USPS financial numbers helping fuel federal investigation?

Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
What's new? The sun rises and sets, and USPS bleeds money.

If nowinksy goes digging too deep, he'll likely figure out cycling was one of their more effective ad campaigns/initiatives.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Article about how financially hurting the USPS is.

No explicit link or connection to the cycling team, but I'm wondering if these facts would light a fire under the US federal investigation?

Any connection in the past in the States?

Help me out, Yanks.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/postal_service_posts_85_billio.html?hpid=topnews
It might not be reasonable to try and connect their woes to Armstrong, but in America, it is not uncommon to try and divert attention from one's own incompetence. So someday soon, if he gets charged, we might see the USPS PR machine take a few jabs at Lance for his alleged misdeeds. But we're talking an agency that is bleeding BILLIONS.

What might become cannon fodder is their decision to target Europeans by spending $7-10MM on a cycling sponsorship. People want to know how a public agency can justify that.

The USPS' woes have far more to do with the electronic age and the lowering of direct-mail volume.
 
May 8, 2009
133
0
0
Given that the cost of sponsorship was probably a small fraction of their overall advertising budget for those years, I doubt it will have much of an impact. The quasi governmental nature of the USPS is a strange beast. It seems to me you can't watch a TV show without seeing a USPS advertisement at least once.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
Article about how financially hurting the USPS is.

No explicit link or connection to the cycling team, but I'm wondering if these facts would light a fire under the US federal investigation?

Any connection in the past in the States?

Help me out, Yanks.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/postal_service_posts_85_billio.html?hpid=topnews
this has come up a few times. i had a summer job working for the USPS back in college. USPS financials are complicated but essentially it is a regulated monopoly run to break even. the USPS often produces a financial surplus following a rate increase and then absorbs a loss for a few years until requiring another increase etc etc. without reading the article it probably just implies that consumers and especially business owners can expect to soon pay more for shipping/mailing costs.

this has almost nothing to do with cycling. USPS budget is many billions a year. sponsorship of the cycling team was maybe 10-15 million, its impact on a rate increase is the equivalent of spitting in the ocean.

EDIT: haha botanybay and scribe beat me to it, but for perspective the approx annual budget for USPS is about 70 billion
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
BotanyBay said:
It might not be reasonable to try and connect their woes to Armstrong, but in America, it is not uncommon to try and divert attention from one's own incompetence. So someday soon, if he gets charged, we might see the USPS PR machine take a few jabs at Lance for his alleged misdeeds. But we're talking an agency that is bleeding BILLIONS.

What might become cannon fodder is their decision to target Europeans by spending $7-10MM on a cycling sponsorship. People want to know how a public agency can justify that.

The USPS' woes have far more to do with the electronic age and the lowering of direct-mail volume.
It's called european market share during a critical period of Global Priority service competition. And it was money well spent.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
scribe said:
It's called european market share during a critical period of Global Priority service competition. And it was money well spent.
Sure- if the USPS had any Post offices in Europe I would use them..... money well spent. :rolleyes:
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Ok, the USPS is not a financial white elephant.

USPS is by FAR the best deal on mail and also the best deal on shipping parcels but I don't know their weight limit.

It is outright misinformation and public misperception that the post office isn't good.

In the Domestic USA, first class mail $.44 is shipped daily on FEDEX planes all across the country.

USPS must go before congress to raise rates.

Fedex raises rates through fuel surcharges all the time in addition to their regular rate hikes. I'm pretty sure UPS does similiarly.

If a Fedex or UPS driver wants to know something specific about an address or addressee, the mailman is the best source of info possible.

The people who talk about privatizing the USPS have no clue as to what they are saying.

It would be an unmitigated disaster, unless you want to pay a couple bucks to send a letter.

When I was with FEDEX we lost legal papers at FLL ramp for a political prisoner, somewhere overseas. Evidently the guy had been in prison for like 10 years. They put notices up all over the facility with the airbill number on it.

All the shippers lose stuff. It's a fact of life.
 
buckwheat said:
Ok, the USPS is not a financial white elephant.

USPS is by FAR the best deal on mail and also the best deal on shipping parcels but I don't know their weight limit.

It is outright misinformation and public misperception that the post office isn't good.

In the Domestic USA, first class mail $.44 is shipped daily on FEDEX planes all across the country.

USPS must go before congress to raise rates.

Fedex raises rates through fuel surcharges all the time in addition to their regular rate hikes. I'm pretty sure UPS does similiarly.

If a Fedex or UPS driver wants to know something specific about an address or addressee, the mailman is the best source of info possible.

The people who talk about privatizing the USPS have no clue as to what they are saying.

It would be an unmitigated disaster, unless you want to pay a couple bucks to send a letter.

When I was with FEDEX we lost legal papers at FLL ramp for a political prisoner, somewhere overseas. Evidently the guy had been in prison for like 10 years. They put notices up all over the facility with the airbill number on it.

All the shippers lose stuff. It's a fact of life.
I don't think the poster was suggesting it wasn't a good deal. I think it was in reference to the USPS financial performance which has been abysmal. It lost over 8B USD last year.
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
JRTinMA said:
I don't think the poster was suggesting it wasn't a good deal. I think it was in reference to the USPS financial performance which has been abysmal. It lost over 8B USD last year.
And I'm telling you why they are in the red. Their rates are not set according to economic factors such as demand or costs. Their rates are the results of politics.

Because they cannot raise rates. Take a look at what the competition charges for 2day parcel service. The post office blows them away.

They have to go to Congress whenever they want to raise rates on first class mail and because USPS has become a phony symbol of Government inefficiency, by the privatization party(code) in the USA they are being intentionally sabotaged..

I know this for an absolute fact.

Send a first class 44 cent letter anywhere in the continental US like from NY to LA or basically anywhere and it gets there in two days max.

USPS and FEDEX signed a billion dollar pact in August of 2001 for FEDEX to become their mail carrier after Emery? became unreliable. The contract was doubled a couple months later after 9/11.

Contrary to the way Fedex portrays it, the 9/11 tragedy was a giant windfall for Fedex because of tightening restrictions on commercial airlines.

Commercial airlines began the known shipper program and cargo airlines have very few restrictions.

Put it this way, if you're nuts, there are very few restrictions or safeguards on cargo flights.

That is why federal officials won't comment on cargo security. Because there is basically no security at ALL. They'd have to lie to reassure the public.
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Back to the OP.

I just think the Feds are using the USPS thing to make a Federal case out of it.

As others have mentioned, the cycling budget was small potatoes compared to their bread and butter operations.

750,000 employees...
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
buckwheat said:
Back to the OP.

I just think the Feds are using the USPS thing to make a Federal case out of it.

As others have mentioned, the cycling budget was small potatoes compared to their bread and butter operations.

750,000 employees...
Forgot about that crucial bit. Thanks.
 
buckwheat said:
Ok, the USPS is not a financial white elephant.

USPS is by FAR the best deal on mail and also the best deal on shipping parcels but I don't know their weight limit.

It is outright misinformation and public misperception that the post office isn't good.

In the Domestic USA, first class mail $.44 is shipped daily on FEDEX planes all across the country.

USPS must go before congress to raise rates.

Fedex raises rates through fuel surcharges all the time in addition to their regular rate hikes. I'm pretty sure UPS does similiarly.

If a Fedex or UPS driver wants to know something specific about an address or addressee, the mailman is the best source of info possible.

The people who talk about privatizing the USPS have no clue as to what they are saying.

It would be an unmitigated disaster, unless you want to pay a couple bucks to send a letter.

When I was with FEDEX we lost legal papers at FLL ramp for a political prisoner, somewhere overseas. Evidently the guy had been in prison for like 10 years. They put notices up all over the facility with the airbill number on it.

All the shippers lose stuff. It's a fact of life.
Got you and agreed on the financial stuff. I will take your word on the security stuff, sounds bad though.
 
buckwheat said:
And I'm telling you why they are in the red. ...
I don't think it matters why they are in the red.

Some fanboy/misinformers have suggested that the Federal Gov't was not providing tax dollars to USPS during the Armstrong era.

A quick look at the USPS financials will quickly dispel that notion.

Even then, however, it is not -yet- clear that this is material to the case. Ultimately we are guessing at the connection/motivation between USPS and Lance as being key to the pursuit.

Dave.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Sure- if the USPS had any Post offices in Europe I would use them..... money well spent. :rolleyes:
they USPS team continued to race a full season in the US, their domestic presence was significant and they got good results. lance and the cycling team were ubiquitous in their already ubiquitous advertising here in the states. the USPS needed to become more relevant in the parcel delivery game. at this time, if you wanted to mail a letter they were the only game in town but if you wanted to ship a package, you probably thought to use other services first. also remember, in the early 2000's the practice of online shopping was beginning to explode at the same time 1st class mail volume was declining. they needed a more visible profile and an effective advertising campaign that would redefine how consumers viewed the services they provided.

IMO the decision to sponsor cycling was a very good one. but i only live in the US, worked there during this exact same period of time, went through lengthy orientations, etc etc... so what do i know.:rolleyes:
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
D-Queued said:
I don't think it matters why they are in the red.

Some fanboy/misinformers have suggested that the Federal Gov't was not providing tax dollars to USPS during the Armstrong era.

A quick look at the USPS financials will quickly dispel that notion.

Even then, however, it is not -yet- clear that this is material to the case. Ultimately we are guessing at the connection/motivation between USPS and Lance as being key to the pursuit.

Dave.
technically they didn't receive tax dollars. it's been explained numerous times in earlier threads. whether the team operated in a fraudulent manner is still very important to federal investigators tho because of the structure of the USPS and their special relationship with gov't.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
lean said:
they USPS team continued to race a full season in the US, their domestic presence was significant and they got good results. lance and the cycling team were ubiquitous in their already ubiquitous advertising here in the states. the USPS needed to become more relevant in the parcel delivery game. at this time, if you wanted to mail a letter they were the only game in town but if you wanted to ship a package, you probably thought to use other services first. also remember, in the early 2000's the practice of online shopping was beginning to explode at the same time 1st class mail volume was declining. they needed a more visible profile and an effective advertising campaign that would redefine how consumers viewed the services they provided.

IMO the decision to sponsor cycling was a very good one. but i only live in the US, worked there during this exact same period of time, went through lengthy orientations, etc etc... so what do i know.:rolleyes:
I have no problem with them supporting or sponsoring cycling.

But with cycling getting little coverage in the US it seemed an odd choice of sport.
I am glad they invested in Cycling, but I could never really understand why they invested in a ProTour team instead of a US team. Most cycling fans are in fact very loyal to sponsors, case in point - on my last trip to the US I bought my Garmin in a Radioshack.

But USPS didn't have any real business in Europe - so my point is even if I wanted to support them I was unable to.
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I have no problem with them supporting or sponsoring cycling.

But with cycling getting little coverage in the US it seemed an odd choice of sport.
I am glad they invested in Cycling, but I could never really understand why they invested in a ProTour team instead of a US team. Most cycling fans are in fact very loyal to sponsors, case in point - on my last trip to the US I bought my Garmin in a Radioshack.

But USPS didn't have any real business in Europe - so my point is even if I wanted to support them I was unable to.
Sometimes it's not clear who the international partners are, but I'm pretty sure USPS sends a lot of stuff overseas and brings a lot of stuff in.

The profit margins on International shipments are many times what they are on domestic shipments.
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Back in the Lance Era, the USPS signed an agreement with the Brits:

the Postal Service has signed a landmark agreement with Consignia LLP, formerly the British Post Office, for the delivery of Global Express Mail™ (EMS) and Global Air Parcel Post (Air Parcels) in Europe.

"Posts all over the world are creating new models for the benefit of their customers. This agreement provides an integrated network for the delivery of EMS and Air Parcels in Europe. We will be using a single delivery partner with an integrated IT system. This will be a vast improvement over working with 23 different postal administrations and delivery agents with dissimilar methodologies and standards," said Wade.
http://www.usps.com/news/2002/press/pr02_006.htm

Do not know the current setup - but back in the Lance Era a USPS push into Europe was being made...sponsoring a Cycling team was chump change for USPS,
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
buckwheat said:
Sometimes it's not clear who the international partners are, but I'm pretty sure USPS sends a lot of stuff overseas and brings a lot of stuff in.

The profit margins on International shipments are many times what they are on domestic shipments.
I always thought USPS sponsoring Euro cycling would be like Liquigas sponsoring a NASCAR team.

Yes - I read somewhere about 7 or 8 years ago that USPS were promoting their international shipping, but if it was for that why wasn't that on the jersies promoting that part of the business. Can you even use USPS from Europe? I know I have used USPS to send stuff to Europe and they were excellent value.
 
lean said:
technically they didn't receive tax dollars. it's been explained numerous times in earlier threads. whether the team operated in a fraudulent manner is still very important to federal investigators tho because of the structure of the USPS and their special relationship with gov't.
Sorry for being a slow learner, then.

But, didn't the USPS receive $3.034 billion/year in "Capital contributions of the U.S. Government" each year from at least 1997 - 2008 (increased in 2009 to $3.09b)? USPS posted a profit in 2003, but posted losses in the previous years. USPS was the team's title sponsor from 1996-2004.

True, the USPS's operating expenses during these years were closer to $60-70b, but the Federal Government's assistance was crucial to their Cash Flow. Minimally, one out of every $20-30 in USPS expenses were covered by Tax dollars.

Unless I am mistaken, the US Government's primary sources of cash are borrowings, increases in M1, and Tax Revenues. The 'only' source of Revenue is tax.
What are the federal government’s sources of revenue?
Individual income taxes and payroll taxes now account for four out of every five federal revenue dollars. Corporate income taxes contribute another 12 percent. Excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts (earnings of the Federal Reserve System and various fees and charges) make up the balance
If the $3b/year that floated USPS operations during the years in question didn't come from tax dollars, then which of the other two were the source?

Unless the tax dollars were somehow segregated at USPS, it is a reasonable assumption that US tax dollars were used to support the USPS cycling sponsorship.

Looks like tax dollars at work to me.

Dave.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY