By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel agrees that Amazon will increase its internal delivery capacity, but there's disagreement on the impact on legacy carriers and Amazon's long-term strategy. While some panelists see this as a neutral or slightly negative development for UPS and FedEx, others argue it's a structural shift towards a more competitive delivery landscape. Amazon's long-term strategy is also debated, with some seeing it as a cost-transfer mechanism and others as a durable moat.
Risk: Amazon's high fixed-cost logistics capex could lead to underutilized capacity and impairment charges if e-commerce growth slows or DSP economics worsen.
Opportunity: Amazon's increased internal delivery capacity could lead to cost savings and excess capacity to offer to third-party merchants, directly cannibalizing the market share of legacy carriers.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Key Points
The U.S. Postal Service broke off contract talks with Amazon.
Will Amazon have to offer better terms to get last-mile delivery?
- 10 stocks we like better than United Parcel Service ›
The big problem for package delivery is the so-called "last mile." Placing a package at a customer's door is the hard part, and large businesses like United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS), FedEx (NYSE: FDX), and the U.S. Postal Service have built massive distribution networks to accomplish it.
Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) built its own delivery network, too, but it continues to use other delivery services. Only, other businesses aren't as willing to work with Amazon anymore. Here's what you need to think about as you look at the breakdown in contract negotiations between the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and Amazon.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
UPS made the first move
The move by the USPS to walk away from contract talks with Amazon follows the 2025 decision by UPS to reduce the number of packages it carries for Amazon by 50%. The move by UPS was directly related to profitability. The parcel delivery service stated it was looking to reduce its exposure to high-volume customers with business that offered low profit margins.
Essentially, Amazon used its size as a business to reduce delivery costs as e-commerce became increasingly important. UPS finally pushed back. That is, likely, what the USPS is doing, as it appears to be forcing Amazon to work through a new "last mile" bidding system. That will force Amazon to compete with other retailers for access to the USPS delivery network.
Are higher delivery costs on the way?
Amazon already delivers many of its own packages, so it could simply continue expanding its delivery service. However, there are limits on what it can do and where at this point, particularly in smaller markets where it doesn't have a material delivery presence. With UPS cutting back its relationship with Amazon, the USPS was likely to be the replacement in hard-to-reach locations.
Amazon may have no choice but to shoulder higher delivery costs. There are only two choices: quickly building its network or paying higher delivery rates. In theory, paying higher delivery rates would benefit companies like UPS and FedEx. However, it is unlikely either company will want to materially increase their exposure to Amazon, given the historically low profitability of that relationship. And Amazon has already stated it plans to continue expanding its delivery network, so the volume benefit would probably be temporary for UPS and FedEx, anyway.
Amazon is the loser, but nobody really wins
If the USPS pushes back on Amazon, that could theoretically lead to higher parcel-delivery rates, which could help UPS and FedEx. However, the value of working with Amazon is questionable at this point, noting UPS' move away from the online retailer. There is a clear loser here: Amazon has to figure out how to deliver packages to customers' front doors. But it isn't clear that there will be a winner.
Should you buy stock in United Parcel Service right now?
Before you buy stock in United Parcel Service, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and United Parcel Service wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $494,747!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,094,668!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 911% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 186% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 20, 2026.
Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon and United Parcel Service. The Motley Fool recommends FedEx. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"UPS and FedEx are *rejecting* Amazon, not competing harder for it—USPS's exit changes nothing for them because they've already priced Amazon out."
The article frames this as UPS/FedEx tailwinds, but that's backwards. UPS already *cut* Amazon 50% in 2025—they don't want more volume at thin margins. USPS walking away doesn't force Amazon into UPS/FedEx's arms; it forces Amazon to accelerate its own network (which it's already doing). The real dynamic: all three carriers are rationally rejecting Amazon's low-margin business. USPS's move signals desperation, not leverage. For UPS/FDX, this is neutral-to-slightly-negative because it removes a low-margin revenue floor without replacing it with higher-margin work. Amazon absorbs higher costs but maintains control.
If Amazon's internal network hits capacity constraints faster than expected in 2025-26, it may need to accept worse terms from UPS/FedEx temporarily, creating a brief margin boost for those carriers before Amazon catches up.
"The move by legacy carriers to shed Amazon volume is a short-term margin play that ignores the long-term threat of Amazon evolving into a direct, large-scale logistics competitor."
The narrative that Amazon is the 'loser' here ignores the massive capital expenditure (CapEx) Amazon has already sunk into its logistics network. By forcing Amazon to internalize more of its 'last mile' costs, the USPS and UPS are actually accelerating Amazon's transition into a full-scale logistics competitor. While UPS (NYSE: UPS) and FedEx (NYSE: FDX) seek higher margin stability, they risk losing the volume necessary to maintain network density. If Amazon successfully optimizes its own fleet, it won't just save on delivery costs; it will eventually offer excess capacity to third-party merchants, directly cannibalizing the market share of legacy carriers. This isn't a win for UPS; it's a structural shift toward a more fragmented, competitive delivery landscape.
If Amazon's internal network fails to achieve the efficiency of legacy carriers, they could face a margin-crushing inflationary spike in shipping costs that significantly dents their retail profitability.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"USPS/UPS pushback validates Amazon's delivery verticalization as a margin-expanding moat, outweighing temporary cost hikes."
USPS walking away from Amazon talks is minor noise—USPS handles niche rural volumes, likely <5-10% of AMZN's total last-mile needs, per prior disclosures. UPS's 2025 move to halve AMZN packages (from already shrinking ~13% share) stems from low-margin gripes, but AMZN's network now delivers 50%+ of its own U.S. volume via DSPs and trucks, up from 30% pre-pandemic. This forces spot-market pricing discipline, benefiting FDX/UPS margins short-term (FDX at 13x forward P/E vs. 10% EPS growth), but AMZN's $100B+ delivery capex builds a durable moat as e-comm volumes grow 10-15% annually. Carriers risk secular volume erosion; AMZN wins long-term.
If AMZN's network expansion hits regulatory hurdles or capex overruns in underserved markets, elevated third-party rates could compress gross margins from 45% just as e-comm slows to single digits amid Temu/Shein pressure.
"Amazon's 50%+ 'internalization' overstates owned capacity; DSP reliance means carrier margin relief is cyclical, not durable."
Grok's 50%+ internalization figure needs scrutiny—that includes DSPs (third-party contractors Amazon subsidizes), not owned fleet. The margin math flips if DSP costs rise faster than Amazon can optimize. Google flags Amazon's *future* third-party logistics play, but that's speculative; today Amazon is burning cash on network buildout. The near-term carrier margin benefit Anthropic and Grok both mention is real, but it's temporary relief, not structural. FedEx at 13x forward P/E on 10% growth already prices in some volume loss.
"Amazon's internalized logistics model creates significant regulatory and labor cost risks that threaten to turn their delivery network into a permanent, high-cost anchor."
Google’s 'future competitor' thesis ignores the massive labor arbitrage shift. Amazon's DSP model is effectively a cost-transfer mechanism, not a proprietary efficiency moat. If Amazon forces third-party delivery to become a standalone 3PL, they inherit the very regulatory liabilities and unionization pressures that keep FedEx and UPS margins suppressed. Grok correctly identifies the Temu/Shein threat; Amazon isn't just fighting carriers, they are fighting a deflationary global supply chain that makes expensive, internalized last-mile logistics a massive, unhedged operational anchor.
"Amazon's logistics capex creates utilization risk that could materially hurt cash flow if e-commerce growth or DSP economics falter."
Google's 3PL monetization thesis overlooks a big macro/time-risk: Amazon's logistics capex is high fixed-cost capacity that must be utilized to justify returns. If e-commerce growth slows (Temu/Shein, macro weakness) or DSP economics worsen, Amazon faces underutilized sortation, fleets, and leases — forcing impairment charges or price increases that hit retail margins and cash flow volatility. That's a near-to-midterm blow nobody's stressed enough.
"Amazon's variable DSP model provides better flexibility against e-comm slowdowns than carriers' fixed networks."
OpenAI's capex impairment risk overstates fixed-cost exposure: Amazon's U.S. last-mile is DSP-heavy (variable, subsidized contractors delivering 50%+ volume per Grok/Anthropic), enabling rapid scale-down if Temu/Shein slows e-comm growth. Carriers face symmetric volume hits but with higher fixed legacy infrastructure, amplifying their vulnerability (UPS/FDX combined 12x fwd P/E pricing tepid growth). Panel misses this asymmetry.
The panel agrees that Amazon will increase its internal delivery capacity, but there's disagreement on the impact on legacy carriers and Amazon's long-term strategy. While some panelists see this as a neutral or slightly negative development for UPS and FedEx, others argue it's a structural shift towards a more competitive delivery landscape. Amazon's long-term strategy is also debated, with some seeing it as a cost-transfer mechanism and others as a durable moat.
Amazon's increased internal delivery capacity could lead to cost savings and excess capacity to offer to third-party merchants, directly cannibalizing the market share of legacy carriers.
Amazon's high fixed-cost logistics capex could lead to underutilized capacity and impairment charges if e-commerce growth slows or DSP economics worsen.