UP Needs Money - Here's A Reason Why!

Below is a summary of UP insider trading from March 2003 to November 2003 I found floating around on the Internet. I assume the sells were once a exercise.

If I added this correctly its over $18 million. The more you search around on the Internet the worse it seems to get.

So, how can you begrudge them a few bucks for their logo on a model (tongue in cheek)?

Summarizes all of the recent Insider Trading.Transaction Date Name Transaction Num. of Shares Price Proceeds

14 November 2003 Suggs Leo H Sell 2,000* 64 to 64 $128,000 10 November 2003 King R Bradley Exercise 18,000 47.5 to 47.5 $855,000 7 November 2003 Knight Robert M Jr Sell 2,200* 64.62 to 64.62 $142,164 7 November 2003 Evans Ivor J Exercise 140,000 39.78 to 47.5 $5,878,000 6 November 2003 Young James R Sell 6,000* 64 to 64 $384,000 4 November 2003 Jones Mary Sanders Exercise 8,028 31.6 to 31.6 $253,685 3 November 2003 Young James R Sell 6,000* 63.1 to 63.15 $378,670 27 October 2003 Mcauliffe Mary E Exercise 11,901 42.87 to 42.87 $510,196 5 September 2003 Bryan L Merill Jr Exercise 20,000 31.6 to 31.6 $632,000 29 August 2003 Suggs Leo H Sell 20,000* 61 to 61 $1,220,000 11 August 2003 Davidson Richard K Exercise 57,276 42.87 to 42.87 $2,455,422 5 August 2003 Dolan James V Exercise 2,231 42.87 to 42.87 $95,643 5 August 2003 Young James R Exercise 13,389 42.87 to 42.87 $573,986 13 June 2003 Von Bernuth Carl W Exercise 37,192 42.87 to 42.87 $1,594,421 12 June 2003 Dolan James V Sell 6,000* 61.03 to 61.13 $366,220 4 June 2003 Jones Mary Sanders Exercise 1,115 42.87 to 42.87 $47,800 4 June 2003 Jones Mary Sanders Exercise 1,115 42.87 to 42.87 $47,800 4 June 2003 Duffy Dennis J Exercise 2,231 42.87 to 42.87 $95,643 2 June 2003 Bryan L Merill Jr Sell 6,635 61.12 to 61.12 $405,531 2 June 2003 Duffy Dennis J Sell 23,400 60.77 to 61.18 $1,422,814 30 May 2003 Knight Robert M Jr Sell 2,000* 60 to 60 $120,000 14 May 2003 Putz Richard J Sell 2,871* 60.13 to 60.2 $172,799 7 May 2003 Koraleski John J Exercise 5,000 42.87 to 42.87 $214,350 30 April 2003 Schaefer Barbara W Exercise 5,356 42.87 to 42.87 $229,612 24 March 2003 Koraleski John J Exercise 7,000 42.87 to 42.87 $300,090
Reply to
Dave Johnson
Loading thread data ...

What's your justification for that?

If you add up sells as negative and exercises (buys) as positive, you get +$9 million.

What does your asterisk denote?

Reply to
Mark Mathu

I don't need justification to make an assumption. It may or may not be correct, without further data one can not determine. I simply stated my assumption so that you might figure out where I was coming from.

Still a heck of a lot of money changing hands at the top, huh?

I don't know. As I stated I found the table on the Internet and cut and pasted it in.

I'm not sure, but I feel you may be missing my point. There is one heck of a lot of money in various forms flowing to top management and I'm not sure what the stockholders or shippers are getting for added value. If your out in the field and experience all the things that are not working, and indeed are getting worse, you sure as heck should start to wonder how we got to this point in the game. When your loads are sitting day after day its a little funny to hear UP is concerned about logo royalties off of model trains. Well, OK, "funny" is not the right word but we should be polite right?

Reply to
Dave Johnson

=>I'm not sure, but I feel you may be missing my point. There is one heck of =>a lot of money in various forms flowing to top management and I'm not sure =>what the stockholders or shippers are getting for added value.

Not mucking fuch.

The new breed of corporate managemnet sees a business as a source of private revenue, nothing else. The effect (declining quality and value of US products and services) is already visible. Made ine the USA used to denote good, solid, reliable product. Not anymore.

The rot set in some time back in the late 60s/early 70s, when Ford _reduced_ output and _increased_ profit. Widely reported at the time in the business sections of the better newspapers. The CEO was one of the Fords, IIRC, and was widely praised for this savvy move.

In other forums, I've advanced three inter-related notions: a) that a business's function is to provide goods and services, and therefore b) its first loyalty is to its customers, so that c) profit is a signal the business is functioning as it should. I was viciously attacked.

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

Perhaps it's a publicity stunt to interest investors, or just an out-of-his-mind cranky corporate type with a whole bunch of serious yes-men in tow.

: : I'm not sure, but I feel you may be missing my point. There is one heck of : a lot of money in various forms flowing to top management and I'm not sure : what the stockholders or shippers are getting for added value. If your out : in the field and experience all the things that are not working, and indeed : are getting worse, you sure as heck should start to wonder how we got to : this point in the game. When your loads are sitting day after day its a : little funny to hear UP is concerned about logo royalties off of model : trains. Well, OK, "funny" is not the right word but we should be polite : right? : : :

Reply to
Tom Line

Reply to
Jon Miller

------------

---------------------- "Dave Johnson" wrote

---------------------

It's not anywhere close to "one heck of a lot of money". It's an infinitesimally small amount relative to any Union Pacific Corp (UNP) financial barometer.

6% of UP's stock is held by insiders. Your quoted insider trading represents only .3% of that amount. As Mark M. quickly pointed out, more shares were acquired than sold by insiders.

I too, question your ability to reason competently when you make the "assumption" that all insider shares sold during a given period, were acquired through exercising options. Why do you dismiss the possibility that any of those shares were bought, gifted, inherited, proceeds, or exchanged?

Reply to
Dont Know My Name

?

Your assumption is incorrect - the "exercises" were options used to BUY Union Pacific stock. Just look at the price on days such as Nov. 7, when both sells and buy options occurred on the same day.

Reply to
Mark Mathu

Do either of you deal in options? I do. You are both correct sort of. Mark, as usual you lurk and attempt to pass yourself off as some sort of expect with smartass questions that add nothing.

The options were the right to buy stock at a price. The price is called the strike price. There is also an expiration to to the option. So the guys here exercised their options and bought stock at a set price (which would be lower than the currrent market price). Then, the guy could either keep the shares (and pay taxes on the difference in value) or, sell them immediately in a cashless transaction via a broker UP has set up for them. If sold they keep the difference, usually less taxes withheld.

So the sells were done in conjunction with a option exercise, which, is a purchase. Mark you can stop lurking and go model some trains (those things with metal wheels on the long steel rails............)

Reply to
MrRathburne

Tom Line wrote in news:3fe30eaa snipped-for-privacy@news.iglou.com:

More than likely, it is the bright idea of some lawyers and accountants. I tell my business students that there are three groups that you want to keep away from product design and business strategy meetings. Keep the accountants away because they will want you to sell hamburgers made of beef tallow, soybean meal, and sawdust, since these ingredients are cheap. Keep the marketers away because they will want you to put lots of bells, lights, and whistles on your beef tallow, soybean meal, and sawdust burgers. Finally, keep the lawyers away because they will want you to have each customer sign a 47-page release of liability before you sell them your beef tallow, soybean meal, and sawdust burger with the bells, lights, and whistles on top.

In this case, some accounting type probably decided that UP could increase their cash flow by charging for the license to use their logos. Maybe I should go up on EDGAR and check out their 10K. The Cash Flow Statement is the key accounting statement to look at. Are they having cash flow problems?

One question: In law there is a doctrine called "The Doctrine of Estopple" that I learned about 30 years ago. It basically says that if a person (including a corporation) has a right that they fail to exercise for a long period of time, so that some other person is led to believe that they will not exercise that right in the future, then, the person with the right is "estopped" from future exercise if it harms the other person. It might or might not apply here, but it would seem that the 50+ year history of not exercising the right to be compensated for the use of their corporate logo could be used to argue that they should not be allowed to charge at this point. Of course, that argument probably wouldn't go far in court these days. As for the fallen flag heralds, there I don't see UP having much claim since they have tried to eliminate them from memory they can't claim a future use of those heralds.

Reply to
Woodard R. Springstube

=>One question: In law there is a doctrine called "The Doctrine =>of Estopple" that I learned about 30 years ago. It basically =>says that if a person (including a corporation) has a right =>that they fail to exercise for a long period of time, so that =>some other person is led to believe that they will not =>exercise that right in the future, then, the person with the =>right is "estopped" from future exercise if it harms the =>other person.

The principle of estoppal is counterd by the principle of laches (pron. lashes). This says that if you give notice that you will enforce the right in future, that future enforcement will succeed. You give notice by attempting to enforce the right against a current violator of your right. That enforcement will likely fail bec. of estoppal; but any future enforcements will succeed.

Problem is, that both estoppal and laches are common law principles, and both statute law and interpretation of statute law can over ride common law.

HTH

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.