5 ms·

Can you give some specific examples of things in the NYT piece that are misleading?

by akhosravian 7y ago

drak0n1c 7y ago
The portrayal of capital investment being essentially zero is claimed to be misleading in the linked article.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  That is not a claim that was made. From the NYT article: > As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019. Much of its savings have gone to reward shareholders: FedEx spent more than $2 billion on stock buybacks and dividend increases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from $1.6 billion in 2018, and more than double the amount the company spent on buybacks and dividends in fiscal year 2017. edit: Note: the parent commenter ninja-edited in the word "essentially" after I made this comment.
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    That framing is incredibly negative and obviously communicates it as "near zero" to the passing reader. Vague terminology of "less than projected" is the way they choose to frame it in the first sentence, and "spent even less in the next year" is the next sentence. NYT then chooses to completely omit the actual numerical figures of FedEx's investments, and instead highlights figures in the unrelated category of dividend payments (which were actually smaller than recent capital expenditures). I'd say that paragraph you quoted showcases the misleading writing very nicely.
    - morsch 7y ago
      I get _capital investments are going down_ from that. I don't know how you are reading _near zero_ from it. It doesn't get more "passing reader" than me in this case, I know nothing about what happened here and I have zero interest in finding out.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - cascom 7y ago
    FedEx CapEx in $B '09-'18 $2.6,$3.4,$3.6,$3.6,$3.3,$3.8,$5.0,$5.0,$5.1,$5.6 Do you think the article fairly reflects the trends in the company's capital expenditures?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Yes, I think it does. FedEx's lobbying efforts argued reduced taxes would allow them to increase capital spending more than they would have otherwise. Instead, they look to have stuck to their trendline - and 2019's estimated is flat. Draw those numbers on a chart and it doesn't look like the tax cut generated much of a boost: https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2018/09/Capex-2.png?w=587&fit=max&auto=format https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2018/09/Capex-2.png?... Article from which the chart is drawn: https://articles2.marketrealist.com/2018/09/a-look-at-fedexs-capital-expenditure-in-q1-2019/ https://articles2.marketrealist.com/2018/09/a-look-at-fedexs...
      - drak0n1c 7y ago
        The NYT in the paragraph you quoted vaguely paints the picture that investment is being cut significantly in favor of massive dividend payments. However, if the reality is that it is merely plateauing as you and the parent comment show, then doesn't that show their wording was misleading? Yes, FedEx didn't follow up with the massive new boosts they promised (besides the pension fund). However, the NYT should have included figures and stated it how you are in your comment - that growth factor is what has gone down, not the actual level of investment. I am not disputing what you say about FedEx, I just want NYT to be more careful and precise in its reporting.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        It makes the point that they didn't even spend what they'd initially projected, let alone increase it like they said they would. They did not follow through with their lobbying promises. The fact that they instead increased stock buybacks etc. demonstrates a point of detractors of the tax law - that it's proceeds would most likely go back into already-wealthy pockets, not capital investment. It's not unreasonable to point it out here.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Can you give some specific examples of things in the NYT piece that are misleading?

drak0n1c 7y ago

The portrayal of capital investment being essentially zero is claimed to be misleading in the linked article.

ceejayoz 7y ago
That is not a claim that was made. From the NYT article: > As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019. Much of its savings have gone to reward shareholders: FedEx spent more than $2 billion on stock buybacks and dividend increases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from $1.6 billion in 2018, and more than double the amount the company spent on buybacks and dividends in fiscal year 2017. edit: Note: the parent commenter ninja-edited in the word "essentially" after I made this comment.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  That framing is incredibly negative and obviously communicates it as "near zero" to the passing reader. Vague terminology of "less than projected" is the way they choose to frame it in the first sentence, and "spent even less in the next year" is the next sentence. NYT then chooses to completely omit the actual numerical figures of FedEx's investments, and instead highlights figures in the unrelated category of dividend payments (which were actually smaller than recent capital expenditures). I'd say that paragraph you quoted showcases the misleading writing very nicely.
  - morsch 7y ago
    I get _capital investments are going down_ from that. I don't know how you are reading _near zero_ from it. It doesn't get more "passing reader" than me in this case, I know nothing about what happened here and I have zero interest in finding out.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- cascom 7y ago
  FedEx CapEx in $B '09-'18 $2.6,$3.4,$3.6,$3.6,$3.3,$3.8,$5.0,$5.0,$5.1,$5.6 Do you think the article fairly reflects the trends in the company's capital expenditures?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Yes, I think it does. FedEx's lobbying efforts argued reduced taxes would allow them to increase capital spending more than they would have otherwise. Instead, they look to have stuck to their trendline - and 2019's estimated is flat. Draw those numbers on a chart and it doesn't look like the tax cut generated much of a boost: https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2018/09/Capex-2.png?w=587&fit=max&auto=format https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2018/09/Capex-2.png?... Article from which the chart is drawn: https://articles2.marketrealist.com/2018/09/a-look-at-fedexs-capital-expenditure-in-q1-2019/ https://articles2.marketrealist.com/2018/09/a-look-at-fedexs...
    - drak0n1c 7y ago
      The NYT in the paragraph you quoted vaguely paints the picture that investment is being cut significantly in favor of massive dividend payments. However, if the reality is that it is merely plateauing as you and the parent comment show, then doesn't that show their wording was misleading? Yes, FedEx didn't follow up with the massive new boosts they promised (besides the pension fund). However, the NYT should have included figures and stated it how you are in your comment - that growth factor is what has gone down, not the actual level of investment. I am not disputing what you say about FedEx, I just want NYT to be more careful and precise in its reporting.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        It makes the point that they didn't even spend what they'd initially projected, let alone increase it like they said they would. They did not follow through with their lobbying promises. The fact that they instead increased stock buybacks etc. demonstrates a point of detractors of the tax law - that it's proceeds would most likely go back into already-wealthy pockets, not capital investment. It's not unreasonable to point it out here.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]