Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
It was a signature event of a signature era. On Nov. 10, 1999, at the height of the dot.com boom,
UPS Inc. ended nearly seven decades as a private company and went public with what was, at the time, the largest IPO in U.S. history.
The offering, which raised $5.5 billion, was an immediate hit. Initially priced at $50 a share,
UPS's new "Class B" stock—which represented 10 percent of its shares at the time—soared more than $17 by the close of the first day of trading.
It wasn't hard to understand the IPO's appeal. Unlike companies that were coming public with only modest revenues and a scant chance of showing profits anytime soon, UPS was a 92-year-old business with a proven model and an established track record.
At the same time, UPS was seen as being in the sweet spot of the Internet boom. With its massive
shipping network and sophisticated information systems, UPS was wonderfully positioned to carry the
avalanche of shipments that electronic commerce would spawn, investors thought.
Much has changed since then. In its first decade as a public company, UPS learned several painful
lessons. It found it was a far different matter to communicate a message and strategy to a skeptical
audience of outside investors and money managers than to its employee base. It discovered that
public investors had less patience than its employees for large-scale investments that would not
show a return for some time. And it had to embrace the notion that failure to hit quarterly revenue
or profit expectations—which in UPS's privately held days might have been greeted with
internal shrugs—would be met by widespread share selling by investors whose loyalty didn't
extend beyond their stock certificates.
At UPS, the marker for success is, and has always been, the performance of its equity. Here, one
statistic speaks volumes: Its stock price is at this writing only about $6 a share above its IPO
price in 1999. This has been a blow to employees of a company where individual wealth has been
generated by stock ownership instead of base compensation. For long-time employees accustomed to like-clockwork annual returns of 15 percent or more when UPS was private, the adjustment has been that much more painful.
Buying spree
Members of UPS's management committee, the 12-person group that runs the company, were not
available for comment. Interviewed byDC Velocity earlier this year,
Chairman and CEO Scott Davis said the IPO provided needed capital for UPS to make acquisitions supporting its global expansion.
"We needed a publicly traded equity to ensure we had the financial capability to execute on that
strategy," said Davis, adding that going public has made UPS "more aggressive, quicker to make
tough decisions, leaner, and more competitive."
Since it went public, UPS has made 40 acquisitions totaling an estimated $2 billion. The goal of
these transactions has been two-fold: to create an unparalleled worldwide delivery network, and to
give customers a one-stop shop of shipping, logistics, and financial service solutions underpinned
by advanced information technology.
"When we look at the world, we believe we've won the first race, which is building out our
global infrastructure," says UPS spokesman Norman Black. Black notes that UPS's chief rivals, FedEx
Corp. and DHL Express, have holes in their respective networks, with FedEx being a weak player in
Europe and DHL recently withdrawing from the domestic U.S. market. UPS has a competitive edge
because it is a major presence in markets where its competitors are not, Black says.
Once UPS completes work on its intra-China air hub in Shenzhen and an intercontinental air hub in Shanghai, it will essentially have "finished out" its global system, according to Black.
The acquisitions were also designed to support a strategy that would "enable global commerce" by integrating the movement of goods, information, and capital into a seamless flow. UPS believed that if customers leveraged its logistics, information, and financial services to expand their business,
they would do more shipping, thus feeding the company's highly profitable small-package
operation.
While that strategy was slow to yield results, the plan now seems to be paying off. Business
generated by UPS's Supply Chain Solutions unit provides it with about $2 billion in annual small
package revenue, according to a 2008 study by consulting firm Armstrong & Associates.
Still, the unit's performance has been a concern for investors. Profit margins for supply chain
revenue have remained in the mid-single digits, in contrast to the healthier 15-percent or so
margins generated by small package revenues. Black says the company never expected margins from
supply chain services to match those from the small package operation. "We believe we can get
(supply chain margins) to 7 percent and grow it from there," he says.
Long view
UPS, like other transport logistics companies, has been hammered by the recession. In the second
quarter of 2009, revenues and operating profits were off 16.7 and 38.4 percent, respectively, from
2008 levels. Yet the company's long-held reputation for fiscal prudence has helped cushion the
blows. At the end of June, it had $3.3 billion in cash and marketable securities, and $10.9 billion
in debt, most of it in long-term durations, levels considered reasonable for a company whose sales
are about five times that. In 2008, UPS's revenues hit a record $51.5 billion; it will be
hard-pressed to exceed that mark in 2009.
What makes UPS a formidable competitor is less its sheer size than its capacity to shake up the
landscape even after 102 years in business. In early October, it launched an initiative enabling
shippers, for a nominal charge, to calculate and offset the carbon footprint of their shipments.
UPS also said it will match the cost of the offsets incurred by its customers.
A few days earlier, in a direct attack on the traditional direct-mail industry, the company
announced it was testing a service in which drivers deliver small boxes filled with up to 12
premium offers and samples to select consumers. Retailers that have signed up for the pilot
program include Bed Bath & Beyond, Zappos.com, and the Men's Wearhouse.
Black says that UPS continues to take the long view toward its business despite short-term
market setbacks. That discipline, he says, positions the company well for the day when the global
economy gets back on its feet. "The next five to 10 years is going to be a period of tremendous
growth," he predicts.
According to FedEx, the proposed breakup will create flexibility for the two companies to handle the separate demands of the global parcel and the LTL markets. That approach will enable FedEx and FedEx Freight to deploy more customized operational execution, along with more tailored investment and capital allocation strategies. At the same time, the two companies will continue to cooperate on commercial, operational, and technology initiatives.
Following the split, FedEx Freight will become the industry’s largest LTL carrier, with revenue of $9.4 billion in fiscal 2024. The company also boasts the broadest network and fastest transit times in its industry, the company said.
After spinning of that business, the remaining FedEx units will have a combined revenue of $78.3 billion based on fiscal year 2024 results for its range of time- and day-definite delivery and related supply chain technology services to more than 220 countries and territories through an integrated air-ground express network.
The move comes after FedEx has operated its freight unit for decades. After launching in 1971 as an overnight air courier service, FedEx grew quickly and in 1998 acquired Caliber System inc., creating a transportation “powerhouse” comprising the traditional FedEx distribution service and small-package ground carrier RPS, LTL carrier Viking Freight, Caliber Logistics, Caliber Technology, and Roberts Express. And in 2006, FedEx acquires Watkins Motor Lines, enhancing FedEx Freight’s ability to serve customers in the long-haul LTL freight market.
FedEx share prices rose after the announcement, as investors cheered a resolution to the debate that had lingered since June about whether the event would happen, according to a statement from Bascome Majors, a market analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group. And FedEx Freight will become a major player in the sector, based on its 16% share of industry revenue in 2023, well above Old Dominion Freight Lines (ODFL)’s 10% and SAIA’s 5%, he said.
Likewise, TD Cowen issued a “buy” rating for FedEx based on the long-awaited move, according to Jason Seidl, senior analyst focused on rail, trucking and logistics. That came as investors were soothed about their worries of potential “dis-synergies” from the split by the detail that FedEx Freight and legacy FDX have signed agreements that will continue the connectivity of the two networks.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.