FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, August 6th, 2024
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.logisticsindex.org
Twitter: @LogisticsIndex
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.logisticsindex.org
Twitter: @LogisticsIndex
July 2024 Logistics Manager’s Index Report®
LMI® at 56.5
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Utilization, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices.
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Warehousing Prices.
Inventory Levels are CONTRACTING.
LMI® at 56.5
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Utilization, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices.
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Warehousing Prices.
Inventory Levels are CONTRACTING.
Fort Collins, CO) — The Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 56.5 in July of 2024, this is up (+1.2) from June’s reading of 55.3 and marks eight consecutive months of expansion. This is a far cry from last July when the overall index read in at 45.4 which is its lowest score in the eight-year history of the LMI. That being said, the reading is still below the all-time average of 61.9. This more subdued level of growth is attributable to the third consecutive month of contraction in Inventory Levels at 49.5. There is some nuance here however. Like in June, Inventory Levels are actually increasing Upstream (54.7) but are contracting Downstream (40.0). This suggests that retailers are keeping inventories lean at the start of Q3, while manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors are building up goods in anticipation increased demand later in the year. Despite the dip in overall inventories, transportation continued its recovery, with Transportation Prices up (+2.8) to 63.8 which is this highest reading since May of 2022. Transportation Capacity did expand slightly at 50.9 which is up (+0.9) from June’s reading of no change. Transportation Prices read in 12.9 points higher than Transportation Capacity, which is the biggest gap since April of 2022. Most importantly, it also marks three consecutive months the prices have exceeded capacity. This has happened due to a combination of excess capacity contraction and increasing demand due to imports and growth in manufacturing. Respondents are predicting that these dynamics will hold for the foreseeable future, suggesting that the freight recession is potentially ending. One possible obstacle to this is that there is some evidence that the surge in imports was due to Upstream firms building up inventories early to stay ahead of tariffs and the potential shipping delays that are common in the back half of the year. If this is the case and imports do slow down, it could portend a slowdown in parts of the freight market. Although it should be noted that the Port of L.A. is forecasting TEU imports to be up nearly 40% during the second week of August[1]. If there is to be a slowdown it has not yet materialized. However, there is likely to be tailwinds as well when retailers start restocking, and consumers inevitably start spending, as we move towards Q4. Finally, warehousing also remained strong in July. Warehousing Utilization was up (+5.3) to a more robust expansion of 57.9, and Warehousing Prices read in at 60.9, extending its run of readings above 60.0 to 56 consecutive months.
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 July 2024.
The LMI read in at 56.5 in July, up (+1.2) from June’s reading of 55.3 and indicating a moderate rate of expansion. This is the eleventh of twelve and eighth consecutive reading of expansion for the overall index. Like last month, this reading was largely a function of positive movements in the transportation market contrasting with a moderate contraction in inventories and slowing rates of expansion in the warehousing market. In a departure from the intra-month oscillations we have observed in the previous five months, the rate of expansion was consistent across all of July.
The overall economy has been interesting in July, with some positives and some negatives. Overall, the IMF remains bullish on their predictions for world economic growth – predicting an expansion of 3.2% in 2024. However, they warn that the potential raft of new tariffs – particularly the 60% tariff on Chinese goods currently being proposed by the Trump campaign, could darken this outlook[2]. International shipping could also be buffered by increasing tariffs. Two months after tripling tariffs on Chinese steel, the U.S. levied a 25% tariff on Mexican steel that was produced outside of North America – targeting Chinese steel that may have otherwise been “dumped” in the U.S.[3]. Although it is worth noting that on the last day of July the U.S. delayed tariffs on Chinese ship-to-shore cranes by two weeks (possibly reflecting the fact that no U.S. firms manufacture those, and so domestic firms would be forced to pay the premium)[4]. Despite this, imports were up all through the summer. Reflecting the increased activity at the ports is the unexpected in Chinese exports in June, which were up 8.6% year-over-year – continuing the trend we saw in May when exports were up 7.6%. The exports are spread throughout Asia, as Taiwan and South Korea have continued to push tech exports at high velocity. Overall, the PMI for the ASEAN region hit a 15-month high in July, marking seven consecutive months of upward momentum[5]. Japanese exports were also up 5.4% year-over-year in June. Many of these shipments are metals, plastics, and chip-making machines bound for the U.S.[6], likely reflecting the continued buildup of domestic chip manufacturing. It will be interesting to see if this is impacted by the emerging economic issues in Japan – particularly as the exchange rate between the yen and the dollar continues to shift. Interestingly, imports into China were down over the same time period, reflecting continued slowness in the world’s second-largest economy[7].
Looking further abroad, the Eurozone GDP was up 0.3% in Q2, exactly mirroring the rate of growth from Q1. This was largely driven by France and Spain and came despite economic contraction in Germany. The bumps to the Mediterranean countries were partially driven by tourism and may fade as it grows colder. This is concerning as some experts predict that Germany, the Eurozone’s largest economy, will continue to stagnate through the rest of 2024. This is largely due to a lack of demand for German goods abroad, particularly in China, which has often been a buyer of higher-end goods such as Mercedes[8]. Part of the Chinese slowness is due to continued issues in their real-estate market, where sales from the top 100 real-estate developers were down 20% year-over-year in June[9]. Conversely, U.S. GDP was up 2.8% in Q2 – double the 1.4% growth recorded in Q1. Consumer spending continued to be a driver of this growth, up 2.3% year-over-year[10]. Worker productivity was also up by 2.3% over this period – up from the anemic 0.4% growth in Q1[11]. Additionally, the U.S. has seen some growth in the services sector, where the service PMI was up to 56.0 – the highest level since Spring of 2022[12]. was not all good news in the U.S., as it added only 114,000 jobs and seeing unemployment bounce up to 4.3% - the highest level in three years. The logistics industry remained somewhat more robust, as 14,000 (or 12.3%) of the jobs added in July were in the Warehousing and Transportation sector[13]. Despite a slowdown in the labor market being precisely what the Fed has been aiming for over the last few years, this dip caused stocks to drop significantly on Friday[14]. When combined with the Monday-morning panic that came as a result of the instability in Japan, this all greatly increases the likelihood that the Fed will lower rates in the September meeting, easing the restrictions that have held back many firms over the last few years.
The consumer market will of course play into any decisions regarding interest rates as well. Based on inventory readings, it seems that firms are anticipating strong spending through the rest of 2024. The primary indicator of this is in inventories. Overall Inventory Levels read in at 49.5 in July, which is up (+2.2) from June’s reading and represents a very moderate decline in inventories overall. This is the third consecutive month of declining overall inventories, but it is also the second consecutive month that we have seen inventories increase Upstream. In July Upstream firms saw Inventory Levels grow at a rate of 54.7 while Downstream firms reported contraction at 40.0. As mentioned above, this dynamic suggests that retailers are practicing JIT and keeping inventories lean while their upstream partners build up their stores of goods in anticipation of orders that are yet to come.
Additional evidence to this theory can be seen in the recent surge in U.S. imports. Container imports into the ports of LA and Long Beach were up 15% from May to June. The 848,451 TEUs that came in are the most through the west coast ports since July 2022. This trend continued through July, with imports into the Port of LA up 25.3% year-over-year[15]. Similarly, container imports into Seattle and Tacoma were up 43% year-over-year in June and the Port of New York and New Jersey is seeing their highest volumes since 2022. This spike is due to both seasonality as well as shippers rushing goods ahead early to avoid any potential changes in U.S. trade policy[16]. Another reason for the summer increase in inventories is trepidation regarding a potential strike at East and Gulf Coast ports in the U.S., where the current contract is set to expire at the end of September. There has not been much progress on talks since ILA withdrew from talks in June due to concerns about increased automation. Dock workers are also pushing for a “much higher” pay increase than the 32% bump received by West Coast dock workers in the deal they secured last year[17].
We also see that air shipping volumes continue to crest, up 40% from Chinese manufacturing hubs in June. This spike is largely due to drop shipping from low-price e-commerce firms like Shein and Temu. Tim Scharwath of DHL states that e-commerce drop shippers now make up 30% of all cargo volumes originating in Asia. This demand has driven prices from South China to the U.S. up to $5.27/kg – more than double 2019 prices[18]. The disruption in the Red Sea has also continued contributing to higher air freight prices. Kuehne + Nagle reported that air volumes have been up – though at the expense of a 32% dip in earnings from sea shipping (although that has picked up in the last few months due to a surge in U.S. imports)[19]. Conversely, Maersk increased their full year guidance for the third consecutive month. They are predicting 4-6% growth in the container market in 2024, up from their previous prediction of 2.5-4.5% growth. Their previous excess volume has disappeared as all of their ships are now being used to meet burgeoning demand and the long shipment times required to navigate around the horn of Africa for Asia-Europe shipments. Maersk expects the Red Seas disruptions to continue through the rest of 2024[20].
Despite the slowdown in inventories Downstream, we saw Inventory Costs up (+2.2) across the board. Inventory Costs read in at 65.7 overall, with both Upstream (68.3) and Downstream (61.4) respondents reporting robust rates of growth. Downstream firms experiencing high costs despite declining inventories speaks to the continued high costs of storage and the inherent expense of the distribution centers and storefronts required to maintain high levels of service. For instance, Dollar General is among the Downstream firms reducing their inventories, reducing their offerings by 1,000 items from last year in an effort to be more streamlined and better manage cashflow. This has also required a reshuffling of their warehousing network, as they will close 12 older facilities this year but also open two new DCs as they remap their distribution apparatus[21].
Dollar General’s moves are representative of the cross pressures impacting the warehousing market. Overall, the warehousing market has been steady, but there is evidence that the types of facilities that are needed has shifted along with economic trends. The increase in international e-commerce drop shipping has taken the airfreight business by storm. This change has affected the types of storage facilities we need as well. This is evidenced by Kuehne + Nagle adding new fulfillment centers in the U.S., Italy, and UAE in an attempt to improve service for fast fashion shipments[22]. At the same time, Warehousing Capacity is up (+1.9) to 54.5. While it is somewhat moderate, this does represent expansion, reflecting a bit of softening in the market. According to Cushman & Wakefield, the U.S. warehouse vacancy rate is up to 6.1% (it was 4% a year ago). Despite this, demand for warehousing is still high, but it has cooled relative to the inventory rushes of 2021-2022. Warehousing Utilization reflects this, as it saw the largest increase (+5.3) in July, moving up to 57.9. We also saw the continued growth of Warehousing Prices, which read in at 60.9 but were down (-3.6) from June. This is the lowest reading since July of 2023 and fifth-lowest reading in the history of the index. Warehousing Prices are a steady grower, and the only time they read in below 60.0 was in April 2020 at the height of covid lockdowns. It will be interesting to continue monitoring this, as a dip below 60.0 could represent a marked shift for the industry. This may not happen however, Timothy Arndt, the CFO of Prologis believe that we may be at “peak vacancy”, and that the lack of supply in the pipeline will eventually lead to a demand once again overtaking supply[23]. Some of this expansion could come from the growing pocket of demand for industrial real estate in the form of datacenters that facilitate the burgeoning AI industry (Young & Jacob, 2024). Panattoni also announced they would begin focusing on data centers as well because that’s “where the customer is". The customer clearly is there as Amazon has announced plans to build approximately $100 billion on data centers over the next decade (Young, 2024c). Another sign of green shoots in the logistics industry is the proposed IPO of Lineage, which is the largest cold storage company in the world. The proposed IPO is valued between $3.29-$3.85 billion, which would represent a stronger vote of confidence in the logistics industry from Wall Street than we have seen since the downturn in 2022. CEO Greg Lehmkuhl states that reason behind this growth is the recent and ongoing proliferation of inventories[24].
The story of transportation in July is more straightforward. Transportation Prices once again increased (+2.8), reaching a rate of 63.8 which is their highest level since May of 2022. Transportation Prices were marginally higher early in the month at 71.0 but slowed to 61.2 later in July as the trickle of imports coming into the U.S. began to slow down. There is also an element of seasonality here, as we often see a bit of a slowdown in July. This overall Transportation Price increase came despite diesel fuel in the U.S. came in at $3.786 per gallon in the last week of July, down $0.359 from this time a year ago[25]. According to FreightWaves, dry van contract rates are down 3-5% year-over-year, while spot-rates are up 5-6% over the same period. Currently, spot markets are generally cheaper than contracts, but that gap has closed slightly since early July, suggesting there is increasing pressure on last-minute freight as we begin Q3[26]. This is reflected in the continuing increase (+3.5) in Transportation Utilization which is up to 59.2 – tied with May’s identical reading as the highest of 2024. Meanwhile, Transportation Capacity stayed fairly consistent (+0.9) but did move from “no change” at 50.0 to a very mild increase at 50.9.
The question continues to be whether the freight recession is over or not. There is some anecdotal evidence that conditions are improving, DHL’s revenue was up 2.7% to $22.3 billion in Q2. DHL saw air and sea volumes increase steadily through the second quarter and are anticipating a strong performance throughout the rest of 2024[27]. They are not alone, as C.H. Robinson reported growth in Q2 as well[28]. Werner CEO Derek Leather believes the freight market is nearing an “inflection point”- due to the ongoing tightening of capacity[29]. Landstar Systems echoed this sentiment, pointing to their stabilizing truckload rates and an increase in revenue per load[30]. The dynamics in July’s LMI would agree with Mr. Leather and might even suggest that the inflection rate has already happened at the macro level. We have now had a full quarter of Transportation Prices coming in above Transportation Capacity. It is highly likely that the freight recession has ended. There could be potential headwinds from a slowdown in imports or a black swan event; but absent those, and if current trends continue and seasonality holds, it is likely that the recession that has gripped the freight industry is moving towards its conclusion.
At a more macro level, the other big economic concern at the end of July and beginning of August is the Fed’s stance on interest rates. This was brought into sharper focus on the first Monday of August with Japan’s Nikkei 225 falling 12%, it’s worse drop since Black Monday of 1987 (when this author was eight months old). This drop caused cascading losses in stock markets around the world. This has led to many analysts calling on the Fed to lower interest rates[31] – something we have been calling for in the pages of the LMI for several months. The reason we have called for it in the LMI is not because of market shocks, but because supply-driven inflation, which was the major driver of inflation during the price shock days of 2022[32]. The chart below shows the aggregate of the three price and cost metrics in the LMI (Inventory Costs, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Prices) over the last four years. This metric has been a reliable predictor of supply-driven inflation. Supply-driven inflation have generally not been that high when the aggregate logistics price is lower than 210-215. With July’s reading of 190.4 it has now come in below 200.0 for 24 consecutive months. Monitoring supply inflation is important because it cannot be directly impacted by interest rates in the way that demand-driven inflation can. The Fed has been hammering demand inflation for over a year, and with July’s job report we see that the high interest rates have had their desired effect.
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 July 2024.
The LMI read in at 56.5 in July, up (+1.2) from June’s reading of 55.3 and indicating a moderate rate of expansion. This is the eleventh of twelve and eighth consecutive reading of expansion for the overall index. Like last month, this reading was largely a function of positive movements in the transportation market contrasting with a moderate contraction in inventories and slowing rates of expansion in the warehousing market. In a departure from the intra-month oscillations we have observed in the previous five months, the rate of expansion was consistent across all of July.
The overall economy has been interesting in July, with some positives and some negatives. Overall, the IMF remains bullish on their predictions for world economic growth – predicting an expansion of 3.2% in 2024. However, they warn that the potential raft of new tariffs – particularly the 60% tariff on Chinese goods currently being proposed by the Trump campaign, could darken this outlook[2]. International shipping could also be buffered by increasing tariffs. Two months after tripling tariffs on Chinese steel, the U.S. levied a 25% tariff on Mexican steel that was produced outside of North America – targeting Chinese steel that may have otherwise been “dumped” in the U.S.[3]. Although it is worth noting that on the last day of July the U.S. delayed tariffs on Chinese ship-to-shore cranes by two weeks (possibly reflecting the fact that no U.S. firms manufacture those, and so domestic firms would be forced to pay the premium)[4]. Despite this, imports were up all through the summer. Reflecting the increased activity at the ports is the unexpected in Chinese exports in June, which were up 8.6% year-over-year – continuing the trend we saw in May when exports were up 7.6%. The exports are spread throughout Asia, as Taiwan and South Korea have continued to push tech exports at high velocity. Overall, the PMI for the ASEAN region hit a 15-month high in July, marking seven consecutive months of upward momentum[5]. Japanese exports were also up 5.4% year-over-year in June. Many of these shipments are metals, plastics, and chip-making machines bound for the U.S.[6], likely reflecting the continued buildup of domestic chip manufacturing. It will be interesting to see if this is impacted by the emerging economic issues in Japan – particularly as the exchange rate between the yen and the dollar continues to shift. Interestingly, imports into China were down over the same time period, reflecting continued slowness in the world’s second-largest economy[7].
Looking further abroad, the Eurozone GDP was up 0.3% in Q2, exactly mirroring the rate of growth from Q1. This was largely driven by France and Spain and came despite economic contraction in Germany. The bumps to the Mediterranean countries were partially driven by tourism and may fade as it grows colder. This is concerning as some experts predict that Germany, the Eurozone’s largest economy, will continue to stagnate through the rest of 2024. This is largely due to a lack of demand for German goods abroad, particularly in China, which has often been a buyer of higher-end goods such as Mercedes[8]. Part of the Chinese slowness is due to continued issues in their real-estate market, where sales from the top 100 real-estate developers were down 20% year-over-year in June[9]. Conversely, U.S. GDP was up 2.8% in Q2 – double the 1.4% growth recorded in Q1. Consumer spending continued to be a driver of this growth, up 2.3% year-over-year[10]. Worker productivity was also up by 2.3% over this period – up from the anemic 0.4% growth in Q1[11]. Additionally, the U.S. has seen some growth in the services sector, where the service PMI was up to 56.0 – the highest level since Spring of 2022[12]. was not all good news in the U.S., as it added only 114,000 jobs and seeing unemployment bounce up to 4.3% - the highest level in three years. The logistics industry remained somewhat more robust, as 14,000 (or 12.3%) of the jobs added in July were in the Warehousing and Transportation sector[13]. Despite a slowdown in the labor market being precisely what the Fed has been aiming for over the last few years, this dip caused stocks to drop significantly on Friday[14]. When combined with the Monday-morning panic that came as a result of the instability in Japan, this all greatly increases the likelihood that the Fed will lower rates in the September meeting, easing the restrictions that have held back many firms over the last few years.
The consumer market will of course play into any decisions regarding interest rates as well. Based on inventory readings, it seems that firms are anticipating strong spending through the rest of 2024. The primary indicator of this is in inventories. Overall Inventory Levels read in at 49.5 in July, which is up (+2.2) from June’s reading and represents a very moderate decline in inventories overall. This is the third consecutive month of declining overall inventories, but it is also the second consecutive month that we have seen inventories increase Upstream. In July Upstream firms saw Inventory Levels grow at a rate of 54.7 while Downstream firms reported contraction at 40.0. As mentioned above, this dynamic suggests that retailers are practicing JIT and keeping inventories lean while their upstream partners build up their stores of goods in anticipation of orders that are yet to come.
Additional evidence to this theory can be seen in the recent surge in U.S. imports. Container imports into the ports of LA and Long Beach were up 15% from May to June. The 848,451 TEUs that came in are the most through the west coast ports since July 2022. This trend continued through July, with imports into the Port of LA up 25.3% year-over-year[15]. Similarly, container imports into Seattle and Tacoma were up 43% year-over-year in June and the Port of New York and New Jersey is seeing their highest volumes since 2022. This spike is due to both seasonality as well as shippers rushing goods ahead early to avoid any potential changes in U.S. trade policy[16]. Another reason for the summer increase in inventories is trepidation regarding a potential strike at East and Gulf Coast ports in the U.S., where the current contract is set to expire at the end of September. There has not been much progress on talks since ILA withdrew from talks in June due to concerns about increased automation. Dock workers are also pushing for a “much higher” pay increase than the 32% bump received by West Coast dock workers in the deal they secured last year[17].
We also see that air shipping volumes continue to crest, up 40% from Chinese manufacturing hubs in June. This spike is largely due to drop shipping from low-price e-commerce firms like Shein and Temu. Tim Scharwath of DHL states that e-commerce drop shippers now make up 30% of all cargo volumes originating in Asia. This demand has driven prices from South China to the U.S. up to $5.27/kg – more than double 2019 prices[18]. The disruption in the Red Sea has also continued contributing to higher air freight prices. Kuehne + Nagle reported that air volumes have been up – though at the expense of a 32% dip in earnings from sea shipping (although that has picked up in the last few months due to a surge in U.S. imports)[19]. Conversely, Maersk increased their full year guidance for the third consecutive month. They are predicting 4-6% growth in the container market in 2024, up from their previous prediction of 2.5-4.5% growth. Their previous excess volume has disappeared as all of their ships are now being used to meet burgeoning demand and the long shipment times required to navigate around the horn of Africa for Asia-Europe shipments. Maersk expects the Red Seas disruptions to continue through the rest of 2024[20].
Despite the slowdown in inventories Downstream, we saw Inventory Costs up (+2.2) across the board. Inventory Costs read in at 65.7 overall, with both Upstream (68.3) and Downstream (61.4) respondents reporting robust rates of growth. Downstream firms experiencing high costs despite declining inventories speaks to the continued high costs of storage and the inherent expense of the distribution centers and storefronts required to maintain high levels of service. For instance, Dollar General is among the Downstream firms reducing their inventories, reducing their offerings by 1,000 items from last year in an effort to be more streamlined and better manage cashflow. This has also required a reshuffling of their warehousing network, as they will close 12 older facilities this year but also open two new DCs as they remap their distribution apparatus[21].
Dollar General’s moves are representative of the cross pressures impacting the warehousing market. Overall, the warehousing market has been steady, but there is evidence that the types of facilities that are needed has shifted along with economic trends. The increase in international e-commerce drop shipping has taken the airfreight business by storm. This change has affected the types of storage facilities we need as well. This is evidenced by Kuehne + Nagle adding new fulfillment centers in the U.S., Italy, and UAE in an attempt to improve service for fast fashion shipments[22]. At the same time, Warehousing Capacity is up (+1.9) to 54.5. While it is somewhat moderate, this does represent expansion, reflecting a bit of softening in the market. According to Cushman & Wakefield, the U.S. warehouse vacancy rate is up to 6.1% (it was 4% a year ago). Despite this, demand for warehousing is still high, but it has cooled relative to the inventory rushes of 2021-2022. Warehousing Utilization reflects this, as it saw the largest increase (+5.3) in July, moving up to 57.9. We also saw the continued growth of Warehousing Prices, which read in at 60.9 but were down (-3.6) from June. This is the lowest reading since July of 2023 and fifth-lowest reading in the history of the index. Warehousing Prices are a steady grower, and the only time they read in below 60.0 was in April 2020 at the height of covid lockdowns. It will be interesting to continue monitoring this, as a dip below 60.0 could represent a marked shift for the industry. This may not happen however, Timothy Arndt, the CFO of Prologis believe that we may be at “peak vacancy”, and that the lack of supply in the pipeline will eventually lead to a demand once again overtaking supply[23]. Some of this expansion could come from the growing pocket of demand for industrial real estate in the form of datacenters that facilitate the burgeoning AI industry (Young & Jacob, 2024). Panattoni also announced they would begin focusing on data centers as well because that’s “where the customer is". The customer clearly is there as Amazon has announced plans to build approximately $100 billion on data centers over the next decade (Young, 2024c). Another sign of green shoots in the logistics industry is the proposed IPO of Lineage, which is the largest cold storage company in the world. The proposed IPO is valued between $3.29-$3.85 billion, which would represent a stronger vote of confidence in the logistics industry from Wall Street than we have seen since the downturn in 2022. CEO Greg Lehmkuhl states that reason behind this growth is the recent and ongoing proliferation of inventories[24].
The story of transportation in July is more straightforward. Transportation Prices once again increased (+2.8), reaching a rate of 63.8 which is their highest level since May of 2022. Transportation Prices were marginally higher early in the month at 71.0 but slowed to 61.2 later in July as the trickle of imports coming into the U.S. began to slow down. There is also an element of seasonality here, as we often see a bit of a slowdown in July. This overall Transportation Price increase came despite diesel fuel in the U.S. came in at $3.786 per gallon in the last week of July, down $0.359 from this time a year ago[25]. According to FreightWaves, dry van contract rates are down 3-5% year-over-year, while spot-rates are up 5-6% over the same period. Currently, spot markets are generally cheaper than contracts, but that gap has closed slightly since early July, suggesting there is increasing pressure on last-minute freight as we begin Q3[26]. This is reflected in the continuing increase (+3.5) in Transportation Utilization which is up to 59.2 – tied with May’s identical reading as the highest of 2024. Meanwhile, Transportation Capacity stayed fairly consistent (+0.9) but did move from “no change” at 50.0 to a very mild increase at 50.9.
The question continues to be whether the freight recession is over or not. There is some anecdotal evidence that conditions are improving, DHL’s revenue was up 2.7% to $22.3 billion in Q2. DHL saw air and sea volumes increase steadily through the second quarter and are anticipating a strong performance throughout the rest of 2024[27]. They are not alone, as C.H. Robinson reported growth in Q2 as well[28]. Werner CEO Derek Leather believes the freight market is nearing an “inflection point”- due to the ongoing tightening of capacity[29]. Landstar Systems echoed this sentiment, pointing to their stabilizing truckload rates and an increase in revenue per load[30]. The dynamics in July’s LMI would agree with Mr. Leather and might even suggest that the inflection rate has already happened at the macro level. We have now had a full quarter of Transportation Prices coming in above Transportation Capacity. It is highly likely that the freight recession has ended. There could be potential headwinds from a slowdown in imports or a black swan event; but absent those, and if current trends continue and seasonality holds, it is likely that the recession that has gripped the freight industry is moving towards its conclusion.
At a more macro level, the other big economic concern at the end of July and beginning of August is the Fed’s stance on interest rates. This was brought into sharper focus on the first Monday of August with Japan’s Nikkei 225 falling 12%, it’s worse drop since Black Monday of 1987 (when this author was eight months old). This drop caused cascading losses in stock markets around the world. This has led to many analysts calling on the Fed to lower interest rates[31] – something we have been calling for in the pages of the LMI for several months. The reason we have called for it in the LMI is not because of market shocks, but because supply-driven inflation, which was the major driver of inflation during the price shock days of 2022[32]. The chart below shows the aggregate of the three price and cost metrics in the LMI (Inventory Costs, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Prices) over the last four years. This metric has been a reliable predictor of supply-driven inflation. Supply-driven inflation have generally not been that high when the aggregate logistics price is lower than 210-215. With July’s reading of 190.4 it has now come in below 200.0 for 24 consecutive months. Monitoring supply inflation is important because it cannot be directly impacted by interest rates in the way that demand-driven inflation can. The Fed has been hammering demand inflation for over a year, and with July’s job report we see that the high interest rates have had their desired effect.
We do not wish to be criticism in our appraisal of the Fed. Achieving a soft landing is like trying to land a jet on an Air Force carrier; not only is the plane moving, but the boat, and the water the boat is on are shifting as well. Economic recoveries are a moving target and getting them right is extremely difficult. However, there is in issue in that they have relied mainly on demand-driven inflation is that it is a lagging indicator, consumers react to the economy that exists. Conversely, supply-driven inflation is a leading indicator, reacting to the economy that firms believe will exist. It is possible that by waiting to see a large enough drop in demand-driven inflation that the Fed may have overshot the target. This is unfortunate because to those that concentrate instead by aggregate logistics prices, along with the Fed’s own measure of supply-driven inflation, it has been clear that the overheating of the economy subsided some time ago. This is another clear indication of the predictive value of the supply chain industry as an economic bellwether. Supply chains are the thing that stitch the global economy together. By understanding the former, one can understand the latter.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondents continue to be largely optimistic about the future of the logistics industry, predicting an overall growth rate of 62.0, which is down (-4.1) from June’s future prediction of 66.1 but would still represent a steady rate of expansion. The optimism in the overall index is driven by expectations for significant growth rates in the 70’s for Inventory Costs (70.6) and Transportation Costs (78.0). The costs are reflected in Transportation Capacity being expected to hold steady at 50.0, which is up (+6.4) from June’s prediction of contraction at 43.6. Inventory Levels also registered a more subdued prediction at 58.1, which is down considerably (-11.4) from June’s future prediction of 69.1 and is more reflective of a balanced logistics ecosystem where firms are pursuing leaner, JIT policies. Once again warehousing – the steady drum beat of the logistics industry – is expected to continue expanding at slightly less robust, but potentially steadier, rates. A year that looks like the future currently being forecast by respondents would suggest strong, but sustainable movements in the logistics industry and in the overall economy.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondents continue to be largely optimistic about the future of the logistics industry, predicting an overall growth rate of 62.0, which is down (-4.1) from June’s future prediction of 66.1 but would still represent a steady rate of expansion. The optimism in the overall index is driven by expectations for significant growth rates in the 70’s for Inventory Costs (70.6) and Transportation Costs (78.0). The costs are reflected in Transportation Capacity being expected to hold steady at 50.0, which is up (+6.4) from June’s prediction of contraction at 43.6. Inventory Levels also registered a more subdued prediction at 58.1, which is down considerably (-11.4) from June’s future prediction of 69.1 and is more reflective of a balanced logistics ecosystem where firms are pursuing leaner, JIT policies. Once again warehousing – the steady drum beat of the logistics industry – is expected to continue expanding at slightly less robust, but potentially steadier, rates. A year that looks like the future currently being forecast by respondents would suggest strong, but sustainable movements in the logistics industry and in the overall economy.
In a continuation of June’s reading, we saw a significant difference in the feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents. Upstream firms once again saw Inventory Levels increase (54.7) while Downstream firms reported contracting inventories (40.0). Both of these numbers are higher than in June when they were 51.5 and 37.0 respectively, but we still have the same dynamic of wholesalers and distributors building up goods while retailers hew to a leaner JIT model. It is interesting that despite this difference in Inventory Levels, which are often the driver of our other metrics, there were no other significant or marginal differences between the two groups. The tight capacity and expanding prices and utilization across the supply chain suggests that Downstream firms have low inventories because they are cycling through them quickly, not because demand is low. At the same time, Upstream firms are holding inventories in advance of their expected deployments Downstream later in the year.
In a continuation of June’s reading, we saw a significant difference in the feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents. Upstream firms once again saw Inventory Levels increase (54.7) while Downstream firms reported contracting inventories (40.0). Both of these numbers are higher than in June when they were 51.5 and 37.0 respectively, but we still have the same dynamic of wholesalers and distributors building up goods while retailers hew to a leaner JIT model. It is interesting that despite this difference in Inventory Levels, which are often the driver of our other metrics, there were no other significant or marginal differences between the two groups. The tight capacity and expanding prices and utilization across the supply chain suggests that Downstream firms have low inventories because they are cycling through them quickly, not because demand is low. At the same time, Upstream firms are holding inventories in advance of their expected deployments Downstream later in the year.
Future predictions are a different story, with sharp contrasts emerging in expectations for future activity between our Upstream (green bars) and Downstream respondents (purple bars). Upstream firms anticipate a significantly higher rate of expansion in Inventory Levels
(65.5 to 42.9), Inventory Levels (76.8 to 57.4), Transportation Utilization (72.1 to 60.3), the overall index (65.6 to 55.7) and a marginally higher rate of Warehousing Utilization (*=65.5 to 54.4). Expansion is predicted across the supply chain, but Upstream firms are clearly expecting it to come at a much more robust rate. This is at least partially due to the slowness we have observed Upstream for the last two years. However, it is likely that it is also reflective of overall optimism, possibly due to increased opportunities for capex investment that firms have been putting off until interest rates come down. As interest rates come down and money becomes cheaper, it is likely that manufacturers and carriers will begin to transfer this to invest idle capital – particularly if demand continues to increase Downstream.
(65.5 to 42.9), Inventory Levels (76.8 to 57.4), Transportation Utilization (72.1 to 60.3), the overall index (65.6 to 55.7) and a marginally higher rate of Warehousing Utilization (*=65.5 to 54.4). Expansion is predicted across the supply chain, but Upstream firms are clearly expecting it to come at a much more robust rate. This is at least partially due to the slowness we have observed Upstream for the last two years. However, it is likely that it is also reflective of overall optimism, possibly due to increased opportunities for capex investment that firms have been putting off until interest rates come down. As interest rates come down and money becomes cheaper, it is likely that manufacturers and carriers will begin to transfer this to invest idle capital – particularly if demand continues to increase Downstream.
Breaking the trend of the last few months, we had did not observe any drastic differences between early (gold bars) and late (green bars) July. The only difference that was marginally significant was the slowdown in the expansion of Transportation Prices, which had been at 71.0 earlier in July (a rate that would have been a 28-month high) before decelerating to a more modest 61.0 later in the month. The slowdown came despite the non-significant, but still notable, shift in Inventory Levels as they moved from contraction (44.8) to expansion (51.2). We have been expecting inventories to move back into growth territory as we neared back-to-school season, and it seems like that may have happened in late July. Relatedly, we also saw Transportation Capacity move from expansion (54.8) to mild contraction (49.4) later in the month. Transportation Capacity has not contracted since March of 2022. Were this trend to continue and the metric contracted for the entire month in August, it would mark a true shift in the balance of supply and demand in the freight market.
Breaking the trend of the last few months, we had did not observe any drastic differences between early (gold bars) and late (green bars) July. The only difference that was marginally significant was the slowdown in the expansion of Transportation Prices, which had been at 71.0 earlier in July (a rate that would have been a 28-month high) before decelerating to a more modest 61.0 later in the month. The slowdown came despite the non-significant, but still notable, shift in Inventory Levels as they moved from contraction (44.8) to expansion (51.2). We have been expecting inventories to move back into growth territory as we neared back-to-school season, and it seems like that may have happened in late July. Relatedly, we also saw Transportation Capacity move from expansion (54.8) to mild contraction (49.4) later in the month. Transportation Capacity has not contracted since March of 2022. Were this trend to continue and the metric contracted for the entire month in August, it would mark a true shift in the balance of supply and demand in the freight market.
Similar to the contrasts discussed above, we only find marginally significant differences between larger firms (those with 1,000 employees or more, represented by gold lines) and smaller firms (those with 0-999 employees, represented by maroon lines). We see that smaller firms have marginally higher rates of expansion for Inventory Costs (69.6 to 61.5), which likely stems from them seeing Inventory Levels increasing (52.5) while their larger counterparts report contraction (46.2). It is possible that smaller firms are building up inventories early to avoid potential costs of slowdowns associated with peak season that larger firms may be able to deal with more easily. Conversely, it is the larger firms how see marginally higher rates of Transportation Utilization (63.0 to 55.8), which is reflected in their report of mild contraction (49.1) for Transportation Capacity (which expanded at 52.5 for smaller firms).
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 up (+1.2) to 56.5. The only metric that is currently in contraction is Inventory Levels (+2.2) which is contracting at the very mild rate of 49.5 – close to breaking even. Transportation Capacity moved up (+0.9) from no change in June to a very mild expansion of 50.9 in July. Warehousing Prices slowed a bit (-3.6) but are still growing robustly at 60.9. The other six metrics expanded at a faster rate than what we saw in June, headlined by Transportation Prices (+2.8) reading in at 63.8 which is its highest level since May of 2022.
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 up (+1.2) to 56.5. The only metric that is currently in contraction is Inventory Levels (+2.2) which is contracting at the very mild rate of 49.5 – close to breaking even. Transportation Capacity moved up (+0.9) from no change in June to a very mild expansion of 50.9 in July. Warehousing Prices slowed a bit (-3.6) but are still growing robustly at 60.9. The other six metrics expanded at a faster rate than what we saw in June, headlined by Transportation Prices (+2.8) reading in at 63.8 which is its highest level since May of 2022.
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 overall index reads in at 56.5, up (+1.2) from June’s reading of 55.3. This is up significantly (+9.9) from a year ago when July 2023’s reading came in at 45.4 which is the lowest score for the overall index in the eight-year history of the LMI. This increase is driven by a build up of inventories Upstream and the continued recovery of the transportation market. Costs and utilization metrics continue to grow across the index, which indicates that although inventories are low, they are still moving consistently through supply chains, suggesting a steady movement of goods that has not been possible during the last few years of COVID. The overall index grew at a steady pace across the supply chain, with not significant differences surfacing between Upstream vs. Downstream (57.9 to 56.6) or large vs. small (56.7 to 57.2) firms.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 62.0, down (-4.1) from June’s future prediction of 66.1. This slight slowdown in expectations is a departure from May and June, which were the most optimistic predictions for the overall index in two years. Once again, Upstream respondents have greater optimism, predicting an expansion of 65.6 which is significantly higher than the 55.7 predicted by their Downstream counterparts.
The overall index reads in at 56.5, up (+1.2) from June’s reading of 55.3. This is up significantly (+9.9) from a year ago when July 2023’s reading came in at 45.4 which is the lowest score for the overall index in the eight-year history of the LMI. This increase is driven by a build up of inventories Upstream and the continued recovery of the transportation market. Costs and utilization metrics continue to grow across the index, which indicates that although inventories are low, they are still moving consistently through supply chains, suggesting a steady movement of goods that has not been possible during the last few years of COVID. The overall index grew at a steady pace across the supply chain, with not significant differences surfacing between Upstream vs. Downstream (57.9 to 56.6) or large vs. small (56.7 to 57.2) firms.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 62.0, down (-4.1) from June’s future prediction of 66.1. This slight slowdown in expectations is a departure from May and June, which were the most optimistic predictions for the overall index in two years. Once again, Upstream respondents have greater optimism, predicting an expansion of 65.6 which is significantly higher than the 55.7 predicted by their Downstream counterparts.
Inventory Levels
The Inventory Level index is 49.5, up (+2.1) from June’s reading of 47.4. Although this is very marginal level of contraction, this does mark three consecutive months of contractions. This also continues a longer-term pattern in which inventories have contracted in 10 of the last 15 months. This contraction is mainly driven by retailers as Upstream respondents returned a value of 54.7, while downstream respondents returned 40.0, a difference of 14.7. Last month was a very similar story, with Upstream returned a value of 51.5, while Downstream returned 37.0, a difference of 14.4. 49.5 is close to breaking even, and there is evidence that Inventory Levels are creeping up, as early respondents returned a value of 44.8, but later in July reported expansion at a rate of 51.2.
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, the average value is 58.1, down notably (-11.4) from June’s future prediction of 69.5. Upstream respondents are more bullish on a buildup of future inventories, predicting expansion at 65.5, contrasting with Downstream’s prediction of contraction at 42.9.
The Inventory Level index is 49.5, up (+2.1) from June’s reading of 47.4. Although this is very marginal level of contraction, this does mark three consecutive months of contractions. This also continues a longer-term pattern in which inventories have contracted in 10 of the last 15 months. This contraction is mainly driven by retailers as Upstream respondents returned a value of 54.7, while downstream respondents returned 40.0, a difference of 14.7. Last month was a very similar story, with Upstream returned a value of 51.5, while Downstream returned 37.0, a difference of 14.4. 49.5 is close to breaking even, and there is evidence that Inventory Levels are creeping up, as early respondents returned a value of 44.8, but later in July reported expansion at a rate of 51.2.
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, the average value is 58.1, down notably (-11.4) from June’s future prediction of 69.5. Upstream respondents are more bullish on a buildup of future inventories, predicting expansion at 65.5, contrasting with Downstream’s prediction of contraction at 42.9.
Inventory Costs
Inventory costs read in at 65.7, up (+2.1) from June’s reading of 63.6 and in line with May’s reading of 65.2. The current value is 8.7 points higher than last year, and 18.1 points lower than two years ago when inventories were a primary driver of inflation. Unlike the divergence we saw with Inventory Levels, Upstream and Downstream respondents both indicated robust expansion (68.3 and 61.4 respectively). This is likely indicative of the former accruing storage fees while the latter continues to turn goods over more quickly. Unlike last month, we saw little difference in the values returned early (67.2) relative to late (65.2) in the month.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 70.6, down (-4.9) from June’s future prediction of 75.5 but still indicating a robust rate of expansion. Once again, Upstream firms are more optimistic, forecasting a growth rate of 76.8 to Downstream’s 57.4. This reflects the divergence in expectations for Inventory Levels and suggests that Downstream firms will be focused on keeping inventories lean over the next 12 months. Whether that comes to pass remains to be seen.
Inventory costs read in at 65.7, up (+2.1) from June’s reading of 63.6 and in line with May’s reading of 65.2. The current value is 8.7 points higher than last year, and 18.1 points lower than two years ago when inventories were a primary driver of inflation. Unlike the divergence we saw with Inventory Levels, Upstream and Downstream respondents both indicated robust expansion (68.3 and 61.4 respectively). This is likely indicative of the former accruing storage fees while the latter continues to turn goods over more quickly. Unlike last month, we saw little difference in the values returned early (67.2) relative to late (65.2) in the month.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 70.6, down (-4.9) from June’s future prediction of 75.5 but still indicating a robust rate of expansion. Once again, Upstream firms are more optimistic, forecasting a growth rate of 76.8 to Downstream’s 57.4. This reflects the divergence in expectations for Inventory Levels and suggests that Downstream firms will be focused on keeping inventories lean over the next 12 months. Whether that comes to pass remains to be seen.
Warehousing Capacity
The Warehousing Capacity index read in at 54.5 in July, up (+1.9) from June’s reading of 52.6. This reading indicates a continued expansion of available space. Historically, storage space often begins to disappear as we move into the second half of the year, it will be interesting to see if we will see this metric dip back into contraction at some point over the next few months. This reading is down 10.1 points from the reading one year ago, and also up 7.5 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 3.9-point split between Upstream (55.4) and Downstream (51.5)
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, respondents expect Warehouse Capacity to expand at a rate of 55.0, up very slightly (+0.3) from June’s future prediction of 54.7, suggesting that there will be new capacity over the next year, but not so much that it will dampen price expansion in a significant way. Future Upstream expectations (52.7) are lower than Downstream expectations (58.8). This 6.1-point split difference not being statistically significant (p>.1).
The Warehousing Capacity index read in at 54.5 in July, up (+1.9) from June’s reading of 52.6. This reading indicates a continued expansion of available space. Historically, storage space often begins to disappear as we move into the second half of the year, it will be interesting to see if we will see this metric dip back into contraction at some point over the next few months. This reading is down 10.1 points from the reading one year ago, and also up 7.5 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 3.9-point split between Upstream (55.4) and Downstream (51.5)
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, respondents expect Warehouse Capacity to expand at a rate of 55.0, up very slightly (+0.3) from June’s future prediction of 54.7, suggesting that there will be new capacity over the next year, but not so much that it will dampen price expansion in a significant way. Future Upstream expectations (52.7) are lower than Downstream expectations (58.8). This 6.1-point split difference not being statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Utilization
The Warehousing Utilization index read in at 57.9 in July, up (+5.3) from June’s reading of 52.6. Last month’s reading was the second lowest in the history of the index and pointed toward the possibility of this metric moving into contraction for the first time in the history of the index. With July’s rebound we seem to be moving away from that possibility. This reading is down 5.4 points from the reading one year ago, and down a considerable 11.1. points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 3.1-point split between Upstream (59.0) and Downstream (55.9) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employers we see that these values are essentially identical 57.9 and 57.8, respectively. This 0.1-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, respondents expect Warehouse Utilization to increase at a rate of 62.3, down (-2.6) from June’s future prediction of 64.9. future Upstream expectations (65.5) are higher than Downstream expectations (54.4), the 11.1-point difference between the two groups is marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
The Warehousing Utilization index read in at 57.9 in July, up (+5.3) from June’s reading of 52.6. Last month’s reading was the second lowest in the history of the index and pointed toward the possibility of this metric moving into contraction for the first time in the history of the index. With July’s rebound we seem to be moving away from that possibility. This reading is down 5.4 points from the reading one year ago, and down a considerable 11.1. points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 3.1-point split between Upstream (59.0) and Downstream (55.9) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employers we see that these values are essentially identical 57.9 and 57.8, respectively. This 0.1-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, respondents expect Warehouse Utilization to increase at a rate of 62.3, down (-2.6) from June’s future prediction of 64.9. future Upstream expectations (65.5) are higher than Downstream expectations (54.4), the 11.1-point difference between the two groups is marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
Warehousing Prices
The Warehousing Price index read in at 60.9, down (-3.6) from June’s reading of 64.5. down very slightly (-0.4) from May’s reading of 64.9. This reading is essentially unchanged from the reading one year ago (up .3 points), and also down a sizable 15.3 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a miniscule 0.5-point split between Upstream (61.0) and Downstream (61.4) which was not statistically significant (p>.1 Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employers we see that these values are 58.6 and 63.5, respectively. This 4.8-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, respondents expect Warehouse Prices to increase at a rate of 63.3, down (-4.3) from June’s future prediction of 67.6. Future Upstream expectations (64.4) are higher than Downstream expectations (61.9). However, this 2.6-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1) as respondents across the board are anticipating increased storage costs over the next 12 months.
The Warehousing Price index read in at 60.9, down (-3.6) from June’s reading of 64.5. down very slightly (-0.4) from May’s reading of 64.9. This reading is essentially unchanged from the reading one year ago (up .3 points), and also down a sizable 15.3 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a miniscule 0.5-point split between Upstream (61.0) and Downstream (61.4) which was not statistically significant (p>.1 Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employers we see that these values are 58.6 and 63.5, respectively. This 4.8-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, respondents expect Warehouse Prices to increase at a rate of 63.3, down (-4.3) from June’s future prediction of 67.6. Future Upstream expectations (64.4) are higher than Downstream expectations (61.9). However, this 2.6-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1) as respondents across the board are anticipating increased storage costs over the next 12 months.
Transportation Capacity
The Transportation Capacity Index registered in at 50.9 in July 2024. This constitutes a modest increase of 0.9 points from last month’s reading. With this small rebound the Transportation Capacity remains barely in expansion territory yet it is still close to the two-year minimum. The Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 50.6, while the Downstream index is at 50.0, a difference that is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Capacity index is up 6.4 points, now indicating an even 50 and showing expectations of constant Transportation Capacity over the next 12 months. The Downstream future Transportation Capacity index is at 51.5 while the Upstream future Transportation Capacity index indicates 48.7 with the difference not being statistically significant.
The Transportation Capacity Index registered in at 50.9 in July 2024. This constitutes a modest increase of 0.9 points from last month’s reading. With this small rebound the Transportation Capacity remains barely in expansion territory yet it is still close to the two-year minimum. The Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 50.6, while the Downstream index is at 50.0, a difference that is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Capacity index is up 6.4 points, now indicating an even 50 and showing expectations of constant Transportation Capacity over the next 12 months. The Downstream future Transportation Capacity index is at 51.5 while the Upstream future Transportation Capacity index indicates 48.7 with the difference not being statistically significant.
Transportation Utilization
The Transportation Utilization Index is up 3.5 points from last month, indicating 59.2 in July 2024. With this increase, the index is back to the same level where it was two months ago and matches highest mark noted since October 2023. The increase is spread across the supply chain, with the Downstream Transportation Utilization Index now reading 55.9, while the Upstream index is indicating 60.3. This difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Utilization Index dropped slightly but continues to indicate expansion at 68.8 level for the next 12 months. The Upstream Transportation Utilization index is at 72.1 while the Downstream index is at 60.3. The difference is statistically significant, indicating that stronger transportation activity increases are expected Upstream than Downstream.
The Transportation Utilization Index is up 3.5 points from last month, indicating 59.2 in July 2024. With this increase, the index is back to the same level where it was two months ago and matches highest mark noted since October 2023. The increase is spread across the supply chain, with the Downstream Transportation Utilization Index now reading 55.9, while the Upstream index is indicating 60.3. This difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Utilization Index dropped slightly but continues to indicate expansion at 68.8 level for the next 12 months. The Upstream Transportation Utilization index is at 72.1 while the Downstream index is at 60.3. The difference is statistically significant, indicating that stronger transportation activity increases are expected Upstream than Downstream.
Transportation Prices
The Transportation Prices Index indicates 63.8 in July 2024, which corresponds to an increase of 2.8 points from the previous month. This denotes the third consecutive monthly increase in the Transportation Prices index, indicating the continued strengthening of inflationary pressures on the transportation costs. These inflationary pressures relatively uniformly felt across the supply chains, with Upstream index at 63.5 and Downstream indexes at 63.9, but this difference is not statistically significant.
The future index for Transportation Prices dropped 1.8 points and is now at 78.0, continuing to indicate strong expectations of higher Transportation Prices in the next 12 months. The Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 76.4 while the Upstream Transportation Prices index is at 78.8. As such, expectations of higher Transportation Prices over the next year are quite strong in both Upstream and Downstream, across the supply chain.
The Transportation Prices Index indicates 63.8 in July 2024, which corresponds to an increase of 2.8 points from the previous month. This denotes the third consecutive monthly increase in the Transportation Prices index, indicating the continued strengthening of inflationary pressures on the transportation costs. These inflationary pressures relatively uniformly felt across the supply chains, with Upstream index at 63.5 and Downstream indexes at 63.9, but this difference is not statistically significant.
The future index for Transportation Prices dropped 1.8 points and is now at 78.0, continuing to indicate strong expectations of higher Transportation Prices in the next 12 months. The Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 76.4 while the Upstream Transportation Prices index is at 78.8. As such, expectations of higher Transportation Prices over the next year are quite strong in both Upstream and Downstream, across the supply chain.
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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly 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] Port of Los Angeles. (2024b, August 5). Port Optimizer—Control Tower August 5, 2024. Port of Los Angeles Signal August 5, 2024. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[2] Hannon, P. (2024, July 16). Fresh Tariffs Could See Interest Rates Stay Higher for Even Longer, IMF Warns. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/global/fresh-tariffs-could-see-interest-rates-stay-higher-for-even-longer-imf-warns-ac1196d0
[3] Swanson, A. (2024, July 10). Biden Announces Tariffs on Chinese Metals Routed Through Mexico. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/us/politics/biden-steel-china-mexico.html
[4] Mahoney, N. (2024, July 31). US delays tariff hikes on Chinese imports by at least 2 weeks. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-delays-tariff-hikes-on-chinese-imports-by-at-least-2-weeks
[5] Ochoa, F. N., & Suvarna, R. (2024, August 1). Asian Manufacturing Recovery Continues, But Some Cracks Start to Show. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/china-caixin-pmi-signals-deterioration-in-manufacturing-sector-8499801b
[6] Fujikawa, M. (2024, July 18). Japan Exports Rose in June But Softening Global Demand Clouds Outlook. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/japan-exports-rose-in-june-but-softening-global-demand-clouds-outlook-9ccd7389
[7] Singapore Editors. (2024a, July 12). China’s Export Growth Tops Expectations, but Imports Post Surprise Drop—WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinas-exports-growth-tops-expectations-imports-post-surprise-drop-06226700?mod=trade_more_article_pos3
[8] Kirby, J. (2024a, July 24). U.S. Economy Boosted by Services While Eurozone Industry Proves Listless—WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/global/french-stalemate-listless-german-industry-weigh-on-eurozone-economy-7a6ddb48?mod=economy_feat3_global_pos3
[9] Singapore Editors. (2024b, August 1). China’s Home Sales Slump Again, Signaling Crisis Not Over Yet. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinas-home-sales-slump-again-signaling-crisis-not-over-yet-4c556bac
[10] Casselman, B. (2024, July 25). U.S. Economic Growth Accelerates, Outpacing Forecasts. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/business/economy/us-gdp-economy-inflation.html
[11] Smith, T. J. (2024, August 1). Productivity Surges 2.3%, Beating Forecasts. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/business/economy/labor-productivity.html
[12] Kirby, J. (2024a, July 24). U.S. Economy Boosted by Services While Eurozone Industry Proves Listless—WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/global/french-stalemate-listless-german-industry-weigh-on-eurozone-economy-7a6ddb48?mod=economy_feat3_global_pos3
[13] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024, August 1). Employment by industry, monthly changes July, 2024. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm
[14] Lahart, J. (2024, August 2). The Role of Learning in Dynamic Portfolio Decisions * | Review of Finance | Oxford Academic. The Wall Street Journal. https://academic.oup.com/rof/article-abstract/1/3/295/1580011
[15] Port of Los Angeles. (2024, August 1). Port Optimizer—Control Tower. Port of Los Angeles Signal August 1, 2024. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[16] Berger, P. (2024c, July 23). U.S. Importers Are Rushing Goods in Early Ahead of Shipping Disruptions. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-importers-are-rushing-goods-in-early-ahead-of-shipping-disruptions-25fd44f3
[17] Berger, P. (2024b, July 17). Dockworkers, Ports in a Standoff as Strike Threats Grow Louder. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/dockworkers-ports-in-a-standoff-as-strike-threats-grow-louder-e36cc4d4
[18] Berger, P. (2024a, July 1). Shein, Temu Are Swamping Airfreight Capacity, Sending Rates Soaring. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/shein-temu-are-swamping-airfreight-capacity-sending-rates-soaring-ba123ea6
[19] Chopping, D. (2024a, July 23). Kuehne + Nagel Air Logistics Demand Gets Boost From Red Sea Disruption. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/earnings/kuehne-nagel-air-logistics-demand-gets-boost-from-red-sea-disruption-2d36fe09
[20] Chopping, D. (2024b, August 1). Maersk Lifts Guidance as Red Sea Disruption and Strong Demand Continue. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/maersk-lifts-guidance-as-red-sea-disruption-and-strong-demand-continue-a849ea80
[21] Young, L. (2024a, July 10). Dollar General Streamlines Supply Chain Behind Its Sprawling Store Network. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/dollar-general-streamlines-supply-chain-behind-its-sprawling-store-network-dfa604ee
[22] [22] Chopping, D. (2024a, July 23). Kuehne + Nagel Air Logistics Demand Gets Boost From Red Sea Disruption. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/earnings/kuehne-nagel-air-logistics-demand-gets-boost-from-red-sea-disruption-2d36fe09
[23] Cassidy, W. B. (2024, July 23). US warehousing vacancies rise, but demand seen returning by 2025 | Journal of Commerce. https://joc.com/article/us-warehousing-vacancies-rise-demand-seen-returning-2025_20240723.html
[24] Young, L., & Jacob, D. (2024, July 17). Prologis Says Demand for Data Centers Is Boosting the Industrial Property Outlook. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/prologis-says-demand-for-data-centers-is-boosting-the-industrial-property-outlook-02a5bcdc
[25] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2024, July 29). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update July 29, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[26] Strickland, Z. (2024, July 27). Truckload contracts still falling despite increasing spot pressure. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truckload-contracts-still-falling-despite-increasing-spot-pressure
[27] Kulisch, E. (2024, August 1). DHL eyes freight recovery after subdued 1H. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dhl-eyes-freight-recovery-after-subdued-1h
[28] Kingston, J. (2024b, July 31). C.H. Robinson first look: Q2 numbers up from both Q1 and 2023. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/c-h-robinson-first-look-q2-numbers-up-from-both-q1-and-2023
[29] Kingston, J. (2024a, July 30). Werner CEO Leathers says freight market inflection point may be close. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/werner-ceo-leathers-says-freight-market-inflection-point-may-be-close
[30] Maiden, T. (2024, July 30). Landstar sees stabilizing trends, still awaiting TL market turn. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/landstar-sees-stabilizing-trends-still-awaiting-tl-market-turn
[31] McCabe, C., & Barnato, K. (2024, August 5). Stock Market Today: What to Watch After Last Week’s Selloff—Live Updates. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-sp500-nasdaq-live-08-05-2024
[32] Shapiro, A. (2024, March 1). Supply- and Demand-Driven PCE Inflation—San Francisco Fed—February 2024. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/data-and-indicators/supply-and-demand-driven-pce-inflation/
[2] Hannon, P. (2024, July 16). Fresh Tariffs Could See Interest Rates Stay Higher for Even Longer, IMF Warns. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/global/fresh-tariffs-could-see-interest-rates-stay-higher-for-even-longer-imf-warns-ac1196d0
[3] Swanson, A. (2024, July 10). Biden Announces Tariffs on Chinese Metals Routed Through Mexico. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/us/politics/biden-steel-china-mexico.html
[4] Mahoney, N. (2024, July 31). US delays tariff hikes on Chinese imports by at least 2 weeks. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/us-delays-tariff-hikes-on-chinese-imports-by-at-least-2-weeks
[5] Ochoa, F. N., & Suvarna, R. (2024, August 1). Asian Manufacturing Recovery Continues, But Some Cracks Start to Show. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/china-caixin-pmi-signals-deterioration-in-manufacturing-sector-8499801b
[6] Fujikawa, M. (2024, July 18). Japan Exports Rose in June But Softening Global Demand Clouds Outlook. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/japan-exports-rose-in-june-but-softening-global-demand-clouds-outlook-9ccd7389
[7] Singapore Editors. (2024a, July 12). China’s Export Growth Tops Expectations, but Imports Post Surprise Drop—WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinas-exports-growth-tops-expectations-imports-post-surprise-drop-06226700?mod=trade_more_article_pos3
[8] Kirby, J. (2024a, July 24). U.S. Economy Boosted by Services While Eurozone Industry Proves Listless—WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/global/french-stalemate-listless-german-industry-weigh-on-eurozone-economy-7a6ddb48?mod=economy_feat3_global_pos3
[9] Singapore Editors. (2024b, August 1). China’s Home Sales Slump Again, Signaling Crisis Not Over Yet. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinas-home-sales-slump-again-signaling-crisis-not-over-yet-4c556bac
[10] Casselman, B. (2024, July 25). U.S. Economic Growth Accelerates, Outpacing Forecasts. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/business/economy/us-gdp-economy-inflation.html
[11] Smith, T. J. (2024, August 1). Productivity Surges 2.3%, Beating Forecasts. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/01/business/economy/labor-productivity.html
[12] Kirby, J. (2024a, July 24). U.S. Economy Boosted by Services While Eurozone Industry Proves Listless—WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/global/french-stalemate-listless-german-industry-weigh-on-eurozone-economy-7a6ddb48?mod=economy_feat3_global_pos3
[13] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024, August 1). Employment by industry, monthly changes July, 2024. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/employment-by-industry-monthly-changes.htm
[14] Lahart, J. (2024, August 2). The Role of Learning in Dynamic Portfolio Decisions * | Review of Finance | Oxford Academic. The Wall Street Journal. https://academic.oup.com/rof/article-abstract/1/3/295/1580011
[15] Port of Los Angeles. (2024, August 1). Port Optimizer—Control Tower. Port of Los Angeles Signal August 1, 2024. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[16] Berger, P. (2024c, July 23). U.S. Importers Are Rushing Goods in Early Ahead of Shipping Disruptions. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-importers-are-rushing-goods-in-early-ahead-of-shipping-disruptions-25fd44f3
[17] Berger, P. (2024b, July 17). Dockworkers, Ports in a Standoff as Strike Threats Grow Louder. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/dockworkers-ports-in-a-standoff-as-strike-threats-grow-louder-e36cc4d4
[18] Berger, P. (2024a, July 1). Shein, Temu Are Swamping Airfreight Capacity, Sending Rates Soaring. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/shein-temu-are-swamping-airfreight-capacity-sending-rates-soaring-ba123ea6
[19] Chopping, D. (2024a, July 23). Kuehne + Nagel Air Logistics Demand Gets Boost From Red Sea Disruption. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/earnings/kuehne-nagel-air-logistics-demand-gets-boost-from-red-sea-disruption-2d36fe09
[20] Chopping, D. (2024b, August 1). Maersk Lifts Guidance as Red Sea Disruption and Strong Demand Continue. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/maersk-lifts-guidance-as-red-sea-disruption-and-strong-demand-continue-a849ea80
[21] Young, L. (2024a, July 10). Dollar General Streamlines Supply Chain Behind Its Sprawling Store Network. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/dollar-general-streamlines-supply-chain-behind-its-sprawling-store-network-dfa604ee
[22] [22] Chopping, D. (2024a, July 23). Kuehne + Nagel Air Logistics Demand Gets Boost From Red Sea Disruption. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/earnings/kuehne-nagel-air-logistics-demand-gets-boost-from-red-sea-disruption-2d36fe09
[23] Cassidy, W. B. (2024, July 23). US warehousing vacancies rise, but demand seen returning by 2025 | Journal of Commerce. https://joc.com/article/us-warehousing-vacancies-rise-demand-seen-returning-2025_20240723.html
[24] Young, L., & Jacob, D. (2024, July 17). Prologis Says Demand for Data Centers Is Boosting the Industrial Property Outlook. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/prologis-says-demand-for-data-centers-is-boosting-the-industrial-property-outlook-02a5bcdc
[25] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2024, July 29). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update July 29, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[26] Strickland, Z. (2024, July 27). Truckload contracts still falling despite increasing spot pressure. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truckload-contracts-still-falling-despite-increasing-spot-pressure
[27] Kulisch, E. (2024, August 1). DHL eyes freight recovery after subdued 1H. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dhl-eyes-freight-recovery-after-subdued-1h
[28] Kingston, J. (2024b, July 31). C.H. Robinson first look: Q2 numbers up from both Q1 and 2023. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/c-h-robinson-first-look-q2-numbers-up-from-both-q1-and-2023
[29] Kingston, J. (2024a, July 30). Werner CEO Leathers says freight market inflection point may be close. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/werner-ceo-leathers-says-freight-market-inflection-point-may-be-close
[30] Maiden, T. (2024, July 30). Landstar sees stabilizing trends, still awaiting TL market turn. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/landstar-sees-stabilizing-trends-still-awaiting-tl-market-turn
[31] McCabe, C., & Barnato, K. (2024, August 5). Stock Market Today: What to Watch After Last Week’s Selloff—Live Updates. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-sp500-nasdaq-live-08-05-2024
[32] Shapiro, A. (2024, March 1). Supply- and Demand-Driven PCE Inflation—San Francisco Fed—February 2024. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/data-and-indicators/supply-and-demand-driven-pce-inflation/