Third quarter financial select data and latest available long term debt comparison:
BNSF 9-month Total Revenues: $17.00 billion
BNSF 9-month Net Income: $4.305 billion
BNSF 9-month Operating Ratio: 61.2%
BNSF Long Term Debt and Finance Leases 12/31/2020: $22.303 billion
BNSF Carloadings Through November 7, 2021: 8,618,517
UP 9-month Total Revenues: $16.285 billion
UP 9-month Net Income: $4.812. billion
UP 9-month Operating Ratio: 57.1%
UP Long Term Debt and Finance Leases 12/31/20: $26.943 billion
UP Weekly Carloadings Through November 7, 2021: 6,859,559
UP is still winning the net income "battle" but BNSF is gaining on them.
It will be interesting to see how as interest rates rise, interest expense changes for both of the railroads as they roll over any maturing debt.
But some interesting nuggets of data.
You've kind of framed this as a competition between the two railroads fighting for business. Is it really? Is UP BNSF's main competitor, or is the trucking industry
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Yes and yes!
It is just for rumination.
BNSF appears to be focused on growth.
Neither one is going to disappear.
Murphy Siding You've kind of framed this as a competition between the two railroads fighting for business. Is it really? Is UP BNSF's main competitor, or is the trucking industry
UP is BNSF's direct competitor. They compete in the same mode for freight that is rail appropriate. While there is overlap between rail and trucking, there is an extra order of seperation between that competition.
kgbw49 Yes and yes! It is just for rumination. BNSF appears to be focused on growth. Neither one is going to disappear.
Murphy Siding kgbw49 Yes and yes! It is just for rumination. BNSF appears to be focused on growth. Neither one is going to disappear. I wonder, to what extent the type of ownership each railroad has affects how they operate?
I wonder, to what extent the type of ownership each railroad has affects how they operate?
I would say a lot.
One company's owner is long term. The other's majority of owner's are not.
Although the shortest of the short termers were supposedly gone or at least had reduced their holdings. They keep talking about growth, but I don't see it too much in their actions.
On the employee's website, they periodically have how we compare to the competition. The other class ones. I made the comment that our real competition is trucks.
To say BNSF is UP's main competition means one can get ahead by only stealing freight from the other. To grow is going to mean, to some extent, removing freight off the highway and onto rail. Either by TOFC/COFC or car load.
Jeff
What about the "use transportation or not" choice? The freight equivalent of working remotely from home vs. traveling to an office?
kgbw49 Third quarter financial select data and latest available long term debt comparison: BNSF 9-month Total Revenues: $17.00 billion BNSF 9-month Net Income: $4.305 billion BNSF 9-month Operating Ratio: 61.2% BNSF Long Term Debt and Finance Leases 12/31/2020: $22.303 billion BNSF Carloadings Through November 7, 2021: 8,618,517 UP 9-month Total Revenues: $16.285 billion UP 9-month Net Income: $4.812. billion UP 9-month Operating Ratio: 57.1% UP Long Term Debt and Finance Leases 12/31/20: $26.943 billion UP Weekly Carloadings Through November 7, 2021: 6,859,559 UP is still winning the net income "battle" but BNSF is gaining on them. It will be interesting to see how as interest rates rise, interest expense changes for both of the railroads as they roll over any maturing debt. But some interesting nuggets of data.
A few items I would mention here. If anything it should be UP catching up not BNSF, you can see that reflected in the long-term debt as well which rightfully should be higher than BNSF's because UP's merger and acquisitions were later in it's lifespan. Not all the railroads UP had to acquire were exactly on firm financial ground (C&NW, SP, KATY, arguably WP wasn't doing well and D&RGW traffic was declining) and most had significant debt. BNSF mergers except for FRISCO and AT&SF were farther in the past. AT&SF was a stronger property than SP was in my opinion. From that perspective UP is doing pretty well paying down it's debt from the past mergers.
It would be curious to see the same snapshot in say 10 more years because my feeling is BNSF is still going to be behind in margin and cash flow and UP will be better off with debt.
Gramp What about the "use transportation or not" choice? The freight equivalent of working remotely from home vs. traveling to an office?
CMStPnP, on UP's web site they have their annual reports avaklable for review as well as annual fact books.
If you go back and look into the fact books you'll see:
12/31/2005 Long Term Debt - $6.790 billion
12/31/2010 Long Tern Debt - $9.003 billion
12/31/2015 Long Term Debt - $13.607 billion
12/31/2020 Long Term Debt - $25.660 billion
jeffhergertTo say BNSF is UP's main competition means one can get ahead by only stealing freight from the other. To grow is going to mean, to some extent, removing freight off the highway and onto rail. Either by TOFC/COFC or car load.
Stealing traffic from UP is not the only way to get ahead, but it should be the easiest since it is already going by rail. Although I guess it would be harder to steal traffic that is somewhat captive by being located along UP.
CMStPnPIt would be curious to see the same snapshot in say 10 more years because my feeling is BNSF is still going to be behind in margin and cash flow and UP will be better off with debt.
UP has been running up the debt by borrowing to buy back stock; something that BNSF doesn't need to do.
UP is doing what businesses, cities, the United States, and many consumers are doing -- borrowing money at historically low rates.
To UP, this is like money in the bank. They are buying up stock that can be sold in the future if cash is needed.
York1 John
MidlandMike Murphy Siding You've kind of framed this as a competition between the two railroads fighting for business. Is it really? Is UP BNSF's direct competitor, or is the trucking industry UP is BNSF's direct competitor. They compete in the same mode for freight that is rail appropriate. While there is overlap between rail and trucking, there is an extra order of seperation between that competition.
Murphy Siding You've kind of framed this as a competition between the two railroads fighting for business. Is it really? Is UP BNSF's direct competitor, or is the trucking industry
You've kind of framed this as a competition between the two railroads fighting for business. Is it really? Is UP BNSF's direct competitor, or is the trucking industry
There is no order of seperation.. Freight moves via multiple modes that are competing with each other. Marine, rail, and road.... Trucking has and will always be the rails direct competition.
What percent of UP's tonnage and car-load is interchanged with BNSF?
And visa-versa?
Good to learn how dependent they are on each other.
The UP debt strategy of borrowing money to buy back stock will work while interest rates stay low. I expect it will have to be modified once interest rates start rising and they have to roll over maturities at higher rates.
BNSF has also borrowed funds while rates are low to fund capacity improvements. Additional main track, logistics parks, major bridge replacements, etc.
It is an interesting case study for comparison.
MidlandMikeUP has been running up the debt by borrowing to buy back stock; something that BNSF doesn't need to do.
OK, so what about spending on.......
Additional yards to improve SP fluidity.
Double tracking the Sunset Route.
Powder River Basin Coal Dust in Ballast remediation. One could blame that partly on C&NW in my view.
Major expansion and upgrade of inland intermodal ports.
I'm pretty confident they paid for capacity improvements on WP but do not know the specifics.
Show me where the stock buybacks have been a negative for the company because I am not seeing it. BNSF does not need to pay dividends nor worry about takeover either. BNSF does not need to worry about any public scruitiny of it's financial statements because it is a private company. Just being private frees it from a whole range of SEC rules and regulations not to mention Public Accounting rules. So your comparing an apple with an orange there.
CMStPnP MidlandMike UP has been running up the debt by borrowing to buy back stock; something that BNSF doesn't need to do. OK, so what about spending on....... Additional yards to improve SP fluidity. Double tracking the Sunset Route. Powder River Basin Coal Dust in Ballast remediation. One could blame that partly on C&NW in my view. Major expansion and upgrade of inland intermodal ports. I'm pretty confident they paid for capacity improvements on WP but do not know the specifics. Show me where the stock buybacks have been a negative for the company because I am not seeing it. BNSF does not need to pay dividends nor worry about takeover either. BNSF does not need to worry about any public scruitiny of it's financial statements because it is a private company. Just being private frees it from a whole range of SEC rules and regulations not to mention Public Accounting rules. So your comparing an apple with an orange there.
MidlandMike UP has been running up the debt by borrowing to buy back stock; something that BNSF doesn't need to do.
Didn't you see kgbw49's post from yesterday? Where UP's long term debt is $25.6 Billion, almost double of what it was 5 years previous?
That doubling wasn't for infrastructure projects, not to say some didn't go for that, but mostly to return money to stockholders via stock buy backs.
OK as long as money is cheap.
BNSF is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. They must file SEC 10-Q and 10-K Reports.
http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/form-10-q-filings/
Their financials get rolled up in to Berkshire Hathaway's financials.
All Financial Accounting Standards Board rules continue to apply to BNSF financial records, as well as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
SD60MAC9500 MidlandMike UP is BNSF's direct competitor. They compete in the same mode for freight that is rail appropriate. While there is overlap between rail and trucking, there is an extra order of seperation between that competition. There is no order of seperation.. Freight moves via multiple modes that are competing with each other. Marine, rail, and road.... Trucking has and will always be the rails direct competition.
MidlandMike UP is BNSF's direct competitor. They compete in the same mode for freight that is rail appropriate. While there is overlap between rail and trucking, there is an extra order of seperation between that competition.
First of all there is the obvious physical separation between modes, as truck freight must go thru some sort of "gateway" such as transload or intermodal hub to change to rail mode. Also a modal shift is likely to result in a change in the load unit, the frequency, and the time performance of freight flows, which requires further adjustments. The transfer facilities can also become choke points, as witnessed by what is happening at Chicago intermodal hubs.
Additionally much rail freight is bulk. After BN built the Powder River Sub, it was CNW/UP that built an extension to compete. I don't recall trucking companies beating on the door for the business.
As long as the cash flow can support the debt payments plus pay the dividend, it might make sense to buy back stock. When Interest rates go up, the RR's will have to stop buying back stock. When I see UP able to sell bonds with a 2.5% coupon, while the earnings are $7.90/share, it was reasonable to buy back at under $150.00. Today the stock yields $4.28/yr and is selling @248/sh, I think it is overpriced. I hope they start growing the business by not overinflating their rates and working with customers to meet their nee. ds, not driving shippers away. And treat employees well so they want to work and stay.
jeffhergert Didn't you see kgbw49's post from yesterday? Where UP's long term debt is $25.6 Billion, almost double of what it was 5 years previous That doubling wasn't for infrastructure projects, not to say some didn't go for that, but mostly to return money to stockholders via stock buy backs. OK as long as money is cheap.
Didn't you see kgbw49's post from yesterday? Where UP's long term debt is $25.6 Billion, almost double of what it was 5 years previous
One "advantage" of using debt vs stock for financing is that the interest on the debt can be written off, while the companies have to pay income tax on the money that goes to dividends. (Picked this up from a course on nuclear fuel cycles...)
The disadvantage of debt vs stock financing is that with stock a company can stop paying dividends during the lean times, though stockholders may be unhappy. With debt financing, not paying interest is a great way of being forced into bankruptcy. (This what pointed out in Hilton & Due's book on interurbans - ironically, the first time I read the book was about the same time I took the course in nuclear fuel cycles.)
Being a private subsidiary of a larger Parent Company that historically been capital rich. BNSF does not need a tax free scheme for rewarding investors. It's Parent company Berkshire Hathaway does that already via.......wait for it......large stock buybacks. Berkshire Hathaway is Capital rich and has a large Capital Surplus because similar to Fortress Investments and Brightline, The Parent company makes most of it's money off of investing in companies, sometimes via buying the entire company. So again comparing a private subsidiary of a larger conglomerate against an independent company is not balanced from the start.
Additionally, whose to say UP's ultimate strategy is not to go private itself?
And look.... BNSF has also borrowed money in the past in order to just pass it onto BH....
"Berkshire has been receiving significant cash from BNSF in the form of dividend payments. In fact, the dividends paid to Berkshire are close to total BNSF capital expenditures in magnitude. BNSF has been able to both fund its capex program and pay significant dividends to Berkshire by taking on additional debt over the years. Debt as a percentage of total capital has risen from 24 percent shortly after the acquisition to 33 percent as of September 30, 2013."
^^ So is that different from what UP is doing?
jeffhergertDidn't you see kgbw49's post from yesterday? Where UP's long term debt is $25.6 Billion, almost double of what it was 5 years previous? That doubling wasn't for infrastructure projects, not to say some didn't go for that, but mostly to return money to stockholders via stock buy backs. OK as long as money is cheap. Jeff
I did see it and also noticed he neglected to point out how he saw that as harmful to the company in a near zero interest rate environment or how that it differs from what BNSF has done in the past under Berkshire Hathaway.
kgbw49 BNSF is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. They must file SEC 10-Q and 10-K Reports. http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/form-10-q-filings/ Their financials get rolled up in to Berkshire Hathaway's financials. All Financial Accounting Standards Board rules continue to apply to BNSF financial records, as well as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
You can Google "Differences between a Private and Public company" and read up on it.
True. One can Google that and read up on it. Very true.
Or perhaps, juuuust maybe, someone might actually happen to have a CPA license and already know the differences and maybe just a wee bit more about accounting and finance. That could be another possibility.
So with that thought, I shall take my leave from this topic that I introduced for the sake of discussion, get some popcorn, and sit back and enjoy the conversation.
kgbw49True. One can Google that and read up on it. Very true. Or perhaps, juuuust maybe, someone might actually happen to have a CPA license and already know the differences and maybe just a wee bit more about accounting and finance. That could be another possibility. So with that thought, I shall take my leave from this topic that I introduced for the sake of discussion, get some popcorn, and sit back and enjoy the conversation.
OK, so all that back and forth and the below question remains....
Why it is bad for UP to engage in stock buybacks but OK for BNSF and it's Parent company to do so?
I am going to point out that I agree with at least one other person in this thread that has it correct in my view. It's OK for UP to engage in this practice as long as there are not dire ancillary effects and so far there have not been any.
Debt growth is not a dire consequence as long as the debt is within normal borrowing capacity of the company and does not exceed the company's leverage targets.
Obviously, it is a unsustainable practice long-term and into the future but it is a normal business practice. I would speculate that it has a lot more to do with a unique near zero interest rate borrowing environment which is a lingering product of QE and the 2008 recession.
I told my neighbor, who ran over to tell me not too long ago that he will pay off his mortgage in the next three to four years. Good For you, as for me I would have invested that money you used to payoff the mortgage early in something that earned higher than the 3-4% your getting on your mortgage loan. Personally, I would rather retire with several million in the bank and with a small mortgage than a few hundred thousand in the bank and mortgage free. Then once I am retired I can payoff the mortgage in a lump sum using money earned tax free or tax deferred. Two choices concerning the time value of money. One is more beneficial than the other.
Electroliner 1935 As long as the cash flow can support the debt payments plus pay the dividend, it might make sense to buy back stock. When Interest rates go up, the RR's will have to stop buying back stock. When I see UP able to sell bonds with a 2.5% coupon, while the earnings are $7.90/share, it was reasonable to buy back at under $150.00. Today the stock yields $4.28/yr and is selling @248/sh, I think it is overpriced. I hope they start growing the business by not overinflating their rates and working with customers to meet their nee. ds, not driving shippers away. And treat employees well so they want to work and stay.
Here is a link to the BNSF 2020 10-K (which is the SEC-required annual report)
http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/pdf/10k-llc-2020.pdf
Here is the link to the UP 2020 10-K
https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@investor/documents/investordocuments/pdf_up_10k_02052021.pdf
The financial "meat" is about halfway through each report, and in the subsequent notes.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.