Trains.com

Canadian Pacific Norfolk Southern Merger

42291 views
557 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Friday, April 8, 2016 12:10 PM

Duplicate post deleted. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, April 8, 2016 8:31 PM

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Friday, April 8, 2016 10:12 PM

It may not be over 'til it's over, but it is sure starting to look like it's over.

In some respects, when one looks at the CP network, it is understandable why they want to try to expand. Canada's population is about the size of California's population, so the transportation market there that goes with that population is a certain size. And even in Canada, CP does not go everywhere like CN does.

Then in the US, CP's route structure is geographically limited, with much of it in granger territory. So to grow the franchise CP obviously needs to go to more places where there are more people and industry, and that means some form of US expansion.

Maybe a Plan B for CP is to try to stitch together some regionals and some short lines from Genesee & Wyoming. For instance, acquisition of the CF&E, the former DT&I, the Wheeling & Lake Erie, and the B&P would give CP access to every major city north of the Ohio River and west of the Appalachians. Bring the mains up to 40 mph Class 3 track, connect those markets to the Port of Vancouver and the Port of Montreal, and add that traffic to existing traffic on existing lines and they might have a ballgame in terms of a US expansion that might get approved.

There is also an Alabama cluster that if it could somehow be reached via trackage rights from Cincinnati and appended to those other routes would get CP to the Port of Mobile.

But all that might likely take a bit longer than current CP management would prefer, but it would not be that different than what CN did stitching together the DM&IR, Wisconsin Central, and EJ&E to connect the former IC lines to the Ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. 

Of course there is always KCS to get to Texas and the Gulf Coast as a Plan C, and that would be under the old "merger-friendly" merger rules. That gets CP to Dallas, Houston, New Orleans and Mobile, not to mention Mexico.

Continued interesting times indeed.

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Saturday, April 9, 2016 7:52 AM

Yes to above. Advantage 90 percent CP and Canada, injury to rest of U.S. roads, especially BNSF and UP, and to our West Coast ports.

If Harrison and Ackman can't see the advantages of KCS and the new territory, plus Mexico, outlined above, it looks like they will have to be satisfied cultivating their own backyard.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Saturday, April 9, 2016 10:18 AM

BaltACD

Here's a link to the actual DOD filing:

 

http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/2e69852c5664f0cb85257f8e0054ea7b/$FILE/240423.pdf

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Saturday, April 9, 2016 10:56 AM

Technically neither department objects to the merger, rather to the trust arrangement where EHH could run NS as a virtual ‘fait accompli’ CP subsidiary before the merger is approved or not.

 

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Saturday, April 9, 2016 1:11 PM

I think the strategy that opposers including NS and other railroads are using is to try to stop the merger by having the phony "reverse trust" manuever declared what it is - a de facto end run around the merger rules.

if the phony trust manuever is not allowed, then CP can either drop the bid or try the hostile takeover route. In the latter case, other bidders will materialize because they are not going to let traffic originated on NS that is destined for the Pacific Northwest now go via Kingsgate, or international container traffic originated on NS that would otherwise be shipped via US West Coast ports be diverted to Vancouver and an expanding Roberts Bank.

in that scenario, the lion's share of NS will go to the lion, and the scraps will go to the hyena, CP.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Saturday, April 9, 2016 1:49 PM

wanswheel

Technically neither department objects to the merger, rather to the trust arrangement where EHH could run NS as a virtual ‘fait accompli’ CP subsidiary before the merger is approved or not.

 

 

Absolutely correct - DOJ and DOD are objecting to the voting trust, not the merger (since there is no merger presently on the regulatory table).  As such, an adverse STB decision on the voting trust wouldn't itself kill the merger.

But, as I read the tea leaves, the voting trust arrangement CP wants is critical to its business case for the merger.  If it can't do the voting trust, the merger makes no sense.  In fact, if the voting trust is turned down, there's probably little (if any) prospect of the NS stockholders passing the resolution directing the NS board to negotiate with CP.  That's why, in my view, an adverse STB decision on the voting trust will, as a practical matter, kill the merger.  And DOJ's opposition (more so than DOD's) makes it very likely that this is what will happen. 

The other thing that could happen is that STB will refuse to issue a definitive declaratory order one way or another, on the grounds that the issue isn't "ripe" (i.e., there is no actual voting trust or merger on the table).  This is an alternative briefly suggested by DOJ (Fn 5) and several other commentors.  If STB did this, I would expect that the decision would also have some negative comments about the voting trust which would have the same practical effect as an adverse decision on the merits.   

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 11, 2016 6:47 AM

 Stating the obvious department:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canadian-pacific-terminates-efforts-buy-113911974.html

This was starting to sound more and more like the Monty Python "Pet Shop" sketch.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 149 posts
Posted by Entropy on Monday, April 11, 2016 8:25 AM

oltmannd

 Stating the obvious department:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canadian-pacific-terminates-efforts-buy-113911974.html

This was starting to sound more and more like the Monty Python "Pet Shop" sketch.

 

EHH saw the writting on the wall, all the money in the world wouldn't let Canadian CPRR buy ownership to an American RR under this administration. 

Its a loose loose for Washington, loss of corporate tax, loss of jobs (tax payers). 

Note my post from last week, that Pfizer deal was the skull and cross bones warning to the M&A market. No matter what happens, big brother is still in charge. 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Monday, April 11, 2016 9:28 AM

What affect will CP's failure have on any future North American rail mergers for the forseeable future?

 

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Monday, April 11, 2016 10:12 AM

Victrola1

What affect will CP's failure have on any future North American rail mergers for the forseeable future?

 

 

there won't be any. What will poor Fred write about now. Seems like he and Hunter were the only 2 folks in favor.

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 2,505 posts
Posted by caldreamer on Monday, April 11, 2016 11:14 AM

WRONG, WRONG and WRONG.  Corportate and employee taxes will be paid to Washointon and the States.  If the merger went through the corporate taxes would have been lost because the corporate headquartes would have been moved to Canada.  This the best that could happen.  It was an attempt by EHH to steal an american company by a back door method and it did not work.

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Monday, April 11, 2016 12:59 PM

Entropy
 
oltmannd

 Stating the obvious department:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canadian-pacific-terminates-efforts-buy-113911974.html

This was starting to sound more and more like the Monty Python "Pet Shop" sketch.

 

 

 

EHH saw the writting on the wall, all the money in the world wouldn't let Canadian CPRR buy ownership to an American RR under this administration. 

Its a loose loose for Washington, loss of corporate tax, loss of jobs (tax payers). 

Note my post from last week, that Pfizer deal was the skull and cross bones warning to the M&A market. No matter what happens, big brother is still in charge. 

 

The "skull and crossbones" was the DOJ opposition, which made it a near certainty that CP wouldn't get the voting trust it needed.  It was no surprise that CP pulled the plug after the filing.  The handwriting was on the wall.

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Monday, April 11, 2016 6:20 PM

I think right now a certain CEO is sitting in the Executive Suite in Calgary in an easy chair, sipping on a congac, savoring a Cuban Cohiba, and listening to Wilbert Harrison singing "Kansas City".

"Kansas City, Kansas City, here I come..."

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 4,819 posts
Posted by Ulrich on Monday, April 11, 2016 6:29 PM

Finally, they came to their senses. Just run the damn railroad and forget about building empires of dubious value. NS and CP can work together without a merger.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, April 11, 2016 6:52 PM

kgbw49

I think right now a certain CEO is sitting in the Executive Suite in Calgary in an easy chair, sipping on a congac, savoring a Cuban Cohiba, and listening to Wilbert Harrison singing "Kansas City".

"Kansas City, Kansas City, here I come..."

 

Guess his legacy will never rise above what is scrawled on the bathroom walls of locomotives. Too bad; so sad.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, April 11, 2016 6:53 PM

Buslist
there won't be any. What will poor Fred write about now. Seems like he and Hunter were the only 2 folks in favor.

Don't forget about that RRsRGr8 guy (or whatever his name is).  Although I have suspicions he was just a paid troll.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 711 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Monday, April 11, 2016 7:17 PM

zugmann

Don't forget about that RRsRGr8 guy (or whatever his name is).

I think his real name must be Eugene Whistling

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:06 AM

CP calls off merger attempt ?  We may need to be careful in that we hHave no idea what EHH might have in mind ?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:26 AM

blue streak 1

CP calls off merger attempt ?  We may need to be careful in that we hHave no idea what EHH might have in mind ?

Without Ackman's money it makes no difference what EHH has in mind - he won't have the funds to do it.  Without Ackman's money EHH would still be in retirement.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 5:50 AM

Okay, so if you are EHH and want to grow the business, why wouldn't you want to haul export grain from the Upper Midwest to export ports on the Gulf - New Orleans, Mobile, Houston? Why wouldn't you want to haul auto parts from Ontario to factories in Mexico? Why wouldn't you want to haul frac sand from Western Wisconsin to Texas? Why wouldn't you want to haul finished autos and consumer goods for Ontario, Quebec, and for the New England states, New York, New Jersey and Philly as far as Buffalo on a single carrier haul from Mexico? I know he said for some reason he does not like the Mexico play. KCS is at about $9.6 billion market cap so it would probably take at least a 30% premium to acquire, or $12.5 billion. Is there not enough business there? Is KCS too highly leveraged? Any ideas why that would be bad business?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,019 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:55 AM

kgbw49
Any ideas why that would be bad business?

Given the usual MO of folks like Ackman, I would opine it's because they can't turn a quick buck on it.

"Long term investment" isn't in their vocabulary.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    February 2011
  • 34 posts
Posted by CPRcst on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:38 AM

CP has looked at KCS before, I was at an employee town hall where then CEO Rob Ritchie said it was very attractive, CP gave it a hard look, but it was just too expensive. 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:23 PM

Ulrich
Finally, they came to their senses. Just run the damn railroad and forget about building empires of dubious value. NS and CP can work together without a merger.

"+1"

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:26 PM

tree68
kgbw49
Any ideas why that would be bad business?

Given the usual MO of folks like Ackman, I would opine it's because they can't turn a quick buck on it.

"Long term investment" isn't in their vocabulary.

Sure it is - just means any investment longer than 48 hours . . . Whistling

 - Paul North.

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Thursday, April 14, 2016 10:07 PM

Rob Ritchie was last CEO of CO in 2006. I wonder if the equation has changed over 10 years? Time will tell, I guess.

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Friday, April 15, 2016 6:57 AM

CPRcst

CP has looked at KCS before, I was at an employee town hall where then CEO Rob Ritchie said it was very attractive, CP gave it a hard look, but it was just too expensive. 

 

 
Yes, and when railroad stocks were thru the roof in 2014, "too expensive" was also given as the reason for CP's lack of interest in KCS.
 
However, I wonder if "too expensive" is still true in 2016. Also, in light of CP's offer for NS, I'd ask, "Too expensive compared to what?"
  • Member since
    October 2014
  • From: Flint or Grand Rapids, Mi or Elkhart, It Depends on the day
  • 573 posts
Posted by BOB WITHORN on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:28 PM

KCS doesn't offer enough physical plant or profit to recover the investment unless it comes cheap. It's not worth anything like NS or CSX.

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:08 PM

Kansas City Southern's market cap as of close today was about $10.24 billion.

In 2015, they had $2.419 billion in revenue and turned a net profit after taxes of $485 million, bringing 20.04% of revenue to the bottom line on a 66.4 Operating Ratio for the year.

Long term debt was a little over $2 billion at December 31, 2015.

Balance sheet equity at year end 2015 stood at $4.225 billion, so the simple return on balance sheet equity was 11.48%.

Of course, that is not market value.

To offer investors a 40% premium on $10.24 billion in market capitalization would take an offer of about $14.3 billion.

$14.3 billion is about 6 times annual gross revenues.

Assuming they continue to turn $485 million annually in net income, that is a simple return of about 3.4% on the $14.3 billion investment.

Granted, there might be some synergies - a larger railroad might not need as many locomotives, etc.

But for a larger railroad to make a move, they would have to figure out some sort of "traffic multiplier" from the combination to get the revenues and net income from the KCS property up significantly.

It seems to me, given where KCS goes - Dallas, Houston, New Orleans and the chemical coasts of Louisiana and Texas, plus Mexico - that the only way a merger of KCS makes sense is if one of the two eastern roads, who serve approximately 2/3 of the population of the US, figured out that there was enough of their own traffic to Dallas, Houston and Mexico that they could keep captive on what would be their own railroad, and drive up density that way, and likewise direct haul out of Mexico on single line service to everything east of the Mississippi.

Would that be enough to double traffic density on KCS? Could they keep enough traffic from Mexico on their lines to make it pay? Based on the fact that no other Class I has made a move to acquire KCS even though the old "pro-merger" STB rules would apply, I am guessing their traffic analysts have looked at it and concluded that at an approximately $10 billion market capitalization figure, the numbers don't add up.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy