FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, September 1st, 2026
Contact:
Zac Rogers, Ph.D.
Logistics Manager’s Index Analyst
Associate Professor, Supply Chain Management
Department of Management
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
(970) 491-0890
E-mail: [email protected]
August 2026 Logistics Manager’s Index Report®
LMI® at 66.6
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Transportation Utilization and Transportation Prices
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels, Warehousing Utilization, and Warehousing Prices
Transportation Capacity is CONTRACTING
LMI® at 66.6
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Transportation Utilization and Transportation Prices
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels, Warehousing Utilization, and Warehousing Prices
Transportation Capacity is CONTRACTING
(Fort Collins, CO) —The August Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 66.6, down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 68.9 and 4.4 points lower than the recent four-year peak of 71.1 observed in June. As was the case last month, the slowdown in expansion stems slower growth Inventory Levels, which are down (-2.2) to 52.8 which is close to no movement. The slowdown in inventory buildup is primarily driven Upstream, where respondents actually reported mild contraction at 49.0. Despite the slowdown in Inventory Levels, expansion in Inventory Costs continue apace, up (+1.6) to 78.6, which is their second-fastest rate of expansion in 12 months. Inventory Cost expansion is now outstripping the growth rate in Inventory Levels by 25.8 points, which is nearly double to average delta of 13.1 points between these two metrics. We observe similar dynamics in warehousing and transportation. Warehousing Capacity moved up (+7.2) into expansion at 53.5. Despite Warehousing Capacity increasing at its fastest rate of expansion all year, Warehousing Prices continue to expand rapidly (-0.5) at 75.0, which represents a very robust rate of growth. Transportation Capacity is still contracting at 40.0, but at a much slower rate (+11.6) than last month’s 28.4, which is the second-lowest reading ever for any LMI metric. Despite this, Transportation Price expansion is up (+3.1) to 90.0, making it four out of the last five months that this metric has expanded at 90.0 or above – which is quite rare for a scale that only goes up to 100.0. Essentially, this month’s report paints a picture of logistics costs that seem to be rapidly increasing no matter what the underlying situation is.
University, Colorado State University, Florida Atlantic University, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, and in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) issued this report today.
Results Overview
The LMI score is a combination of eight unique components that make up the logistics industry, including: Inventory Levels and Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Utilization, and Prices, and Transportation Capacity, Utilization, and Prices. The LMI is calculated using a diffusion index, in which any reading above 50.0 indicates that logistics is expanding; a reading below 50.0 is indicative of a shrinking logistics industry. The latest results of the LMI summarize the responses of supply chain professionals collected in August 2026.
The August LMI read in at 66.6, which is down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 68.9 and marks a second consecutive month of slowing expansion after June’s reading of 71.1, which was the fastest rate of expansion since March of 2022. This month’s reading is well above the all-time average of 61.7. The major difference between August and readings from earlier this summer is that expansion in inventories has slowed, but logistics cost expansion remains high. The chart below shows expansion in Aggregate Logistics Costs, which is an aggregation of Inventory Costs, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Costs and runs on a scale from 0-300 with 150 being “breakeven” level. The gray line shows movements in aggregate costs from January 2024 to August 2026. The movements in aggregate costs display a step-wise trend. Average cost expansion from January 2024 to March 2025 (dashed red line) was 193.8. The dashed blue line shows average cost expansion from April 2024 to February 2025. This is the period after the implementation of the first wave of tariffs but before the invasion of Iran. Average aggregate cost growth during this period is 204.5, which is statistically significantly higher than the pre-tariff period. However, when we really see aggregate costs takeoff is after the start of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran in March 2026 (the conflict started in the last week of February, so readings begin to stream in in March). Aggregate Logistics Costs from March to August in 2026 average 241.9, which is another statistically significant step up. Generally, aggregate costs exceeding 240.0 have led to increased levels of supply-driven inflation. The San Francisco Federal Reserve’s breakout of the sources of inflation points to increased supply-driven inflation (outstripping inflation from demand) in July[1].
University, Colorado State University, Florida Atlantic University, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, and in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) issued this report today.
Results Overview
The LMI score is a combination of eight unique components that make up the logistics industry, including: Inventory Levels and Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Utilization, and Prices, and Transportation Capacity, Utilization, and Prices. The LMI is calculated using a diffusion index, in which any reading above 50.0 indicates that logistics is expanding; a reading below 50.0 is indicative of a shrinking logistics industry. The latest results of the LMI summarize the responses of supply chain professionals collected in August 2026.
The August LMI read in at 66.6, which is down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 68.9 and marks a second consecutive month of slowing expansion after June’s reading of 71.1, which was the fastest rate of expansion since March of 2022. This month’s reading is well above the all-time average of 61.7. The major difference between August and readings from earlier this summer is that expansion in inventories has slowed, but logistics cost expansion remains high. The chart below shows expansion in Aggregate Logistics Costs, which is an aggregation of Inventory Costs, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Costs and runs on a scale from 0-300 with 150 being “breakeven” level. The gray line shows movements in aggregate costs from January 2024 to August 2026. The movements in aggregate costs display a step-wise trend. Average cost expansion from January 2024 to March 2025 (dashed red line) was 193.8. The dashed blue line shows average cost expansion from April 2024 to February 2025. This is the period after the implementation of the first wave of tariffs but before the invasion of Iran. Average aggregate cost growth during this period is 204.5, which is statistically significantly higher than the pre-tariff period. However, when we really see aggregate costs takeoff is after the start of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran in March 2026 (the conflict started in the last week of February, so readings begin to stream in in March). Aggregate Logistics Costs from March to August in 2026 average 241.9, which is another statistically significant step up. Generally, aggregate costs exceeding 240.0 have led to increased levels of supply-driven inflation. The San Francisco Federal Reserve’s breakout of the sources of inflation points to increased supply-driven inflation (outstripping inflation from demand) in July[1].
These high costs are not only putting significant pressure on supply chains, but on consumers as well. The University of Michigan’s Survey of consumers was down 6.3% to 51.7 in August. This breaks a recent streak of upward movements as consumers report frustration with the cost of living. Consumer specifically called out the price of gas, lower expectations for future business conditions, and continued high expectation for year-ahead inflation at 4.2%[2]. This sentiment reflects the continued increase in consumer prices, which were up 0.1% at a seasonally adjusted rate in July. The July increase was driven by inflated prices in utilities, vehicles, and – similar to last month’s LMI – transportation services. The increase was tempered somewhat by deep declines in gasoline and fuel oil in July[3]. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely any downward pressure will be applied from fuel this month, as average U.S. diesel prices read in at $5.652 per gallon in the last week of August. This reading is the sixth-highest of all time in the U.S. and is up 23.5% from the low of $4.58 per gallon reached in early July when hostilities between the U.S. and Iran seemed to be cooling[4].
The impact of the increasing cost of fuel post-Iran is likely one of the factors in the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) index running a bit hotter than the CPI in July, as core inflation was up 0.2% month-over-month and 3.3% year-over-year. Unfortunately, inflation has outpaced income growth, which is up only 3.2% year-over-year[5]. Relative increasing costs may be what pushed consumer spending down 0.6% month-over-month in July, which was is the fastest rate of decrease since May 2025 which was early on in the current tariff regime[6].
In addition to persistent inflation, we observe the labor market slowing in July, as the U.S. shed 23,000 jobs. This comes on the heels of May and June’s reports being revised down by 103,000 to 129,000 and 57,000 respectively[7]. The issues with the job market further complicate issues for the Federal Reserve. The Fed is now dealing with both persistent inflation and the potential of a less steady job market. Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh hinted at potential interest rate increases in the coming months[8]. The market seemed to receive this news well. The bond market seemed encouraged by the apparent show of independence by the Fed and there was minimal downward movement in the major stock indices[9].
The escalation of the trade war between the U.S. and Canada is unlikely to help matters. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, $67.9 billion of goods crossed between the U.S. and Canada in June[10]. The proposed 50% tariff on our second-largest trade partner would have significant cost impacts on several industries, with construction, auto manufacturing, and energy costs being hit particularly hard. There is hope that these tariffs may be short-lived negotiating tactics. However, recent statements from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford suggests that some Canadian counter-tariffs and export restrictions may be politically targeted and may therefore stretch on at least until the U.S. midterms in November[11].
Inventory Costs continued their streak of robust expansion in August, increasing (+1.6) to 78.6, which is their second-highest level in the last 12 months. These high costs come even as Inventory Level expansion slows (-2.2) to 52.8, which is only marginally above the breakeven point of 50.0. The 25.8-point spread between these two metrics is a continuation of an ongoing trend of the increasing relative cost of inventories under the current tariff regime. This trend is highlighted in the chart below, which displays the difference between Inventory Costs and Inventory Levels over the last two years. In the 15 months from January 2024 to March 2025 (orange dashed line) – which was the last month before the implementation of Liberation Day tariffs, Inventory Costs were 11.9 points higher than Inventory Levels on average. This shifted quickly and dramatically with the implementation of tariffs, as Inventory Costs have been 21.0 points higher on average than Inventory Levels in the 17 months since Liberation Day. This difference is highly statistically significant (p=0.0000031).
The impact of the increasing cost of fuel post-Iran is likely one of the factors in the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) index running a bit hotter than the CPI in July, as core inflation was up 0.2% month-over-month and 3.3% year-over-year. Unfortunately, inflation has outpaced income growth, which is up only 3.2% year-over-year[5]. Relative increasing costs may be what pushed consumer spending down 0.6% month-over-month in July, which was is the fastest rate of decrease since May 2025 which was early on in the current tariff regime[6].
In addition to persistent inflation, we observe the labor market slowing in July, as the U.S. shed 23,000 jobs. This comes on the heels of May and June’s reports being revised down by 103,000 to 129,000 and 57,000 respectively[7]. The issues with the job market further complicate issues for the Federal Reserve. The Fed is now dealing with both persistent inflation and the potential of a less steady job market. Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh hinted at potential interest rate increases in the coming months[8]. The market seemed to receive this news well. The bond market seemed encouraged by the apparent show of independence by the Fed and there was minimal downward movement in the major stock indices[9].
The escalation of the trade war between the U.S. and Canada is unlikely to help matters. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, $67.9 billion of goods crossed between the U.S. and Canada in June[10]. The proposed 50% tariff on our second-largest trade partner would have significant cost impacts on several industries, with construction, auto manufacturing, and energy costs being hit particularly hard. There is hope that these tariffs may be short-lived negotiating tactics. However, recent statements from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford suggests that some Canadian counter-tariffs and export restrictions may be politically targeted and may therefore stretch on at least until the U.S. midterms in November[11].
Inventory Costs continued their streak of robust expansion in August, increasing (+1.6) to 78.6, which is their second-highest level in the last 12 months. These high costs come even as Inventory Level expansion slows (-2.2) to 52.8, which is only marginally above the breakeven point of 50.0. The 25.8-point spread between these two metrics is a continuation of an ongoing trend of the increasing relative cost of inventories under the current tariff regime. This trend is highlighted in the chart below, which displays the difference between Inventory Costs and Inventory Levels over the last two years. In the 15 months from January 2024 to March 2025 (orange dashed line) – which was the last month before the implementation of Liberation Day tariffs, Inventory Costs were 11.9 points higher than Inventory Levels on average. This shifted quickly and dramatically with the implementation of tariffs, as Inventory Costs have been 21.0 points higher on average than Inventory Levels in the 17 months since Liberation Day. This difference is highly statistically significant (p=0.0000031).
Essentially, inventories have continually gotten more expensive on a relative basis over the last year and a half. This has increased the cost load throughout supply chains and seems to be impacting consumers. As mentioned above, consumer spending dropped 0.6% in July. Beyond the slowdown in spending, it seems that the composition of that spending has shifted as well with some cheaper goods showing growth, and more expensive items slowing down. On the low-cost side, Dollar General and Dollar Tree have both reported increased sales increases of 3.5% and 3.7% respectively. The increases seem to be coming from increased cost-consciousness from consumers attempting to navigate inflation[12]. Walmart and Target reported strong quarters as well, with the former bolstered by ecommerce[13], the latter by back-to-school shopping[14], and both by tariff refunds. Conversely, auto dealerships are relying more on the sale of parts and services as the sales of vehicles has slowed down[15]. Tractor Supply epitomizes this k-shaped split, as CFO Kurt Barton reported that while sales of everyday staples like feed remain constant, the movement of big-ticket items like riding mowers is down, which has led to a shift in their sourcing strategy[16]. The apparent strength of lower-cost consumer staples may be what is driving the split in Inventory Levels between the slight contraction (49.0) of Upstream firms and the sudden growth (61.9) for Downstream firms. The expansion in Downstream Inventory Levels continues the back-and-forth pattern that has been reported by retailers. This reading, which comes on the heels of reported contraction at 46.3 in July, may indicate that retailers are building inventories back up for Q4 after running them down during the back-to-school season. The start-stop pattern is likely a reaction to the high relative costs of inventories. It seems that earlier in the year, retailers were waiting until the last minute to bring inventories forward in an attempt to minimize holding costs. It will be interesting to see if the reigniting of tariffs will have an impact on this.
For now, it appears that imports will continue to roll in, as volumes are projected to be up significantly at the Port of Los Angeles in late August and early September, with weekly projected TEU volumes all well over 100,000 per week and up by double digits as a percentage year-over-year[17]. Interestingly, TEU bookings from the U.S. to China were down 4% year-over-year in early August. Despite this, the cost to ship containers internationally is up significantly in August[18]. For Upstream respondents, this dip to near breakeven Inventory Levels was somewhat expected. Manufacturers had been indicating that inventories were being pulled ahead early to avoid tariffs and potential component shortages. It will be interesting to observe if they remain down through the rest of 2026.
Whatever directions inventories go in, it does appear that there will be additional storage space coming online to hold them. Warehousing Capacity was back up (+7.2) to expansion at 53.5. This is only the second time in the last six months that this metric has been in expansionary territory and is the highest reading since December of last year when inventories were run down during the holiday shopping season. The uptick in available space was driven by changes late in the month, as Warehousing Capacity went from contraction at 46.2 in the first half of August to expansion at 57.6 in the second half of the month. This increase is consistent with the latest update from the JLL Real Estate Transparency Index, whose investment in industrial real estate was up significantly in the second quarter of 2026. Take-up for industrial real estate used for logistics is up 46% year-over-year. Development continues to lag behind absorption, highlighting the continued tightness in the warehousing and distribution markets[19]. Much of this space will likely be filled with automation. North American companies ordered approximately 18,000 robots through the first half of 2026. This is on pace with the 36,700 bots that were ordered in 2025 and is largely being driven be ecommerce and distribution[20]. One of the benefits of automation is the scalability relative to human labor. Warehousing labor has been tight as of late and wages have continually increased. Automation that can scale up and down more easily helps firms to adjust more quickly to economic uncertainty.
Likely as a result of the increased capacity we saw Warehousing Utilization drop (-6.5) to 59.6, which is the slowest rate of expansion for this metric since January. The effect of additional capacity has been less pronounced for Warehousing Prices, which expanded slightly slower (-0.5) but at a still very high rate of 75.0. This growth was driven most by larger firms, who reported significantly higher rates of Warehousing Prices expansion at 81.0 than smaller respondents at (a still high) 70.9. This is a similar dynamic to what we see in inventories, where cost is not necessarily growth and suggests that the relative price of warehousing continues to grow. The growth in price is predicted to continue over the next year, particularly Upstream, where Warehousing Prices are expected to expand at 82.7, contrasting with expansion of 71.4 Downstream. The projected differential in price growth is likely tied to the projected difference in Warehousing Capacity, which is expected to be much tighter Upstream (51.0) than Downstream (66.7).
The capacity-price mismatch extends into our transportation metrics as well. Transportation Capacity continued to contract in August, but the reading of 40.0 is significantly slower (+11.6) than the 28.4 from July, which was the second-lowest reading in the history of the index. Evidence that more capacity is coming online was seen in the 9,700 transportation and warehousing jobs were added in July, representing a sharp bounce back from the 11,400 positions that were lost in June[21]. The uptick in labor may soon be supplemented by the continuing creep of automation, with Amazon announcing a plan to offer drone delivery across 500 cities by the end of the year through their Prime Air program. Prime Air projects that they will make 1 million deliveries in 2026, representing significant expansion[22]. Increasing automation in the last mile, as well as the relative paucity of labor for long-haul freight, may be factors behind the projected disparity in future Transportation Capacity, where Upstream firms are predicting contraction at 38.6, while their Downstream counterparts project slight expansion at 54.5.
Upstream and Downstream firms differ on their future projections for Transportation Utilization as well, with Upstream firms (unsurprisingly given the difference in projected capacity) expecting significantly faster expansion at 77.6 than their Downstream counterparts at 56.8. Upstream firms clearly drove overall Transportation Utilization up (+5.6) to 70.6, which is only the second time this metric has been above 70.0 and into robust levels of expansion since the fall of 2021. Transportation Prices are back up (+3.1) as well to 90.0. We had speculated that July’s relative reprieve may have been a product of the temporary decrease in fuel prices through the first few weeks of the month. Unfortunately, this reprieve seems to be over, as the last week of August saw average U.S. diesel prices read in at $5.652 per gallon – up 23.5% from mid-July[23] Oil prices are not only being impacted by the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia is increasingly relying on pipelines to ship oil to the Red Sea and Suez Canal. This change was necessitated by the reemergence of attacks by Houthi Rebels on the Bab al-Mandab Strait has made shipping through the Southern Red Sea difficult[24]. At the same time, analysts estimate that 40 percent of Russian refining capacity has been reduced due to Ukrainian drone strikes. When taken together with the now six-month closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the availability of oil in global markets has taken a significant hit. The U.S. has made up for some of this by running refineries at 97 percent capacity, which is up (+28%) significantly year-over-year[25]. It is unclear how the announced deal between the governments of the U.S. and Venezuela that will give the U.S. control of Venezuela’s estimated 65 billion barrels of oil reserves. It is unclear how this arrangement will work or what additional approvals need to happen[26].
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index are 69.6, which is down slightly (-0.9) from July’s future prediction of 70.5 and only a point lower than June’s future prediction of 70.6, which marks a notable run of consistency in predictions. Respondents are rosier about the possibility of more Warehousing Capacity coming online than they were last month, now predicting mild expansion (55.6) in the place of July’s prediction of contraction (49.5). As one would expect given increased capacity, Warehousing Utilization is expected to slow slightly (-3.4) to a still robust 70.8. Interestingly, Warehousing Prices are predicted to expand more quickly (+2.8) at 79.2, suggesting that the relative cost of storage will continue to increase even if more capacity comes online. We see a similar dynamic in freight, where Transportation Capacity is predicted to decrease at a slightly slower (+2.7) rate of 43.0 while Transportation Price expansion slows (-3.1) but remains very elevated at 86.1. As will be discussed below, these predicted increasing costs are largely driven by Upstream firms, who seem to be anticipating significant logistics cost growth over the next year.
For now, it appears that imports will continue to roll in, as volumes are projected to be up significantly at the Port of Los Angeles in late August and early September, with weekly projected TEU volumes all well over 100,000 per week and up by double digits as a percentage year-over-year[17]. Interestingly, TEU bookings from the U.S. to China were down 4% year-over-year in early August. Despite this, the cost to ship containers internationally is up significantly in August[18]. For Upstream respondents, this dip to near breakeven Inventory Levels was somewhat expected. Manufacturers had been indicating that inventories were being pulled ahead early to avoid tariffs and potential component shortages. It will be interesting to observe if they remain down through the rest of 2026.
Whatever directions inventories go in, it does appear that there will be additional storage space coming online to hold them. Warehousing Capacity was back up (+7.2) to expansion at 53.5. This is only the second time in the last six months that this metric has been in expansionary territory and is the highest reading since December of last year when inventories were run down during the holiday shopping season. The uptick in available space was driven by changes late in the month, as Warehousing Capacity went from contraction at 46.2 in the first half of August to expansion at 57.6 in the second half of the month. This increase is consistent with the latest update from the JLL Real Estate Transparency Index, whose investment in industrial real estate was up significantly in the second quarter of 2026. Take-up for industrial real estate used for logistics is up 46% year-over-year. Development continues to lag behind absorption, highlighting the continued tightness in the warehousing and distribution markets[19]. Much of this space will likely be filled with automation. North American companies ordered approximately 18,000 robots through the first half of 2026. This is on pace with the 36,700 bots that were ordered in 2025 and is largely being driven be ecommerce and distribution[20]. One of the benefits of automation is the scalability relative to human labor. Warehousing labor has been tight as of late and wages have continually increased. Automation that can scale up and down more easily helps firms to adjust more quickly to economic uncertainty.
Likely as a result of the increased capacity we saw Warehousing Utilization drop (-6.5) to 59.6, which is the slowest rate of expansion for this metric since January. The effect of additional capacity has been less pronounced for Warehousing Prices, which expanded slightly slower (-0.5) but at a still very high rate of 75.0. This growth was driven most by larger firms, who reported significantly higher rates of Warehousing Prices expansion at 81.0 than smaller respondents at (a still high) 70.9. This is a similar dynamic to what we see in inventories, where cost is not necessarily growth and suggests that the relative price of warehousing continues to grow. The growth in price is predicted to continue over the next year, particularly Upstream, where Warehousing Prices are expected to expand at 82.7, contrasting with expansion of 71.4 Downstream. The projected differential in price growth is likely tied to the projected difference in Warehousing Capacity, which is expected to be much tighter Upstream (51.0) than Downstream (66.7).
The capacity-price mismatch extends into our transportation metrics as well. Transportation Capacity continued to contract in August, but the reading of 40.0 is significantly slower (+11.6) than the 28.4 from July, which was the second-lowest reading in the history of the index. Evidence that more capacity is coming online was seen in the 9,700 transportation and warehousing jobs were added in July, representing a sharp bounce back from the 11,400 positions that were lost in June[21]. The uptick in labor may soon be supplemented by the continuing creep of automation, with Amazon announcing a plan to offer drone delivery across 500 cities by the end of the year through their Prime Air program. Prime Air projects that they will make 1 million deliveries in 2026, representing significant expansion[22]. Increasing automation in the last mile, as well as the relative paucity of labor for long-haul freight, may be factors behind the projected disparity in future Transportation Capacity, where Upstream firms are predicting contraction at 38.6, while their Downstream counterparts project slight expansion at 54.5.
Upstream and Downstream firms differ on their future projections for Transportation Utilization as well, with Upstream firms (unsurprisingly given the difference in projected capacity) expecting significantly faster expansion at 77.6 than their Downstream counterparts at 56.8. Upstream firms clearly drove overall Transportation Utilization up (+5.6) to 70.6, which is only the second time this metric has been above 70.0 and into robust levels of expansion since the fall of 2021. Transportation Prices are back up (+3.1) as well to 90.0. We had speculated that July’s relative reprieve may have been a product of the temporary decrease in fuel prices through the first few weeks of the month. Unfortunately, this reprieve seems to be over, as the last week of August saw average U.S. diesel prices read in at $5.652 per gallon – up 23.5% from mid-July[23] Oil prices are not only being impacted by the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia is increasingly relying on pipelines to ship oil to the Red Sea and Suez Canal. This change was necessitated by the reemergence of attacks by Houthi Rebels on the Bab al-Mandab Strait has made shipping through the Southern Red Sea difficult[24]. At the same time, analysts estimate that 40 percent of Russian refining capacity has been reduced due to Ukrainian drone strikes. When taken together with the now six-month closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the availability of oil in global markets has taken a significant hit. The U.S. has made up for some of this by running refineries at 97 percent capacity, which is up (+28%) significantly year-over-year[25]. It is unclear how the announced deal between the governments of the U.S. and Venezuela that will give the U.S. control of Venezuela’s estimated 65 billion barrels of oil reserves. It is unclear how this arrangement will work or what additional approvals need to happen[26].
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index are 69.6, which is down slightly (-0.9) from July’s future prediction of 70.5 and only a point lower than June’s future prediction of 70.6, which marks a notable run of consistency in predictions. Respondents are rosier about the possibility of more Warehousing Capacity coming online than they were last month, now predicting mild expansion (55.6) in the place of July’s prediction of contraction (49.5). As one would expect given increased capacity, Warehousing Utilization is expected to slow slightly (-3.4) to a still robust 70.8. Interestingly, Warehousing Prices are predicted to expand more quickly (+2.8) at 79.2, suggesting that the relative cost of storage will continue to increase even if more capacity comes online. We see a similar dynamic in freight, where Transportation Capacity is predicted to decrease at a slightly slower (+2.7) rate of 43.0 while Transportation Price expansion slows (-3.1) but remains very elevated at 86.1. As will be discussed below, these predicted increasing costs are largely driven by Upstream firms, who seem to be anticipating significant logistics cost growth over the next year.
This month, we do not observe any statistical differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents. However, we do see a few interesting differences. Chief among these is the difference in Inventory Levels, which are contracting mildly (49.0) Upstream while increasing robustly Downstream. This is essentially a reverse of what we observed in July, when Upstream Inventory Levels were increasing (59.0) and Downstream was contracting (46.3). This swing may be indicative of retailers replenishing inventories as they transition from back-to-school sales to the Q4 peak season. Downstream respondents also saw slightly higher Inventory Costs (83.3 to 76.5) and tighter Warehousing Capacity (50.0 to 54.9) as a result of this buildup. Despite this, Upstream firms reported slightly faster expansion in Warehousing Prices (77.5 to 69.0) which may reflect the larger stocks of inventories they built up throughout the spring and summer.
This month, we do not observe any statistical differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents. However, we do see a few interesting differences. Chief among these is the difference in Inventory Levels, which are contracting mildly (49.0) Upstream while increasing robustly Downstream. This is essentially a reverse of what we observed in July, when Upstream Inventory Levels were increasing (59.0) and Downstream was contracting (46.3). This swing may be indicative of retailers replenishing inventories as they transition from back-to-school sales to the Q4 peak season. Downstream respondents also saw slightly higher Inventory Costs (83.3 to 76.5) and tighter Warehousing Capacity (50.0 to 54.9) as a result of this buildup. Despite this, Upstream firms reported slightly faster expansion in Warehousing Prices (77.5 to 69.0) which may reflect the larger stocks of inventories they built up throughout the spring and summer.
We also split future predictions by Downstream respondents (purple bars) and Upstream respondents (green bars). Interestingly, respondents are predicting more differences in the year ahead relative to what they are currently experiencing. While the predictions are not significantly different, it is notable that all respondents are predicting significantly faster rates of expansion for Inventory Levels over the next year (66.7 Upstream to 71.4 Downstream). Upstream firms are expecting this inventory buildup to have a significantly greater impact on all measures of capacity reporting significantly lower rates of predicted Warehousing Capacity (51.0 to 66.7) and contraction (38.6) where Downstream firms predict expansion (54.5) in Transportation Capacity. As a result of the tighter storage capacity, Upstream firms also predict significantly faster expansion in Warehousing Prices (82.4 to 71.4). This is consistent with the dynamic we observed in July and suggests that storage costs will continue expanding at an accelerated rate over the next year if more capacity is not added.
We also split future predictions by Downstream respondents (purple bars) and Upstream respondents (green bars). Interestingly, respondents are predicting more differences in the year ahead relative to what they are currently experiencing. While the predictions are not significantly different, it is notable that all respondents are predicting significantly faster rates of expansion for Inventory Levels over the next year (66.7 Upstream to 71.4 Downstream). Upstream firms are expecting this inventory buildup to have a significantly greater impact on all measures of capacity reporting significantly lower rates of predicted Warehousing Capacity (51.0 to 66.7) and contraction (38.6) where Downstream firms predict expansion (54.5) in Transportation Capacity. As a result of the tighter storage capacity, Upstream firms also predict significantly faster expansion in Warehousing Prices (82.4 to 71.4). This is consistent with the dynamic we observed in July and suggests that storage costs will continue expanding at an accelerated rate over the next year if more capacity is not added.
We also analyze any differences in responses collected in early (gold bars) versus late (green bars) August. While the difference is just short of being statistically significant, we see a steep decrease in Inventory Levels through the month, which went from robust expansion (60.0) early in August to slight contraction (48.9) later in the month. This pullback is likely driven by a slowdown in Upstream inventory buildups. As a result of this slowdown, we observed Warehousing Capacity going from contraction (46.2) to expansion (57.6). The late August increase in Warehousing Capacity pushed this metric to its highest level since December 2025. Despite the significant shift in capacity, there was minimal change in Warehousing Prices, which read in at 76.9 early and 73.9 late, suggesting that prices continued to increase robustly even as more storage capacity came online.
We also analyze any differences in responses collected in early (gold bars) versus late (green bars) August. While the difference is just short of being statistically significant, we see a steep decrease in Inventory Levels through the month, which went from robust expansion (60.0) early in August to slight contraction (48.9) later in the month. This pullback is likely driven by a slowdown in Upstream inventory buildups. As a result of this slowdown, we observed Warehousing Capacity going from contraction (46.2) to expansion (57.6). The late August increase in Warehousing Capacity pushed this metric to its highest level since December 2025. Despite the significant shift in capacity, there was minimal change in Warehousing Prices, which read in at 76.9 early and 73.9 late, suggesting that prices continued to increase robustly even as more storage capacity came online.
We also compare smaller firms (those with 0-999 employees, represented by maroon lines) to larger firms (those with 1,000 employees or more, represented by gold lines) in August. In a continuation from July, we observe unusual consistency in August, with only two significant differences between what had been our most divergent respondent groups for most of 2026. One of these significant differences is the faster rate of Warehousing Price expansion reported by larger firms (81.0 to a still-high 70.9 for smaller firms). Large firms also report a significantly faster rate of expansion in Transportation Prices (94.3) than their smaller counterparts (86.7). Taken all together, it seems that logistics cost expansion is hitting everyone, but it is particularly pronounced for larger firms. In 2025, high costs associated with tariffs fell more on smaller firms. It is interesting that this is not the case in the late summer of 2026. It will be interesting to see if this shifts through the fall when we move into traditional peak season.
The index scores for each of the eight components of the Logistics Managers’ Index, as well as the overall index score, are presented in the table below. The rate of expansion for the overall index is 66.6, which is down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 68.9.and is the slowest rate of overall expansion since March. The slowdown in expansion is driven by a continued reduction (--2.2) in the expansion of Inventory Levels, which are now close to no movement at 52.8. Despite this slowdown, Inventory Costs continue to increase (+1.6) to 78.6 which is their highest level in a year and likely reflects a combination of high costs due to tariffs and increasing fuel costs. We also see a loosening of capacity as Warehousing Capacity is up (+7.2) to slight expansion at 53.5 and the contraction of Transportation Capacity has slowed (+11.6) to 40.0. Interestingly, Warehousing Prices (-0.5) and Transportation Prices (+3.1) continue to increase despite the additional capacity coming online. This continues the trend of increasing costs that we have observed throughout 2026. Based on future predictions, it seems unlikely this will change anytime soon.
The index scores for each of the eight components of the Logistics Managers’ Index, as well as the overall index score, are presented in the table below. The rate of expansion for the overall index is 66.6, which is down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 68.9.and is the slowest rate of overall expansion since March. The slowdown in expansion is driven by a continued reduction (--2.2) in the expansion of Inventory Levels, which are now close to no movement at 52.8. Despite this slowdown, Inventory Costs continue to increase (+1.6) to 78.6 which is their highest level in a year and likely reflects a combination of high costs due to tariffs and increasing fuel costs. We also see a loosening of capacity as Warehousing Capacity is up (+7.2) to slight expansion at 53.5 and the contraction of Transportation Capacity has slowed (+11.6) to 40.0. Interestingly, Warehousing Prices (-0.5) and Transportation Prices (+3.1) continue to increase despite the additional capacity coming online. This continues the trend of increasing costs that we have observed throughout 2026. Based on future predictions, it seems unlikely this will change anytime soon.
Historic Logistics Managers’ Index Scores
This period’s along with prior readings from the last two years of the LMI are presented table below:
This period’s along with prior readings from the last two years of the LMI are presented table below:
LMI®
The Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 66.6 in August, which is down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 68.9 and marks two consecutive months of slowing growth in the logistics industry after the recent peak of 71.1 in June. Despite this being the lowest level for the overall index since April, it is still much higher than the LMI readings from both one (+7.3) and two (+10.2) years ago. The index has clearly been impacted by the conflict with Iran, as the average of 69.0 in the five months since the war far outstrips the more modest average reading of 58.5 from the preceding 12 months.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 69.6, down slightly (-0.9) from July’s future prediction of 70.5 and pointing to a continued rate of stead expansion over the next year. There is no significant difference in overall index expansion across the supply chain as Upstream respondents predict only slightly faster growth (69.4) than their Downstream counterparts (66.2).
The Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 66.6 in August, which is down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 68.9 and marks two consecutive months of slowing growth in the logistics industry after the recent peak of 71.1 in June. Despite this being the lowest level for the overall index since April, it is still much higher than the LMI readings from both one (+7.3) and two (+10.2) years ago. The index has clearly been impacted by the conflict with Iran, as the average of 69.0 in the five months since the war far outstrips the more modest average reading of 58.5 from the preceding 12 months.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 69.6, down slightly (-0.9) from July’s future prediction of 70.5 and pointing to a continued rate of stead expansion over the next year. There is no significant difference in overall index expansion across the supply chain as Upstream respondents predict only slightly faster growth (69.4) than their Downstream counterparts (66.2).
Inventory Levels
The Inventory Level index is 52.8, down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 55.0 and continuing the slowdown in the buildup of inventory that began last month. Inventory Level values are down 5.4 points from a year ago and 2.9 points lower than two years ago. Upstream (49.0) reported a very slight decrease in Inventory Levels, while Downstream (61.9), shows a significant increase. This contrasts sharply with last month when the numbers were nearly perfectly reversed: Upstream was 61.3, and Downstream showed 46.3. The downward push was most obvious later in August as Early respondents (60.0) showed a substantial increase in Inventory Levels, and late (48.9) was essentially flat, with a very slight decline.
Increased inventory strategies are reflected in forward-looking predictions. Future Inventory Levels growth is 68.1, up (+3.6) from July’s prediction of 64.4 and indicating robust expansion. This is consistent across the supply chain as both Upstream (66.4) and Downstream (71.4) are expecting inventories to increase over the next 12 months.
The Inventory Level index is 52.8, down (-2.2) from July’s reading of 55.0 and continuing the slowdown in the buildup of inventory that began last month. Inventory Level values are down 5.4 points from a year ago and 2.9 points lower than two years ago. Upstream (49.0) reported a very slight decrease in Inventory Levels, while Downstream (61.9), shows a significant increase. This contrasts sharply with last month when the numbers were nearly perfectly reversed: Upstream was 61.3, and Downstream showed 46.3. The downward push was most obvious later in August as Early respondents (60.0) showed a substantial increase in Inventory Levels, and late (48.9) was essentially flat, with a very slight decline.
Increased inventory strategies are reflected in forward-looking predictions. Future Inventory Levels growth is 68.1, up (+3.6) from July’s prediction of 64.4 and indicating robust expansion. This is consistent across the supply chain as both Upstream (66.4) and Downstream (71.4) are expecting inventories to increase over the next 12 months.
Inventory Costs
Inventory Cost expansion reads in at 78.6, up (+1.6) from July’s reading of 77.0. This is the fourth-highest reading of the last two years and continues the dramatic upward expansion of Inventory Costs we have observed throughout the last year and a half. The value this month is 0.6 points below last year, and 9.6 points above two years ago. Upstream reports significant growth in costs, at 76.5. Downstream reports even higher growth, at 83.3. Early (77.1) respondents and late (79.3) both saw significant, and comparable, increases in costs. This is interesting as early respondents saw increasing Inventory Levels (60.0) but later saw a very slight decrease (48.9). The increasing relative cost of inventories continues to be pronounced. For more than a year, the Inventory Cost index has been significantly higher than the Inventory Level index. Since May 2025, the Cost Index has averaged 21.2 points above the Level Index. For the three-year period before that, the average difference between Inventory Costs and the Level was 13.3, significantly lower than the recent difference. While consumer spending showed a slight slowdown in July, it has generally held strong despite high costs. It remains to be seen how long consumers can keep this up in the face of these increasing costs.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth are 79.6, up (+2.0) from July’s future prediction of 77.6. Upstream (79.0) and Downstream (81.0) expected large continued increases in Inventory Costs.
Inventory Cost expansion reads in at 78.6, up (+1.6) from July’s reading of 77.0. This is the fourth-highest reading of the last two years and continues the dramatic upward expansion of Inventory Costs we have observed throughout the last year and a half. The value this month is 0.6 points below last year, and 9.6 points above two years ago. Upstream reports significant growth in costs, at 76.5. Downstream reports even higher growth, at 83.3. Early (77.1) respondents and late (79.3) both saw significant, and comparable, increases in costs. This is interesting as early respondents saw increasing Inventory Levels (60.0) but later saw a very slight decrease (48.9). The increasing relative cost of inventories continues to be pronounced. For more than a year, the Inventory Cost index has been significantly higher than the Inventory Level index. Since May 2025, the Cost Index has averaged 21.2 points above the Level Index. For the three-year period before that, the average difference between Inventory Costs and the Level was 13.3, significantly lower than the recent difference. While consumer spending showed a slight slowdown in July, it has generally held strong despite high costs. It remains to be seen how long consumers can keep this up in the face of these increasing costs.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth are 79.6, up (+2.0) from July’s future prediction of 77.6. Upstream (79.0) and Downstream (81.0) expected large continued increases in Inventory Costs.
Warehousing Capacity
The reading for Warehousing Capacity for August 2026 reversed its previously contracting position where it registered in at 53.5 reflecting a 7.1-point increase from the month prior. This reading is up 3.0 points from the reading one year ago and is down by 6.0 points from the reading two years ago. There was a 4.9-point split between Upstream (54.9) and Downstream (50.0), where Downstream reversed (again) and entered neutrality, where Upstream also reversed and entered expansion. This difference was not statistically significant (p>.1), and notable that the Upstream value broke out of a contraction from the prior 6 months. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that there is a 6.0-point difference between the two at 56.0 and 50.0. This difference was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Capacity, respondents have shifted (+6.1) to no predict expansion at 55.6. This is a shift from the last few months when respondents had been predicting very mild contraction (49.5 in July and 49.4 in June). Respondents across the supply chain were split here, with Upstream firms expecting very slight expansion at 51.0, and Downstream respondents expecting a significantly faster rate of expansion at 66.7
The reading for Warehousing Capacity for August 2026 reversed its previously contracting position where it registered in at 53.5 reflecting a 7.1-point increase from the month prior. This reading is up 3.0 points from the reading one year ago and is down by 6.0 points from the reading two years ago. There was a 4.9-point split between Upstream (54.9) and Downstream (50.0), where Downstream reversed (again) and entered neutrality, where Upstream also reversed and entered expansion. This difference was not statistically significant (p>.1), and notable that the Upstream value broke out of a contraction from the prior 6 months. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that there is a 6.0-point difference between the two at 56.0 and 50.0. This difference was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Capacity, respondents have shifted (+6.1) to no predict expansion at 55.6. This is a shift from the last few months when respondents had been predicting very mild contraction (49.5 in July and 49.4 in June). Respondents across the supply chain were split here, with Upstream firms expecting very slight expansion at 51.0, and Downstream respondents expecting a significantly faster rate of expansion at 66.7
Warehousing Utilization
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 59.6 for the month of August 2026, reflecting a 6.5-point decrease from the month prior, remaining in expansionary territory with a slight softening. This reading is down 2.5 points from the reading one year ago, and up by 2-points from the reading two years ago. In addition there was a minimal .1-point split between Upstream (59.6) and Downstream (59.5), with this difference not being statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 62.8 and 55.0 with both small and large firms remaining in expansionary territory for seven months in a row. This 7.8-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Utilization, respondents predict expansion at 70.8, down (-3.4) from July’s 74.2 but still predicting a significant rate of expansion. Expectations for growth are consistent across the supply chain with future Upstream expectations (69.6 and down from last month) predicted to be growing at a slightly slower rate than Downstream expectations (73.8 and up from last month) where this 4.2-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 59.6 for the month of August 2026, reflecting a 6.5-point decrease from the month prior, remaining in expansionary territory with a slight softening. This reading is down 2.5 points from the reading one year ago, and up by 2-points from the reading two years ago. In addition there was a minimal .1-point split between Upstream (59.6) and Downstream (59.5), with this difference not being statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 62.8 and 55.0 with both small and large firms remaining in expansionary territory for seven months in a row. This 7.8-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Utilization, respondents predict expansion at 70.8, down (-3.4) from July’s 74.2 but still predicting a significant rate of expansion. Expectations for growth are consistent across the supply chain with future Upstream expectations (69.6 and down from last month) predicted to be growing at a slightly slower rate than Downstream expectations (73.8 and up from last month) where this 4.2-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Prices
Warehousing Pricing continues its upward rise, albeit with a modest slip, where pricing decreased by 0.5 points to 75. for August 2026. This reading is up 2.8 points from the reading one year ago, and up 11.2 points from the reading two years ago. In addition there was an 8.4 -point difference between Upstream (77.5) and Downstream (69.0) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 70.9 and 81.0 reflecting a 10.1 -point difference between the two which was marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
Exploring the future predictions for Warehouse Price, respondents predict robust expansion at 79.2, up (+2.8) from July’s future prediction of 76.3, indicating a significant rate of price expansion. This is consistent with the current situation as well as other future predictions in that respondents do not necessarily expect increased capacity to slow the pace of cost growth. Expectations across the supply chain are elevated, with future Upstream expectations (82.4 and increased from last month) predicted to be increasing at a faster rate than Downstream expectations (71.4, also increased from last month). This month's 10.9-point difference was marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
Warehousing Pricing continues its upward rise, albeit with a modest slip, where pricing decreased by 0.5 points to 75. for August 2026. This reading is up 2.8 points from the reading one year ago, and up 11.2 points from the reading two years ago. In addition there was an 8.4 -point difference between Upstream (77.5) and Downstream (69.0) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 70.9 and 81.0 reflecting a 10.1 -point difference between the two which was marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
Exploring the future predictions for Warehouse Price, respondents predict robust expansion at 79.2, up (+2.8) from July’s future prediction of 76.3, indicating a significant rate of price expansion. This is consistent with the current situation as well as other future predictions in that respondents do not necessarily expect increased capacity to slow the pace of cost growth. Expectations across the supply chain are elevated, with future Upstream expectations (82.4 and increased from last month) predicted to be increasing at a faster rate than Downstream expectations (71.4, also increased from last month). This month's 10.9-point difference was marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
Transportation Capacity
The Transportation Capacity Index jumped 11.6 points to 40.0 in August 2026. Despite this increase the Transportation Capacity index continues to indicate contraction for the ninth consecutive month. While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 37.9, the Downstream index is at 45.5, but the difference is not statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that the contraction observed in Transportation Capacity remains relatively uniformly distributed across the US economy.
The future Transportation Capacity index also increased 2.6 points and now indicates 43.0, representing continued expectations of slight capacity contraction for the next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 38.6.0, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 54.5, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, expectations of contraction in future Transportation Capacity are present Upstream while Downstream companies expect light expansion in Transportation Capacity over the next 12 months.
The Transportation Capacity Index jumped 11.6 points to 40.0 in August 2026. Despite this increase the Transportation Capacity index continues to indicate contraction for the ninth consecutive month. While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 37.9, the Downstream index is at 45.5, but the difference is not statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that the contraction observed in Transportation Capacity remains relatively uniformly distributed across the US economy.
The future Transportation Capacity index also increased 2.6 points and now indicates 43.0, representing continued expectations of slight capacity contraction for the next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 38.6.0, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 54.5, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, expectations of contraction in future Transportation Capacity are present Upstream while Downstream companies expect light expansion in Transportation Capacity over the next 12 months.
Transportation Utilization
The Transportation Utilization Index increased 5.6 points, indicating 70.6 in August 2026. With this increase, the utilization index returns to recent highs, indicating the second highest level registered in the last two years. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 68.2, while the Upstream index indicates 71.6, and the difference is not statistically significant. As such, Transportation Utilization is increasing both Upstream and Downstream.
The future Transportation Utilization Index increased 0.1 points and is now indicating 71.9 points for the next 12 months. The future Upstream Transportation Utilization index is at 77.6 and the Downstream index at 56.8 and the difference is statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that expectations of increased Transportation Utilization are much stronger Upstream than Downstream.
The Transportation Utilization Index increased 5.6 points, indicating 70.6 in August 2026. With this increase, the utilization index returns to recent highs, indicating the second highest level registered in the last two years. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 68.2, while the Upstream index indicates 71.6, and the difference is not statistically significant. As such, Transportation Utilization is increasing both Upstream and Downstream.
The future Transportation Utilization Index increased 0.1 points and is now indicating 71.9 points for the next 12 months. The future Upstream Transportation Utilization index is at 77.6 and the Downstream index at 56.8 and the difference is statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that expectations of increased Transportation Utilization are much stronger Upstream than Downstream.
Transportation Prices
The Transportation Prices Index increased 3.1 points from the previous reading and recorded 90.0 in August 2026. With this increase the Transportation Prices Index has rebounded from its recent retreat and is back to historically elevated levels. While the Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 88.8, the Downstream index is at 93.2 but the difference is not statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that the inflationary pressure on Transportation Prices is still being felt extremely strongly across the US economy, both Downstream than Upstream.
The future index for Transportation Prices decreased (-3.1) to 86.1 but it continues to represent strong expectations of price increases for the next 12 months. The Upstream future Transportation Prices index is at 88.6 while the Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 79.5, but the difference is not statistically significant. Therefore, inflationary expectations in Transportation Prices remain strong across the US supply chains, both Upstream and Downstream.
The Transportation Prices Index increased 3.1 points from the previous reading and recorded 90.0 in August 2026. With this increase the Transportation Prices Index has rebounded from its recent retreat and is back to historically elevated levels. While the Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 88.8, the Downstream index is at 93.2 but the difference is not statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that the inflationary pressure on Transportation Prices is still being felt extremely strongly across the US economy, both Downstream than Upstream.
The future index for Transportation Prices decreased (-3.1) to 86.1 but it continues to represent strong expectations of price increases for the next 12 months. The Upstream future Transportation Prices index is at 88.6 while the Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 79.5, but the difference is not statistically significant. Therefore, inflationary expectations in Transportation Prices remain strong across the US supply chains, both Upstream and Downstream.
About This Report
The data presented herein are obtained from a survey of logistics supply executives based on information they have collected within their respective organizations. LMI® makes no representation, other than that stated within this release, regarding the individual company data collection procedures. The data should be compared to all other economic data sources when used in decision-making.
Data and Method of Presentation
Data for the Logistics Manager’s Index is collected in a monthly survey of leading logistics professionals. The respondents are CSCMP members working at the director-level or above. Upper-level managers are preferable as they are more likely to have macro-level information on trends in Inventory, Warehousing and Transportation trends within their firm. Data is also collected from subscribers to both DC Velocity and Supply Chain Exchange as well. Respondents hail from firms working on all six continents, with the majority of them working at firms with annual revenues over a billion dollars. The industries represented in this respondent pool include, but are not limited to: Apparel, Automotive, Consumer Goods, Electronics, Food & Drug, Home Furnishings, Logistics, Shipping & Transportation, and Warehousing.
Respondents are asked to identify the monthly change across each of the eight metrics collected in this survey (Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices). In addition, they also forecast future trends for each metric ranging over the next 12 months. The raw data is then analyzed using a diffusion index. Diffusion Indexes measure how widely something is diffused or spread across a group. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been using a diffusion index for the Current Employment Statics program since 1974, and the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) has been using a diffusion index to compute the Purchasing Managers Index since 1948. The ISM Index of New Orders is considered a Leading Economic Indicator.
We compute the Diffusion Index as follows:
PD = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Declining,
PU = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Unchanged,
PI = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Increasing,
Diffusion Index = 0.0 * PD + 0.5 * PU + 1.0 * PI
For example, if 25 say the category is declining, 38 say it is unchanged, and 37 say it is increasing, we would calculate an index value of 0*0.25 + 0.5*0.38 + 1.0*0.37 = 0 + 0.19 + 0.37 = 0.56, and the index is increasing overall. For an index value above 0.5 indicates the category is increasing, a value below 0.5 indicates it is decreasing, and a value of 0.5 means the category is unchanged. When a full year’s worth of data has been collected, adjustments will be made for seasonal factors as well.
Logistics Managers Index
Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute Logistics Managers Index Content can be made by contacting in writing at: Dale S. Rogers, WP Carey School of Business, Tempe, Arizona 85287, or by emailing [email protected] Subject: Content Request.
The authors of the Logistics Managers Index shall not have any liability, duty, or obligation for or relating to the Logistics Managers Index Content or other information contained herein, any errors, inaccuracies, omissions, or delays in providing any Logistics Managers Index Content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. In no event shall the authors of the Logistics Managers Index be liable for any special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of the Logistics Managers Index. Logistics Managers’ Index, and LMI® are registered trademarks.
About The Logistics Manager’s Index®
The Logistics Manager’s Index (LMI) is a joint project between researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, University of Nevada, Reno, Florida Atlantic University, and Rutgers University, supported by CSCMP. It is authored by Zac Rogers Ph.D., Steven Carnovale Ph.D., Shen Yeniyurt Ph.D., Ron Lembke Ph.D., and Dale Rogers Ph.D.
The data presented herein are obtained from a survey of logistics supply executives based on information they have collected within their respective organizations. LMI® makes no representation, other than that stated within this release, regarding the individual company data collection procedures. The data should be compared to all other economic data sources when used in decision-making.
Data and Method of Presentation
Data for the Logistics Manager’s Index is collected in a monthly survey of leading logistics professionals. The respondents are CSCMP members working at the director-level or above. Upper-level managers are preferable as they are more likely to have macro-level information on trends in Inventory, Warehousing and Transportation trends within their firm. Data is also collected from subscribers to both DC Velocity and Supply Chain Exchange as well. Respondents hail from firms working on all six continents, with the majority of them working at firms with annual revenues over a billion dollars. The industries represented in this respondent pool include, but are not limited to: Apparel, Automotive, Consumer Goods, Electronics, Food & Drug, Home Furnishings, Logistics, Shipping & Transportation, and Warehousing.
Respondents are asked to identify the monthly change across each of the eight metrics collected in this survey (Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices). In addition, they also forecast future trends for each metric ranging over the next 12 months. The raw data is then analyzed using a diffusion index. Diffusion Indexes measure how widely something is diffused or spread across a group. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been using a diffusion index for the Current Employment Statics program since 1974, and the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) has been using a diffusion index to compute the Purchasing Managers Index since 1948. The ISM Index of New Orders is considered a Leading Economic Indicator.
We compute the Diffusion Index as follows:
PD = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Declining,
PU = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Unchanged,
PI = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Increasing,
Diffusion Index = 0.0 * PD + 0.5 * PU + 1.0 * PI
For example, if 25 say the category is declining, 38 say it is unchanged, and 37 say it is increasing, we would calculate an index value of 0*0.25 + 0.5*0.38 + 1.0*0.37 = 0 + 0.19 + 0.37 = 0.56, and the index is increasing overall. For an index value above 0.5 indicates the category is increasing, a value below 0.5 indicates it is decreasing, and a value of 0.5 means the category is unchanged. When a full year’s worth of data has been collected, adjustments will be made for seasonal factors as well.
Logistics Managers Index
Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute Logistics Managers Index Content can be made by contacting in writing at: Dale S. Rogers, WP Carey School of Business, Tempe, Arizona 85287, or by emailing [email protected] Subject: Content Request.
The authors of the Logistics Managers Index shall not have any liability, duty, or obligation for or relating to the Logistics Managers Index Content or other information contained herein, any errors, inaccuracies, omissions, or delays in providing any Logistics Managers Index Content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. In no event shall the authors of the Logistics Managers Index be liable for any special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of the Logistics Managers Index. Logistics Managers’ Index, and LMI® are registered trademarks.
About The Logistics Manager’s Index®
The Logistics Manager’s Index (LMI) is a joint project between researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, University of Nevada, Reno, Florida Atlantic University, and Rutgers University, supported by CSCMP. It is authored by Zac Rogers Ph.D., Steven Carnovale Ph.D., Shen Yeniyurt Ph.D., Ron Lembke Ph.D., and Dale Rogers Ph.D.
[1] Shapiro, A. (2026, August 15). Supply- and Demand-Driven PCE Inflation—San Francisco Fed. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/data-and-indicators/supply-and-demand-driven-pce-inflation/
[2] Hsu, J. (2026, August 24). Surveys of Consumers. Universith of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey. https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[3] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026, August 12). Consumer Price Index Summary—2026 M07 Results. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
[4] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2026, August 25). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[5] Rugaber, C. (2026a, August 26). Key inflation gauge remains elevated during Iran conflict and ongoing US trade fights. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/consumer-spending-inflation-tariffs-wages-a7ee35490dc5be41640379b6eafd11a4
[6] D’Innocenzio, A. (2026, August 14). US retail sales slump unexpectedly and sharply after a summer tax-refund boost fades. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/retail-inflation-consumer-sentiment-economy-3e2bc5807d7396b8e6c5f599941cb2a9
[7] Kopack, S. (2026, August 7). Job losses in July and negative revisions reveal a weakening U.S. labor market. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/july-2026-jobs-report-rcna591138
[8] Rugaber, C. (2026b, August 28). Fed Chair Warsh signals rate hikes may be needed with US inflation stubbornly elevated. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/federal-reserve-warsh-interest-trump-inflation-ab896df808df3a5a3fa8b943ac5f3867
[9] Goldfarb, S., & Lang, H. E. (2026, August 28). Markets Brace for Possible Rate Hike After Kevin Warsh’s Hawkish Turn. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/markets-brace-for-possible-rate-hike-after-kevin-warshs-hawkish-turn-f2611e6f
[10] Mahoney, N. (2026, August 24). US-Canada supply chains face uncertainty as trade talks collapse. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-canada-supply-chains-face-uncertainty-as-trade-talks-collapse
[11] Cook, E. (2026, August 24). Eight US states Doug Ford wants Canada to target with tariffs—Newsweek. Newseek. https://www.newsweek.com/eight-us-states-doug-ford-canada-target-tariffs-12356918
[12] Bhasin, K. (2026, August 27). Dollar Tree and Dollar General Report Sales Gains as Shoppers Cut Costs. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/27/business/dollar-general-dollar-tree.html
[13] Neelakandan, L. (2026b, August 20). Walmart stock tumbles 9% after outlook disappoints Wall Street. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/20/walmart-wmt-q2-2027-earnings.html
[14] Neelakandan, L. (2026a, August 19). Target says its turnaround is picking up steam, with help from a big tariff refund. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/19/target-tgt-q2-2026-earnings.html
[15] Ferris, R. (2026, August 19). Car dealerships are relying more on parts and service for profits. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/19/car-dealerships-parts-and-service.html
[16] Williams, J. (2026, August 10). Tractor Supply Retrenches as It Looks for a Rebound. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/cfo-journal/tractor-supply-retrenches-as-it-looks-for-a-rebound-6176b357
[17] Port of Los Angeles. (2026, August 28). Port Optimizer—Control Tower. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[18] Strickland, Z. (2026, August 16). Maritime rates back on the rise. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/maritime-rates-back-on-the-rise
[19] JLL. (2026, August 3). Global Real Estate Perspective, August 2026. https://www.jll.com/en-us/insights/market-perspectives/global
[20] Young, L. (2026, August 17). Why Warehouses Are Rolling In More Robots. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/logistics-report/why-warehouses-are-rolling-in-more-robots-09dc27e7
[21] Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026, August 7). THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — JULY 2026. https://www.bls.gov/news.Release/pdf/empsit.Pdf
[22] Palmer, A. (2026, August 19). Amazon to expand drone service to nearly 500 cities after targeting 1 million deliveries this year. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/19/amazon-plans-drone-expansion-as-top-exec-projects-1-million-deliveries.html
[23] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2026, August 25). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[24] Friedman, L. (2026, August 26). Under Threat, Saudi Arabia Reroutes Oil Exports Yet Again. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/26/business/saudi-oil-houthis-iran.html
[25] Soni, A. (2026, August 26). The Price of Diesel, the ‘Workhorse’ of Fuels, Nears a Record High. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/26/business/energy-environment/diesel-prices-iran-war-oil.html
[26] Dehghanpisheh, B. (2026, August 28). U.S. has entered deal with Venezuela to take control of 65 billion barrels of oil reserves, Trump says. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/venezuela/us-entered-deal-venezuela-take-control-65-billion-barrels-oil-reserves-rcna594966
[2] Hsu, J. (2026, August 24). Surveys of Consumers. Universith of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey. https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[3] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2026, August 12). Consumer Price Index Summary—2026 M07 Results. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
[4] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2026, August 25). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[5] Rugaber, C. (2026a, August 26). Key inflation gauge remains elevated during Iran conflict and ongoing US trade fights. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/consumer-spending-inflation-tariffs-wages-a7ee35490dc5be41640379b6eafd11a4
[6] D’Innocenzio, A. (2026, August 14). US retail sales slump unexpectedly and sharply after a summer tax-refund boost fades. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/retail-inflation-consumer-sentiment-economy-3e2bc5807d7396b8e6c5f599941cb2a9
[7] Kopack, S. (2026, August 7). Job losses in July and negative revisions reveal a weakening U.S. labor market. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/july-2026-jobs-report-rcna591138
[8] Rugaber, C. (2026b, August 28). Fed Chair Warsh signals rate hikes may be needed with US inflation stubbornly elevated. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/federal-reserve-warsh-interest-trump-inflation-ab896df808df3a5a3fa8b943ac5f3867
[9] Goldfarb, S., & Lang, H. E. (2026, August 28). Markets Brace for Possible Rate Hike After Kevin Warsh’s Hawkish Turn. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/markets-brace-for-possible-rate-hike-after-kevin-warshs-hawkish-turn-f2611e6f
[10] Mahoney, N. (2026, August 24). US-Canada supply chains face uncertainty as trade talks collapse. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-canada-supply-chains-face-uncertainty-as-trade-talks-collapse
[11] Cook, E. (2026, August 24). Eight US states Doug Ford wants Canada to target with tariffs—Newsweek. Newseek. https://www.newsweek.com/eight-us-states-doug-ford-canada-target-tariffs-12356918