Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This phrase appeared in the article:

"...will allow Union Pacific to keep more of its fleet of 7,400 locomotives in storage. UP has already parked hundreds of locomotives as part of the operational changes it has made over the past several years..."

Gee...that's going to look really great on the balance sheet. 

Why would any sane company purposely hang on to unused and unneeded assets? We must be missing something here because that makes no sense to me at all.

There are lots of corporate decisions that are tax driven and leveraged. At first glance they may seem not to make sense, but "below the surface" there are valid economic decisions for taking such actions. Losses used to offset gains, asset depreciations, etc. Whatever steps the UP is taking, it's unlikely they're doing it in order to lose money. Years ago I knew the person who headed up the real estate department for one of the largest national fast food chains. They were involved with lots of transactions involving the buying and selling of real estate, and he said selling property at a loss is often an action that ends up making economic sense for large corporations because of tax law considerations. Just one example of a beneficial business decision that seems counterintuitive, but in fact makes economic sense. Not sure what factors are part of UP's actions, but this may be part if of it.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×