CP had another crazy good year. What we don't know, is if they are "eating their own foot" to do it. I'm not sure you can tease that out of a 10K or not.
The latest items that leave me slack-jawed:
EHH sounded surprised that this battle would be political. He and Ackman called it a street fight. Street fights have rules? Not sure if this is arrogance of ignorance or just shooting from the hip.
CP, just now, hired a PR firm to help with this. JUST NOW?
CP seems to be surprised by all kinds of things that have happened.
So much of this would seem so obvious that I can hardly believe CP was so ill prepared for the fight they picked. That really leaves arrogance or ignorance as the only answers.
Perhaps EHH wanted one more RR to run and Ackman smells money from all the NS real estate he thinks can be sold off? Those two need to stop reading their own press releases...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BaltACD schlimm BaltACD: You should spin for the pols. Highest ever eps for 4th Q. Today: CP shares gained 11.62% while NSC dropped 2.11%. This is based on investors' view that taking over a lagard like NSC was a poor use of CP capital. And NSC dropped because it is not a good investment now. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/22/why-canadian-pacific-railway-limited-usa-shares-po.aspx?source=eogyholnk0000001&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article Earnings, despite being records, did not live up to the analyst's expectations.
schlimm BaltACD: You should spin for the pols. Highest ever eps for 4th Q. Today: CP shares gained 11.62% while NSC dropped 2.11%. This is based on investors' view that taking over a lagard like NSC was a poor use of CP capital. And NSC dropped because it is not a good investment now. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/22/why-canadian-pacific-railway-limited-usa-shares-po.aspx?source=eogyholnk0000001&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
BaltACD:
You should spin for the pols. Highest ever eps for 4th Q. Today: CP shares gained 11.62% while NSC dropped 2.11%. This is based on investors' view that taking over a lagard like NSC was a poor use of CP capital. And NSC dropped because it is not a good investment now. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/22/why-canadian-pacific-railway-limited-usa-shares-po.aspx?source=eogyholnk0000001&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
Earnings, despite being records, did not live up to the analyst's expectations.
Maybe not, Balt, but I think it's fair to say CP performed better than most in an unexpectedly tough year. The dropoff in traffic was a surprise to everybody. In 2014 the rails were beaten up for trains that sat awaiting crews. They hired like crazy, and now have had to lay those same people off. (I know one of them.)
A bad business for those people and for the railroads, who invested a lot of money in training. I like to think we'll do better after November.
Sometimes one has to ignore the anal-ysts...
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimmYou should spin for the pols.
No reason both views can't be true. If earnings are up 9% but they expected 10%, then earnings fell short...
Larry 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...
CP stock up more than 10% today. NS stock down again..
CP's reducing it's workforce by 1,000
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cp-rail-jobs-profits-1.3413696
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
dakotafred Today's statement by CP -- see Newswire -- sounds like Hunter is throwing in the towel. Can't say I'm sorry. While I greatly admire EHH, and it looks like NS really needs to pull up its socks -- to borrow a favorite phrase of John Kneiling's -- I don't think we want Canada poaching another U.S. railroad, to the possible advantage of Vancouver over U.S. ports and with long hauls to CP and CN rather than to UP and BNSF. In addition, as a North Dakota resident, I can't forgive or forget all of Canada's monkey wrenching of water projects down here. (Obama's veto of XL, while stupid, for the wrong reasons, is appropriate payback.) Scroom.
Today's statement by CP -- see Newswire -- sounds like Hunter is throwing in the towel. Can't say I'm sorry. While I greatly admire EHH, and it looks like NS really needs to pull up its socks -- to borrow a favorite phrase of John Kneiling's -- I don't think we want Canada poaching another U.S. railroad, to the possible advantage of Vancouver over U.S. ports and with long hauls to CP and CN rather than to UP and BNSF.
In addition, as a North Dakota resident, I can't forgive or forget all of Canada's monkey wrenching of water projects down here. (Obama's veto of XL, while stupid, for the wrong reasons, is appropriate payback.) Scroom.
If they change the name to "American Pacific" and funnel eatbound loads from Vancouver to the US east coast instead of Toronto/Montreal we should be ok though.. EHH is a red blooded American even if almost no one likes him. Maybe we need to throw in a couple of southerners into HQ to further dilute that canuck accent too..
CP earning fall short of expectations
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/cp-posts-highest-ever%E2%80%9D-eps-in-fourth-quarter.html?channel=50
I believe the deal is dead. CP's stock has surged since their last conference call because investors are under the impression that they will give up on NS. The quote below indicates the sentiment of the investment community:
Letting go of Norfolk Southern would benefit Canadian Pacific stock by turning executives’ attention squarely toward running their railroad, wrote National Bank Financial’s Cameron Doerksen.
“Our fear is that CP management is consuming too much time and effort on fighting for the merger at a time when the company is facing its own volume-related challenges,” he wrote. “As such, we would view an abandoning of the merger effort as a potential positive for CP shares.”
If you look at the maps, the better alternatives to CP taking over NS would be BNSF or UP getting NS and the other getting the one that is left. The reasoning beingthe connections to the two eastern roads outside of the Chicago area would DEFINATLY aleviate a lot of the congestion. Memphis, St Louis and Kansas City are three of the cities citie where trains moving east or west could run through to help unclog the Chicago bottleneck
CJtrainguy schlimm As I have said for years, I don't like EHH's ways. But the CP, by the commonly used financial (and rail) metrics. is a more efficiently run business operation than NSC or CSX. Is it truly more efficiently run or is it run to maximize profits pulled out this quarter by creating an unsustainable future?
schlimm As I have said for years, I don't like EHH's ways. But the CP, by the commonly used financial (and rail) metrics. is a more efficiently run business operation than NSC or CSX.
As I have said for years, I don't like EHH's ways. But the CP, by the commonly used financial (and rail) metrics. is a more efficiently run business operation than NSC or CSX.
Is it truly more efficiently run or is it run to maximize profits pulled out this quarter by creating an unsustainable future?
Those metrics have been there many quarters. Same was true when he was with CNR. It's capitalism.
Do I see the shotguns being loaded. Its not duck season is it?
BaltACD schlimm BaltACD oltmannd Ulrich oltmannd tree68 Victrola1 MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win! I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do. It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail. Are they serious? Good points Oltmannd, perhaps before they set sail on this venture they weren't expecting such strong headwinds. But I tend to agree, they should have lined up their allies in this and made some friends in the backrooms of Washington who would come out in support of such a merger. Maybe they purposely didn't, hoping that allies would materialize on their own with the public announcement. ...and what have they been busy doing? Writing white papers! Yet another one... http://www.cpr.ca/en/investors/cp-ns-combination-will-ease-congestion-in-key-chicago-rail-hub with only a tiny bit more meat on it. (I like the part where they say they can't figure out the interline merger benefits because they don't have access to NS's data. That made me laugh!) If you can't impress them with your 'brilliance'; baffle them with you bovine excrement and pile it on. And if you cannot make a rational argument, pile on the nonsense or whatever your favorite childish euphemism is. CP's assertions have all the force and effect of a political campaign speech and the nebulous promises they deliver. BS is BS no matter the form or fourm it is presented in.
schlimm BaltACD oltmannd Ulrich oltmannd tree68 Victrola1 MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win! I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do. It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail. Are they serious? Good points Oltmannd, perhaps before they set sail on this venture they weren't expecting such strong headwinds. But I tend to agree, they should have lined up their allies in this and made some friends in the backrooms of Washington who would come out in support of such a merger. Maybe they purposely didn't, hoping that allies would materialize on their own with the public announcement. ...and what have they been busy doing? Writing white papers! Yet another one... http://www.cpr.ca/en/investors/cp-ns-combination-will-ease-congestion-in-key-chicago-rail-hub with only a tiny bit more meat on it. (I like the part where they say they can't figure out the interline merger benefits because they don't have access to NS's data. That made me laugh!) If you can't impress them with your 'brilliance'; baffle them with you bovine excrement and pile it on. And if you cannot make a rational argument, pile on the nonsense or whatever your favorite childish euphemism is.
BaltACD oltmannd Ulrich oltmannd tree68 Victrola1 MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win! I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do. It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail. Are they serious? Good points Oltmannd, perhaps before they set sail on this venture they weren't expecting such strong headwinds. But I tend to agree, they should have lined up their allies in this and made some friends in the backrooms of Washington who would come out in support of such a merger. Maybe they purposely didn't, hoping that allies would materialize on their own with the public announcement. ...and what have they been busy doing? Writing white papers! Yet another one... http://www.cpr.ca/en/investors/cp-ns-combination-will-ease-congestion-in-key-chicago-rail-hub with only a tiny bit more meat on it. (I like the part where they say they can't figure out the interline merger benefits because they don't have access to NS's data. That made me laugh!) If you can't impress them with your 'brilliance'; baffle them with you bovine excrement and pile it on.
oltmannd Ulrich oltmannd tree68 Victrola1 MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win! I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do. It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail. Are they serious? Good points Oltmannd, perhaps before they set sail on this venture they weren't expecting such strong headwinds. But I tend to agree, they should have lined up their allies in this and made some friends in the backrooms of Washington who would come out in support of such a merger. Maybe they purposely didn't, hoping that allies would materialize on their own with the public announcement. ...and what have they been busy doing? Writing white papers! Yet another one... http://www.cpr.ca/en/investors/cp-ns-combination-will-ease-congestion-in-key-chicago-rail-hub with only a tiny bit more meat on it. (I like the part where they say they can't figure out the interline merger benefits because they don't have access to NS's data. That made me laugh!)
Ulrich oltmannd tree68 Victrola1 MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win! I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do. It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail. Are they serious? Good points Oltmannd, perhaps before they set sail on this venture they weren't expecting such strong headwinds. But I tend to agree, they should have lined up their allies in this and made some friends in the backrooms of Washington who would come out in support of such a merger. Maybe they purposely didn't, hoping that allies would materialize on their own with the public announcement.
oltmannd tree68 Victrola1 MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win! I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do. It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail. Are they serious?
tree68 Victrola1 MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win!
Victrola1
MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win!
I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do.
It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail.
Are they serious?
Good points Oltmannd, perhaps before they set sail on this venture they weren't expecting such strong headwinds. But I tend to agree, they should have lined up their allies in this and made some friends in the backrooms of Washington who would come out in support of such a merger. Maybe they purposely didn't, hoping that allies would materialize on their own with the public announcement.
...and what have they been busy doing? Writing white papers! Yet another one...
http://www.cpr.ca/en/investors/cp-ns-combination-will-ease-congestion-in-key-chicago-rail-hub
with only a tiny bit more meat on it. (I like the part where they say they can't figure out the interline merger benefits because they don't have access to NS's data. That made me laugh!)
If you can't impress them with your 'brilliance'; baffle them with you bovine excrement and pile it on.
And if you cannot make a rational argument, pile on the nonsense or whatever your favorite childish euphemism is.
CP's assertions have all the force and effect of a political campaign speech and the nebulous promises they deliver. BS is BS no matter the form or fourm it is presented in.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Also smaller, and, by inference, easier to micro-manage as EHH is wont to do.
Norm
Ulrich oltmannd tree68 Victrola1 ...it has submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win! I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do. It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail. Are they serious? Good points Oltmannd, perhaps before they set sail on this venture they weren't expecting such strong headwinds. But I tend to agree, they should have lined up their allies in this and made some friends in the backrooms of Washington who would come out in support of such a merger. Maybe they purposely didn't, hoping that allies would materialize on their own with the public announcement.
oltmannd tree68 Victrola1 ...it has submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win! I really don't get what CP is doing. You'd think before they set sail on this venture, that they's have lined up their alllies. Some shippers who would like their version of reciprocal switching. Some politicians who's folk might be "winners" in the transaction. Some considered positive opinions about STB outcomes. And, at least a feel for what their peers might and might not do. It's turning out they have exactly zero except for their sales pitch - and it's wonderfully devoid of actionable detail. Are they serious?
tree68 Victrola1 ...it has submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, MOM! They aren't playing fair! I'm supposed to win!
Victrola1 ...it has submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice,
Canadian Pacific's latest white paper outlines how CP's proposed combination with Norfolk Southern Corp. (NS) will alleviate congestion in the key rail hub of Chicago.
By diverting hand-offs between railways to underutilized hubs outside the city and reducing processing in yards within the city, there is a real opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to address the congestion in Chicago while significantly improving service for diverted traffic. The result is a stronger and more resilient rail network better able to avoid and recover from future service disruptions.
http://www.cpr.ca/en/investors-site/Documents/chicago-white-paper.pdf
Today's news from the front in the white paper war.
2156 will go back and 611 will go cold with no place to run if CP takes over.
Count on it.
The only way they move 2156 back on its own wheels is if they are legally obligated to do so.
Otherwise, it may be Schnabel car time - CSX would not move 1309 on its own wheels over its system. CP with its aversion to steam would probably require someting similar to return the 2156 to St. Louis.
One important thing to remember is that both UP and BNSF are more hospitable to steam, and if the balloon goes up on the final merger consolidation round, those two entities will end up owning most, but not all, of the track east of the Mississippi.
We all know that if a sale of a company is on, there is nothing preventing a competing offer. We all know if the offer is more lucrative, the board of the selling company will take the bigger offer. We all know who has the most cash and financing firepower to bring to the battle.
If the CP proxy battle is won and CP is successful in installing a board majority at NS that is willing to sell the company, BNSF has already indicated that they will step in at that point. BNSF has indicated that they are not afraid of mergers and that (paraphrasing) merger is a great opportunity, but they don't think the time is right. But they will step in if their hand is forced, per their own words.
When BNSF steps in, UP will be forced to step in from an economic competitiveness standpoint.
Berkshire Hathway has $66 billion cash on hand. A move by BNSF will likely be "self-financed" within the Berkshire Hathway umbrella.
That is massive financial firepower that can be brought to the battle.
And UP, while not having as large of a trove of cash behind them clearly can support much more financing for a purchase than CP.
CP will not outbid BNSF or UP if either one decides they have to step in and buy NS.
CP will end up being the "increased competition" provider in the end game, much as BNSF was given trackage rights Denver-Stockton and Bieber-Stockton to provide competition to the UP on those routes as part of the UP-SP combination.
CP will end up getting access to the Gulf of Mexico for their export grain trains, access to Atlanta for their container trains coming from Vancouver, the right to run their CBR trains from North Dakota to the Philly/NJ/NY northeast, container trains to the Northeast, etc. They might even end up owning some track. But the lion's share of NS will end up annexed to one of the two big western roads if the proxy battle does go forward.
EHH would almost certainly return 2156 to it's owner if the contract allows; if not he would just let it sit in the engine house as he has the CP2816. Hunter has not use for steam.
BaltACD Falcon48 A 'new' company does not feel any incumbent responsibility to honor agreements made by a predecessor company, if it does not meet what the new company wants to do. No lawyer worth his salt will admit that they can't break any agreement any time they want it broken without repercussions - thats shyster 101. What CP would WANT TO DO, is the big question.
Falcon48
A 'new' company does not feel any incumbent responsibility to honor agreements made by a predecessor company, if it does not meet what the new company wants to do. No lawyer worth his salt will admit that they can't break any agreement any time they want it broken without repercussions - thats shyster 101.
What CP would WANT TO DO, is the big question.
With respect to the NS agreement, the agreement probably specifically provides what happens when it terminates, including provisions on return of the locomotive. It also probably allows NS to cancel the agreement on fairly short notice. If so, a merged company would, of course, have the same rights and obligations.
Falcon48 S. Connor I apologise in advance if this has already been brought up or discussed, but reading through 12 pages of posts to check is not something I have the time to do! My curiosity is that if NS and CP do end up merging before 2020, how will this affect the 5 year loan of the N&W Y6a #2156? No. 2156 is loaned to NS; and if the merger goes through and NS ceases to exist in a legal sense, where will this leave the locomotive, being loaned to a no-longer existing corporation? Could such a situation prevent the locomotive from returning to St. Louis, the situation being a legal knot? We all saw what happened to the DL&W #952, victim of a legal technicality that made the court system side with keeping her in St. Louis. I'm not familiar with the agreement covering the 2156. However, as a general matter, when two corporations merge, the merged company assumes the responsibilities of the prior companies. In other words, a merged CP-NS would succeed to the rights and obligations of the NS agreement. Of course, the underlying agreement covering the 2156 may provide something different, but there's no apparent reason why it would. I'm also not familiar with the DK&W 952 incident you mention. I suspect, however, that it didn't involve the issue of whether a merged company is responsible for the obligations of the prior companies.
S. Connor I apologise in advance if this has already been brought up or discussed, but reading through 12 pages of posts to check is not something I have the time to do! My curiosity is that if NS and CP do end up merging before 2020, how will this affect the 5 year loan of the N&W Y6a #2156? No. 2156 is loaned to NS; and if the merger goes through and NS ceases to exist in a legal sense, where will this leave the locomotive, being loaned to a no-longer existing corporation? Could such a situation prevent the locomotive from returning to St. Louis, the situation being a legal knot? We all saw what happened to the DL&W #952, victim of a legal technicality that made the court system side with keeping her in St. Louis.
I apologise in advance if this has already been brought up or discussed, but reading through 12 pages of posts to check is not something I have the time to do!
My curiosity is that if NS and CP do end up merging before 2020, how will this affect the 5 year loan of the N&W Y6a #2156? No. 2156 is loaned to NS; and if the merger goes through and NS ceases to exist in a legal sense, where will this leave the locomotive, being loaned to a no-longer existing corporation?
Could such a situation prevent the locomotive from returning to St. Louis, the situation being a legal knot? We all saw what happened to the DL&W #952, victim of a legal technicality that made the court system side with keeping her in St. Louis.
I'm not familiar with the agreement covering the 2156. However, as a general matter, when two corporations merge, the merged company assumes the responsibilities of the prior companies. In other words, a merged CP-NS would succeed to the rights and obligations of the NS agreement. Of course, the underlying agreement covering the 2156 may provide something different, but there's no apparent reason why it would.
I'm also not familiar with the DK&W 952 incident you mention. I suspect, however, that it didn't involve the issue of whether a merged company is responsible for the obligations of the prior companies.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.