Dr. Zac Rogers is an associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University's College of Business. He is a co-author of the monthly Logistics Managers’ Index.
While it's good to know where you've been, it's just as important to know where you are now and where you're going. It was this belief that led us to develop the Logistics Managers Index (LMI) four years ago. We believed that the logistics industry can provide an indicator of where the economy as a whole is heading.
When we read about the economy in business newspapers or magazines or hear about it on the radio or TV, we usually see it discussed in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is certainly the most popular method of measuring an economy's output and is usually considered an indicator of the size of an economy.
But while GDP does a good job of calculating the total value of final goods and services produced within a specific country, it has its limitations. With GDP, the emphasis is on the word "final." It measures the economic activity in the last mile or the final stage in the supply chain as it makes its way to the consumer. As a result, GDP misses the upstream activities by only measuring once right at the end of the supply chain. This underestimates the size of the activities in a supply chain or an economy.
GDP only tells what already happened in an economy, it does not give much information about what is currently happening or is likely to happen in the future. It is a lagging indicator and not a leading indicator.
To fully understand what is happening and what is likely to happen within an economy, upstream activity needs to be measured. These measures do not necessarily have to replace metrics such as GDP, but they are needed to get a full picture of current and future trends.
The Logistics Managers Index is an attempt to measure important elements of the economy throughout the supply chain in the United States. Researchers have found that inventories, transportation capacity and prices, and warehousing are elements of the economy that are found at every step in the supply chain. By looking at changes in these economic components, we can better see what is currently happening and what is likely to happen in the near future.
The LMI is a monthly cooperative research venture between several supply chain management universities and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). We collect data directly from logistics and supply chain executives having to do with trends in warehousing, transportation, and inventory across a wide spectrum of industries. The Logistics Managers' Index consists of eight metrics as well as an overall index score. When interpreting our results, any value above 50.0 indicates growth, and any value below 50.0 indicates contraction. Put simply, higher numbers=more growth, and lower numbers=more contraction.
The table in Figure 1 shows the December 2019 scores for each of the eight components of the Logistics Managers' Index (as well as the overall index score) and compares them to the numbers for November 2019.1 As you can see, six of the eight metrics show signs of growth, but many of them are moving at lower or considerably decreased rates.
In fact, the December 2019 LMI reading of 54.0 (rounded up from 53.96) was the lowest score in the 40-month history of the index (see Figure 2). It is down considerably (-9.5) points from December a year ago when the LMI's overall score was 63.5.
While we are still registering growth in the logistics industry, the rate of that growth has been slowing continuously over the past 12 months. Throughout much of 2018, the index registered high levels of growth in the low-to-mid 70s, but then growth began to taper off in late Q3/early Q4. The LMI has trended slowly downward since then, with the nine lowest scores in the history of the index being recorded since March 2019.
Overall the LMI seems to indicate that the United States is currently in an uncertain economic time. While it is possible that we are through the "soft patch" we hit last year, many chief financial officers are still concerned about a recession due to the ongoing trade wars and weakness in other parts of the world.2
Transportation's dynamism
Transportation metrics—which include transportation price, transportation capacity, and transportation utilization—have proven to be the most dynamic measures in the LMI. For most of 2018, Transportation Prices reached into the 80s and 90s, which—considering the scale only goes up to 100.0—is very high. (See Figure 3.) This lined up with the period of growth we saw in the economy. Similar to the overall index, Transportation Price began a dramatic slide starting last fall. However, in December the Transportation Price Index was up 12.0 points to 52.0, from the previous month's reading of 41.0 (which was the lowest point of any metric in the history of the index). Despite the increase, the number for December 2019 was still down sharply (-21.6) from the same time a year ago, when it sat at 74.3. While the metric shows that transportation prices in December were rising, we would actually expect prices to be doing so at a much faster pace, as it is generally a busy month for retail and delivery. It remains to be seen whether the Transportation Price metric will continue to trend upward, or if it's foray into growth in December was a one-time blip tied to the holiday season.
Meanwhile Transportation Capacity was consistent at 57.9, increasing very little (+0.5) from November's reading. However, it should be noted that it is down significantly (-23.9) from December 2018, as there was an excess of capacity built up in 2018, with record fleet orders being placed to match that year's exceptional demand for transportation. Interestingly, Transportation Utilization, the rate at which existing capacity is being used by firms, reached its lowest ever reading, and first-ever negative score, at 47.9. This is down 17.1 points from the December 2018 reading, likely because the transportation market has cooled significantly since then.
Inventory contraction
Historically, inventories have grown in Q3/Q4. However, in 2019 we saw lower than expected rates of growth from August to November and active contraction in December. This is the first negative score for our Inventory Levels metric, which is down sharply (-12.0) to 42.3. It is possible that this contraction is tied to the mass movement of goods due to the holiday season or firms burning off inventories that had been built up previously in an effort to avoid tariffs3 or some combination of the two. Figure 4 compares Inventory Levels from August through December in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Because the LMI captures both manufacturing and retail inventories, we are also likely seeing the dragging effects of the slowing manufacturing sector weighing on this metric.
Inventory Costs are also down slightly (-1.95) to 63.4. While this reading still shows signs of consistent growth, it is worth pointing out that in the previous two years, there were only two readings below 70, and September through December 2019 were all below that value. Inventory Costs are still increasing, but at a slower rate than we had previously recorded. We believe that inventory costs are increasing at a slower rate because inventory levels are growing at a slower rate and because warehouse utilization is also not increasing as quickly.
Based on these inventory metrics, there is reason to believe that companies are backing off on their inventory growth. In particular, as Figure 4 shows, companies did not build up their inventories in advance of the holiday season nearly as much as in previous years. This may be a signal that companies expect sales to be decreasing, or at least not growing.
Warehousing prices continue to rise
Contracting Inventory Levels paired with increasing Inventory Costs could be related to the increase in Warehousing Prices, which is up (+4.9) to 73.2—its highest level since March. The increasing prices are likely due to two distinct factors:
There was no growth in Warehouse Capacity in December, as it was down (-2.13) to 50.0.
Due to the increasing popularity of same- and next-day delivery, more facilities are being located close to large population centers in what tends to be more expensive real estate.
In other words, warehouses are not being built quickly enough to keep up with growing demand, and the facilities that are the most attractive at the moment tend to be the most expensive. Finally, Warehouse Utilization, or the rate at which existing warehouse space is being used by firms, is somewhat consistent (-0.5), reading in at 60.0.
Slowing growth
The December LMI reading marks two years and 16 consecutive readings indicating growth in the logistics industry. However, it also marks 12 consecutive months of declining rates of growth. As the overall LMI metric currently sits at the lowest point in its 40-month history, it clearly indicates a continued trend of slowing yet steady growth in the logistics industry.
It is important to note that growth rates will likely vary by industry. The LMI is unique in that it captures both consumer and manufacturing activity. This seems to align with recent reports of growth in consumer sentiment and spending and a slowdown in manufacturing.4 Logistics often functions as a leading indicator, helping us to know where the economy is heading. The slow, steady growth of metrics tracked in the LMI likely portends slow, if unspectacular, growth in 2020.
1. For a more comprehensive discussion of the December 2019 report, access the PDF version of the report here: https://www.the-lmi.com/december-2019-logistics-managers-index.html. The January 2020 report is available at https://www.the-lmi.com/january-2020-logistics-index-report.html.
Companies in every sector are converting assets from fossil fuel to electric power in their push to reach net-zero energy targets and to reduce costs along the way, but to truly accelerate those efforts, they also need to improve electric energy efficiency, according to a study from technology consulting firm ABI Research.
In fact, boosting that efficiency could contribute fully 25% of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero. And the pursuit of that goal will drive aggregated global investments in energy efficiency technologies to grow from $106 Billion in 2024 to $153 Billion in 2030, ABI said today in a report titled “The Role of Energy Efficiency in Reaching Net Zero Targets for Enterprises and Industries.”
ABI’s report divided the range of energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies and equipment into three industrial categories:
Commercial Buildings – Network Lighting Control (NLC) and occupancy sensing for automated lighting and heating; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based energy management; heat-pumps and energy-efficient HVAC equipment; insulation technologies
Manufacturing Plants – Energy digital twins, factory automation, manufacturing process design and optimization software (PLM, MES, simulation); Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs); energy efficient electric motors (compressors, fans, pumps)
“Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP) continue to insist on the importance of energy efficiency,” Dominique Bonte, VP of End Markets and Verticals at ABI Research, said in a release. “At COP 29 in Dubai, it was agreed to commit to collectively double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030, following recommendations from the IEA. This complements the EU’s Energy Efficiency First (EE1) Framework and the U.S. 2022 Inflation Reduction Act in which US$86 billion was earmarked for energy efficiency actions.”
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded in November, continuing a steady growth pattern that began earlier this year and signaling a return to seasonality after several years of fluctuating conditions, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index report (LMI), released today.
The November LMI registered 58.4, down slightly from October’s reading of 58.9, which was the highest level in two years. The LMI is a monthly gauge of business conditions across warehousing and logistics markets; a reading above 50 indicates growth and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
“The overall index has been very consistent in the past three months, with readings of 58.6, 58.9, and 58.4,” LMI analyst Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University, wrote in the November LMI report. “This plateau is slightly higher than a similar plateau of consistency earlier in the year when May to August saw four readings between 55.3 and 56.4. Seasonally speaking, it is consistent that this later year run of readings would be the highest all year.”
Separately, Rogers said the end-of-year growth reflects the return to a healthy holiday peak, which started when inventory levels expanded in late summer and early fall as retailers began stocking up to meet consumer demand. Pandemic-driven shifts in consumer buying behavior, inflation, and economic uncertainty contributed to volatile peak season conditions over the past four years, with the LMI swinging from record-high growth in late 2020 and 2021 to slower growth in 2022 and contraction in 2023.
“The LMI contracted at this time a year ago, so basically [there was] no peak season,” Rogers said, citing inflation as a drag on demand. “To have a normal November … [really] for the first time in five years, justifies what we’ve seen all these companies doing—building up inventory in a sustainable, seasonal way.
“Based on what we’re seeing, a lot of supply chains called it right and were ready for healthy holiday season, so far.”
The LMI has remained in the mid to high 50s range since January—with the exception of April, when the index dipped to 52.9—signaling strong and consistent demand for warehousing and transportation services.
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
"After several years of mitigating inflation, disruption, supply shocks, conflicts, and uncertainty, we are currently in a relative period of calm," John Paitek, vice president, GEP, said in a release. "But it is very much the calm before the coming storm. This report provides procurement and supply chain leaders with a prescriptive guide to weathering the gale force headwinds of protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, regulatory pressures, uncertainty, and the AI revolution that we will face in 2025."
A report from the company released today offers predictions and strategies for the upcoming year, organized into six major predictions in GEP’s “Outlook 2025: Procurement & Supply Chain.”
Advanced AI agents will play a key role in demand forecasting, risk monitoring, and supply chain optimization, shifting procurement's mandate from tactical to strategic. Companies should invest in the technology now to to streamline processes and enhance decision-making.
Expanded value metrics will drive decisions, as success will be measured by resilience, sustainability, and compliance… not just cost efficiency. Companies should communicate value beyond cost savings to stakeholders, and develop new KPIs.
Increasing regulatory demands will necessitate heightened supply chain transparency and accountability. So companies should strengthen supplier audits, adopt ESG tracking tools, and integrate compliance into strategic procurement decisions.
Widening tariffs and trade restrictions will force companies to reassess total cost of ownership (TCO) metrics to include geopolitical and environmental risks, as nearshoring and friendshoring attempt to balance resilience with cost.
Rising energy costs and regulatory demands will accelerate the shift to sustainable operations, pushing companies to invest in renewable energy and redesign supply chains to align with ESG commitments.
New tariffs could drive prices higher, just as inflation has come under control and interest rates are returning to near-zero levels. That means companies must continue to secure cost savings as their primary responsibility.
Specifically, 48% of respondents identified rising tariffs and trade barriers as their top concern, followed by supply chain disruptions at 45% and geopolitical instability at 41%. Moreover, tariffs and trade barriers ranked as the priority issue regardless of company size, as respondents at companies with less than 250 employees, 251-500, 501-1,000, 1,001-50,000 and 50,000+ employees all cited it as the most significant issue they are currently facing.
“Evolving tariffs and trade policies are one of a number of complex issues requiring organizations to build more resilience into their supply chains through compliance, technology and strategic planning,” Jackson Wood, Director, Industry Strategy at Descartes, said in a release. “With the potential for the incoming U.S. administration to impose new and additional tariffs on a wide variety of goods and countries of origin, U.S. importers may need to significantly re-engineer their sourcing strategies to mitigate potentially higher costs.”
Freight transportation providers and maritime port operators are bracing for rough business impacts if the incoming Trump Administration follows through on its pledge to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on China, analysts say.
Industry contacts say they fear that such heavy fees could prompt importers to “pull forward” a massive surge of goods before the new administration is seated on January 20, and then quickly cut back again once the hefty new fees are instituted, according to a report from TD Cowen.
As a measure of the potential economic impact of that uncertain scenario, transport company stocks were mostly trading down yesterday following Donald Trump’s social media post on Monday night announcing the proposed new policy, TD Cowen said in a note to investors.
But an alternative impact of the tariff jump could be that it doesn’t happen at all, but is merely a threat intended to force other nations to the table to strike new deals on trade, immigration, or drug smuggling. “Trump is perfectly comfortable being a policy paradox and pushing competing policies (and people); this ‘chaos premium’ only increases his leverage in negotiations,” the firm said.
However, if that truly is the new administration’s strategy, it could backfire by sparking a tit-for-tat trade war that includes retaliatory tariffs by other countries on U.S. exports, other analysts said. “The additional tariffs on China that the incoming US administration plans to impose will add to restrictions on China-made products, driving up their prices and fueling an already-under-way surge in efforts to beat the tariffs by importing products before the inauguration,” Andrei Quinn-Barabanov, Senior Director – Supplier Risk Management solutions at Moody’s, said in a statement. “The Mexico and Canada tariffs may be an invitation to negotiations with the U.S. on immigration and other issues. If implemented, they would also be challenging to maintain, because the two nations can threaten the U.S. with significant retaliation and because of a likely pressure from the American business community that would be greatly affected by the costs and supply chain obstacles resulting from the tariffs.”
New tariffs could also damage sensitive supply chains by triggering unintended consequences, according to a report by Matt Lekstutis, Director at Efficio, a global procurement and supply chain procurement consultancy. “While ultimate tariff policy will likely be implemented to achieve specific US re-industrialization and other political objectives, the responses of various nations, companies and trading partners is not easily predicted and companies that even have little or no exposure to Mexico, China or Canada could be impacted. New tariffs may disrupt supply chains dependent on just in time deliveries as they adjust to new trade flows. This could affect all industries dependent on distribution and logistics providers and result in supply shortages,” Lekstutis said.