Therefore they clearly had other objectives then the company line they fed you. The changes to the MIP plan did nothing to impress investors at earnings time. In fact one analyst said he was not crazy about companies that raised their earnings by screwing their management. However buying a frieght company clearly helped the stock. We did not have to change the MIP process to grow the business in this case. I love your attitude. I think its great you're willing to throw yourself on the grenade for the common good. Only in this case the only thing the grenade was getting ready to blow up was the latrine.
P
pretzel_man
Guest
Tie:
First, the stock went up BEFORE the Overnite announcement. The management committee met with the investors the week before. The company got lots of good press coming out of that meeting.
Go to UPS.com and you can hear all the presentations as well as the slides and video that went along with it.
Second, you want to believe that I'm naive for putting my faith in the management committee.
They are the ones that created the "company line". Do you know them or much about them?
They are incredibly good people with more to lose than I do. They have high integrity, and I trust their intentions. Learn about them...
Finally, this is not the first time that the management committee had to made tough choices for the good of the company. Go back and read Casey's speaches.
Read what he told the "plant managers". How he told them to hang in there through tough times.
Read "the road ahead". He acknoledged that times were tough, but told them to trust the direction. Read "a talk with Joe." Read Jim Kelly's "a talk from Joe".
There were times when management got stock dividends instead of cash. Years with very low MIP. Meetings with little or no stock increase.
Like today, management then had to decide who to believe. As it turned out, upper management was right before.
So, I'll leave my trust with the management committee. That's what "partners" are supposed to do.
P-Man
(Message edited by pretzel_man on May 21, 2005)
First, the stock went up BEFORE the Overnite announcement. The management committee met with the investors the week before. The company got lots of good press coming out of that meeting.
Go to UPS.com and you can hear all the presentations as well as the slides and video that went along with it.
Second, you want to believe that I'm naive for putting my faith in the management committee.
They are the ones that created the "company line". Do you know them or much about them?
They are incredibly good people with more to lose than I do. They have high integrity, and I trust their intentions. Learn about them...
Finally, this is not the first time that the management committee had to made tough choices for the good of the company. Go back and read Casey's speaches.
Read what he told the "plant managers". How he told them to hang in there through tough times.
Read "the road ahead". He acknoledged that times were tough, but told them to trust the direction. Read "a talk with Joe." Read Jim Kelly's "a talk from Joe".
There were times when management got stock dividends instead of cash. Years with very low MIP. Meetings with little or no stock increase.
Like today, management then had to decide who to believe. As it turned out, upper management was right before.
So, I'll leave my trust with the management committee. That's what "partners" are supposed to do.
P-Man
(Message edited by pretzel_man on May 21, 2005)
I
isdrone
Guest
Pretzel,
I, too, admire your attitude. I have seen many things over the past 15 years and have become somewhat jaded.
If the MIP is a 2 / 4 this year it will result in a $300M savings this year. 1/2 cash, half deferred. 20% of the other half will be realized next year when the RSU's vest.
I am assuming you read the MIP update posted on upsers.com a few weeks ago. Volume development was one of the "below target" numbers. Yet, during the investors meeting we spoke about how volume had really picked up. What changed in those 2-3 weeks? Smells funny......
I, too, admire your attitude. I have seen many things over the past 15 years and have become somewhat jaded.
If the MIP is a 2 / 4 this year it will result in a $300M savings this year. 1/2 cash, half deferred. 20% of the other half will be realized next year when the RSU's vest.
I am assuming you read the MIP update posted on upsers.com a few weeks ago. Volume development was one of the "below target" numbers. Yet, during the investors meeting we spoke about how volume had really picked up. What changed in those 2-3 weeks? Smells funny......
P
pretzel_man
Guest
IS:
Volume has increased, but that was relatively recent. Jan / Feb didn't look too good.
Why the difference between the UPSERS.COM announcement and the investors conference, I don't know.
Maybe the volume has grown, but its below target. Maybe, they didn't want it on UPSers.com before they spoke with investors. Again, I don't know.
I do look at the volume numbers regularly, and its a fact that the growth is recent.
Do you know that there is a domestic growth committee? They were formed to focus on volume growth.
You will see new services coming soon to target the segment that we've been losing to FedEx.
The need for growth is real. DHL is trying to buy their growth. FedEx has improved their service and is investing heavily in expansion.
2008 is the key. The competition has capacity now and wants our customers. If we can grow and get through that contract, they may be holding the bag with lots of debt and unfilled buildings.
As I said before, read Casey's speech called "The Road Ahead". I think there are parallels with today.
P-Man
Volume has increased, but that was relatively recent. Jan / Feb didn't look too good.
Why the difference between the UPSERS.COM announcement and the investors conference, I don't know.
Maybe the volume has grown, but its below target. Maybe, they didn't want it on UPSers.com before they spoke with investors. Again, I don't know.
I do look at the volume numbers regularly, and its a fact that the growth is recent.
Do you know that there is a domestic growth committee? They were formed to focus on volume growth.
You will see new services coming soon to target the segment that we've been losing to FedEx.
The need for growth is real. DHL is trying to buy their growth. FedEx has improved their service and is investing heavily in expansion.
2008 is the key. The competition has capacity now and wants our customers. If we can grow and get through that contract, they may be holding the bag with lots of debt and unfilled buildings.
As I said before, read Casey's speech called "The Road Ahead". I think there are parallels with today.
P-Man
I
isdrone
Guest
Pretzel,
I did not know about the volume growth committee. When was it formed? I agree that it is needed (probably before now). I also agree that 2008 is key and the issue with the pilots needs to be settled. It seems however that we were caught flat-footed. It seems like we looked up in December and said 'We're in trouble!'.
In one of your earlier posts you talked about the management committee. I have met most of them - on more than one occassion. I agree they are good people - but they fell asleep at the wheel. The earnings forecast was a debacle and it seems that everything that has happened since then has been a knee jerk reaction. I hope I am wrong.
I did not know about the volume growth committee. When was it formed? I agree that it is needed (probably before now). I also agree that 2008 is key and the issue with the pilots needs to be settled. It seems however that we were caught flat-footed. It seems like we looked up in December and said 'We're in trouble!'.
In one of your earlier posts you talked about the management committee. I have met most of them - on more than one occassion. I agree they are good people - but they fell asleep at the wheel. The earnings forecast was a debacle and it seems that everything that has happened since then has been a knee jerk reaction. I hope I am wrong.
U
upscorpis
Guest
isdrone,
Do you think the management committee is directly responsible for the volume shortfall? I don't and I see the change as a way to motivate those who are. Change is uncomfortable for all so it's not surprising that there is discontent. If you can step back from the immediately personal ramifications and look at this, it's an alignment of the reward system with company goals. It's not as comfortable a position for those that enjoyed the profit sharing plan of the past but I believe that to be exactly what was desired from the company leadership. If you think they were asleep at the switch before, it's not very fair to condemn them for reacting. What would you have said had nothing changed after the shortfall? The more I synthesize this, the more comfortable with it I become. This is meant to keep all of us awake at the wheel.
Do you think the management committee is directly responsible for the volume shortfall? I don't and I see the change as a way to motivate those who are. Change is uncomfortable for all so it's not surprising that there is discontent. If you can step back from the immediately personal ramifications and look at this, it's an alignment of the reward system with company goals. It's not as comfortable a position for those that enjoyed the profit sharing plan of the past but I believe that to be exactly what was desired from the company leadership. If you think they were asleep at the switch before, it's not very fair to condemn them for reacting. What would you have said had nothing changed after the shortfall? The more I synthesize this, the more comfortable with it I become. This is meant to keep all of us awake at the wheel.
I
isdrone
Guest
CorpIS,
I do not think they are entirely at fault, but they should shoulder most of the blame. They are the "leaders" of the company - it is their job to look at everything from the 30,000 ft view and well compensated for it. The volume did not just drop off overnight. I completely blame them for the earnings debacle. That was a disaster - bad weather? Come on.
Also, I understand and agree with the change from a company point of view - from a personal standpoint I don't like it. Previously (however flawed it may have become) we could see real numbers to determine what the MIP would be. Now we are relying on three people (Eskew, Soupata, and Davis) to determine what the MIP will be. I know they are good people with plently to lose, but the number is now determined by people, not profit numbers. Every MIP multiplier will be scrutinized from this point forward.
I am glad you are comfortable with the change - it may work and it may backfire.
(Message edited by isdrone on May 22, 2005)
I do not think they are entirely at fault, but they should shoulder most of the blame. They are the "leaders" of the company - it is their job to look at everything from the 30,000 ft view and well compensated for it. The volume did not just drop off overnight. I completely blame them for the earnings debacle. That was a disaster - bad weather? Come on.
Also, I understand and agree with the change from a company point of view - from a personal standpoint I don't like it. Previously (however flawed it may have become) we could see real numbers to determine what the MIP would be. Now we are relying on three people (Eskew, Soupata, and Davis) to determine what the MIP will be. I know they are good people with plently to lose, but the number is now determined by people, not profit numbers. Every MIP multiplier will be scrutinized from this point forward.
I am glad you are comfortable with the change - it may work and it may backfire.
(Message edited by isdrone on May 22, 2005)
I
ironylife
Guest
pretzel, read the latest article on dhl on brown cafe homepage...they arent doing anything. They are covering for themselves putting millions into domestic mkt. Im inches away from stealing some of their volume from one of my businesses I service. They underestimated the domestic market that we dominate. And remember, when one company dominates the market like we do growth is very hard to do...and it seems like we are still squeezing some more volume out of an already dried up market.
P
pretzel_man
Guest
ISDrone:
The growth committee is relatively new. Kurt K on the Mgmt Committee recommended starting it. Its headed by Wayne Herring who is a region manager. They are making headway and reporting regularly to the management committee and board.
Yes, someone fell asleep with the 4th Qtr projections. That really hurt our credibility with the investors. We're doing a lot of work getting that back.
Look for a report on UPS from NBC shortly...
P-Man
The growth committee is relatively new. Kurt K on the Mgmt Committee recommended starting it. Its headed by Wayne Herring who is a region manager. They are making headway and reporting regularly to the management committee and board.
Yes, someone fell asleep with the 4th Qtr projections. That really hurt our credibility with the investors. We're doing a lot of work getting that back.
Look for a report on UPS from NBC shortly...
P-Man
P
pretzel_man
Guest
Irony:
DHL I think overestimated what low prices would buy vs. poor quality. They wanted to buy the market but did not deliver.
On the other hand, FedEx has improved service and is building capacity.... Yes we dominate the market, but FedEx is taking market share (at least until recently).
Their debt is scary. If interest rates go up, how will they pay their bills? We're AAA rated, and I think they're BBB. Higher interest will kill them and if the buildings are not filled, they're in trouble.....
Look for UPS to leverage our "all services on board" advantage and market this to businesses. FedEX cannot deliver all services at the same time... We can....
P-Man
DHL I think overestimated what low prices would buy vs. poor quality. They wanted to buy the market but did not deliver.
On the other hand, FedEx has improved service and is building capacity.... Yes we dominate the market, but FedEx is taking market share (at least until recently).
Their debt is scary. If interest rates go up, how will they pay their bills? We're AAA rated, and I think they're BBB. Higher interest will kill them and if the buildings are not filled, they're in trouble.....
Look for UPS to leverage our "all services on board" advantage and market this to businesses. FedEX cannot deliver all services at the same time... We can....
P-Man
Similar threads
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 12K
