This was accomplished while mitigating some of the market pressure on gross profits through strong revenue management practices and by improving our cost of hire advantage. These disciplines enabled us to improve our NAST AGP margin by 20 basis points on a year-over-year basis, despite the pressure on spot market costs from a decline in available capacity. In Global Forwarding, we expanded gross margins by 120 basis points year over year through improved revenue management discipline. We also continue to ev ...

Financial Data and Key Metrics Changes - In Q4 2025, total revenue and adjusted gross profit (AGP) declined approximately 7% and 4% year-over-year, respectively [30][31] - The AGP decline was primarily driven by a 13% year-over-year decline in Global Forwarding's AGP due to a significant drop in ocean rates [30][31] - Personnel expenses were $337 million, including $15.2 million of restructuring charges, while excluding these charges, personnel expenses were down 8.2% year-over-year [31][32] - The company generated $305.4 million in cash from operations in Q4 and ended the quarter with approximately $1.49 billion of liquidity [37][38] Business Line Data and Key Metrics Changes - In North American Surface Transportation (NAST), total volume grew by 1% and truckload volume increased by approximately 3% year-over-year, contrasting with a 7.6% decline in the Cass Freight Shipment Index [5][12] - Global Forwarding expanded gross margins by 100 basis points year-over-year through improved revenue management [6] - The LTL business delivered year-over-year volume growth for the eighth consecutive quarter, reflecting consistent outperformance versus the broader LTL market [14] Market Data and Key Metrics Changes - The Cass Freight Shipment Index declined year-over-year for the thirteenth consecutive quarter, marking the lowest Q4 reading since the financial crisis of 2009 [3][12] - Spot market costs for truckload capacity spiked during the last five weeks of Q4 due to seasonal capacity decline and winter storms [3][17] - Dry van load-to-truck ratios increased to approximately 10 to 1, compared to 6 to 1 during the same period in 2024 [17] Company Strategy and Development Direction - The company is focused on controlling what it can, including providing differentiated service and solutions, executing with discipline, and continuously improving its business model [4][8] - The Lean AI strategy aims to enhance automation and improve customer outcomes while maintaining industry-leading operating margins [9][28] - The company is committed to building a scalable model that leverages AI to drive automation across its operations [9][26] Management's Comments on Operating Environment and Future Outlook - Management acknowledged the challenging macro environment in Q4, characterized by weak global freight demand and rising costs [3][4] - The company remains confident in its ability to execute strategic initiatives and improve operating leverage when freight demand eventually increases [9][20] - Management emphasized the importance of their Lean AI strategy in navigating market conditions and driving sustainable, profitable growth [39][42] Other Important Information - The company returned approximately $207.7 million to shareholders in Q4 through share repurchases and dividends [38] - The effective tax rate for Q4 was 18.1%, with expectations for the full year tax rate in the range of 18%-20% for 2026 [35] Q&A Session Summary Question: Can you provide perspective on Q1 and AGP growth? - Management noted that December was challenging due to ocean rate normalization and that cost pressures carried into January, but they remain committed to demonstrating outperformance in Q1 [46][48] Question: What are the expectations for operating margins in 2027? - Management indicated that they are on a good trajectory to reach mid-cycle margins and will make decisions on whether to expand margins or reinvest in growth based on market conditions [47][51] Question: How does the company balance headcount reductions with maintaining service quality? - Management clarified that headcount is not a KPI and emphasized that productivity improvements come from process changes rather than simply reducing headcount [81][82]