Originally Posted by
jungle
None of the congress critters have even hinted at any accounting problems-that is a non-player. That poodle won't hunt.
Jumping to his conclusions again. The accounting is relevant.
I’ve posted this on another thread, but here are US Rep. Mike Turner’s thoughts:
“Rewind to just five years ago and you will find DHL operating at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky airport, Emery Worldwide operating at the Dayton airport, and Airborne Express operating in Wilmington.….. Reportedly, Emery and Airborne operated profitably with DHL operating with minimal losses.
Five years ago, if UPS and DHL had announced the formation of a strategic alliance that would include the acquisition of Emery and Airborne and the consolidation of all four companies' U.S. operations, antitrust alarms would be blaring. Certainly, this new transaction needs to be viewed in light of the possibility that the acquisitions of Emery and Airborne were steps one and two of a stepped transaction. Perhaps, the UPS-DHL combination is step three.”
(Emery was simply bought out and shut down by UPS. Coincidence, I’m sure)
I’ve also said that watching DHL in ILN the last few years has been like watching a company trying to fail. I could cite plenty of examples. Not going to bother with it here. But if one is to make the case that, as Rep Turner suggests, this is all part of a grand plan, then they’d need to show that the US operation is a money loser for DHL, so they can rationalize shutting ILN down. That makes the accounting questions relevant to an anti-trust allegation. Remember DPWN made €6 Billion last year. Will the Congressional Inquiry delve deep enough to get into all this? Doubt it, but who knows.
And what’s the end game of this “grand plan”? I doubt this UPS/DHL relationship is fully played out. But remember we’re in the early innings of Open Skies.
Originally Posted by
jungle
Not true again, publicly traded companies are subject to constant scrutiny both by investors and government agencies.
Like Congress?