logo
Union Pacific and Norfolk seek 1st transcontinental railroad through a massive merger

Union Pacific and Norfolk seek 1st transcontinental railroad through a massive merger

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Union Pacific is seeking to buy Norfolk Southern in a $85 billion deal that would create the first transcontinental railroad in the U.S, and potentially trigger a final wave of rail mergers across the country.
The proposed merger, announced Tuesday, would marry Union Pacific's rail network in the West with Norfolk's rails that snake across Eastern states.
The nation was first linked by rail in 1869, when a golden railroad spike was driven in Utah to symbolize the connection of East and West Coasts. Yet no single entity has controlled that coast-to-coast passage that so many businesses rely on.
The railroads said the tie-up would streamline deliveries of raw materials and goods across the country by eliminating several days of delays when shipments are handed off between railroads. The AP first reported the merger talks earlier this month a week before the railroads confirmed the discussions last week.
Any deal would be closely scrutinized by antitrust regulators that have set a very high bar for railroad deals after previous consolidation in the industry led to massive backups and snarled traffic.
But if the deal is approved, the two remaining major American railroads — BNSF and CSX — will face tremendous pressure to merge so they can compete. The continent's two other major railroads — Canadian National and CPKC — may also get involved.
Some big shippers like chemical plants may be wary of the merger because of fears about the monopoly power the combined railroad would wield over rates, but other major rail customers, like Amazon and UPS, may back the deal if it means their packages will arrive more quickly and reliably. Those big companies, along with unions and communities across the country that the railroads cross, will have a chance to weigh in on the deal before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board.
There's speculation that this deal might win approval under the pro-business Trump administration, but the STB is currently evenly split between two Republicans and two Democrats. The board is led by a Republican, and Trump will appoint a fifth member before this deal will be considered.
Union Pacific is offering $20 billion cash and one share of its stock to complete the deal. Norfolk Southern shareholders would receive one UP share and $88.82 in cash for each one of their shares as part of the deal that values NS at roughly $320 per share. Norfolk Southern closed at just over $260 a share earlier this month before the first reports speculating about a deal.
Union Pacific's stock rose slightly to $229.35 in premarket trading, while Norfolk Southern's stock dipped more than 2% to $279.95.
Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena, who has been championing a merger, said the deal could make it possible for lumber from the Pacific Northwest and plastics produced on the Gulf Coast and steel made in Pittsburgh to all reach their destinations more seamlessly.
'Railroads have been an integral part of building America since the Industrial Revolution, and this transaction is the next step in advancing the industry,' Vena said.
A combined Union Pacific and Norfolk would have an advantage because they won't have to hand off shipments in the middle of the country anymore, enabling them to make deliveries more quickly and likely at a lower rate.
U.S. railroads have already gone through extensive consolidation. There were more than 30 major freight railroads in the early 1980s. Today, six major railroads that handle the majority of shipments nationwide.
Rival BNSF, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, has the war chest to pursue an acquisition of it chooses. CEO Warren Buffett is sitting on more than $348 billion cash and he may be interested in completing one last major deal before he gives up his role as chief exeucutive at the end of the year.
Last week Buffett threw cold water on reports that he had enlisted Goldman Sachs to advise him on a potential rail deal in an interview with CNBC, but given that he rarely uses investment bankers that doesn't mean that he and his successor, Greg Abel, aren't considering their options. After all, Buffett reached the agreement to buy the rest of BNSF for $26.3 billion in a private meeting with the CEO in 2009.
Yet there's widespread debate over whether a major rail merger would be approved by the Surface Transportation Board, which has established a high bar for consolidation in the crucial industry.
That's largely because of the aftermath of an industry consolidation nearly 30 years ago that involved Union Pacific. Union Pacific merged with Southern Pacific in 1996 and the tie-up led to an extended period of snarled traffic on U.S. rails. Three years later, Conrail was divvied up by Norfolk Southern and CSX, which led to more backups on rails in the East.
However, just two years ago, the STB approved the first major rail merger in more than two decades. In that deal, which was supported by big shippers, Canadian Pacific acquired Kansas City Southern for $31 billion to create the CPKC railroad.
There were some unique factors in that deal that combined the two smallest major freight railroads. The combined railroad, regulators reasoned, would benefit trade across North America.
Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern said they expect to submit their application for approval within the next six months and hope the deal would get approved by early 2027.
On Tuesday, Norfolk Southern reported a $768 million second-quarter profit, or $3.41 per share, as volume grew 3%. That's up from $737 million, or $3.25 per share, a year ago, but the results were affected by insurance payments from its 2023 East Palestine derailment and restructuring costs.
Without the one-time factors, Norfolk Southern made $3.29 per share, which was just below the $3.31 per share that analysts surveyed by FactSet Research predicted.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them
Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them

New York Post

time7 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them

Kamala Harris' visit Thursday to Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show' was a fine reminder of why both of them are failures. Mind you, this marked Harris' eighth Late Show appearance — one more illustration of the futility of doing the same thing over and over and somehow expecting different results. What made her think this would help promote her new book? Advertisement The marquee moment was her inability to say who's leading the Democratic Party just now — which was actually simple honesty, since neither Dems nor Republicans have clear leaders these days unless it's a sitting president. But she couldn't explain that simple truth, nor did Colbert show any sign of getting it as he pushed for an answer. Her incoherence was part of another classic Kam performance, full of word salads and non-answers. Advertisement So why did Colbert even bring her on a supposed comedy show? Because he's followed most of the late-night crew down the 'we need to promote liberal politics' toilet, of course — hosting 176 Dem politicians and one Republican since 2022, and hewing one side of the aisle every minute in between. That formula earned him cancellation and may well take out all his peers. It's another puzzle of modern life that so much of the entertainment industry somehow forgot that sanctimoniousness (political or otherwise) is the enemy of humor.

The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case
The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case

Politico

time8 minutes ago

  • Politico

The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case

The order came in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, which contains two majority-Black districts out of the state's six House seats. The court heard arguments in the case in March and had been expected to rule by June. But on June 27, the justices punted the case into their next term and ordered that it be reargued. Now, Friday's order loosely sketches the terrain on which the justices want further arguments: the claim that the longstanding practice of drawing majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Acts may be unconstitutional because of its focus on race in drawing district lines. The voters challenging Louisiana's map had already advanced that constitutional claim in the case, but the justices' call for further briefing on the issue suggests they want to consider the claim more fully. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark law passed during the civil rights era, generally prohibits race-based discrimination in voting laws and practices. In redistricting, the law is used to protect against racial gerrymandering that would unfairly dilute the voting power of racial and ethnic minority voters. States across the country routinely seek to comply with Section 2 by drawing congressional districts where minority voters can elect their chosen candidates. Louisiana's previous map contained only one majority-Black district, even though Black residents make up about a third of the state's population. After a court struck down that map for likely violating the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the power of Black voters, the state's Republican-controlled legislature drew the new map with two majority-Black districts. A group of voters — who self-identified as non-Black — challenged the new map. That's the case now before the Supreme Court. A ruling overturning the current map could result in Republicans picking up an additional congressional seat in Louisiana. The state's two majority-Black districts are both represented by Democrats, while the other four districts are represented by Republicans.

Pfizer CEO attending $25 million fundraiser at Trump's golf club after president demands drug price cuts, sources say
Pfizer CEO attending $25 million fundraiser at Trump's golf club after president demands drug price cuts, sources say

CBS News

time8 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Pfizer CEO attending $25 million fundraiser at Trump's golf club after president demands drug price cuts, sources say

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla is among those expected at a fundraiser President Trump is attending Friday at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, sources told CBS News. The fundraiser for the pro-Trump super political action committee MAGA Inc. aims to raise about $25 million, one of the sources said. One day prior to the event, Mr. Trump sent letters to pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, demanding they lower U.S. drug prices to more evenly match what other countries pay. The White House's letters to 17 drug companies, including AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi, asked for commitments within 60 days to sell drugs for Medicaid patients and all new drugs at "most favored nation" rates. The president posted images of the letters to Truth Social. Mr. Trump signed an executive order in May telling federal officials to draw up "most favored nation" regulations unless pharmaceutical companies made progress toward cutting prices. This week's letters — which were addressed to Bourla and the other CEOs — accused the drugmakers of promising "more of the same" since then. The president said Friday he's "gone to war with the drug companies and, frankly, other countries" on the drug price issue. "I think we're going to be very successful fairly soon. We'll have drug prices coming down by 500, 600 800 even 1,200 percent," Mr. Trump said in an interview with Newsmax on Friday afternoon. The high cost of prescription drugs has vexed both parties for decades. Proposals to tie drug prices for U.S. patients to the typically much-lower rates charged in other developed countries have floated around for years, but the idea has faced some legal pushback. Meanwhile, drugmakers argue price caps could discourage innovation by making it harder to pay for research and development for new drugs. The industry also argues that Americans tend to have access to more groundbreaking drugs than residents of foreign countries with stricter price regulations — and says high drug prices are just one part of a broader trend of higher healthcare spending in the U.S. Bourla has engaged with Mr. Trump in the past. Pfizer was one of the drugmakers that was picked to rapidly develop COVID-19 vaccines in the first Trump administration's "Operation Warp Speed." And two weeks before Mr. Trump's second inauguration, Bourla and other Pfizer executives traveled to Mar-A-Lago for meetings, the Financial Times has previously reported. CBS News has reached out to Pfizer and the White House for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store