FedEx Freight | Revised Bonus Expectations

SwampRatt

TB Legend
Credits
421
Posting this as a sperate thread, so it can be clear that the numbers are NOT absolutely clear.

For the first time, there seems to be conflicting numbers. There are 2 sets of numbers for the third quarter. The difference is only somewhat significant, but will effect the payout.

There is no conflict on the Q-4 results. The conflict is in the previous quarters, including Q-3.

Old third quarter numbers (published March 20, 2018):

Revenue: $1.69 billion
Operating income: $55 million
Operating margin :3.2%


http://investors.fedex.com/news-and...p-Reports-Third-Quarter-Earnings/default.aspx

Again, the "new" third quarter numbers (published Tuesday):

Revenue: $1.613 billion
Operating income: $56 million
Operating margin :3.5%


http://s1.q4cdn.com/714383399/files/doc_downloads/statistical/2018/FedEx-Q4-FY18-Stat-Book.pdf

Why the conflict? It seems to be explained in the fine print:

"Effective in the fourth quarter of 2018, we realigned the specialty service companies FedEx Custom Critical and FedEx Supply Chain under the management of FedEx Trade Networks. The FedEx Trade Networks operating results are included in "Corporate, other and eliminations." Prior quarter and year amounts and all operating statistics for the transportation segments have been revised to conform to the current year segmentation."

Now then, which set of numbers will be used to calculate the bonus? There is no way for me to know for sure, but it will effect the projected payout, one way or the other.

The revised numbers mean a 1.6% payout.
The unrevised numbers mean a 1.52% payout.


Sorry, but those are the facts... This time, we'll have to wait for the official statement, to be certain. I do think the 1.52% is more than likely the actual number.
 
Last edited:
So it’s two words.
Only two? Is that the consensus opinion of all parties at R.C. & Co.?

The revised quarterly numbers (as presented), while misleading for our purpose, are there to show the trends (as they would be) under the current alignment of operations. Not saying it's good, or bad, just what it is.
 
Yeah, that’s the unanimous consensus, two words.

BONE US.

By lumping accounting periods together, they are reducing the bonus. Back in the olden days, that other allegedly unsuccessful company paid bonuses monthly. That gave the employees a true representation of their efforts. We usually got them 10 to 11 months a year. Some weren’t so great, but when things were good, they showed their appreciation.
 
By lumping accounting periods together, they are reducing the bonus. Back in the olden days, that other allegedly unsuccessful company paid bonuses monthly. That gave the employees a true representation of their efforts. We usually got them 10 to 11 months a year. Some weren’t so great, but when things were good, they showed their appreciation.

While I can appreciate your fondness of the olden days, your analysis is surprisingly flawed.

They are not really reducing the bonus. No :nono h4h:. The bonus is based on (Min 5%) O/R results, which are only reported quarterly, NOT monthly. If you look back at historic quarterly results, you'll see that there are many quarters where there would be zero payout. Often 2 quarters in a single year would pay zero. Not impossible, but it's very hard and unlikely to offset ZERO.

Feel free to go back and run the consecutive quarterly numbers, showing the difference. I'm curious what the net effect would be. That's your assignment: Back up your assertion. I'll wait...

:popcorn:
 
While I can appreciate your fondness of the olden days, your analysis is surprisingly flawed.

They are not really reducing the bonus. No :nono h4h:. The bonus is based on (Min 5%) O/R results, which are only reported quarterly, NOT monthly. If you look back at historic quarterly results, you'll see that there are many quarters where there would be zero payout. Often 2 quarters in a single year would pay zero. Not impossible, but it's very hard and unlikely to offset ZERO.

Feel free to go back and run the consecutive quarterly numbers, showing the difference. I'm curious what the net effect would be. That's your assignment: Back up your assertion. I'll wait...

:popcorn:

Thus, lest we forget, we never received a "bonus" until these last few years.
 
While I can appreciate your fondness of the olden days, your analysis is surprisingly flawed.

They are not really reducing the bonus. No :nono h4h:. The bonus is based on (Min 5%) O/R results, which are only reported quarterly, NOT monthly. If you look back at historic quarterly results, you'll see that there are many quarters where there would be zero payout. Often 2 quarters in a single year would pay zero. Not impossible, but it's very hard and unlikely to offset ZERO.

Feel free to go back and run the consecutive quarterly numbers, showing the difference. I'm curious what the net effect would be. That's your assignment: Back up your assertion. I'll wait...

:popcorn:
While you are waiting, chew on this. $1 in 1995 was valued at $1.61 in 2017. In that same time period our annual profit sharing was over $3000 a year for linehaul. At today’s valuation of the dollar, that would be over $4800 dollars. Have y’all seen numbers like that with this bi-annual averaging of quarters?
 
While you are waiting, chew on this. $1 in 1995 was valued at $1.61 in 2017. In that same time period our annual profit sharing was over $3000 a year for linehaul. At today’s valuation of the dollar, that would be over $4800 dollars. Have y’all seen numbers like that with this bi-annual averaging of quarters?
Just curious, using your same valuation, did you make more or less than $22/hour back in 1995? Have you compared TOTAL take home pay, adjusted for inflation? Just curious, as the total bottom line (per hour worked) is what matters most, right? Is it better or worse?
 
Posting this as a sperate thread, so it can be clear that the numbers are NOT absolutely clear.

For the first time, there seems to be conflicting numbers. There are 2 sets of numbers for the third quarter. The difference is only somewhat significant, but will effect the payout.

There is no conflict on the Q-4 results. The conflict is in the previous quarters, including Q-3.

Old third quarter numbers (published March 20, 2018):

Revenue: $1.69 billion
Operating income: $55 million
Operating margin :3.2%


http://investors.fedex.com/news-and...p-Reports-Third-Quarter-Earnings/default.aspx

Again, the "new" third quarter numbers (published Tuesday):

Revenue: $1.613 billion
Operating income: $56 million
Operating margin :3.5%


http://s1.q4cdn.com/714383399/files/doc_downloads/statistical/2018/FedEx-Q4-FY18-Stat-Book.pdf

Why the conflict? It seems to be explained in the fine print:

"Effective in the fourth quarter of 2018, we realigned the specialty service companies FedEx Custom Critical and FedEx Supply Chain under the management of FedEx Trade Networks. The FedEx Trade Networks operating results are included in "Corporate, other and eliminations." Prior quarter and year amounts and all operating statistics for the transportation segments have been revised to conform to the current year segmentation."

Now then, which set of numbers will be used to calculate the bonus? There is no way for me to know for sure, but it will effect the projected payout, one way or the other.

The revised numbers mean a 1.6% payout.
The unrevised numbers mean a 1.52% payout.


Sorry, but those are the facts... This time, we'll have to wait for the official statement, to be certain. I do think the 1.52% is more than likely the actual number.
Bonus percentage is 1.6 percent. Payout is July 18.
 
This is seriously the stupidest comment on this thread. At Viking, we as "line" drivers used to get bonuses as high as $500 per month, 11 months out of the year. That was the year 2000. Adjust for inflation and the current bonuses are "crumbs" to quote Nancy Pelosi.

This coming from a guy who has to put his name on his belt and his truck so he can find both. I would say tattoo your name on your head so you could find it, but you know where that is don't you? (It's up his ass for those of you in Rio Linda)

But seriously, we all know how the bonuses came to be more prevalent don't we? (Hint. It has nothing to do with Viking)
 
This coming from a guy who has to put his name on his belt and his truck so he can find both. I would say tattoo your name on your head so you could find it, but you know where that is don't you? (It's up his ass for those of you in Rio Linda)

But seriously, we all know how the bonuses came to be more prevalent don't we? (Hint. It has nothing to do with Viking)

There's an old saying amongst the enlightened, the joke is upon he who doesn't know it's upon him. Congrats. You're the dumbest person in the room, because you don't have an effin clue. Viking paid far larger bonuses because they operated far better. We weren't sadled with losers from the east coast who couldn't figure out that freight doesn't move on a bus schedule.

End of sermon to moron.
 
Top