Rail shippers oppose BNSF write-up stemming from company’s acquisition by Berkshire Hathaway

In a recent filing with the Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board (STB), a group comprised of several rail shippers voiced their opinions as to why allowing BNSF Railway to take a write-up of roughly $8 billion based on the acquisition premium paid by Berkshire Hathaway in its February 2010 $34.5 billion acquisition of BNSF is “objectionable for many reasons.”

By ·

In a recent filing with the Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board (STB), a group comprised of several rail shippers voiced their opinions as to why allowing BNSF Railway to take a write-up of roughly $8 billion based on the acquisition premium paid by Berkshire Hathaway in its February 2010 $34.5 billion acquisition of BNSF is “objectionable for many reasons.”

The rail shippers, including the Alliance for Rail Competition and the National Association of Wheat Growers, among others, said that this acquisition premium is problematic for the shippers and producers of agricultural commodities that are captive to BNSF.

This follows a September filing made by the Western Coal Traffic League (WCTL), a voluntary association comprised of consumers of coal produced from United States mines located west of the Mississippi River, filed a petition this week with the Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board (STB) requesting that the STB issue an order that would adjust the Uniform Railroad Costing System (URCS) of BNSF.

According to the STB, URCS is its railroad general purpose costing system that is used to estimate variable and total unit costs for Class I U.S. railroads. URCS only develops costs for U.S. Class I railroads.

In the recent filing, the rail shippers stated that BNSF’s reliance on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles is flawed, citing BNSF CEO Warren Buffett as saying “managers who actively use GAAP to deceive and fraud,” although BNSF said in its opening comments with the STB that its shipments are not captive and unaffected by rate reasonableness standards established by Congress.

But the rail shippers explained that this approach by BNSF is backwards, saying that the fact that relatively little BNSF traffic is jurisdictional makes it more important, not less important that BNSF costing be adjusted to eliminate the acquisition premium.

“The fact that many BNSF shippers have competitive alternatives means that BNSF has less need of an $8 billion landfall than might a company that was pervasively regulated,” the rail shippers said in the filing. “Moreover, as a matter of law, the only rail rates levels that ‘must be reasonable…are rates on captive traffic. In other regulated industries revenues from all customers and rates for classes of customers may be capped, and are likely to be capped where there is monopoly power. BNSF can charge what it likes on competitive shipments and has demonstrated during the worst economic slump since the Great Depression that it can raise rates and gain market share even where it lacks monopoly power.”

And they also said that BNSF plainly considers regulatory factors, including UCRS costs, in developing pricing as well as terms and conditions for captive shipments, despite the claim that it charges market-based rates, noting that if the STB does not adjust BNSF costing to prevent a write-up, regulatory inaction will permit higher rates for some of BNSF’s most vulnerable customers.

Anthony B. Hatch, principal of New York-based ABH Consulting told LM in a recent interview that BNSF is the only one of the seven Class I railroads that has been allowed to mark its assets for the market.

“Its cost base has been increased, whereas everything else kind of stays the same and has depreciated,” said Hatch. “This makes things more accurate and it makes BNSF different than the other carriers. It is part of the strangeness of the vestige of the regulatory world that would be best solved by removing all the regulation.”

What’s more, Hatch noted that BNSF and all the other Class I railroads continue to make major capital investments despite indifferent traffic this year and an uncertain outlook for next year and are highly unlikely to have any type of huge cutbacks in capital expenditures. And in order to do that he said that railroads need to have projections of improved returns of which improved rates play a big role in.

BNSF officials were not available for comment at press time.


About the Author

Jeff Berman, Group News Editor
Jeff Berman is Group News Editor for Logistics Management, Modern Materials Handling, and Supply Chain Management Review. Jeff works and lives in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, where he covers all aspects of the supply chain, logistics, freight transportation, and materials handling sectors on a daily basis. Contact Jeff Berman

Subscribe to Logistics Management Magazine!

Subscribe today. It's FREE!
Get timely insider information that you can use to better manage your entire logistics operation.
Start your FREE subscription today!

Article Topics

BNSF · Rail Freight · Railroad Shipping · All Topics
Hub Group Resources
Not Your Grandfather's Intermodal
Transportation of freight in containers was first recorded around 1780 to move coal along England’s Bridgewater Canal. However, "modern" intermodal rail service by a major U.S. railroad only dates back to 1936. Malcom McLean’s Sea-Land Service significantly advanced intermodalism, showing how freight could be loaded into a “container” and moved by two or more modes economically and conveniently. As with all new technologies, there were problems that slowed the growth, which influenced many potential customers to shy away from moving intermodal.
Click here to download
Latest Whitepaper
Lead your organization through the driver shortage and over-the-road regulations.
Potential transportation disruptions are looming as increased over-the-road regulations are set to go into effect in 2017. Experts believe these regulations will further impact the already challenged driver pool as well as reduce driver productivity.
Download Today!
From the January 2017 Issue
Following LM tradition, we start off the New Year with our annual “Rate Outlook” cover story and subsequent Webcast
Moore on Pricing: The other TMS functional options
2017 Rate Outlook: Where are freight transportation rates headed?
View More From this Issue
Subscribe to Our Email Newsletter
Sign up today to receive our FREE, weekly email newsletter!
Latest Webcast
2017 Rate Outlook: Where are freight transportation rates headed?
Join our panel of top oil and transportation analysts for an exclusive look at where rates are headed and the issues driving those rate increases over the coming year.
Register Today!
EDITORS' PICKS
2017 Rate Outlook: Will the pieces fall into place?
Trade and transport analysts see a turnaround in last year’s negative market outlook, but as...
Logistics Management’s Top Logistics News Stories 2016
From mergers and acquisitions to regulation changes, Logistics Management has compiled the most...

Making the TMS Decision: Ariens Finds Just the Right Fit
The third time is the charm for this U.S. manufacturer on the hunt for a third-party logistics (3PL)...
Motor Carrier Regulations Update: Caught in a Trap
The fed is hitting truckers with a barrage of costly regulations in an era of scant profits....