[deleted]
FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
101–110 of 321 posts
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#102Stock buybacks serve important purposes that are often overlocked when this topic comes up. One major purpose of stock buybacks is to reduce the company's cost of capital. With debt financing being so cheap right now, we've seen fedex significantly increase it's long term debt.
For fedex, using their cash to buy back stock improves their overall financial picture because even if they need to raise more debt to financing their business, their overall cost of capital actually decreased - because the carrying cost of debt is cheaper then equity!
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#103This can't be real
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#104This is stupid. The NY Times, as a business, wasn't a subject of the article. It's not a competition between a media company and a shipping company. It's a piece of journalism. Either that journalism is accurate or it isn't. If it's wrong they should issue a correction, or review how it could be misleading or slanted and offer an alternate perspective. If it's correct they should stand by it. In no event does the wri…
Do we need to be present in person to exchange ideas? Start the "debate" any time you want, Freddie, just by including any facts or substance whatsoever in your statement! Clearly more of a tantrum. Totally reminds me of "Meet me after school for a fight!"
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) They aren't disputing the "$0 paid in taxes in 2018," which is the main point of the NYTimes article (an article about how companies were responding to the Tax Cuts/Jobs Act). "Billions of dollars in tax payments" is factually correct, but doesn't address the core allegation. 2) $6 billion compared to what (prior to previous years)? No point of reference here. The response is great theater, but it is carefully wor…
On the other hand the allegations themselves are carefully selected in order to create a false narrative.
Is paying $0 in tax a false narrative?
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#106This is stupid. The NY Times, as a business, wasn't a subject of the article. It's not a competition between a media company and a shipping company. It's a piece of journalism. Either that journalism is accurate or it isn't. If it's wrong they should issue a correction, or review how it could be misleading or slanted and offer an alternate perspective. If it's correct they should stand by it. In no event does the wri…
The problem is it isn't journalism, it's activism. People say corporate media is biased, but I think that falls short. It's not simply biased, it has an agenda. "Company follows tax laws" is not news. Whatever any individual company pays in taxes is not news unless there's criminal fraud of some sort. So it's completely fair to call them out in this way.
I dunno. A person like me might think it since we live in a society, we should share the burden of keeping it going. So 'following tax law' effectively designed to be abused with built-in exemptions is news. It may not be criminal, but I can't say it is right.
edit to clarify: and if it is not right then it is of general interest to society and thus it is news
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#107Facts are not up for debate, FedEx. either rebut with evidence or sit down.
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand the allegations themselves are carefully selected in order to create a false narrative.
I'm not sure I believe that either. The reason that the article focused on 2018 numbers is that they provide a direct comparison pre- and post- Tax Cuts/Jobs Act. In 2018, Fedex paid less tax and invested less compared to 2017 - despite saving $1.6bn. On the other hand, investment in stock buybacks and dividends more than doubled. Not sure how those allegations are "carefully selected"?
[deleted]
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that every time the New York Times publishes an article, and a corporation disagrees with the vetted, researched facts published by the paper of record in the United States, that we should hear out the corporation in a pubic forum? I vehemently disagree. Facts are not up for debate, no matter how much money is behind the people who would like to debate them. Additionally, implying that corporate execut…
Wow, that's not at all what I'm saying. Believe me, I am STRONGLY in the camp of "these goddamn companies need to be held accountable for their tax dodging." However, you can't change the _fact_ that what they're doing is "legal." The issue is with federal tax policy that needs to be changed. I'm talking about the nature of calling bullshit on what companies do to their face, rather than PR firms talking to each othe…
It would continue to seem like the argument here is that we should want corporations to rebut NYT articles in a public forum, which I continue to disagree with, regardless of what the argument is.
While we should hold the "truth" to account, open debate cannot be the way to deal with this at every impasse. FedEx is more than welcome to write an article, post a video, or do anything else to rebut the article published by the NYT, but instead has chosen a narrow path in which they can surprise the other party in person with attacks. I fail to understand why open debate is the best way to solve this; at the very least, I don't know where the time to watch these debates about... FedEx and tax avoidance... among the other issues I try to keep current on
Re: FedEx responds to The New York Times article from Nov. 17, 2019
#110You've kind of got to respect them for a pretty gutsy move right there. Will be interesting to see what happens.