Tie VS Monte

tieguy

Banned
Also I don't see where you have responded to the fuel surcharge issue. Do you have any concern for the fact an analyst would list fuel surcharges as one of the two reason fdx improved their margins and profits? I would have been cringing if I had seen an analyst list that as a reason UPS bumped theirs up.
 

tieguy

Banned
montecarlo12 said:
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 [/quote]

monte you're all over the board on this one. So now you admit your growth came in at 3 percent? And now you admit that last year you reported 8 percent growth for last years second quarter? You don't see a disturbing trend here? I have no interest in winning the fdx vs ups debate. You're acting like the world will end if I don't see just how great a quarter you had? Unlike the average investor I do know how to read through the overhyped fluff on an earnings statement especially in the transportation sector. More importantly to you your investors have to. A 33 percent increase in profits coupled with an increase of 8 percent in overal package volume should have easily translated into a 15 to 20 percent increase in share value. Especially since fdx has led a charmed life with wall street the past 5 years. Instead you had a little runup and then flat lined. My guess analyst are seeing some of the same things I see. But listen it does not matter what I think. I won't buy your stock . So don't try so hard with me. Go find someone thinking of investing in fdx and tell them what a great quarter you had.
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
Tieguy,
still dont see it huh. 6 lines up from the bottem of your post #13. I still have faith in you. Your reading comprehension skills are not very sharp. Thats ok, I will work with you. Key words to look for are IP package volume and domestic package volume. = 9% increase for Express division for 2nd quarter. After you find that slowley move your eyes down to the FEDEX GROUND segmant and you will soon find Grounds package volume increase of 4% which gives you a combined package volume of 13% for the 2nd quarter of 2005.....taaadaaahhh:thumbup1:

havent given a Fedex 3rd quarter thumbs up or down?? I thought It would be fun seeing we would only have a few weeks to wait. I can see long term you feel like Fedex will fall on it face. Maybe it will, I cant see into the future but I can see what it has done in the last 10 years. While your still trying to find the last paragraph of your post # 13, I will say that we disagree on future growth for Fedex. The good news is one of us will be right. Im not sure why you get so upset with a fuel surcharge so I will give you a chance to explain. If that upsets you so much and had a positive impact on revenues for Fedex, what did you do when UPS did not meet its 4th quarter forecast for 2004 and 2005? What would have bothered me if I was employeed by UPS is that it took Mike Eskew weeks to come out and admit Fedex had dug deeper into ground market share and not the weather that hurt 2004 4th quarter numbers. That looks like a nervous man to me. I gotta say it didnt make me "cring" though. :w00t:
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
Tieguy,
I dont mind you not wanting Fedex stock. I own stock for both Fedex and UPS. Not because I am Employee of Fedex express, or a Fan of Dale J. I buy stock to make $$$.
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
Tieguy,
you brought up the 2nd quarter thing, not me. I didnt say it was great either.
Volume numbers will get much better in the next few years. I would say Fedex 2nd quarter was consistent in positive volume growth and revenue. In short, what analyst on Wall St. was looking for.
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
Wkmak,
Im not so sure about Tie. He has spent all his time on his back in a submissive posture. Im making an attempt to be nice to OK2BC this year. I havent seen him on here in awhile. I dont think he has been signing in with his "member name" but im sure he is reading along. What does concern me is that Irony has been missing in action. I hope all is well.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Monte,
Tie and OK2BC use to go round and round at one another and I use to joke at em' about they were really lovers. OK2BC understood my sick, pervented sense of humor but Tie was just to anal to take off and have fun with it. Tie's yet to realize or being willing like the rest of us to admit that this whole thing is nothing but mindless BS anyway and that nothing we say means a damn thing. On the anal comment should I say no pun intended or should it be "no bun intended!" :lol:

Don't know about Irony but OK2BC took a vacation after Christmas and I guess he's decided to take a break for a while. That's cool. OK2BC is really a pretty good dude and hell for that fact so is Tie. He just takes the party line to serious for me but otherwise he's OK. I've no doubt his intentions are truly genuine and well meaning.

While I got ya on the horn, you FedEx guys got a damn good driver in the Gibbs/FedEx ride in Denny Hamlin. I've seen a number of folks picking him as rookie of the year over Truex and he may just fill that order. I thought JJ Yeley would get the FedEx ride which I'm a big fan of his from open wheel and I'd look pretty funny at Atlanta Race pulling for Yeley driving FedEx while wearing UPS gear. Saved by the racing gods! LOL.

Be good and go easy on Tie, he ain't all bad. Hell, he's even right on a few points like.....uh.....let me see, there's......uh.........well.......and there's.........and........... can I get back to you on this?
:tongue_sm
 

tieguy

Banned
wkmac said:
OK2BC leaves and Tie finds him another girlfriend!

You Ho You!

:lol: :lol:

Hey monte,
Tie likes to be on top.
:wink:

Yea this one picked me off the dance floor. Didnt like the fact I think Fdx had an off quarter. My fault I didn't buy into what was a terrific spin job by fdx.
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
Wkmac,
thanks for the post. I like Tie ok2b and Irony. Im just having a little fun. I think they enjoy it as much as I do. Im looking forward to this years Nascar season. I was so upset that Gibbs stuck with Leffler for as long as he did last year. Im glad to see both Hamlin and Yeley will get shots this year in the 11 and 18 cars. I wish B. Labonte stayed, but I guess it all works out for everyone. Im a huge D.J fan, and you would think because Im a Fedex employee I wouldnt have any UPS gear. I cant get away from it. My brother makes sure My kids have UPS gear, diecast, christmas ornaments etc. I even drove around with an 88 sticker on the back of my truck for about a week last winter. We have alot of fun at each others expense.
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
rushfan,
I hope both the 88 and 11 cars have great years. I would love to see them race for the cup. D. Hamlin has alot to learn, but I think he might be one of those guys with natural ability and instinct. He doesnt seem to be intimidated by the attention he is getting. We all know what D.J has done in the past. I think were all going to have fun this year. Damn...last year the only fun I had was trying to predict how many laps Leffler could finish before crashing into something. :blushing:
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
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.:clap:

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
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%.
I don't know how much of your total volume is international, but even if it's 25% (and I suspect it's less than that), an 8% increase in international only works out to a 2% increase in total volume.
Apply the same math to the growth in fedex ground, and I sincerely doubt that you will come up with a 13% increase in total volume. I'm guessing 2%-3% is a more likely result. Any growth is good growth though.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Jones 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%.
I don't know how much of your total volume is international, but even if it's 25% (and I suspect it's less than that), an 8% increase in international only works out to a 2% increase in total volume.
Apply the same math to the growth in fedex ground, and I sincerely doubt that you will come up with a 13% increase in total volume. I'm guessing 2%-3% is a more likely result. Any growth is good growth though.

THAT'S IT! THAT'S IT! We've been wondering all these years how FedEx presents the numbers to Wall Street to drive it's stock price for us and good ole' Monte spills the secret. It's all in their math!
:lol: :lol:

Hey races fans here, enjoy the Bud Shootout this weekend. I'm old school so I still want to call it the Busch Clash but then again I still call the championship, "The Grace Cup!" That's real ole' school!:thumbup1:

Also looking forward to NHRA kicking things off in Pomona too!
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
Jones,
I understand what you are saying in your post. Fedex Express and Fedex ground are two Independently run companies under Fedex Corp.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

tieguy

Banned
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. :lol:
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
I'm sorry I don't know what I would possibly have to continue here. As I said I am glad monte is happy with the crappy quarter and loss of volume that fdx experienced. Its good to see such complacency on his part I just hope his attitude is representative of the entire fdx organization so we can clean house quickly.

Tieguy, this is your post....remember??????? YoU said LOSS OF VOLUME!!!
:w00t: then you claim I misrepresent you....another LIE:thumbup1:

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.

Tie...said it before and I will say it again "you have no credibilty"
 

tieguy

Banned
montecarlo12 said:
Tieguy, this is your post....remember??????? YoU said LOSS OF VOLUME!!!
:w00t: then you claim I misrepresent you....another LIE:thumbup1:

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.
 

montecarlo12

Well-Known Member
Tieguy,
YOU ARE CONFUSED....THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIE!

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.

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?


Tieguy. I NENER CLAIMED YOU SAID FEDEX HAD A GDP OF 3.6 GOOF BALL.
IM TELLING YOU FEDEX HAD A GDP OF 3.6 FOR THE YEAR 2005. like I said in a previous post, you have no reading comprehension skills.

Tieguy, you are correct about the US GDP for 2005 being 3.5...the bad news is your LIE about Fedex having a GDP of 3%

US GDP 2005 3.5% FEDEX GDP 2005 3.6% and OH YEA..CAUGHT YOU IN ANOTHER LIE. :w00t:


 
Top