Manufacturers, merchant wholesalers, and retailers have been facing an extremely challenging economic and financial environment over the past few years. Key among their concerns: an unexpected decline in sales combined with an increase in the inventories-to-sales ratio. While this situation is typical during a recession, the nature of both of these conditions was qualitatively different than it was for previous post-World War II recessions.
An unexpected sales decline in combination with an increase in the inventories-to-sales ratio typically implies an unexpected inventory accumulation and a reduction in demand. This stems from the inability of businesses to adjust inventory levels and prices. ("Unexpected" sales or inventories-to-sales ratios are defined as the difference between the forecast and the actual.)
It's important to note that different types of companies have different capacities for dealing with unexpected inventory accumulations. Wholesalers and retailers usually are better able to manage them because they can initiate the cancellation of orders, implement price discounting, and get better and faster feedback from their customers. Manufacturers, on the other hand, have to be concerned about production cycles and assembly lines and therefore manage two different types of inventories: input inventories (work-in-progress, raw materials, and intermediate goods) and finished goods.
A different kind of recession
By examining the inventory and sales levels over the past 14 years, we can see how the two most recent recessions (2001 and 2007) differed from one another in terms of which types of business were affected as well as the severity of the downturn.
The 2001 recession (March 2001 through November 2001), also known as the "Dot-Com Recession," was driven by a downturn in business spending rather than by a drop in housing or consumer spending. Business investment adjusted for inflation suffered significant declines, however housing starts hardly moved and personal spending and retail sales, when adjusted for inflation, actually increased.
In the months leading into the 2001 recession, retail sales growth slowed and wholesale sales fell a bit, but manufacturing sales saw a relatively sharp decline as shown in Figure 1. This decline caused greater inventory accumulation (Figure 2) and a sudden rise in the inventoriesto- sales ratios (Figure 3). While manufacturing sales adjusted for inflation just barely surpassed its pre-2001 recession peak, wholesale sales, retail sales, and imports from China kept chugging along.
In contrast, the "Great Recession" (December 2007 through June 2009) and the subsequent anemic recovery have dramatically affected almost every aspect of the U.S. economy. This past recession was much more severe and qualitatively different than the previous post-World War II recessions. The impact on manufacturers was devastating, causing an almost 20-percent decline in real sales and an unprecedented spike in the inventories-to-sales ratio, as seen in Figures 1 and 3, respectively. While retailers and wholesalers fared relatively "better" leading up to and during the Great Recession, they did experience an approximate 12- percent decline in sales from peak to trough (see Figure 1). But they managed to reduce their inventory holdings through heavy price discounting and canceling orders of Chinese imports.
How strong a recovery?
Since the official end of the Great Recession in June 2009, the economic recovery has been relatively anemic by historical standards, with significant weaknesses in such key sectors of the economy as housing and household net worth. It has taken three years for retail sales and personal spending adjusted for inflation to finally surpass their previous peaks. Real wholesale sales are still slightly below their pre-Great Recession peak, while the manufacturing sector is struggling to make a full recovery.
The manufacturing recovery would be even weaker if not for a substantial increase in U.S. exports due to relatively strong growth in some emerging markets— namely China, India, and Brazil—and a weak U.S. dollar. In addition, business capital equipment and software spending has accelerated during the recovery period as businesses with healthy balance sheets focused on improving both productivity and inventory management without increasing payrolls.
What does all this mean for the near future? Currently inventories are lean, and as a result, we expect to see them increase. There should be a big bounce-back in automobile inventories—and therefore manufacturing—once the supply chain disruptions caused by the mid-March earthquake in Japan abate. We expect manufacturing inventory levels to surpass their Quarter 1, 2008 peak by early 2012.
Wholesale inventories will benefit from the same type of drivers as manufacturing inventories: exports, business equipment formation (capacity expansion), and replenishment. However, a significant portion of wholesale sales and inventory is targeted to the retail side of the economy, which has been showing considerable weakness recently.
The consumer side of the U.S. economy has softened considerably in the first half of 2011, with weakening retail sales growth and depressed levels of consumer confidence. Retail inventories are ultra-thin, and we expect the inventories-to-sales ratio to continue on its downward path due to technological innovations that help companies better match supply with demand together with increased efficiency in inventory management. The outlook for retail inventories remains relatively flat for the next couple of quarters with a slight pickup thereafter. We do not expect retail inventories to surpass their pre-Great Recession peak anytime soon since consumer spending has been very lackluster and the recent payroll numbers are not very promising.
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.