FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, January 6th, 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]
http://www.the-lmi.com
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]
http://www.the-lmi.com
December 2025 Logistics Manager’s Index Report®
LMI® at 54.2
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs
Inventory Levels, Warehousing Utilization, and Transportation Capacity are CONTRACTING
LMI® at 54.2
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs
Inventory Levels, Warehousing Utilization, and Transportation Capacity are CONTRACTING
(Fort Collins, CO) —The December Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 54.2, down (-1.5) from November’s reading of 55.7. This is the lowest rate of expansion since April of 2024. As was the case last month, the majority of the downward pressure comes from inventory and warehousing markets. This was led by a downward shift (-17.4) into extreme contraction at 35.1 for Inventory Levels. This led to Inventory Cost expansion slowing (-8.1) to 62.9. At the same time, Warehousing Capacity increased (+6.4) to 61.2 and Warehousing Utilization hit a second-consecutive all-time low, decreasing (-4.7) to 42.9. All of these downward movements are due to firms continuing to move inventories downstream towards consumers, providing a final wave of relief to the firms that had been holding onto unprecedented levels of inventory throughout 2025. This downstream push catalyzed transportation metrics, with Transportation Capacity (-13.1) moving back to contraction at 36.9 in a move that carriers have been waiting on for nearly three years. The contraction in available capacity pushed Transportation Prices up (+1.8) to 66.7, which is the highest reading for this metric since January and the initial inventory pull-forward that started the year
Researchers at Arizona State 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 December 2025.
The December LMI read in at 54.2, which is down (-1.5) from November’s reading of 55.7. This is the lowest reading since April of 2024 and the tenth consecutive reading to come in below the all-time overall average of 61.4. In a repeat of what we saw in October, the rate of expansion was faster in the second half of the month, moving from contraction at 48.2 in the first half of December to 54.9 later in the month. The contraction in the first half of December was not indicative of slowness in the logistics industry. Rather, it was likely a product of the rapid holiday rundown of extreme levels of inventory. Evidence of this lies in the expansion of transportation metrics, which suggests that firms were pushing inventories ahead as quickly as possible towards consumers.
The reason for this push was strong consumer spending throughout the holiday season. Card companies Mastercard and Visa both report increases in U.S. holiday spending, showing 3.9% and 4.2% increases respectively[1]. Consumers went for value throughout the holiday shopping season, with more secondhand goods being purchased during the 2025 holiday season than in previous years[2]. Analysts warn that, in a continuation from 2024, a significant volume of spending may have been subsidized by “buy now pay later” loans. Analysts at KBV estimate that new private-credit funding deals can now cover $140 billion in consumer lending, up significantly from $10 billion a year ago[3]. LendingTree reports that 37% of Americans utilized debt for holiday shopping this year, taking an average of $1,223 per person which is up from 2024’s average of $1,181[4]. Despite the increase in holiday shopping, seasonal retail hiring was down in 2025. The 365,000 seasonal workers hired in 2025 which is down 80,000 from 2024 and is the lowest number in several years[5].
The strong spending came despite the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index dipping by 3.8 points in December, reading in at 89.1. This was driven by declines in four of the five component metrics, one these “Family Expected Financial Situation” turned negative for the first time since July of 2022, at the height of inflation. At the same time the University of Michigan reported a slight uptick (+1.9) to 52.9 in December. This was on the back of a decrease in expectations for future inflation to 4.2%, which is the lowest prediction in 11 months. While this does show improvement over November, the overall reading is down 28.5% from the same time a year ago[6].
The dissonance between consumer spending and consumer sentiment has been a running theme through 2025. For instance, U.S. GDP was up 4.3% in Q3, which is the fasted rate of expansion since Q3 2023. The expansion came on the back of stronger than expected consumer spending. However, there is evidence that a disproportionate level of spending came from top earners, partially explaining the divergence in sentiment and spending, as some consumers benefit more in the ongoing “K-shaped” economy[7]. GDP was also pushed up by a discrepancy between imports and exports, which was partially driven by the unseasonal slowdown in imports we observed in September[8].
The confusion is being reflected at the policy level. The U.S. Federal Reserve reduced the key interest rate by a quarter point at their mid-December meeting. This cut brings the key rate down to 3.6%, which is the lowest rate in three years. Afterwards, Chairman Powell stated that after this cut the Fed will wait to see how things play out before making another move. However, this sentiment may not be shared by the board. According to minutes released by the Fed, “many participants judged that further downward adjustments… would likely be appropriate”[9]. Even this latest cut was a closer call than normal as three governors – the most in six years – dissented on the cut. Two of these voted to keep the rate steady, while another voted for a more extreme half-point cut[10]. The final direction of this decision will be at least partially determined by changes in the job market. Initial unemployment claims were down to 199,000 in the last week of December, which is down from the 215,000 claims the week before. While unemployment claims can be distorted due to shorter holiday weeks, this is a move in the right direction[11]. We will know more about the overall employment trends when the December jobs report comes out later this week.
There continues to be cross pressures in the manufacturing and global trade that provides the volumes that feed the logistics industry. The Purchasing Managers’ Index read in at 51.8 in December, down slightly (-0.4) from November and marking the slowest rate of growth in the ongoing five-month expansion[12]. Despite the U.S. import volume contracting 8% in 2025, global container volumes are up 2.1% due to expansion of imports into Africa, the Middle East, India, and Latin America – some of which is due to re-directed Chinese products that are no longer moving to the U.S.[13]. In November Chinese exports to the U.S. were down 29% year-over-year, reflecting this new world order and leading to Chinese Premier Li Qiang to declare that higher tariffs have dealt a “severe blow” to the global economy[14]. Interestingly, on January 1st the Whitehouse walked back the tariffs that were set to go into effect that same day on items like cabinets, couches, and other furniture[15]. Despite the ongoing tariffs, Chinese factory activity expanded very slightly at 50.1 in December. This is the first expansion in eight months and likely reflects some rushed holiday orders. Despite this increase in orders, Chinese credit research firm RatingDog states that new exports and manufacturing industry hiring contracted slightly, citing only “marginal” improvement in the manufacturing sector that they do not expect to be sustainable – particularly as many smaller factories are currently reporting contraction[16]. The “k-shaped” economy that the U.S. has been dealing with may be manifesting in China as well. In addition to contraction for smaller manufacturers, Chinese consumers have reported having low amounts of disposable income[17] – something which could make China’s transition to a consumption and services-based economy more difficult.
Whatever the cross-signals in the global economy may be, it cannot be argued that U.S. consumer spending was robust in Q4. This was partially demonstrated by movements in inventories. Inventory Levels read in at 35.1 in December, which is the lowest in the history of the index. The 17.4-point reduction from November’s reading of 52.5 to December’s 35.1 is the largest month-to-month movement in the history of this metric. The contraction in Inventory Levels was most pronounced early in December, reading in at 28.2, before the rate of contraction slowed to 42.9.
Even with the contraction in inventory volumes, Inventory Costs continued their run of price increase in December, albeit at a slower rate (-8.0) of increase at 62.9. Inventory Costs also saw a significant shift over the course of the month, going from slight expansion at 54.3 early in December to a much more robust 71.4 later on. It is another signal that the inventory rundown in December was due to high levels of consumer sales (much of which included expensive last-mile delivery) that Inventory Costs continued to expand so robustly even as we saw Inventory Levels drop at their fastest rate ever. Beyond the Q4 sales, we have observed Inventory Costs outpacing Inventory levels has been a trend throughout the year. This is partially due to the increased costs inherent to tariffs. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency estimates that the U.S. has collected over $200 billion from the tariffs that were newly deployed in 2025[18]. We also see that since the removal of the de minimis exception in August, U.S. imports worth less than the $800 maximum have decreased by 54% according to the Universal Postal Union[19].
Respondents expect the Inventory Levels/Inventory Costs dynamic to continue in 2026, predicting mild expansion (59.0) for the former but robust expansion (72.1) for the latter. This is particularly pronounced at the retail level as Downstream respondents predict keeping Inventory Levels very lean at 50.0, while still paying high Inventory Costs at 73.8. At the same time, their Upstream counterparts predict that Inventory Levels will be a bit higher at 63.0 with associated expansion in Inventory Costs at 71.4. The discrepancy in predictions for Upstream and Downstream Inventory Levels likely reflects larger retailers looking to keep inventories low – potentially by pushing them upstream – to improve cashflow and avoid tariff-related costs for as long as possible. It is unclear if smaller Upstream firms will be able to absorb the same proportion of costs in 2026. Many smaller firms have had to take additional loans to cover the combination of increased tariffs and lower demand. Due to the cashflow problems these issues have caused, many firms have reported taking high-interest loans to keep their businesses afloat[20]. Despite this, analysts believe that some retailers are well-positioned for 2026, specifically citing discount stores like Ross and large retailers like Amazon and Walmart who can leverage their size to keep prices low for what is likely to be a cost-conscious consumer base. It is also possible that higher spenders will make up an even larger portion of retail spending next year as they will benefit proportionally more from additional tax refunds[21]. Although it is worth noting that retailers may face a challenge going forward as the increased debt used on 2025 holiday shopping make take longer than usual to pay down, potentially slowing consumer spending early in 2026[22].
The drawdown of inventories is reflected in our warehousing metrics. This is led by Warehousing Utilization dropping (-4.7) to 42.9 – marking the second consecutive month that this metric has reached an all-time low. This new nadir was largely driven by movements early in December, when it contracted at a rate of 37.5. Utilization contracted later in the month as well, but at the more moderate rate of 48.6. The drop in utilization is reflected in the uptick (+6.3) in available Warehousing Capacity which was up to 61.2 and is the fastest rate of expansion for this metric since July 2023, which was the height of the previous freight recession and inventory drawdown. However, where that prior peak was driven by slow, static inventories, this was driven by dynamic movements of inventories downstream. Looking at broader statistics, U.S. warehousing vacancy was up to 7.6% in Q3. This exceeds the pre-pandemic average of 7.1% and provides further evidence that the construction cycle that kicked off at the start of the decade is slowing down. There is still ongoing construction however, with 3PLs in particular shifting towards larger facilities that are optimized for automation. The softness in the warehousing market is due to a combination of retailers and wholesalers emptying out inventory backlogs as well as the ongoing slowdown in manufacturing[23]. This trend could continue as U.S. manufacturers reported a pullback on orders for components and raw materials in November, with purchasing activity hitting its lowest level since May[24]. Analysts (and LMI respondents) predict that vacancy will decline in 2026 as tariff normalization gives supply chains greater certainty regarding infrastructure decisions[25].
Despite the softness in the other warehousing metrics, Warehousing Prices continued to expand (+3.3) at a rate of 66.2. This was driven more by Upstream (68.8) than by Downstream (59.5) respondents – likely reflecting mass destocking at the retail level. Warehousing Price is the one metric that has never contracted in the history of the LMI. Whether inventories are up or down, the cost of storing them continues to grow. This looks to be the case in the near future as well, with respondents predicting future expansion of 74.7 over the next 12 months. This suggests that even with the softness in capacity, we will continue to see rising costs in warehousing markets.
As was the case in November, softness in inventories and warehousing is countered by increased activity in the transportation sector. Transportation Capacity is down (-13.1) to 36.9 which is its lowest level since October of 2021. This is also the first time this metric has contracted since March of 2022 which was the start of the previous long freight recession. This contraction is consistent across every respondent group. There is some conjecture that the decline in capacity is due to English-language crackdowns. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy stated that 9,500 truck drivers have been pulled off the road due to failing English-language proficiency tests[26]. While that is a significant impact, it is worth noting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are just over 2 million heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers in the U.S.[27] so it is more likely that the decrease in capacity is being caused by the proliferation of holiday season deliveries.
Transportation metrics had been stunted by the static buildup of inventories throughout most of 2025. However, from the second half of October through the end of the year, they picked up significantly in a way that has been consistent with seasonality. Holiday shopping drove FreightWaves’ truckload rejection index to increase to almost 9.5% in mid-December, this is up from the same time last year[28]. The tightening of available capacity led to an increase in prices as well, with truckload spot rates increasing 8% from November 19th to December 4th[29]. U.S. consumers spent $187.3 billion online between November 1st and December 12th, which is up 6.1% year-over-year and likely accounted for at least some of the positive momentum in the freight market. It is also worth noting that ecommerce purchases often slow sharply in the week before Christmas, which may have taken some of the pressure off of last-mile delivery later in the month[30].
This is reflected in expansion in both Transportation Utilization (+6.7) at 58.2 and Transportation Prices (+1.7) at 66.7. There is an interesting divergence in Transportation Utilization, which contracted slightly (47.6) Downstream but expanded robustly (62.1) Upstream. This is likely due to retailers having largely replenished their holiday inventories from October to early December and then more or less “standing pat” (with an exception for last-mile delivery).
The higher Transportation Prices come despite U.S. diesel prices averaged $3.50 per gallon in the last reading of 2025. This is down 4.4 cents per gallon from a week before and 0.3 cents down from the same time a year ago[31]. After 10 consecutive weeks of decline – during which prices dropped 36.4 cents per gallon, diesel prices essentially end the year where they started[32]. It is not clear how the late-breaking U.S. military action in Venezuela, which sits on one of the world’s largest reserves of petroleum, will impact this. Beyond the fact that Transportation Prices are now expanding at their fastest rate since January, it is also notable that this metric reads in 29.8 points higher than Transportation Capacity, which is the largest positive freight inversion since March of 2022, suggesting that December’s freight market was the strongest in over three years. It will be interesting to see whether upswing continues into 2026.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index are 65.3, which is up (+2.4) from November’s future prediction of 62.9, and would represent a slightly faster rate of growth than the all-time average of 61.3. Respondents are once again predicting more moderate expansion in Inventory Levels at 59.0 (+2.3) with much higher expected increases in associate Inventory Costs at 72.1 (+0.4). We similar dynamics in warehousing with Warehousing Capacity expected to expand moderately at 55.9 (-2.3) while Warehousing Prices continue expanding significantly at 74.7 (-0.3). This is consistent with recent predictions that inventories and storage will be relatively expensive in 2026, leading firms to keep inventories lean to improve cashflow. This is particularly true for Downstream respondents who predict “no movement” in Inventory Levels at 50.0. To facilitate this, respondents (particularly those Upstream) are anticipating a significant uptick in transportation metrics, predicting tightening Transportation Capacity at 40.5 (-6.5), and associated increases in the expansion rates of Transportation Utilization at 70.3 (+3.9) and Transportation Prices at 76.8 (-1.6). If these predictions hold it would mark a significant shift in transportation markets. The key to this prediction will be consumer demand holding steady despite potential price increases. Consumer demand was stronger than anticipated throughout 2025, so there is a chance that this – and the associate turnaround in the freight market – could prove to be true.
Researchers at Arizona State 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 December 2025.
The December LMI read in at 54.2, which is down (-1.5) from November’s reading of 55.7. This is the lowest reading since April of 2024 and the tenth consecutive reading to come in below the all-time overall average of 61.4. In a repeat of what we saw in October, the rate of expansion was faster in the second half of the month, moving from contraction at 48.2 in the first half of December to 54.9 later in the month. The contraction in the first half of December was not indicative of slowness in the logistics industry. Rather, it was likely a product of the rapid holiday rundown of extreme levels of inventory. Evidence of this lies in the expansion of transportation metrics, which suggests that firms were pushing inventories ahead as quickly as possible towards consumers.
The reason for this push was strong consumer spending throughout the holiday season. Card companies Mastercard and Visa both report increases in U.S. holiday spending, showing 3.9% and 4.2% increases respectively[1]. Consumers went for value throughout the holiday shopping season, with more secondhand goods being purchased during the 2025 holiday season than in previous years[2]. Analysts warn that, in a continuation from 2024, a significant volume of spending may have been subsidized by “buy now pay later” loans. Analysts at KBV estimate that new private-credit funding deals can now cover $140 billion in consumer lending, up significantly from $10 billion a year ago[3]. LendingTree reports that 37% of Americans utilized debt for holiday shopping this year, taking an average of $1,223 per person which is up from 2024’s average of $1,181[4]. Despite the increase in holiday shopping, seasonal retail hiring was down in 2025. The 365,000 seasonal workers hired in 2025 which is down 80,000 from 2024 and is the lowest number in several years[5].
The strong spending came despite the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index dipping by 3.8 points in December, reading in at 89.1. This was driven by declines in four of the five component metrics, one these “Family Expected Financial Situation” turned negative for the first time since July of 2022, at the height of inflation. At the same time the University of Michigan reported a slight uptick (+1.9) to 52.9 in December. This was on the back of a decrease in expectations for future inflation to 4.2%, which is the lowest prediction in 11 months. While this does show improvement over November, the overall reading is down 28.5% from the same time a year ago[6].
The dissonance between consumer spending and consumer sentiment has been a running theme through 2025. For instance, U.S. GDP was up 4.3% in Q3, which is the fasted rate of expansion since Q3 2023. The expansion came on the back of stronger than expected consumer spending. However, there is evidence that a disproportionate level of spending came from top earners, partially explaining the divergence in sentiment and spending, as some consumers benefit more in the ongoing “K-shaped” economy[7]. GDP was also pushed up by a discrepancy between imports and exports, which was partially driven by the unseasonal slowdown in imports we observed in September[8].
The confusion is being reflected at the policy level. The U.S. Federal Reserve reduced the key interest rate by a quarter point at their mid-December meeting. This cut brings the key rate down to 3.6%, which is the lowest rate in three years. Afterwards, Chairman Powell stated that after this cut the Fed will wait to see how things play out before making another move. However, this sentiment may not be shared by the board. According to minutes released by the Fed, “many participants judged that further downward adjustments… would likely be appropriate”[9]. Even this latest cut was a closer call than normal as three governors – the most in six years – dissented on the cut. Two of these voted to keep the rate steady, while another voted for a more extreme half-point cut[10]. The final direction of this decision will be at least partially determined by changes in the job market. Initial unemployment claims were down to 199,000 in the last week of December, which is down from the 215,000 claims the week before. While unemployment claims can be distorted due to shorter holiday weeks, this is a move in the right direction[11]. We will know more about the overall employment trends when the December jobs report comes out later this week.
There continues to be cross pressures in the manufacturing and global trade that provides the volumes that feed the logistics industry. The Purchasing Managers’ Index read in at 51.8 in December, down slightly (-0.4) from November and marking the slowest rate of growth in the ongoing five-month expansion[12]. Despite the U.S. import volume contracting 8% in 2025, global container volumes are up 2.1% due to expansion of imports into Africa, the Middle East, India, and Latin America – some of which is due to re-directed Chinese products that are no longer moving to the U.S.[13]. In November Chinese exports to the U.S. were down 29% year-over-year, reflecting this new world order and leading to Chinese Premier Li Qiang to declare that higher tariffs have dealt a “severe blow” to the global economy[14]. Interestingly, on January 1st the Whitehouse walked back the tariffs that were set to go into effect that same day on items like cabinets, couches, and other furniture[15]. Despite the ongoing tariffs, Chinese factory activity expanded very slightly at 50.1 in December. This is the first expansion in eight months and likely reflects some rushed holiday orders. Despite this increase in orders, Chinese credit research firm RatingDog states that new exports and manufacturing industry hiring contracted slightly, citing only “marginal” improvement in the manufacturing sector that they do not expect to be sustainable – particularly as many smaller factories are currently reporting contraction[16]. The “k-shaped” economy that the U.S. has been dealing with may be manifesting in China as well. In addition to contraction for smaller manufacturers, Chinese consumers have reported having low amounts of disposable income[17] – something which could make China’s transition to a consumption and services-based economy more difficult.
Whatever the cross-signals in the global economy may be, it cannot be argued that U.S. consumer spending was robust in Q4. This was partially demonstrated by movements in inventories. Inventory Levels read in at 35.1 in December, which is the lowest in the history of the index. The 17.4-point reduction from November’s reading of 52.5 to December’s 35.1 is the largest month-to-month movement in the history of this metric. The contraction in Inventory Levels was most pronounced early in December, reading in at 28.2, before the rate of contraction slowed to 42.9.
Even with the contraction in inventory volumes, Inventory Costs continued their run of price increase in December, albeit at a slower rate (-8.0) of increase at 62.9. Inventory Costs also saw a significant shift over the course of the month, going from slight expansion at 54.3 early in December to a much more robust 71.4 later on. It is another signal that the inventory rundown in December was due to high levels of consumer sales (much of which included expensive last-mile delivery) that Inventory Costs continued to expand so robustly even as we saw Inventory Levels drop at their fastest rate ever. Beyond the Q4 sales, we have observed Inventory Costs outpacing Inventory levels has been a trend throughout the year. This is partially due to the increased costs inherent to tariffs. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency estimates that the U.S. has collected over $200 billion from the tariffs that were newly deployed in 2025[18]. We also see that since the removal of the de minimis exception in August, U.S. imports worth less than the $800 maximum have decreased by 54% according to the Universal Postal Union[19].
Respondents expect the Inventory Levels/Inventory Costs dynamic to continue in 2026, predicting mild expansion (59.0) for the former but robust expansion (72.1) for the latter. This is particularly pronounced at the retail level as Downstream respondents predict keeping Inventory Levels very lean at 50.0, while still paying high Inventory Costs at 73.8. At the same time, their Upstream counterparts predict that Inventory Levels will be a bit higher at 63.0 with associated expansion in Inventory Costs at 71.4. The discrepancy in predictions for Upstream and Downstream Inventory Levels likely reflects larger retailers looking to keep inventories low – potentially by pushing them upstream – to improve cashflow and avoid tariff-related costs for as long as possible. It is unclear if smaller Upstream firms will be able to absorb the same proportion of costs in 2026. Many smaller firms have had to take additional loans to cover the combination of increased tariffs and lower demand. Due to the cashflow problems these issues have caused, many firms have reported taking high-interest loans to keep their businesses afloat[20]. Despite this, analysts believe that some retailers are well-positioned for 2026, specifically citing discount stores like Ross and large retailers like Amazon and Walmart who can leverage their size to keep prices low for what is likely to be a cost-conscious consumer base. It is also possible that higher spenders will make up an even larger portion of retail spending next year as they will benefit proportionally more from additional tax refunds[21]. Although it is worth noting that retailers may face a challenge going forward as the increased debt used on 2025 holiday shopping make take longer than usual to pay down, potentially slowing consumer spending early in 2026[22].
The drawdown of inventories is reflected in our warehousing metrics. This is led by Warehousing Utilization dropping (-4.7) to 42.9 – marking the second consecutive month that this metric has reached an all-time low. This new nadir was largely driven by movements early in December, when it contracted at a rate of 37.5. Utilization contracted later in the month as well, but at the more moderate rate of 48.6. The drop in utilization is reflected in the uptick (+6.3) in available Warehousing Capacity which was up to 61.2 and is the fastest rate of expansion for this metric since July 2023, which was the height of the previous freight recession and inventory drawdown. However, where that prior peak was driven by slow, static inventories, this was driven by dynamic movements of inventories downstream. Looking at broader statistics, U.S. warehousing vacancy was up to 7.6% in Q3. This exceeds the pre-pandemic average of 7.1% and provides further evidence that the construction cycle that kicked off at the start of the decade is slowing down. There is still ongoing construction however, with 3PLs in particular shifting towards larger facilities that are optimized for automation. The softness in the warehousing market is due to a combination of retailers and wholesalers emptying out inventory backlogs as well as the ongoing slowdown in manufacturing[23]. This trend could continue as U.S. manufacturers reported a pullback on orders for components and raw materials in November, with purchasing activity hitting its lowest level since May[24]. Analysts (and LMI respondents) predict that vacancy will decline in 2026 as tariff normalization gives supply chains greater certainty regarding infrastructure decisions[25].
Despite the softness in the other warehousing metrics, Warehousing Prices continued to expand (+3.3) at a rate of 66.2. This was driven more by Upstream (68.8) than by Downstream (59.5) respondents – likely reflecting mass destocking at the retail level. Warehousing Price is the one metric that has never contracted in the history of the LMI. Whether inventories are up or down, the cost of storing them continues to grow. This looks to be the case in the near future as well, with respondents predicting future expansion of 74.7 over the next 12 months. This suggests that even with the softness in capacity, we will continue to see rising costs in warehousing markets.
As was the case in November, softness in inventories and warehousing is countered by increased activity in the transportation sector. Transportation Capacity is down (-13.1) to 36.9 which is its lowest level since October of 2021. This is also the first time this metric has contracted since March of 2022 which was the start of the previous long freight recession. This contraction is consistent across every respondent group. There is some conjecture that the decline in capacity is due to English-language crackdowns. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy stated that 9,500 truck drivers have been pulled off the road due to failing English-language proficiency tests[26]. While that is a significant impact, it is worth noting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are just over 2 million heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers in the U.S.[27] so it is more likely that the decrease in capacity is being caused by the proliferation of holiday season deliveries.
Transportation metrics had been stunted by the static buildup of inventories throughout most of 2025. However, from the second half of October through the end of the year, they picked up significantly in a way that has been consistent with seasonality. Holiday shopping drove FreightWaves’ truckload rejection index to increase to almost 9.5% in mid-December, this is up from the same time last year[28]. The tightening of available capacity led to an increase in prices as well, with truckload spot rates increasing 8% from November 19th to December 4th[29]. U.S. consumers spent $187.3 billion online between November 1st and December 12th, which is up 6.1% year-over-year and likely accounted for at least some of the positive momentum in the freight market. It is also worth noting that ecommerce purchases often slow sharply in the week before Christmas, which may have taken some of the pressure off of last-mile delivery later in the month[30].
This is reflected in expansion in both Transportation Utilization (+6.7) at 58.2 and Transportation Prices (+1.7) at 66.7. There is an interesting divergence in Transportation Utilization, which contracted slightly (47.6) Downstream but expanded robustly (62.1) Upstream. This is likely due to retailers having largely replenished their holiday inventories from October to early December and then more or less “standing pat” (with an exception for last-mile delivery).
The higher Transportation Prices come despite U.S. diesel prices averaged $3.50 per gallon in the last reading of 2025. This is down 4.4 cents per gallon from a week before and 0.3 cents down from the same time a year ago[31]. After 10 consecutive weeks of decline – during which prices dropped 36.4 cents per gallon, diesel prices essentially end the year where they started[32]. It is not clear how the late-breaking U.S. military action in Venezuela, which sits on one of the world’s largest reserves of petroleum, will impact this. Beyond the fact that Transportation Prices are now expanding at their fastest rate since January, it is also notable that this metric reads in 29.8 points higher than Transportation Capacity, which is the largest positive freight inversion since March of 2022, suggesting that December’s freight market was the strongest in over three years. It will be interesting to see whether upswing continues into 2026.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index are 65.3, which is up (+2.4) from November’s future prediction of 62.9, and would represent a slightly faster rate of growth than the all-time average of 61.3. Respondents are once again predicting more moderate expansion in Inventory Levels at 59.0 (+2.3) with much higher expected increases in associate Inventory Costs at 72.1 (+0.4). We similar dynamics in warehousing with Warehousing Capacity expected to expand moderately at 55.9 (-2.3) while Warehousing Prices continue expanding significantly at 74.7 (-0.3). This is consistent with recent predictions that inventories and storage will be relatively expensive in 2026, leading firms to keep inventories lean to improve cashflow. This is particularly true for Downstream respondents who predict “no movement” in Inventory Levels at 50.0. To facilitate this, respondents (particularly those Upstream) are anticipating a significant uptick in transportation metrics, predicting tightening Transportation Capacity at 40.5 (-6.5), and associated increases in the expansion rates of Transportation Utilization at 70.3 (+3.9) and Transportation Prices at 76.8 (-1.6). If these predictions hold it would mark a significant shift in transportation markets. The key to this prediction will be consumer demand holding steady despite potential price increases. Consumer demand was stronger than anticipated throughout 2025, so there is a chance that this – and the associate turnaround in the freight market – could prove to be true.
We observe some differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents in December. Upstream firms reported significantly more expansion in the overall index at 53.1 while Downstream reported contraction at 47.2. Upstream is essentially unchanged (-0.4) from November but Downstream reported a significant drop off (-11.9). This is due to the massive shift in Downstream Inventory Levels which dropped an astounding -31.7 points from 65.8 to 34.1. Unlike Upstream firms, Downstream respondents let inventories run lean most of the year before building them up quickly in October and November and then selling through most of it in December. While it was tough on smaller Upstream firms, this speaks to the effectiveness of Downstream inventory strategies in 2025. The other significant differences we observe in December are higher Warehousing Prices Upstream (68.8 to 59.5) as well as much greater rates of Transportation Utilization (62.1 to 47.6 and contraction Downstream). While it is not statistically significant, it is notable that Upstream firms report higher Transportation Prices (69.5 to 59.1) as well. Taken together, it seems that Upstream firms are driving much of the replenishment of inventories and are therefore utilizing more of the logistics infrastructure as we move through Q4.
We observe some differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents in December. Upstream firms reported significantly more expansion in the overall index at 53.1 while Downstream reported contraction at 47.2. Upstream is essentially unchanged (-0.4) from November but Downstream reported a significant drop off (-11.9). This is due to the massive shift in Downstream Inventory Levels which dropped an astounding -31.7 points from 65.8 to 34.1. Unlike Upstream firms, Downstream respondents let inventories run lean most of the year before building them up quickly in October and November and then selling through most of it in December. While it was tough on smaller Upstream firms, this speaks to the effectiveness of Downstream inventory strategies in 2025. The other significant differences we observe in December are higher Warehousing Prices Upstream (68.8 to 59.5) as well as much greater rates of Transportation Utilization (62.1 to 47.6 and contraction Downstream). While it is not statistically significant, it is notable that Upstream firms report higher Transportation Prices (69.5 to 59.1) as well. Taken together, it seems that Upstream firms are driving much of the replenishment of inventories and are therefore utilizing more of the logistics infrastructure as we move through Q4.
We also split future predictions by Downstream respondents (purple bars) and Upstream respondents (green bars). Similar to what we observe in our current readings, Upstream firms expect to be significantly busier than their Downstream counterparts moving forward, reporting an expected expansion of 65.1 to Downstream’s 57.8 in the overall index. While the difference is not statistically significant, much of this can be explained by the differing predicted approaches to inventory management. Downstream firms are anticipating a leaner approach with Inventory Levels predicted at 50.0 and no movement. Their Upstream counterparts on the other hand are predicting robust Inventory Level expansion at 63.0 (interestingly, Downstream firms predict greater Inventory Cost expansion at 73.8 to Upstream’s 71.4). The difference in inventory policy is likely impacting the divergence in expectations regarding transportation metrics. Upstream firms predict that Transportation Capacity will be severely limited, predicting contraction at 36.2 to the moderate expansion of 52.4 predicted Downstream. Upstream respondents also predict significantly faster rates of expansion in Transportation Utilization (75.9 to 54.8) and Transportation Prices (80.8 to 65.9). Essentially it seems that Downstream firms will try a repeat of their low-inventory 2025 strategy while Upstream firms, likely seeking to improve cashflow, may be increasing their utilization of transportation capacity to turn goods over more quickly.
We observe a few notable differences in responses collected in early (gold bars) versus late (green bars) December. Inventory Levels read in at 28.2 in the first half of the month – which would be the lowest reading ever for this metric – before moving to 42.9 later in December. The shift in volumes translated to costs, with Inventory Costs going from 54.3 early to 71.4 later. We also saw an impact on Warehousing Utilization which contracted at 37.5 (also the fastest rate ever) before slowing to 48.6 and close to no movement in late December. Taken together, this suggests a draw-down of inventory that is unprecedented in the nine years of the LMI. This is likely due to a combination of both record inventories early this year and record holiday sales in Q4. We also often see holiday sales shift from more ecommerce to more in-person the week before Christmas (which is our early/late cutoff) which might explain some of the shifts in logistics activity.
We observe a few notable differences in responses collected in early (gold bars) versus late (green bars) December. Inventory Levels read in at 28.2 in the first half of the month – which would be the lowest reading ever for this metric – before moving to 42.9 later in December. The shift in volumes translated to costs, with Inventory Costs going from 54.3 early to 71.4 later. We also saw an impact on Warehousing Utilization which contracted at 37.5 (also the fastest rate ever) before slowing to 48.6 and close to no movement in late December. Taken together, this suggests a draw-down of inventory that is unprecedented in the nine years of the LMI. This is likely due to a combination of both record inventories early this year and record holiday sales in Q4. We also often see holiday sales shift from more ecommerce to more in-person the week before Christmas (which is our early/late cutoff) which might explain some of the shifts in logistics activity.
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 December. Breaking the trend that has existed throughout most of the year we see no statistically significant differences between these two groups. The largest delta is the 8.6-gap in Warehousing Utilization, where all respondents report contraction, but smaller firms report it moving at a faster rate (38.4 to 47.0). Smaller firms also report slightly lower numbers in Inventory Levels (31.7 to 37.5) and Warehousing Utilization (63.6 to 68.8). All of these are likely reflective of smaller firms starting from a place of more inventory and tighter capacity going into the final stretch of the holiday season. It will be interesting to see if the current parity between small and large firms continues into 2026, or if we instead see a return to the dynamics we saw through most of 2025 where smaller firms carried significantly more inventory and associated cost.
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 54.2, which is down (-1.4) from November’s reading. As was the case last month, the majority of the downward pressure comes from inventory and warehousing markets. This was led by a downward shift (-17.4) into extreme contraction at 35.1 for Inventory Levels. This led to Inventory Cost expansion slowing (-8.1) to 62.9. At the same time, Warehousing Capacity increased (+6.4) to 61.2 and Warehousing Utilization hit a second-consecutive all-time low, decreasing (-4.7) to 42.9. All of these downward movements are due to firms continuing to move inventories downstream towards consumers, providing a final wave of relief to the firms that had been holding onto unprecedented levels of inventory throughout 2025. This downstream push catalyzed transportation metrics, with Transportation Capacity (-13.1) moving back to contraction at 36.9 in a move that carriers have been waiting on for nearly three years. The contraction in available capacity pushed Transportation Prices up (+1.8) to 66.7, which is the highest reading for this metric since January and the initial inventory pull-forward that started the year
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 54.2, which is down (-1.4) from November’s reading. As was the case last month, the majority of the downward pressure comes from inventory and warehousing markets. This was led by a downward shift (-17.4) into extreme contraction at 35.1 for Inventory Levels. This led to Inventory Cost expansion slowing (-8.1) to 62.9. At the same time, Warehousing Capacity increased (+6.4) to 61.2 and Warehousing Utilization hit a second-consecutive all-time low, decreasing (-4.7) to 42.9. All of these downward movements are due to firms continuing to move inventories downstream towards consumers, providing a final wave of relief to the firms that had been holding onto unprecedented levels of inventory throughout 2025. This downstream push catalyzed transportation metrics, with Transportation Capacity (-13.1) moving back to contraction at 36.9 in a move that carriers have been waiting on for nearly three years. The contraction in available capacity pushed Transportation Prices up (+1.8) to 66.7, which is the highest reading for this metric since January and the initial inventory pull-forward that started the year
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 December Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 54.2 which is down (-1.4) from November’s reading of 55.7 and represents the lowest reading for the overall index since April of 2024. However, this reading does mark two consecutive years of expansion in the overall index. This decline was driven by the sharp contraction in Inventory Levels (35.1) and continued pullback in Warehousing Utilization (42.9). It is balanced by contraction in Transportation Capacity (36.9) and expansion in Transportation Prices (66.7). The positive 29.8-point gap between these two metrics is the largest positive freight inversion since March of 2022. The overall index came in significantly higher Upstream (53.1) than Downstream (47.2) where it is in a state of mild contraction. There was also a pickup in the overall index as December went on, moving from mild contraction at 48.2 to expansion at 54.9. It is worth noting that the contraction in early December was not indicative of slowness per se, it was mostly likely a function of a historic drawdown in inventories.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 65.3, which is up (+2.4) from November’s future prediction of 62.9, and would be just above the all-time average of 61.3. Respondent expectations vary across the supply chain, with Upstream respondents predicting overall expansion of 65.1, and Downstream respondents predicting a slower (although still notable) rate of expansion at 57.8.
The December Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 54.2 which is down (-1.4) from November’s reading of 55.7 and represents the lowest reading for the overall index since April of 2024. However, this reading does mark two consecutive years of expansion in the overall index. This decline was driven by the sharp contraction in Inventory Levels (35.1) and continued pullback in Warehousing Utilization (42.9). It is balanced by contraction in Transportation Capacity (36.9) and expansion in Transportation Prices (66.7). The positive 29.8-point gap between these two metrics is the largest positive freight inversion since March of 2022. The overall index came in significantly higher Upstream (53.1) than Downstream (47.2) where it is in a state of mild contraction. There was also a pickup in the overall index as December went on, moving from mild contraction at 48.2 to expansion at 54.9. It is worth noting that the contraction in early December was not indicative of slowness per se, it was mostly likely a function of a historic drawdown in inventories.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 65.3, which is up (+2.4) from November’s future prediction of 62.9, and would be just above the all-time average of 61.3. Respondent expectations vary across the supply chain, with Upstream respondents predicting overall expansion of 65.1, and Downstream respondents predicting a slower (although still notable) rate of expansion at 57.8.
Inventory Levels
The Inventory Level index is 35.1, down (-17.4) from November’s 52.5. This is the lowest value ever for this index, by a significant margin. Previously, the lowest value was 41.9 in July, 2023. Inventory Levels are 14.9 points lower than a year ago, and 9.2 points lower than two years ago at this time. Declining values in December are not uncommon, however, as firms work through the inventories they accumulated for the holiday sales season. We saw decreasing inventory levels in December of 2019 and 2023. The years in between, 2020 through 2022 were all affected, to a greater or lesser extent, by the COVID pandemic. Upstream and downstream were quite consistent. Upstream returned 35.6 and downstream returned 34.1. This is a marked difference from last month, when upstream returned a slight decrease at 46.3, while downstream returned 65.8, a difference of 19.4 points.
Predictions for future Inventory Level growth are 59.0, up (+2.3) from November’s prediction of 56.7, still suggesting an expectation for leaner inventories in 2025. Upstream respondents predict robust expansion at 63.0 while their Downstream counterparts look to keep things lean at 50.0. This is likely an attempt by retailers to replicate the success they had with delaying middle-mile inventory deliveries in 2025.
The Inventory Level index is 35.1, down (-17.4) from November’s 52.5. This is the lowest value ever for this index, by a significant margin. Previously, the lowest value was 41.9 in July, 2023. Inventory Levels are 14.9 points lower than a year ago, and 9.2 points lower than two years ago at this time. Declining values in December are not uncommon, however, as firms work through the inventories they accumulated for the holiday sales season. We saw decreasing inventory levels in December of 2019 and 2023. The years in between, 2020 through 2022 were all affected, to a greater or lesser extent, by the COVID pandemic. Upstream and downstream were quite consistent. Upstream returned 35.6 and downstream returned 34.1. This is a marked difference from last month, when upstream returned a slight decrease at 46.3, while downstream returned 65.8, a difference of 19.4 points.
Predictions for future Inventory Level growth are 59.0, up (+2.3) from November’s prediction of 56.7, still suggesting an expectation for leaner inventories in 2025. Upstream respondents predict robust expansion at 63.0 while their Downstream counterparts look to keep things lean at 50.0. This is likely an attempt by retailers to replicate the success they had with delaying middle-mile inventory deliveries in 2025.
Inventory Costs
Inventory Costs are 62.9, down (-7.9) from November’s reading of 70.8. As seen above, Inventory Levels are 14.9 points lower than a year ago. And yet, the Inventory Cost index is 1.3 points higher than a year ago. Inventory Levels are 9.2 points lower than two years ago, and yet Inventory Costs are 7.1 points higher than two years ago. This gap is likely due to the increased costs on goods levied by tariffs and storage fees. Upstream returned a value of 63.5, and Downstream returned a similar value, at 61.4. Both Upstream and Downstream are reporting higher inventory costs. The interesting thing is that Upstream reported significantly increasing inventory costs (63.5), despite the fact that they reported decreasing inventory levels (35.6). The Inventory Cost index is 27.9 points higher than the Inventory Level index. For Downstream, the story is very similar. The Inventory Cost (61.4) index is much higher than the Inventory Level (34.1) index, a difference of 27.3. Early respondents reported a small increase in Inventory Costs (54.3), while later respondents reported higher increases (71.4). This is despite the fact that early respondents returned an Inventory Level of 28.2 and later returned 42.9.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 72.1, up (+0.4) from November’s future prediction of 71.7, suggesting that costs will continue to increase significantly over the next 12 months. Upstream respondents predict growth of 71.4 and Downstream predicts expansion at 73.8. Respondents clearly expect Inventory Costs to continue outpacing Inventory Levels, particularly Downstream where they predict Inventory Levels to hold steady at 50.0.
Inventory Costs are 62.9, down (-7.9) from November’s reading of 70.8. As seen above, Inventory Levels are 14.9 points lower than a year ago. And yet, the Inventory Cost index is 1.3 points higher than a year ago. Inventory Levels are 9.2 points lower than two years ago, and yet Inventory Costs are 7.1 points higher than two years ago. This gap is likely due to the increased costs on goods levied by tariffs and storage fees. Upstream returned a value of 63.5, and Downstream returned a similar value, at 61.4. Both Upstream and Downstream are reporting higher inventory costs. The interesting thing is that Upstream reported significantly increasing inventory costs (63.5), despite the fact that they reported decreasing inventory levels (35.6). The Inventory Cost index is 27.9 points higher than the Inventory Level index. For Downstream, the story is very similar. The Inventory Cost (61.4) index is much higher than the Inventory Level (34.1) index, a difference of 27.3. Early respondents reported a small increase in Inventory Costs (54.3), while later respondents reported higher increases (71.4). This is despite the fact that early respondents returned an Inventory Level of 28.2 and later returned 42.9.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 72.1, up (+0.4) from November’s future prediction of 71.7, suggesting that costs will continue to increase significantly over the next 12 months. Upstream respondents predict growth of 71.4 and Downstream predicts expansion at 73.8. Respondents clearly expect Inventory Costs to continue outpacing Inventory Levels, particularly Downstream where they predict Inventory Levels to hold steady at 50.0.
Warehousing Capacity
The reading for Warehousing Capacity for December 2025 registered in at 61.2-points reflecting a 6.4-point increase from the month prior. This reading is up 4.2-points from the reading one year ago and is also up by 6.1-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 5.2-point split between Upstream (59.8) and Downstream (65.0) which was not statistically significant (p>.1), but notable as the Upstream value remained in expansionary territory from its previous retreat into contraction. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are nearly identical at 60.5 and 60.9. This .5-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Capacity, respondents predict mild expansion of 55.9, down (-2.3) from November’s prediction of 58.2. Downstream is expected to sustain expansionary growth with a value of 64.3 with Upstream’s growth also expected to continue expanding, with the predicted value one year out registering in at 52.7 (though with decreased intensity from last month's registered values). This 11.6-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
The reading for Warehousing Capacity for December 2025 registered in at 61.2-points reflecting a 6.4-point increase from the month prior. This reading is up 4.2-points from the reading one year ago and is also up by 6.1-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 5.2-point split between Upstream (59.8) and Downstream (65.0) which was not statistically significant (p>.1), but notable as the Upstream value remained in expansionary territory from its previous retreat into contraction. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are nearly identical at 60.5 and 60.9. This .5-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Capacity, respondents predict mild expansion of 55.9, down (-2.3) from November’s prediction of 58.2. Downstream is expected to sustain expansionary growth with a value of 64.3 with Upstream’s growth also expected to continue expanding, with the predicted value one year out registering in at 52.7 (though with decreased intensity from last month's registered values). This 11.6-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Utilization
Continuing its rather precipitous decline, the Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 42.9 -points for the month of December 2025, reflecting a 4.6 -point decline from the month prior, continuing the previous month's decline in capacity levels for the third month in a row, with two months in contraction. This reading is down a dramatic 18.8-points from the reading one year ago, and down by 17.9-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 6.5-point split between Upstream (44.6) and Downstream (38.1), where both values are now squarely in contractionary territory, but this difference was also not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 38.4 and 47.0, with both small and large firms clearly retreating into contraction. This 8.6-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Utilization, respondents predict expansion at 65.6, which is up (+4.9) from November’s prediction of 60.7. Expectations for growth are consistent across the supply chain with future Upstream expectations (68.8) being predicted to be growing slower than Downstream expectations (57.1). While the 11.6-point difference is notable, it is not statistically significant (p>.1).
Continuing its rather precipitous decline, the Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 42.9 -points for the month of December 2025, reflecting a 4.6 -point decline from the month prior, continuing the previous month's decline in capacity levels for the third month in a row, with two months in contraction. This reading is down a dramatic 18.8-points from the reading one year ago, and down by 17.9-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 6.5-point split between Upstream (44.6) and Downstream (38.1), where both values are now squarely in contractionary territory, but this difference was also not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 38.4 and 47.0, with both small and large firms clearly retreating into contraction. This 8.6-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Utilization, respondents predict expansion at 65.6, which is up (+4.9) from November’s prediction of 60.7. Expectations for growth are consistent across the supply chain with future Upstream expectations (68.8) being predicted to be growing slower than Downstream expectations (57.1). While the 11.6-point difference is notable, it is not statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Prices
The warehousing pricing index is exhibiting a reoccurring "see-saw" pattern, with pricing increasing by 3.3-points to 66.2 for December 2025. This reading is down 1.8-points from the reading one year ago, and down.7-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 9.2 -point split between Upstream (68.8) and Downstream (59.5) which was marginally statistically significant (p<.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are63.6 and 68.8 reflecting a 5.1 -point difference between the two which was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehouse Price, respondents predict robust expansion at 74.7, down slightly (-0.3) from November’s prediction of 75.0. Expectations across the supply chain are elevated, with future Upstream expectations (76.8) being predicted to be increasing, at a faster rate than Downstream expectations (69.0). This month's 7.7-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
The warehousing pricing index is exhibiting a reoccurring "see-saw" pattern, with pricing increasing by 3.3-points to 66.2 for December 2025. This reading is down 1.8-points from the reading one year ago, and down.7-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 9.2 -point split between Upstream (68.8) and Downstream (59.5) which was marginally statistically significant (p<.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are63.6 and 68.8 reflecting a 5.1 -point difference between the two which was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehouse Price, respondents predict robust expansion at 74.7, down slightly (-0.3) from November’s prediction of 75.0. Expectations across the supply chain are elevated, with future Upstream expectations (76.8) being predicted to be increasing, at a faster rate than Downstream expectations (69.0). This month's 7.7-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Transportation Capacity
The Transportation Capacity Index collapsed 13.1 points to 36.9 percent in December 2025. With this fourth consecutive drop, the Transportation Capacity index moved decisively into contraction territory. Last time the Transportation Capacity was at a level as low as this was in the fall of 2021. While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 34.7, the Downstream index is slightly higher at 42.9 but the difference is not statistically significant. Hence, it can be concluded that the contraction in Transportation Capacity is spread across the supply chains, both Upstream and Downstream.
The future Transportation Capacity index also decreased 6.5 points, and it is now at 40.5, indicating contraction for the next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 36.2, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 52.4, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, the expectations of future contraction are prevalent Upstream supply chains, while Downstream supply chains expect slightly expanding Transportation Capacity.
The Transportation Capacity Index collapsed 13.1 points to 36.9 percent in December 2025. With this fourth consecutive drop, the Transportation Capacity index moved decisively into contraction territory. Last time the Transportation Capacity was at a level as low as this was in the fall of 2021. While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 34.7, the Downstream index is slightly higher at 42.9 but the difference is not statistically significant. Hence, it can be concluded that the contraction in Transportation Capacity is spread across the supply chains, both Upstream and Downstream.
The future Transportation Capacity index also decreased 6.5 points, and it is now at 40.5, indicating contraction for the next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 36.2, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 52.4, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, the expectations of future contraction are prevalent Upstream supply chains, while Downstream supply chains expect slightly expanding Transportation Capacity.
Transportation Utilization
The Transportation Utilization Index jumped 6.7 points indicating 58.2 in December 2025. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 47.6, while the Upstream index indicates 62.1, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, as the Downstream utilization is decreasing, respondents indicate increased utilization Upstream.
The future Transportation Utilization Index decreased by 3.9 points from last month, indicating 70.3 points for the next 12 months. The future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 75.9 and the Downstream index at 54.8 and the difference is statistically significant. As such expectation of increased utilization are stronger Upstream than Downstream.
The Transportation Utilization Index jumped 6.7 points indicating 58.2 in December 2025. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 47.6, while the Upstream index indicates 62.1, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, as the Downstream utilization is decreasing, respondents indicate increased utilization Upstream.
The future Transportation Utilization Index decreased by 3.9 points from last month, indicating 70.3 points for the next 12 months. The future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 75.9 and the Downstream index at 54.8 and the difference is statistically significant. As such expectation of increased utilization are stronger Upstream than Downstream.
Transportation Prices
The Transportation Prices Index increased another 1.8 points from the previous reading and recorded 66.7 in December 2025. With this increase, the index is now only .1 points lower than the level indicated one year ago. While the Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 69.5, the Downstream index is at 59.1 but the difference is not statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that the inflationary pressure on Transportation Prices is being felt across the supply chains, both Upstream and Downstream.
The future index for Transportation Prices decreased slightly from last month, dropping 1.6 points and not indicating 76.8 level for the next year. The Upstream future Transportation Prices index is at 80.8 while the Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 65.9, and the difference is statistically significant. Therefore, the predicted inflation in Transportation Prices is greater Upstream than Downstream.
The Transportation Prices Index increased another 1.8 points from the previous reading and recorded 66.7 in December 2025. With this increase, the index is now only .1 points lower than the level indicated one year ago. While the Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 69.5, the Downstream index is at 59.1 but the difference is not statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that the inflationary pressure on Transportation Prices is being felt across the supply chains, both Upstream and Downstream.
The future index for Transportation Prices decreased slightly from last month, dropping 1.6 points and not indicating 76.8 level for the next year. The Upstream future Transportation Prices index is at 80.8 while the Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 65.9, and the difference is statistically significant. Therefore, the predicted inflation in Transportation Prices is greater Upstream than 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] Schwab, K. (2025, December 23). Holiday spending is up this year, according to Visa and Mastercard. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/12/23/holiday-spending-is-up-this-year-visa-and-mastercard-say
[2] Williams, J. (2025, December 23). More Shoppers Are Buying Secondhand Gifts This Holiday Season. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/more-shoppers-are-buying-secondhand-gifts-this-holiday-season-b2df043f
[3] Demos, T. (2025, December 9). Consumer Loans Are Getting Harder to Tally—And the Risks Harder to Gauge. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/consumer-loans-are-getting-harder-to-tallyand-the-risks-harder-to-gauge-29bfeb90
[4] Dickler, J. (2025, December 23). Consumers are taking on more debt this holiday, even as they grow less confident in the economy. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/23/credit-card-debt-holiday-shopping.html
[5] National Retail Federation. (2025, November 6). NRF | NRF Expects Holiday Sales to Surpass $1 Trillion for the First Time in 2025. https://nrf.com/media-center/press-releases/nrf-expects-holiday-sales-to-surpass-1-trillion-for-the-first-time-in-2025
[6] Hsu, J. (2025, December 20). Surveys of Consumers. Final Results for December 2025. https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[7] Smith, T. J. (2025, December 23). U.S. Economic Growth Surged in Third Quarter of 2025. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/business/us-economy-consumer-spending.html
[8] Ott. (2025a, December 23). Resilient US consumers drive strongest economic expansion in 2 years. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/economy-gdp-growth-spending-inflation-c660fb571421c48d2e91fa18bf4633d7
[9] Cox, J. (2025, December 30). Fed minutes show officials were in tight split over December rate cut. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/30/fed-minutes-december-2025.html
[10] Rugabager, C. (2025, December 10). Federal Reserve cuts key rate, sees healthier economy next year | AP News. AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/article/federal-reserve-economy-inflation-jobs-442de589de9b99bb811f76e402b00948
[11] Ott, M. (2025b, December 31). US applications for jobless benefits fell below 200,000 last week with layoffs historically low. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/unemployment-benefits-jobless-claims-layoffs-labor-5e0ab36c477fdb0e4924c3851b852725
[12] Purchasing Managers’ Index. (2026, January 2). United States Manufacturing PMI. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/manufacturing-pmi
[13] Murray, B. (2025, December 26). Global Trade Braces for the Hangover After Trump’s Tariff Year. gCaptain. https://gcaptain.com/global-trade-braces-for-the-hangover-after-trumps-tariff-year/
[14] Kurtenback, E. (2025, December 9). Chinese premier cites damage from US tariffs, as China’s surplus surpasses $1 trillion. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/china-trade-trump-tariffs-economy-e86ad5c2ff6735e45b7ce1a955c6829c
[15] Frangos, A. (2026, January 1). Trump Rolls Back Tariffs on Furniture and Kitchen Cabinets. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-rolls-back-tariffs-on-furniture-and-kitchen-cabinets-a1beddd5
[16] Kurtenback, E. (2025, December 9). Chinese premier cites damage from US tariffs, as China’s surplus surpasses $1 trillion. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/china-trade-trump-tariffs-economy-e86ad5c2ff6735e45b7ce1a955c6829c
[17] Ho-Him, C. (2025, December 30). China’s economy looks more resilient than it feels as a property slump drags on. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/china-economy-property-tariffs-jinping-17e9a32cf105764f457c1111f185dd3f
[18] LaRocco, L. A., & Mangan, D. (2025, December 15). New Trump tariffs collection hits $200 billion, Customs says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/15/trump-tariffs-trade-customs-imports.html
[19] Adams, W. L. (2025, December 26). How the end of the “de minimis” exemption hit businesses. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/12/26/how-de-minimis-exemption-end-hit-businesses
[20] LaRocco, L. A. (2025, December 17). Trump tariffs: Small businesses take on high-interest rate loans to cover new costs. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/17/trump-trade-tariffs-business-loans.html
[21] Peters, B. (2026, January 2). Could retail actually rebound in 2026? These are the chains — and trends — to watch. MarketWatch. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/could-retail-actually-rebound-in-2026-these-are-the-chains-and-trends-to-watch-83492ac0
[22] Dickler, J. (2025, December 23). Consumers are taking on more debt this holiday, even as they grow less confident in the economy. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/23/credit-card-debt-holiday-shopping.html
[23] Ho, J. (2025, December 25). Tariffs and economic uncertainty have U.S. warehouses stocking fewer goods. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/12/25/tariffs-and-economic-uncertainty-have-us-warehouses-stocking-fewer-goods
[24] Berger, P. (2025b, December 10). Exclusive | U.S. Manufacturers Slow Orders Ahead of Supreme Court Tariff Ruling. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-manufacturers-slow-orders-ahead-of-supreme-court-tariff-ruling-e8b78eaf
[25] Cassidy, W. B. (2025, December 30). Warehousing vacancies hit new peak, but larger facilities still needed | Journal of Commerce. Journal of Commerce. https://joc.com/article/warehousing-vacancies-hit-new-peak-but-larger-facilities-still-needed-6142713
[26] Breuninger, K. (2025, December 10). Trump admin touts pulling nearly 10,000 truckers off road for failing English tests. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/10/trump-transportation-duffy-truckers-fired-english.html
[27] Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024, April 3). Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes533032.htm
[28] Strickland, Z. (2025b, December 14). Christmas comes early for trucking. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/christmas-comes-early-for-trucking
[29] Strickland, Z. (2025a, December 7). Truckload spot rates spikes are telling us something. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truckload-spot-rates-spikes-are-telling-us-something
[30] Reagan, C. (2025, December 19). Shoppers are focusing on quality, not deals, in the final days before Christmas. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/19/christmas-shoppers-focus-on-quality-rather-than-deals.html
[31] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025, December 29). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS - December 29, 2025. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[32] Kingston, J. (2025, December 30). Latest decline in benchmark diesel leads to a mostly flat end-year price. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/latest-decline-in-benchmark-diesel-leads-to-a-mostly-flat-end-year-price