Stamps held by the public and USPS revenues

[Victor Manta]

In Linn's Stamp News, August 10, 2016, from the article: "Why the U.S.
Postal Service’s net losses for the year are growing" by Bill McAllister, I
learned as follows:

"One of the changes USPS made in the quarter was a revision to how many
stamps are held by the public.

That revision added $1 billion to postal revenues in the latest quarter.

The Postal Service does not record postage as a revenue item until the stamp
purchased is used in the mail. It notes how many stamps the public has
purchased and records this number as a “deferred revenue-prepaid postage
liability.” "

Can anybody explain what kind of revision was the one mentioned above, and
why did it add so much to the postal revenues? TIA.

Victor Manta, PWO

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://artonstamps.org/
Romania by Stamps: http://marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://reds-on.postalstamps.biz/
Spanish North Africa: http://www.sna-on.postalstamps.biz/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sir F.A. Rien]

Post by Victor Manta
In Linn's Stamp News, August 10, 2016, from the article: "Why the U.S.
Postal Service’s net losses for the year are growing" by Bill McAllister, I
"One of the changes USPS made in the quarter was a revision to how many
stamps are held by the public.
That revision added $1 billion to postal revenues in the latest quarter.
The Postal Service does not record postage as a revenue item until the stamp
purchased is used in the mail. It notes how many stamps the public has
purchased and records this number as a “deferred revenue-prepaid postage
liability.” "
Can anybody explain what kind of revision was the one mentioned above, and
why did it add so much to the postal revenues? TIA.

IF this account is correct, one nedd only visit any stamp dealer,
show or go on line. There are hundreds of thousands of 'old' sheets,
blocks, etc. in 'collector' hands dating back to the 1930's.

If these are now 'not accounted in revenue' [though I'm sure the
money paid in has long been spent], then the 'books' are fried!

I'd expect this "deferred revenue-prepaid postage liability" to
exceed the total 'revenues for up to a full year!

NOW ... do they discount for the interest and use of the funds that
they have had for up to almost a Century?

ROTFLMAO about O'Bamanomics !!!

[David E. Ross]

Post by Sir F.A. Rien

Post by Victor Manta
In Linn's Stamp News, August 10, 2016, from the article: "Why the U.S.
Postal Service’s net losses for the year are growing" by Bill McAllister, I
"One of the changes USPS made in the quarter was a revision to how many
stamps are held by the public.
That revision added $1 billion to postal revenues in the latest quarter.
The Postal Service does not record postage as a revenue item until the stamp
purchased is used in the mail. It notes how many stamps the public has
purchased and records this number as a “deferred revenue-prepaid postage
liability.” "
Can anybody explain what kind of revision was the one mentioned above, and
why did it add so much to the postal revenues? TIA.

IF this account is correct, one nedd only visit any stamp dealer,
show or go on line. There are hundreds of thousands of 'old' sheets,
blocks, etc. in 'collector' hands dating back to the 1930's.
If these are now 'not accounted in revenue' [though I'm sure the
money paid in has long been spent], then the 'books' are fried!
I'd expect this "deferred revenue-prepaid postage liability" to
exceed the total 'revenues for up to a full year!
NOW ... do they discount for the interest and use of the funds that
they have had for up to almost a Century?
ROTFLMAO about O'Bamanomics !!!

I stopped collecting mint U.S. stamps about 15 years ago when it became
very, very clear to many collectors that the USPS was issuing multiple
variations of stamps and stamps commemorating subjects that did not
deserve commemoration merely to pick the pockets of collectors. As soon
as the collector market was saturated with a distinct variety of a
stamp, the USPS would issue the same stamp with a hard-to-detect
difference. Collectors who wanted complete collections would then buy
that variation.

Effectively, the USPS was showing a positive cash-flow by selling stamps
to collectors, stamps that would never be used. One estimate I recall
was that 10% of the USPS's annual revenues represented stamps the USPS
knew would never be used.

[Sir F.A. Rien]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:21:43 -0700, "David E. Ross"

Post by David E. Ross
Republicans scream that Hillary Clinton was responsible
for the tragedy in Benghazi. They conveniently forget
that it was the Republican-controlled Congress that
drastically cut the State Department's budget for
embassy and consulate protection.

FACT: The Dumbocritters controlled the Senate. "Congress" is BOTH
houses!
FACT: Hillarity sat on her hands [or Huma's] and did NOTHING.
FACT: Aid was available, but no one in the DEMOCRAT controlled
presiduncy did anything! The lied to try to cover it up.
FACT: The Dumbo Biden contends that the administration knew of no
requests for more security at the Benghazi mission.
FACT: The favourite colour for Democrats is CYAN!

[Victor Manta]

Post by Victor Manta
----------------

In Linn's Stamp News, August 10, 2016, from the article: "Why the U.S.
Postal Service’s net losses for the year are growing" by Bill McAllister, I
learned as follows:

"One of the changes USPS made in the quarter was a revision to how many
stamps are held by the public.

That revision added $1 billion to postal revenues in the latest quarter.

The Postal Service does not record postage as a revenue item until the stamp
purchased is used in the mail. It notes how many stamps the public has
purchased and records this number as a “deferred revenue-prepaid postage
liability.” "

Post by Victor Manta
--------------------

Sir Rien, David, thank you for commenting. Your interesting comments pushed
me to look a bit further.

In the same article it is written, in the beginning of it: "The price
reduction cut the price of a first-class letter-rate stamp to 47¢ from 49¢,
effective April 10."

I haven't correlated this piece of information to the one that I quoted
earlier but perhaps they have something in common. In accountancy terms for
each forever stamp that USPS sold previously to the public it owes now 2¢
less than earlier. This difference could be considered a net gain, that can
be computed and added to the "postal revenues in the latest quarter". The $1
billion amount is maybe coming from here.

We can infer even more. Because USPS told us that: "That revision added $1
billion ...", and we talk about approximatively 4 percent (more exactly 2¢
divided by 49¢) of the whole, we can infer that the total value of stamps
hold by the customers of the USPS is about $25 billion. In other words, the
public is constantly crediting USPS with this amount (one that counts, like
everything in large amounts).

Please notice that I don't speak here about older stamps held by collectors,
many of which lost a good part of their value due to postal prices
inflation, that was higher than the general one. I remember that we
discussed this latter subject here many years ago.

Victor Manta, PWO

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://artonstamps.org/
Romania by Stamps: http://marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://reds-on.postalstamps.biz/
Spanish North Africa: http://www.sna-on.postalstamps.biz/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------