The Truck Insurance Extremist

Second Thoughts on Greatwide Logistics

2009-03-11T08:56:00.000-07:00

A few weeks back I posted an entry about Greatwide Logistics that painted a less than rosy picture. So when I received an e-mail from Dick Metzler, Greatwide's Chief Commercial Officer, asking me to call him, I half expected I might receive an earful. As it turned out, we had a very pleasant conversation. Dick did not dispute my larger point about the hazard debt poses to trucking companies. He merely wanted to share a bit more context into Greatwide’s ownership history and more importantly its recent emergence from a short stint in bankruptcy.

To paraphrase Dick (more accurately in spirit than in detail); Greatwide’s roots go back to a large refrigerated carrier called Transport Industries. Earlier in the decade the family that controlled Transport Industries sold out to a private equity firm called Fenway Partners. Fenway subsequently added several other trucking acquisitions to the mix, re-branded the whole thing as Greatwide, and installed a management team consisting of Dick, CEO Ray Greer and others to run the place. The deal could not have gone better: so well in fact that by 2006 Fenway decided to cash out for a huge profit. Accordingly a new group of private equity owners took over intent on making an even bigger killing by doubling down on the leverage. Unfortunately for the new owners conditions in trucking started to deteriorate around this same time. Ultimately the combination of less freight plus more debt proved too much.

Normally a non-asset based firm like Greatwide would enjoy a huge advantage over its asset based competitors in a declining freight environment. The beauty of an owner operator fleet is that capacity and overhead tend to adjust instinctively to declines in freight volume. Landstar Systems, the darling of the non-asset based sector, has thus far navigated the present economic climate quite fruitfully. Interestingly enough, Greatwide operates with a similar model. However, if a non-asset based company like Greawide carries massive debt it loses all advantage. Debt to a non-asset based carrier represents the asset based equivalent of parking trucks against a fence. It’s pure financial drain.

Based on my observations of other debt laced trucking deals, I saw little escape for Greatwide. Dick, however, relayed something that previously had not occurred to me. When it comes to negotiating with debt holders, non-asset based companies have a distinct advantage. Essentially it comes down to this: there’s nothing to liquidate. Thus the normally trying task of inducing bondholders to swap out secured debt for unsecured equity becomes more of an exercise in making an offer you can’t refuse. According to Dick this state of affairs made for a speedy and relatively painless time in bankruptcy. The company has now emerged from Chapter 11 with its debt load reduced by more than 75%. Meanwhile all of the company’s vendors, owner operators and employees have come out completely whole.

As Dick shared these details another thought occurred to me. This man knows the trucking industry. He has a very impressive resume encompassing important career stops at DHL, Fed-Ex and American President Lines (APL) where he last served as CEO. Greatwide’s CEO Ray Greer has an equally impressive record. In other words, these guys are all about running trucking companies. How frustrating it must feel then when they end up working for owners who don’t truly understand the business.

With the meltdown on Wall Street, we’ve heard a lot about “the disconnect” between the professional management class and the shareholder class. Our blood boils when we learn about the salaries and bonuses paid to managers who run companies into the ground. Clearly, however, as Greatwide shows the knife can cut both ways. In this day and age of private equity deals great management teams can end up under the control of scalawag owners. On a larger scale, what chance does any company have when the interests of management and ownership fail to align?

Greatwide's debt for equity swap not only gives it a new lease on life, but also a new start with a fresh set of owners. Dick seems genuinely pleased with this development. Having gained a sense about this man's determination to succeed, I can only conclude that Greatwide's future looks markedly brighter today than it did just a few months ago.

Thanks for checking in…

Ed, III

The Stimulus: Short-Term Gain for Long-Term Pain

2009-02-17T08:06:00.000-08:00

Later today President Obama will sign his stimulus bill, which I oppose for two reasons. First, knowing full well that excessive debt lies at the root of our economic difficulties, I find it more than ironic that the proposed solution is – well more debt. We hear the constant refrain from policymakers about the need to get credit flowing again. How can that occur when the consumers and businesses most in need of credit make for terrible credit risks? Would you loan GM $1,000 bucks right now? Amazingly that’s exactly what the government hopes you'll do. Not surprisingly, the only consumers and businesses not in complete trouble at this juncture are the ones that have avoided excessive debt.

The economic pain we’ve experienced over the last nine months has resulted from the natural process of de-leveraging. If left alone eventually consumer and business debt holdings will re-balance at healthy and sustainable levels. Granted a lot of economic havoc might occur between now and then. Just the same this economic cycle will not go on forever. Unfortunately, with the stimulus plan the government now looks to juice the economy up before it has a chance to completely self correct. How that fixes the credit markets, I know not. At this point it’s like offering a beer to an alcoholic in rehab. Sure the stimulus bill might relieve the economic equivalent of the DT's. But does it really solve the greater problem, which is addiction to too much debt?

My second reason for opposing the President’s stimulus bill is that it runs counter-intuitive to everything I formerly took for granted about our national character. I have no argument with government safety nets behind a market driven economy. Still, our nation seems to have lost faith in its ability to solve big problems without government hand holding. Thus, we’ve created an empowerment vacuum that our politicians seem only too happy to fill – in exchange for our votes of course.

Here I may part ways with some of my colleagues in the trucking industry. No one suffers any delusions about the present challenges facing truckers. Competition has heated up. Used truck values have plummeted. New model equipment costs more than ever. And fuel prices while down from the peaks of last summer remain quite volatile. It’s more than a perfect storm right now. It’s nuclear winter. Certainly under these conditions one can empathize with the many truckers who might view the stimulus plan as cause for hope. After all massive government spending will in all likelihood throw off some residual loads. With truck capacity down, such loads could even mean FEMA style profit margins for those still in the game.

I refer of course to the FEMA generated business that occurred during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Following the public relations fiasco suffered by the Bush administration the government started paying whatever it took to get relief supplies delivered to New Orleans. Consequently, truckers who hauled these loads made a small fortune and in the process created an unhealthy precedent. Hurricanes tracking across the Atlantic have now become not a cause for concern, but a cause for hope. Of course, that’s absolutely crazy and only goes to show how perverse thinking becomes when the government flashes its money roll. At best government spending represents a re-allocation of priorities. The money that paid for those FEMA loads ultimately came from somewhere else.

And so it goes with the stimulus plan. In a sense the government offers us a cynical upside to economic meltdown. Hey, I can live with a little meltdown if it means more freight. It’s almost like hoping for hurricanes. This type of thinking might serve the politicians, but it is not the mindset that gave us the modern day trucking industry.

Thanks for checking in…

Ed, III

History Does Not Favor Greatwide

2009-01-12T05:29:00.000-08:00

The outlook for Greatwide Logistics does not look good. It pains me to say that because I know several very talented managers who work there. Yes, I know Greatwide has over 5,000 owner operators. And I know it generates a billion plus in revenue. And I also know that Greatwide last ranked 23rd on the Transport Topics list of top 100 carriers. Still as truckload carriers go Greatwide is no J B Hunt or Schneider. Those companies became behemoths through incremental growth achieved over much time. In contrast, Greatwide Logistics rose onto the trucking scene like a pre-fabricated phoenix. The company is actually an amalgamation of several trucking companies glued together with debt and re-packaged under a new name. There’s nothing incremental about it.

The lure of creating the next J B Hunt or Schneider National in a fraction of the time must have a very strong appeal. We see deals like Greatwide Logistics come along every couple of years. The investors in these companies generally do not drive trucks or run trucking companies. They come from the financial community - a savvy lot - but apparently less so when it comes to grasping the economics of trucking. The theory behind Greatwide goes something like this: buy a bunch of companies on debt, consolidate their revenues, and let everything else fall magically into place. After all, consolidation also means cost savings, extra cash and the ability to service debt. No doubt, the Power Point presentation made it all look very logical – particularly the mouth watering last slide highlighting the IPO. Unfortunately, there is nothing logical about the economics of the trucking business.

In trucking no amount of revenue guarantees a profit – especially if a company holds a lot of debt. Think back to AmeriTruck, Trism and Transit Group to cite just a few of the forerunners to Greatwide. We’ve seen this movie before. It never ends pleasantly. Consolidation in other industries might yield cost savings, but trucking has never enjoyed noteworthy economies of scale. Sure, a company like Greatwide might save a few bucks by combining functions such as personnel, marketing and risk management across its subsidiaries. Still the two biggest costs for every trucking company are fuel and driver wages. (In Greatwide’s case payments to owner operators essentially encompass these items.) These costs do not decline with size. Diesel costs X amount per gallon whether you fill-up one truck or a thousand. The same goes for driver wages. In fact trucking arguably suffers from diseconomies of scale. Does a large trucking company with an elaborate home office, huge corporate staff and multi-state terminal network enjoy a cost advantage over the guy who eats and sleeps in his truck? Likely not, unless it has a very talented management team, which of course is always the first thing cut in deals like Greatwide.

Greatwide Logistics is less a trucking company than a financial transaction. The investors behind this deal never set out to haul freight. They set out to get rich. But no one gets rich in the trucking business without paying major dues. Now in the midst of arguably the worse freight hauling environment in thirty years, the debt that fueled Greatwide’s meteoric rise has turned into a life threatening avalanche. The margins in the trucking business have never accommodated excessive debt service. History shows that almost every highly leveraged deal in trucking has failed.

Sadly for the employees, suppliers and other stakeholders, all the perfunctory efforts in bankruptcy to trade out Greatwide’s debt for equity will surely prove too little too late.

Thanks for checking in...

Ed, III

No Bailout for the Insurance Industry

2008-10-28T18:36:00.000-07:00

I don’t spend a lot of time analyzing cause and effect relationships in the stock market. Lately, however, I have noticed one fairly predictable correlation. Every time Treasury Secretary Paulson opens his mouth my retirement portfolio declines by another couple of percentage points.

Since Congress passed the bailout bill most Americans have assumed that Secretary Paulson now has the tools he needs to stabilize our financial system. Unfortunately, as if to undermine the very confidence we’ve reluctantly placed in him, he keeps dredging up new things to worry about.

The Wall Street Journal reported this past weekend that Secretary Paulson may now extend the bailout to the insurance industry. To which I ask, WHY? The insurance industry neither deserves nor requires any taxpayer assistance.

The corporations most of us regard as large insurers are actually anything but insurance companies. They are holding companies that operate one or more insurance companies (and often other types of businesses too) as subsidiaries. These holding companies frequently pursue complicated investment strategies funded by dividends extracted from their insurance company subsidiaries. It’s not about writing policies and paying claims at all. It’s about generating a cheap source of cash to finance fancy investment activities. Warren Buffett loves GEICO, but do not think for a minute that he gets his kicks from repairing damaged automobiles?

Owing to the high flying ways of AIG, Wall Street became enamored with insurance holding companies. For a while their exotic investment strategies produced an earnings stream that seemingly exceeded the sum of their parts. They weaved and weaseled their way into the fabric of our financial system. They chased ever higher returns to keep Wall Street happy. They became mortgage lenders and hedge fund operators and owners of aircraft leasing companies. Then it all blew up; or so it seems to Secretary Paulson.

Actually it hasn’t. Unlike banks, insurance holding companies own very healthy and reasonably marketable assets in the form of their insurance company subsidiaries. If all else fails a holding company can raise cash by selling its subsidiaries. In AIG’s case, an orderly sale of its entire portfolio of insurance companies (many with valuable brand names) could very well have generated more cash than it received via the taxpayer loan. Heck, at the end of the day even the shareholders might have walked away with something.

As it stands, the quest to keep AIG intact has placed taxpayers at risk for some $90+ billion and counting. We do not need to repeat this mistake industry wide. I know this crowd. Those insurance CEOs now whispering in Secretary Paulson's ear care more about their corporate jets than they do about the financial system or the taxpayers. Let the private sector sort this mess out.

Hey! The Dow closed up 900 points today. Secretary Paulson must have cancelled his press conference.

Thanks for checking in…

Ed, III

AIG Bailout Opens The Floodgates

2008-09-17T10:46:00.000-07:00

Last night the government of the United States acting through the Federal Reserve officially drove the final nail in the coffin for free market economics in this country. And so marks an extremely sad day for the U.S. economy. It was a mistake to bail out Bear Sterns. It was a bigger mistake to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and while Wall Street may breathe a collective sigh of relief it will prove a particularly fatal mistake to have bailed out AIG.

With this transaction the government has crossed the tipping point. It has abandoned a key underpinning of capitalism – the right to fail when you screw-up. That we have adopted what essentially amounts to European style socialism under a Republican administration makes these times all the more surreal. Having once again come to the rescue of the fat cats in New York, there’s simply no way the politicians can or will say “no” to the blue collar auto workers in Detroit or the airline mechanics in Minneapolis. Thus we should anticipate a flood of similar bailout adventures.

To over simplify, AIG employed a classic cash flow underwriting scheme. It undercut less sexy competitors to rake in premiums, which it then invested in an array of high yield mortgage securities. To the extent housing prices continued to sky rocket and homeowners paid their mortgages the scheme worked fine. For a period AIG’s investment earnings more than offset the cumulative impact of its sloppy underwriting. However, when housing prices started to fall and homeowners began to forgo mortgage payments AIG's investment returns took a dive. Not long after, the write downs began. Soon all that was left of AIG was an illiquid investment portfolio and an illogical underwriting culture – not exactly a winning formula for an insurance company. When the market finally figured this out it turned on AIG’s stock with a vengeance. Rumors abounded of a pending bankruptcy. Who knows how it might have all played out? Certainly an AIG bankruptcy would have spooked global markets. However, it would also have created some splendid opportunities for all those less sexy insurers to regain some business.

Unfortunately, once the government stepped in, the whole matter became moot. Thus we’ll never know how our financial system would have coped with this disruption. Presumably now the AIG party will continue - this time with taxpayer sponsorship. Strangely, that bastion of free market economics, The Wall Street Journal, characterized this transaction as a potentially lucrative one for the Feds. The theory goes if the housing market comes back AIG’s liquidity problems go away, and the government emerges unscathed with 80% of the largest insurance company in the world. Excuse me? That’s a good thing? Can you imagine the mischief the politicians will wreak with a toy of this size? AIG will soon become nothing more than a social tool for the political class. It will forever prove a net drain on the Treasury. Mark my words; you can kiss that $85 billion loan from the Fed goodbye. Barney Frank is no Hank Greenberg.

So keep your fingers crossed that this latest installment to the national debt will not cause the Ponzi scheme also known as the U.S. budget process to implode just yet. Ironically the government justifies each bail out as necessary for staving off a financial meltdown. But each bail out only brings us closer to that exact same point. The dollar gets trashed. The national debt grows. Something looks to give eventually. I would have preferred AIG over the Federal Government.

Incidentally the market closed down 450 points today. So much for small favors…

Thanks for checking in...

Ed, III

In Trucking Capacity Counts More Than Fuel

2008-04-24T12:45:00.000-07:00

Landline Magazine reports that more trucking companies went under in the first quarter of 2008 than at any time since 2001. http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2008/Apr08/042208_Trucking_takes_hit.htm, Fleet Owner tells us that truck repossessions so far this year have risen markedly. http://fleetowner.com/management/truck_repossessions_increase_0320/. We recently had talk of an owner operator shutdown – and that’s when diesel sold for $3.50 a gallon. It’s now over $4.00. The slowdown in the housing market continues to affect the demand for everything from bricks to bedspreads. All in all you could say the outlook for the trucking industry looks a little grim at the moment.

Yet dig a little deeper, and you might find some cause for hope. People tend to focus on the price of fuel as the root cause for all that ails trucking. Wilma, I just spent $53 dollars to gas up the Buick. Imagine what that poor guy with the truck pays. Yes, he pays a fortune, but strange as this sounds it hardly matters. The widespread use and acceptance of fuel surcharges has enabled truckers to dump fuel price increases onto shippers. As a result, profit margins for truckers stay relatively constant regardless the price of diesel. It’s not a perfect system particularly in a rising price environment. Surcharges tend to lag behind prices at the pump by a few weeks. Also for lease operators carrier arranged surcharges usually apply to loaded miles only. Still the industry has done a pretty good job of managing this challenge.

Of course the key to collecting fuel surcharges is pricing power. It’s not like shippers pay surcharges out of the kindness of their hearts. They have to pay the man if they want the goods moved. In trucking pricing power is a function of freight levels and capacity. And there’s subtle signs of good news on both fronts. Freight levels while down from the fat years of 2005 and 2006 still remain relatively strong. In fact some indicators point to an up tick in available freight. http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2008/bts016_08/html/bts016_08.html#table_01.

In the meantime capacity, which in trucking refers to the number of trucks available to haul freight, has declined. This gets back to the Landline and Fleet Owner articles. While no one likes to see a person lose his business those who survive enjoy stronger pricing power.

So after a fairly rough six months have the planets started to line up again for truckers? I recently attended the Mid American Truck Show (which of course once again reported record vendor and attendee turnout) http://www.fleetmag.com/web/online/Industry-News/MATS-2008--Mid-America-Returns-To-Full-Force/1$1259 and had the opportunity to speak with many owner operators. Most seemed pretty upbeat. More than that in conversations with managers of flatbed, tanker and heavy specialized carriers the mood seems relatively positive as well. Unfortunately, that sentiment does not extend to dry van operators where over capacity issues still exist. But when is that anything new? The high flyers who run these companies tend to load up with trucks whenever freight is strong only to gasp for air at the first sign of a down turn. Eventually things will re-balance - even in this crazy segment.

The high price of fuel provides a convenient distraction, but it's really all about capacity. Therefore, keep your eye on truck count relative to freight levels. If freight levels hold steady trucking will pick up again. Never bet against the American trucker.

Thanks for checking in…

Ed, III

Florida Treats the Symptoms While the Disease Grows Worse

2008-03-20T07:55:00.000-07:00

The problem with homeowner’s insurance in Florida is not greedy insurance companies. It is the lack of greedy insurance companies. The U.S. has over 3,000 property and casualty insurance companies. Most of these greed mongers choose not to operate in Florida. Hurricanes alone do not account for this phenomenon. Every state along the Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard contends with this threat to one degree or another. Only Florida has a completely dysfunctional insurance market. What makes this state so unique?

Insurance companies with their complicated contracts and shoddy public relations skills have long made themselves easy fodder for politicians. No politician has channeled the public’s anti-insurer sentiment to better effect than Florida Governor Charlie Crist. He’s turned insurance company bashing into an art form much to the pleasure of the public, which has rewarded him with record approval ratings. Meanwhile, he’s only made the problem worse.

Competitive markets tend to keep greedy insurance companies in check. Markets, however, sometimes take time to fully stabilize and wring-out excess. The Governor, like all politicians only has as much time as the next election. Therefore, rather than deferring to a market based solution; he has decided to dismantled the market all together. In its place he has introduced a very innovative system best described as heavy handed government control - a surreal approach for someone who bills himself more or less as a conservative. In Florida, the state dictates what insurance companies can charge; where they can write; how they can underwrite, who they can cancel and most significantly how much they can make. Think of all those dynamic communist economies during the heyday of the Iron Curtain and you begin to get the picture. If the Florida insurance market was an automobile it would be a Yugo. Even worse, by staking his reputation on delivering immediate voter gratification the Governor seems to take the matter personally. Companies such as Allstate, Nationwide and State Farm who won’t quite play ball have all felt the wrath of his anger. Do as I say, or pay the price. That in a nutshell is Charlie Crist’s solution to high homeowner’s insurance rates.

Of course the last thing Floridians need is for three relatively respectable and solvent insurance companies to pack up and leave. They’ve already scaled back enough as it is. In a national economy where insurance companies can pick and choose their markets, the Governor must realize that Florida needs the insurance industry a lot more than it needs Florida. Unfortunately, this state condones if not promotes a hostile and adversarial regulatory culture. And no one fuels the fire more than Governor Charlie Crist. Most insurance companies want no part of it.

Concurrent with the destruction of the insurance market the Governor has also sowed the seeds for bankrupting the state. If the Allstates, Nationwides and State Farms of the world have refused to swallow the Governor’s Kool-Aid, one can only admire Citizens Insurance Company for insisting on a second glass. Formed under Governor Jeb Bush as an amalgamation of various ill-conceived state sponsored insurance pools, Citizens originally served quietly as a homeowner’s insurer of last resorts. In fact the law that created Citizens mandated that the company charge the highest rates in the state to deliberately avoid undermining the private market and to discourage people from using it. Governor Crist has taken the exact opposite approach. He has deployed Citizens as a vehicle for fulfilling his campaign promise and for manipulating the market. If none of those other SOB’s will cooperate, I know of at least one insurance company that will. And so the Governor ordered Citizens to cut rates and expand coverage. Predictably, Citizens has become the homeowner's insurer of choice for most Floridians. Long live the Governor.

No doubt Governor Crist hoped that competition from Citizens would encourage private insurers to reduce premiums. That has not occurred as he failed to take into account that Citizens plays by different rules than private insurers. Specifically if Citizens runs into financial trouble private insurers and policyholders in Florida must bail it out. For private insurers the more premium you write in the state, the more you will have to pay towards the bailout. The potential liability is huge. That’s why we see so many private companies scaling back. In a twist on the normal correlation between market share and profits, private insurers in Florida actually want to shrink market share to grow profits. It's crazy, but the assessment liability represents that great of a threat. Of course as the private market contracts more policyholders turn to Citizens, which only makes the problem worse. It is a vicious cycle.

Policyholders (i.e. almost all Florida residents) get to join in the fun too. If (when) Citizens tanks they'll see special assessment charges (i.e. taxes) tacked on to their insurance policies. In essence Governor Crist has set the stage for turning private insurers into tax collectors. It's brilliant in that consumers will likely not comprehend the nuance. The Governor's bail out tax will take the form of a premium increase. Just another reason to hate your greedy insurance company. We’re not just talking about assessments on homeowner's insurance either. We’re talking automobile policies, travel policies, health insurance for your dog policies. You name it. Pity the poor guy who rents the one room efficiency in Ocala and buys a $90 renter’s policy to cover his prized flat panel TV. He’ll pay an extra $20 at renewal so Citizens can rebuild the fat cat's home on Casey Key.

So weird has the Florida insurance market become that contrary to Governor Crist’s hopes that Citizens would foster competition, it has actually had the opposite effect. Private insurers treat Citizens with kit gloves and pray that it grows rich and strong. That’s the only hope for avoiding a gigantic assessment bill. As with Florida’s regulatory culture the assessment risk presented by Citizens only adds to the state’s unattractiveness.

With one exception: "Take Out" speculators love Florida. The speculators who form these thinly capitalized insurance companies do little more than bet on hurricanes. Here’s how the scheme works. You capitalize an insurance company in this state for $5,000,000. Simultaneously you start a management company to operate the insurance company. You then offer to take over (take out) a chunk of policies from Citizens Insurance Company. It is not uncommon to see these small take-out companies write $50 to $200 million in premium. You then pay your management company a fee of 10 to 15% of the premium income. The management company quickly recoups the initial $5,000,000 investment. Everything after that represents pure profit. A few years without a storm and you’ve made a fortune. Best of all, if a hurricane ever causes you to go bust; the state insurance guarantee fund picks up all the claims. For obvious reasons most of us would not regard speculation as a permanent solution to the state's insurance difficulties.

So with the Florida insurance market seemingly in shambles can things ever improve? Actually they can. But only if both the Governor and the people accept a dose of bitter medicine.

First, the Governor has to acknowledge the true problem. It's not about rates. It's about the market.

Second, the Governor needs to attract real (not "take out") insurance companies to this state. In this regard, there’s something to be said of the old saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Bashing insurance companies makes for good stump speeches, but not good policy. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation has a reputation for regulatory bullying and bureaucratic unresponsiveness. The state has to adopt a new tone, eliminate its onerous filing requirements and repeal its counter-productive excess profit laws. Name an industry that responds well to constant bureaucratic meddling and government mandated limits on profits?

Third, the Governor needs to scrutinize "Take Out" companies more closely. Insurers take money today for the promise of paying potential claims in the future. New influxes of insurance capital mean nothing without some reasonable assurances of long-term solvency. The state already has a history with the fly by night crowd.

Forth, and most importantly, the Governor needs to get out of the insurance business. Citizens Insurance Company should stop writing new business immediately, and it should phase out all existing policies over the next 24 months. That will give existing customers ample time to line up new coverage in the private market.

Fifth, cross your fingers for a few more quiet hurricance seasons.

If the former Eastern block countries can successfully transition from communism to capitalism you have to believe Florida can too. And so I say, Governor Crist, tear down this wall. Only a vibrant market can liberate us from the greedy insurance industry. And quite frankly, I'm sick of overpaying for my homeowner's insurance.

Thanks for checking in…

Ed, III

A Blogger's Apology

2008-03-20T07:45:00.000-07:00

To my loyal readers, (all three of them) I offer a sincere apology for failing to keep this blog current over the last several months. The demands of my real job occasionally limit my ability to knock out new material. Things have since settled down, and I anticipate postings will now resume with regularity - generally.

Ed, III

Mexican Truck Drivers: Why Stop There?

2007-10-25T15:22:00.000-07:00

The debate on Mexican Truckers has temporarily cooled, although at some point it will likely heat up again. For the moment Congress has de-funded the experimental program that would have allowed a select group of Mexican truckers to haul freight into the U.S. Nonetheless, supporters of the experiment vow to fight on. In the meantime, opponents including OOIDA and the Teamsters have framed their opposition around safety. Specifically, these groups argue that Mexican trucks pose a safety risk on U.S. highways. They paint a bleak picture of Speedy Gonzales driving his rusty old GMC cabover down the interstate at 80 mph with faulty brakes and fuel tanks held in place with duct tape. Oh excuse me; I just mistakenly described an every day scene around the Port of Newark. Well suffice it to say the picture they paint of Mexican truckers ain’t pretty either.

That said opposing Mexican truckers on the basis of safety is completely disingenuous. Mexicans know how to drive safely and maintain their trucks. The real issue is money, or in this case the potential lack thereof facing U.S. truckers.

As our country continues to engage in an immigration debate, we often hear that we need workers from other countries to do jobs that Americans simply won’t do. Is that actually the case? Or are workers from other countries under bidding American workers for home grown jobs in this country? I say it's the latter, and that brings us back to Trucking. Driving a truck is an extremely tough job, but plenty of Americans and legal immigrants still choose this profession. No doubt driving a truck in the United States would probably be a dream job to millions if not billions of people around the world. And that’s the problem. With rising fuel costs and all the other economic pressures at play the last thing U.S. Truckers need is an influx of foreign competitors.

I support free trade, but not the uninhibited flow of labor across international borders. It’s one thing for an American manufacturer to save money by producing goods in Taiwan. It’s another thing for an American manufacturer to save money by importing Taiwanese to produce goods here. We’ve ceded a handful of industries to this phenomenon already. If the U.S. opens its highways to Mexican Nationals we risk losing the trucking industry as a good source of employment for Americans. I know I sound like a labor agitator, but in this instance OOIDA and the Teamster are right.

Proponents for allowing Mexican Truckers into the U.S. focus on the potential for reducing shipping costs and the greater good that would supposedly nourish for all. If that’s the case then why stop there? No doubt we could save money on health care if we encouraged more Mexican doctors and nurses to practice here. We’d lower our legal bills if we rolled out the red carpet for Mexican lawyers. Hey here’s an idea. Let’s open up the cockpit at good ole American Airlines to Mexican trained pilots so Grandma can save a few bucks on her visit this Thanksgiving. And while we’re at it we can obviously cut insurance costs by recruiting more Mexicans into the executive ranks of the insurance industry. Hang on a minute. That latter suggestion might actually make sense. Maybe we would land some talent in the top tier of this business for a change.

Fortunately labor is but one component of the global competition equation. Countless other pieces like political stability, security, morality (read lack of corruption) infrastructure of all sorts, banking systems, the regulatory environment, natural resources and freedom in general all factor into the viability and dynamics of an economy. Places that offer only cheap labor with none of these other ingredients – pity the poor people in Africa - really have nothing to offer at all. In the U.S., arguments against globalization tend to focus only on our labor cost disadvantages. How can we compete against third world workers willing to work for almost nothing? Amazingly, we tend to overlook that the U.S. leads the world in all other areas. Hence, competing against third world countries actually comes quite easily thank you. Is anyone shaking in their boots over competition from Albania? So long as we reserve our world class economic infrastructure for Americans, we’ll continue to enjoy a higher standard of living than the rest of the world even in the face of global competition.

I completely understand why Mexican truckers want to run in the U.S. Who wouldn’t want to enjoy the economic opportunity this country offers its citizens? But I also understand the implications such a policy will have on American truckers. So if Washington policy makers still insist on taking us down this road, I say start with the lawyers, and see how that works out first.

Thanks for checking in...

Ed Campbell, III

As an aside to this entry I would just like to thank reader John Stryker. John, I was a little slap happy and sloppy when I posted the initial draft. Your comments proved most helpful.

The Dirty Secret: Insurance Companies Like Litigation

2007-09-04T13:53:00.000-07:00

Note: Adding emphasize to the point I'm about to put forth I've changed the name of the insurance companies to avoid the prospect of litigation. Believe me I know from which I speak. Thank you Guardian Life. Ed

In a perfect world insurance companies would always do the right thing. The other day I read an on-line tale of woe on Edmunds.com from a car owner whose vehicle was hit while parked in his driveway. A driver insured by Worldwide hit the parked car. The Worldwide driver claimed that another driver insured by Suppressive forced him off the road. Damage to the parked car totaled around $2,000. The owner of the parked car did not carry collision insurance, so he submitted a third party claim against both Worldwide and Suppressive for his repair costs.

Unfortunately, with an inconclusive police report both companies promptly pointed their respective fingers at each other. Eventually, Worldwide floated an offer for 50%, but Suppressive has yet to give an inch. Therefore, short of litigation the innocent owner of the parked car looks like he’s out at least a grand.

The irony here seems almost cloudlike considering how often insurance companies complain about litigation. Yet in reality the industry harbors a dirty secret. Insurance companies regularly and deliberately invite lawsuits whenever the costs and hassles for a third party claimant look to exceed all potential for recovery. Rather than just doing the right thing, too many insurers prefer to play a game of litigation chicken: a frivolous lawsuit strategy in reverse. Don’t like it? Sue me.

And while insurance companies play rough with consumers, they play even rougher with each other. Take the process of subrogation for example. Here you have one insurance company making a claim against another. In the matter above if the owner of the parked car carried phyical damage insurance he likely would have submitted the $2,000 repair bill to his own insurance company. Ordinarily his insurer would attempt to collect back from Worldwide and Suppressive via the subrogation channel. Except now Worldwide and Suppressive care even less. Rather than the "sue me" response, the greeting afforded a subrogation claim usually starts with a two word expletitive. Occasionally when fault is indisputable a claimant insurance company may receive an offer amounting to something less than 100 cents on the dollar. Likely it will take the money and run - particularly if the offer looks to exceed all potential for recovery net of litigation.

Still that does not make this game right whether played against consumers or other insurance companies. A dollar saved owing only to a claimant's sense of pragmatism and threshold for litigation is not a dollar earned in any traditional sense. It is more like a dollar stolen, and it happens all the time.

Thanks for checking in…

Ed Campbell, III

GATS Getting Better All The Time

2007-08-28T12:50:00.000-07:00

The Great American Truck Show (GATS) took place in Dallas last week. Not much changes with truck shows from year to year. The basic template of vendor booths, show trucks, expensive food and second tier music acts stays pretty much the same. This year the tone at GATS seemed a bit more subdued perhaps owing to fewer exhibitors and smaller show attendance. And yet by all accounts this show gets better every year. What makes that so?

Start off with the promoters. I know the Randall Reilly Group (of Overdrive Magazine fame) has more money than all other trucking vendors combined, but at the core they remain very decent and smart business people. I ran into one of their top executives, Jeff Mason, prior to the show on Saturday morning. He didn’t try to gloss over Thursday and Friday’s weak attendance numbers, something I found refreshing. Instead he assured me that they had made some floor adjustments that would dispense traffic more evenly. Whatever they did certainly worked as floor traffic on Saturday stayed strong through closing time.

Then there’s Dallas: nice hotels, fun restaurants, reliable public transportation, and great people. Say what you will about the state of Texas and this city in particular, people here exude a confidence and sense of civility that blue stators would do well to emulate. These characteristics even weaved their way into the pre and post show atmosphere. The normally gnarly show staff organizers and union thugs proved themselves surprisingly pleasant and responsive.

Finally the venue. The Dallas Convention Center while not quite as truck parking friendly as the Kentucky Fairgrounds is otherwise a perfect setting for this event. It’s clean, well lit, and roomy. Sources tell me it also lent itself well to some great evening tailgating.

Of course you can’t have a truck show without truckers. And while I suspect fuel costs might have kept a few truckers away this year, enough still showed up to make this event a success. No other forum gives companies better access to owner operators and drivers. If you do business with truckers you simply have to be here.

That leads to my one disappointment; not with the show, but with the exhibiting philosophy of so many vendors. Yes, they’re all here – big truck manufacturers on down to flashlight distributors. And yet, you don’t see too many CEO’s. You would think the honchos could spare one day to meet a few customers. It seems a little disingenuous to avoid the very people who sponsor your living. For the record, I worked the 1st Guard booth all three days with other top executives from our company. We wouldn't have it any other way.

Congratulations to Randall Reilly Publishing and all who participated in GATS this year!

Thanks for Checking In...

Ed Campbell, III

Con-way and CFI: Ego Trumps Logic

2007-07-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

To the credit of both companies, no one saw this deal coming; an apt tribute to their respective low key styles. Publicly traded Con-way, Inc. born of the legendary and now defunct Consolidated Freightways quietly outfoxed the Teamsters back in the 90’s to emerge as a leading non-union LTL carrier. Privately held CFI grew from two trailers in 1951 into a truckload powerhouse. This company understood the power and privilege of private equity years before anyone on Wall Street ever heard of the concept.

So we have two companies that play their cards close to the vest. A good cultural start, but does anything else about this deal make sense? In a nutshell: no. Let us start with the $750 million price tag. Con-way overpaid by close to $350 million. Reasonable estimates place CFI’s revenues at $450 million with an 88% operating ratio. That gives them a bottom line before taxes of roughly $54 million and an after tax (figure FIT at 35%) profit of $35 million. Con-way’s stock presently sells for an after tax PE of 11.65. That makes the value of CFI’s incremental earnings closer to $400 million. At $750 million CFI generates a PE of 21. Classic merger theory calls for the acquiring company to target a candidate with a lower PE to its own. That way the purchased earnings cost less in a relative sense to the value the market assigns to internally generated profit. In this case Con-way has paid considerably more than the cost of internal earnings. And it has done so in the midst of a very difficult truckload market. Rates are falling. Freight has become harder to find. These factors could adversely affect CFI’s earnings over the near term making this deal even more expensive for Con-way.

Let us then examine the potential for cost savings. Perhaps this deal still makes sense from that standpoint? Not. Aside from plans to close Con-way’s relatively small truckload division in Memphis, there is no potential for cost savings. Sure we hear talk about how Con-way accounts for 6% of CFI’s business and the synergy to come in offering one stop shopping to shippers. On the surface it sounds good, but at the core this deal consists of an LTL carrier buying a TL carrier. They’re both in the trucking business, but unlike say a retail banking merger the operations do not overlap. This acquisition amounts to a classic horizontal combination at a time when global economic forces dictate the exact opposite strategy. You do not see too many companies (think U.S. automotive) snapping up their suppliers at premium prices these days. Generalization is out. Specialization is in.

Con-way’s management has placed a huge bet on squeezing more blood out of the CFI turnip. This bet looks shakey. CFI already performs better than the average truckload carrier. Con-way will have to drill pretty deep to pump out an additional $350 million in value for its shareholders. Unfortunately for them, this deal seems more driven by managerial ego than logic. Time will tell.

Thanks for checking in…

Ed Campbell, III

Media Accident Reporting Omits Trucking Company Names

2007-06-29T12:14:00.000-07:00

Relative to the tragic crash in New York this week where five recent high school graduate girls died in a fiery collision with a tractor trailer rig, my bone of contention here hardly registers. That said, I have an observation to share about truck accident reporting.

When accidents like this one occur the national media and trade press generally fail to include the name of the trucking company in the story. Yet at the same time they almost always provide the name of the truck driver. That's akin to reporting the name of the pilot in a commercial airline crash without making reference to the airline. Ridiculous.

Granted airlines have name recognition where trucking companies generally do not. Granted also, most journalists are lazy. These givens aside the omission of the trucking company's name leaves the story incomplete - not just for those of us who follow the trucking industry, but also for the public at large. After all the public shares the highways with all trucking companies. And not all trucking companies are equal. How else can the public make assessments about the good ones from the bad?

Ironically, you can always count on the trucking industry to whine about media bias and unfair reporting. Chalk it up to media lassitude. While preliminary reports do not fault the trucker in the New York accident, some trucking company has avoided mention in this very ugly story. I just wish I knew which one.

Thanks for checking in...

Ed Campbell, III

Repeal McCarran - Ferguson Now

2007-06-20T11:18:00.000-07:00

With a gazillion insurance companies in the U.S writing homeowners and automobile insurance why don't we observe more price competition? It seems almost counter- intuitive that an industry characterized by such a large number of competitors could avoid it.

Oh sure, GEICO and Progressive pay lip service to low rates in their advertising. But at the end of the day you'll find their rates compare pretty closely to State Farm, Allstate or Everybody Else Mutual for that matter. The answer to this anomaly starts with our benevolent federal government, which for the last sixty plus years has given the insurance industry and the Insurance Services Office (ISO) a complete pass on the anti-trust front.

When congress enacted the McCarran Ferguson Act in the 1940's, it exempted the insurance industry from federal anti-trust statutes and turned all insurance regulation over to the states. A by-product of this infamous act allowed for the sharing of cost data among insurers. In order to facilitate the accumulation of this data the industry created an entity now known as the Insurance Services Office to manage industry wide statistics. In other words to create a monster database on all things insurance. Today ISO churns an enormous profit selling this data back to individual companies to use as a basis for developing rates. Rather than each insurer relying on its own cost structure and market analysis for setting rates - the way most businesses operate - insurance companies are allowed to defer to published aggregate data. Essentially this gives each insurer the same cost structure, which by extension yields very similar prices.

Even worse state insurance regulators actually encourage this practice as it makes it easier for them to regulate rate levels. ISO shows number X will be the expected claims cost for companies in this state. Number y will be the expected overhead cost; so therefore, each company in this state is allowed to charge Z. Tell me again why we need state insurance departments to protect consumers? If states really wanted to help the consumer they would prohibit the use of aggregated cost and expense data and force insurance companies to compete like other businesses. Consumers would surely benefit from the resulting competition.

Believe it or not a few U.S. Senators have actually floated the idea of repealing the McCarran Ferguson Act - naturally for all the wrong reasons. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi presently leads the charge, not because he recognizes the benefits of market competition over collusive rate setting. I doubt this guy could recognize the benefits of an I-Pod over a player piano. No he's essentially mad that State Farm denied his Katrina claim on his vacation home in Southern Mississippi. The esteem Senator claims he never realized his policy excluded flood coverage. Therefore, as a matter of revenge he has decided to point his guns at McCarran Ferguson. Three cheers for the accidental reformer. Nothing like an elected official using the power entrusted to him by the public to settle a personal score. Oh well, any way you can eliminate a bad law...

Unfortunately, repealing McCarran Ferguson may have no impact as presently proposed. Rumor has it Lott’s repeal legislation carves out an exception for industry data gathering. That of course would make the whole exercise moot. Why remove an anti-trust exemption and then allow the industry to continue to use collective data?

Here's an idea. How about we repeal McCarran Ferguson with no exceptions? Let's put ISO out of business. Let's force insurance companies to take the same risk and initiative as say a shoe store when it comes to setting premiums. And let's give the insurance consumer some real pricing choice when it comes to buying homeowners and automobile insurance.

Thanks for checking in...

Ed Campbell, III

Before We Get Started...

2007-06-15T10:37:00.001-07:00

In the truck insurance business the insurance agents make all the money, but hold no power. The insurance companies hold all the power, but make no money. The trucking companies enjoy all the perks, but pay no bills. The owner operators pay all the bills, but enjoy no perks.

And basically no one trusts anyone, and everyone hates each other.

Welcome to The Truck Insurance Extremist where I hope you will find some fun, blunt and useful analysis into matters concerning the trucking and insurance industries.

Thanks for checking in...

Ed Campbell, III