FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, April 1st, 2025[a]
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
March 2025 Logistics Manager’s Index Report®
LMI® at 57.1
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Warehousing Capacity
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices.
LMI® at 57.1
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Warehousing Capacity
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices.
(Fort Collins, CO) — The March Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 57.1, down (-5.6 from February’s reading of 62.8. The January and February readings represented the fastest rate of growth in the overall index since June of 2022. March’s reading is departure from this trend, as this is the lowest overall reading for the index since August of 2024.
The contraction in the overall index was driven by a sharp decline in all three of the price/cost metrics. In January, all three metrics were up significantly, with all three of them reading in above 70.0 for the first time since 2022. This trajectory continued into February for Inventory Costs and Warehousing Prices. Many of those shifts reversed this month, with Inventory Costs (-6.7 to 70.6), Warehousing Prices (-16.0 to 61.0), and Transportation Prices (-9.0 to 56.4) all down significantly in March. This suggests that supply chains revved up in February and early March to bring goods in, but have slowed in more recent weeks as more trade controls have been implemented. Logistics costs in February were high, so if the Inventory Costs and Warehousing Prices stay where they are now and don’t go down it may represent stabilization, further contraction could be an issue though. It is a different story for Transportation Prices, which fell significantly in the second half of the month from 60.5 in early March to 51.1 (close to no expansion) later in the month. This reading of 51.1 was lower than Transportation Capacity’s late-March reading of 54.9, indicating a slight freight inversion at the end of the month. Traditionally, a negative freight inversion (in which Transportation Capacity expands faster than Transportation Prices) signals a downturn in the transportation market. To be clear, we need to see several full months of this continued dynamic to declare a freight recession. It is possible that this is a one-time blip that will flip back in April and that the market will continue the positive trend it has demonstrated over the last 11 months. It will be critical to continue monitoring this situation over the next few months. Dynamics in the transportation market are often a leading indicator for movements in the overall economy. If we see a sustained pullback in freight, it may signal coming issues in the overall economy.
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 March 2025.
The LMI read in at 57.1 in March, down (-5.6) from February’s reading of 62.8. Both February and January’s reading (62.1) had been the highest for the overall index since June of 2022. March’s reading is the lowest since August of 2024. The 5.6-point decline is the third largest in the history of the index. The only greater occurrences were a 6.6-point drop in April 2022, which was the month after Russia invaded Ukraine and set off inflation; and a 7.6-point drop in April of 2020, which was the first reading after COVID-19 lockdowns. That being said, a reading of 57.1 does still indicate a level of expansion that is within half a standard deviation of the all-time average of 61.6. The dip to 57.1 is not troubling in a vacuum, the major point of concern is that it represents a deviation from the direction in which the logistics industry had been trending since reaching a low point in July 2023. If logistics activity stabilizes around its current levels, it would represent slow steady expansion. If however this movement is the start of a new pattern, and we see a drift towards contraction, it could spell trouble from a logistics industry that has only recently gotten back on its feet after a half decade dealing with COVID and painful inflation.
Nervousness regarding the direction of the overall economy is apparent places other than this report. The University of Michigan’s Survey of Consumers showed that consumer sentiment is 57.0. This is down 11.9% from last month and down 28.8% lower than the same reading last year. Sentiment has trended down all through 2025. Once again, the dip is driven by fears of renewed inflation, which at 5.0% are at their highest levels since November of 2022[1]. Relatedly, the Conferences Board’s monthly survey of forward-looking expectations for income, business, and labor market conditions dropped to 65.2, which is below the “expected recession threshold” of 80.0 and marks its lowest level in 12 years. Respondents indicated that the twin threats of tariffs and continued inflation were significant contributors to their pessimistic predictions[2].
A major source of worry regarding inflation is the uncertainty surrounding tariffs. In late March, the U.S. announced plans to implement a 25% tariff on imported vehicles. Officials stated that this would represent an additional 25% on top of other recently-implemented tariffs. Analysts suggest that this could add approximately $6,000 of costs to vehicles assembled in Mexico and Canada. The announcement of these tariffs had significant negative effects on the shares of most automotive manufacturers[3]. Germany and France have pledged to take retaliatory measures against these tariffs. Because European automakers currently have limited ability to expand their manufacturing footprint in the U.S., some are predicting a $12,000 increase in European cars. This will significantly impact cross-border traffic, as many of these automotives are currently assembled in Mexico[4]. This would be particularly troubling for Germany, with officials predicting that Europe’s economic engine could slide into recession if the proposed “tectonic changes” in global economic policy are fully implemented[5]. Taken all together these shifts will make the European Central Bank’s job “more complicated” as they continue working to bring down inflation on the continent[6].
On the domestic front, the Federal Reserve once again left interest rates constant after their March meeting. Chairman Power stated that “further progress may be delayed” on inflation getting down to the Fed’s goal of 2% due to uncertainty surrounding trade policy. Interestingly, this announcement came a week after a report showing that U.S. inflation came in at 2.8% in February. While this was an increase of 0.2% on a monthly basis, it was slower growth than we saw in January[7]. There was also positive news regarding wholesale prices as the producer price index (PPI) showed no gain in February after increasing by 0.6% in January[8]. It is important to point out that both of these measures would only reflect the initial 10% tariffs that were placed on China in early February and would not yet have captured costs associated with any other changes in trade policy. It will be interesting to see whether inflation rates continue slowing on this trajectory or not, and how any movements impact the Fed’s opinion on interest rates at their next meeting.
One of the primary challenges with readjusting supply chains to account for changes in trade policy is the uncertainty surrounding them. For instance, in late March President Trump stated that China approving the sale of TikTok could lead him to consider reducing tariffs between them and the U.S.[9]. The administration is also going back and forth on whether or not to implement reciprocal tariffs or a 20% flat tariff across the board[10]. This speaks to the uncertainty underlying the current round of tariffs. If 20% tariffs might be eliminated due to a policy change on one specific social media company – something that had not previously been listed as a demand tied to trade and could happen any time ] – firms may be reticent to make significant investments to move manufacturing out of China. Firms can work around tariffs if they become a long-term part of their supply chain (see the 60 years of steadiness in the U.S. pickup truck market post-“chicken tax”). However, it is exponentially more difficult for firms to adjust to significant new rules when it is unclear whether or not they will be permanent.
This uncertainty is reflected in the changing approach to inventories. Inventory Levels continued to increase at 61.2, though at a slightly slower rate (-3.6) than we observed in February. A bevy of statistics suggests that the inventory pull-forward in the first few months of the year was significant. For instance, nearly 480,000 TEUs passed through the Port of Savannah in February, marking its busiest February on record. While March is not complete at the time of this writing, it appears that the business continued through at least the first half of the month[11]. Commodities are a major component of the pull-forward of inventory. For instance, the U.S. will import approximately 500,000 tons of copper in March, over 6X above the 70,000 tons we would see imported in a normal month[12].
Interestingly, we do observe that Downstream Inventory Levels are growing 7.8 points faster than their Upstream counterparts at a rate of 66.7 to 58.9. This is notable because it is the inverse of what we saw last month, Upstream inventories were expanding 11.1 points faster at a rate of 69.6 to 58.5. As one would expect, this has also led to higher Inventory Costs Downstream (75.9) than Upstream (68.1). This inversion suggests that the bulk of the pull-forward may have happened already, with firms now waiting to see exactly what the new regulations will be. Many firms are in a difficult position because they want to build up inventories quickly to stay ahead of tariffs, but at the same time they are nervous to build inventories up too much as it could lead to a repeat of some of the problems of 2022 when firms were bogged down by goods and supply-inflation spiked[13]. Imports will not continue at this pace without some certainty; partially due to cost. Inventory Costs were down (-6.7) but still expanded at a rate of 70.6, which we consider to be a significant level of expansion.
There is already some evidence of a slowdown in inbound goods. Joachim Goller, a senior VP at Kuhne + Nagle stated that cross-border traffic between the U.S. and Mexico dropped significantly upon the announcement of the tariffs and has not yet recovered. Several importers have been hit with duties that add significant cost to their orders, leaving many firms (especially smaller ones) to look for alternative methods of import[14]. This could be further impacted by the proposed fees on Chinese cargo ships calling at U.S. ports, which could to add $600 to $800 of cost per container, and approximately $20 billion to shipping overall. This has led to petitions not only from importers, but from exporters – like farmers – as well. Carriers may choose to frequent fewer ports. Meaning that agricultural products which often ship out of the Port of Oakland may instead have to be shipped down to Southern California to limit the number of stops that ships have to make (and therefore fees they will need to pay)[15]. A shift in patterns could also impact volume in certain lanes (e.g., eastbound on Interstate 80), shifting the prices OTR carriers will be able to charge. Ocean carriers are nervous as well, with Atlantic Container LineCEO Andrew Abbot predicting that this will send prices up and that his firm may end up shutting down as a result[16].
Several retailers, including Walmart, Delta, United, Southwest, and Dick’s Sporting Goods, have cautioned investors of the possibility of decreased demand due to uncertainty and potential higher costs related to tariffs[17]. One countermeasure they may take to get around this is to alter their product mix. Many retailers suffered during inflation of 2022-2023 as consumers shifted spending to essential items such as food and fuel. Target is adjusting their product mix, and warehouse network, to prepare in case a similar dynamic emerges in the future. They have opened three new grocery distribution centers over the past two years and will open another in Colorado in 2025[18]. Because groceries often require temperature control, specialized facilities are often needed (e.g. a firm cannot just repurpose a vacant warehouse without climate control). This investment represents an effort to diversify (and perhaps inflation-proof) their product mix. Walmart and Amazon have also made investments in grocery distribution over the last few years, suggesting that retailers are increasingly seeing grocery, and by relation the cold chain, as a key competency.
Warehousing Capacity loosened up slightly overall, increasing (+1.8) to 52.3. This capacity is tighter Downstream, where it is contracting at a rate of 47.9, lower than the mild rates of expansion (53.9) reported Upstream. In general, demand for warehousing space is up. Asian logistics service providers (LSPs) have emerged as a significant source of demand in the U.S. warehousing market. Warehouse leasing by Asian LSPs doubled year-over-year in some U.S. markets, as firms too advantage of lower price growth in 2024. Prologis reports that Asian LSPs accounted for 20% of all U.S. warehouse leases through the first three quarters of last year. This surge is attributable to several factors including relatively low costs in 2024, the fear of tariffs in 2025 (which would – and seemingly have – led some firms to stock up quickly), and the facilitating of drop-shipped, De Minimis imports from Asian e-commerce firms such as Schien and Temu[19]. Regarding the latter, increased warehousing footprints in the U.S. allow those firms to achieve domestic economies of scale, helping to control costs after the expense of air-shipping goods across the Pacific. That being said, warehousing demand is coming from multiple places. Prologis estimates that the growth of e-commerce (up 8% in 2024) will necessitate an additional 250 million to 300 million square feet of space by 2030. E-commerce focused space is often located at more expensive real estate closer to population centers, meaning the incoming wave of storage space may come with a high price tag[20]. This is reflected in the sky-high predictions for future Warehousing Prices by Downstream retailers, who are forecasting a growth rate of 81.3 over the next 12 months – significantly higher than the prediction of 61.4 from their Upstream counterparts. The Upstream predictions are very similar to the current reading of 61.0, which is down significantly (-16.0) from February’s reading of 77.0, which was the highest reading in several years (and more consistent with Downstream predictions). Warehousing Utilization was also down (-5.8) to 59.7. It should be pointed out however that this decline in the rate of expansion was primarily fueled by readings early in the month, as Warehousing Utilization read in at a fairly pedestrian 54.2 in early March, before rebounding to a more robust rate of expansion at 66.3 in the second half of the month.
As mentioned above, there were interesting shifts in our transportation metrics in March. Most pronounced among these were the movements in Transportation Prices. Similar to our other cost metrics, Transportation Prices were down significantly (-9.0) in March, dropping to 56.4 which is their lowest level since April 2024, when they were in active contraction following the Fed’s decision to hold off on lowering interest rates. The 9.0-point drop is the largest since July of 2022 when Transportation Prices moved from expansion to contraction, signaling the start of what we now know was an 18-month freight recession. The bulk of this movement happened later in the month, as Transportation Capacity went from robust expansion at 60.5 in the first half of March, to anemic expansion bordering on no movement at 51.1. As mentioned above, this dip coincided with Transportation Capacity coming in at 53.6 (-1.6) overall and at 55.6 in the second half of the month. This means that in the second half of March there was a negative freight inversion. The most recent negative freight inversion was in April of 2024, which was the 21st out of 22 months where Transportation Capacity had grown faster than Transportation Prices. The positive freight inversion that occurred in May 2024 reversed this dynamic, marking and end to the freight recession of 2022-2024. Interestingly, Upstream firms anticipate that Transportation Prices will be up robustly (66.9) in the next 12 months (as compared to a future prediction of 56.9 Downstream) so it could be the case that the market will rebound and we will avoid a prolonged pullback in transportation.
March’s softening in price came despite U.S. diesel prices being up slightly (+$0.018 per gallon) in the last week of March. Although it should be pointed out that this is down 47 cents per gallon from the same period a year ago[21]. Ocean shipping costs slowed as well as ocean container rates are down year-over-year as imports from China have slowed[22]. This comes after large ocean shippers such as Cosco (+32.3%) saw significant increases in revenue in 2024. Shipping prices between Asia and Europe went down 11% year-over-year, and Asia-Mediterranean prices are down 9%. Both of these pale in comparison to the 18% drop for Asia-North American routes[23]. Essentially the demand for durable goods that characterized much of the last year has subsided slightly due to economic uncertainty[24].
Transportation Utilization was down (-3.8) to 54.0 in March. This was primarily driven by Upstream firms, who reported no movement at 50.0, whereas Downstream retailers reported robust expansion at 64.3. This is a similar dynamic to what we saw with Warehousing Utilization and adds further support to the hypothesis that the large volumes of inventories that came in earlier this year are now moving downstream to the retail level. We also see that FreightWaves’ flatbed tender rejection rate spiked up to the mid-30’s in early March. This was largely driven by imports of things bulky items like Canadian lumber ahead of tariffs[25]. The pull-forward of inventories is also evident in increased volumes coming through ports and being moved inland through intermodal transport. International intermodal was up in early March as well, with exports coming in from Mexico and Canada to avoid duties[26].
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondents continued to predict expansion in March, though at a slower (-5.6) rate than February’s reading of 66.2 or January’s prediction of 66.1. Respondents anticipate that Inventory Levels will grow at a very moderate rate of 55.7 – down significantly (-13.4) from February’s future prediction of 69.1 and also down (-5.5) from the current expansion rate of 61.2. As a result of this slowdown, we also see more moderate predictions across all of our cost metrics, with Inventory Costs (70.6), Warehousing Prices (66.7), and Transportation Prices (64.0) coming in at a combined 34.1-points lower than last month’s predictions. At the same time, Warehousing Capacity is expected to contract at a rate of 45.5. Taken all together, this suggests that the inventory buildup that has characterized the first quarter of 2025 will slow down within the next year, leading to lower costs and tighter storage availability. Generally, we would expect higher prices to go along with capacity that is this tight, potentially suggesting more static levels of inventory than what we have seen in the last year.
We observe some differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents in March. The most notable case is in Transportation Utilization, where Upstream firms reported that the metric was holding steady (50.0) while Downstream firms reported robust expansion (64.3). Interestingly, this came about despite Upstream firms having slightly slower expansion in Transportation Capacity as well as higher Transportation Prices (58.3 to 51.7). We also see that available Warehousing Capacity contracted Downstream (47.9) but expanded Upstream (53.9). Finally, Downstream Inventory Levels increased 7.8-points faster (66.7 to 58.9) than their Upstream counterparts – a reverse from the dynamics last month (when it was 69.6 Upstream and 58.5 Downstream). Taken all together, this suggests that the inventories that we saw Upstream in February have matriculated to Downstream retailers. This is very similar to the dynamic we sometimes observe ahead of Q4 sales. Retailers had not been holding high levels of inventory in 2024 – especially in Q1. So this marks a significant shift in strategy. What the outcome of this shift will be remains to be seen.
According to future predictions reported by Upstream (green bars) and Downstream respondents (purple bars) it is possible that these differences will not hold. We do however see that respondents across the suppl chain are expecting Warehousing Capacity to contract (45.3 Upstream and 45.8 Downstream) potentially indicating that continuous inventory growth will eat up available space, something that would mark a shift in warehousing dynamics. Despite expecting similar levels of availability, Downstream firms expect Warehousing Costs to expand at significantly faster rates (81.3) than their Upstream counterparts (61.4). This might be reflective of the more expensive areas where Downstream retailers tend to locate their inventories for faster delivery. They are not expecting higher costs across the board though, as Upstream firms predict Transportation Prices to expand at 66.9, while Downstream firms predict milder expansion at 56.9.
There are some interesting differences at play in March between responses that were collected early (gold bars) and late (green bars) in the month. In early March (3/1-3/15), Warehousing Capacity grew at a more restrained rate of 54.2. However, later in the month (3/16-3/31) it expanded at a significantly faster rate of 66.3. Taken together with the increase (+1.8) in Inventory Levels, this suggests that at least part of the wave of imports that have been flooding into the U.S. through the first quarter of the year have reached either an Upstream or Downstream warehouse. The temporal differences are also apparent in our transportation metrics. Transportation Prices slid considerably, dropping from robust growth at 60.5 early in the month to nearly contraction at 51.1 in late March. When taken together with the increase in Transportation Capacity (from 52.6 early to 54.9 late), we see a slight freight inversion. A freight inversion is a situation in which Transportation Capacity begins expanding more quickly than Transportation Prices and is often an indicator of a freight recession. In this case the inversion only happened for half of the month, and the difference between the two metrics (3.8 points) is small. However, if the trends observed in late March continue the freight market could be in for some rough waters.
There are some interesting differences at play in March between responses that were collected early (gold bars) and late (green bars) in the month. In early March (3/1-3/15), Warehousing Capacity grew at a more restrained rate of 54.2. However, later in the month (3/16-3/31) it expanded at a significantly faster rate of 66.3. Taken together with the increase (+1.8) in Inventory Levels, this suggests that at least part of the wave of imports that have been flooding into the U.S. through the first quarter of the year have reached either an Upstream or Downstream warehouse. The temporal differences are also apparent in our transportation metrics. Transportation Prices slid considerably, dropping from robust growth at 60.5 early in the month to nearly contraction at 51.1 in late March. When taken together with the increase in Transportation Capacity (from 52.6 early to 54.9 late), we see a slight freight inversion. A freight inversion is a situation in which Transportation Capacity begins expanding more quickly than Transportation Prices and is often an indicator of a freight recession. In this case the inversion only happened for half of the month, and the difference between the two metrics (3.8 points) is small. However, if the trends observed in late March continue the freight market could be in for some rough waters.
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 March. The readings are similar across many of the metrics. However, smaller firms do report significantly tighter Transportation Capacity (44.4), which contrasts with robust availability (61.3) for larger firms. Interestingly, we also see that larger firms saw Warehousing Capacity hold steady at “no change” (50.0), whereas small firms saw it loosen a bit (54.0). This is the reverse of February when small firms saw Warehousing Capacity contract and larger firms saw is expand. It also lends some credence to the theory that smaller firms increased inventories as fast as they could (e.g. last month) and larger firms are now following them. The Federal Reserve’s small business credit survey showed that more small businesses saw revenue decrease than increase in 2024. Recent reports by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Metlife, and Intuit had similar findings. Many of the issues small businesses face stem from increased costs (Leonhardt, 2025). Breaking down the difference between small and large respondents over the last few years, we see that in 2023-2024 small businesses were slow to come back in our numbers, but eventually did recover. Now in 2025 they have brought in a huge level of inventory. They employ a significant percentage of workers and will likely be the “canary in the coalmine” should a potential economic slowdown begin to impact 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 57.1 which is down (-5.6) from February’s 62.8 and is the slowest rate of expansion since August 2024. This drop is attributable to many factors, as seven of our eight sub-metrics expanded at a slower rate in March than in February (although it should be noted that all of them are still expanding). This change is most pronounced in our price and cost metrics. Inventory Costs (-6.7), Warehousing Prices (-16.0) and Transportation Prices (-9.0) are all down significantly. The slowing pattern in Transportation Prices in particular suggests that things have become slightly more static late in the month.
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 57.1 which is down (-5.6) from February’s 62.8 and is the slowest rate of expansion since August 2024. This drop is attributable to many factors, as seven of our eight sub-metrics expanded at a slower rate in March than in February (although it should be noted that all of them are still expanding). This change is most pronounced in our price and cost metrics. Inventory Costs (-6.7), Warehousing Prices (-16.0) and Transportation Prices (-9.0) are all down significantly. The slowing pattern in Transportation Prices in particular suggests that things have become slightly more static late in the month.
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 57.1 in March, down (-5.6) from February’s reading of 62.8, which as mentioned above is the third-largest dip in the overall index in its history. This is down 0.8 points from this time last year but is up 6.0 points from March of 2023 when we were in the throes of inflation and the freight recession. The movements in the LMI are largely due the slowing expansion of our three cost and price metrics, which cumulatively came in 31.7 points lower than the month before. These movements were consistent across the supply chain, as we had similar readings Upstream (56.9) and Downstream (61.0), early (57.4) and late (58.8), and with large (58.3) and small (57.8) firms.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 60.6 which is down (also -5.6) from February’s future prediction of 66.2. This still signals a dulled optimism which is just under the all-time average of 61.6. This is sentiment shared across all levels of the supply chain, as Upstream and Downstream firms both predict robust rates of expansion at 60.4 and 61.5 respectively.
The overall index reads in at 57.1 in March, down (-5.6) from February’s reading of 62.8, which as mentioned above is the third-largest dip in the overall index in its history. This is down 0.8 points from this time last year but is up 6.0 points from March of 2023 when we were in the throes of inflation and the freight recession. The movements in the LMI are largely due the slowing expansion of our three cost and price metrics, which cumulatively came in 31.7 points lower than the month before. These movements were consistent across the supply chain, as we had similar readings Upstream (56.9) and Downstream (61.0), early (57.4) and late (58.8), and with large (58.3) and small (57.8) firms.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 60.6 which is down (also -5.6) from February’s future prediction of 66.2. This still signals a dulled optimism which is just under the all-time average of 61.6. This is sentiment shared across all levels of the supply chain, as Upstream and Downstream firms both predict robust rates of expansion at 60.4 and 61.5 respectively.
Inventory Levels
The Inventory Levels index is 61.2, down (-3.6) from February’s reading of 64.8. , up (+6.3) from January’s reading of 58.5. Inventory Levels are 14.7 points higher than a year ago, and 5.6 points higher than two years ago at this time. In a reverse from February, March’s expansion is driven by retailers, with Downstream firms reporting expansion at 66.7 to Upstream’s 58.9, suggesting that the mass of inventory that was coming into the U.S. in February has trickled down to the retail level in March. It will be interesting to see whether these levels decrease at all with consumer demand, or if they remain high through Q2, which is generally a time that inventories are lower.
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, the average value is 55.7, down significantly (-13.6) from February’s future prediction of 69.1. Respondents are predicting similar levels of growth across the supply chain with Upstream coming in at 54.9 and Downstream at 57.4, which would seem to indicate a return to the principles of JIT that characterized 2024. Whether this will be due to looser supply chain capacity, strengthening consumer demand, or a combination of the two remains to be seen.
The Inventory Levels index is 61.2, down (-3.6) from February’s reading of 64.8. , up (+6.3) from January’s reading of 58.5. Inventory Levels are 14.7 points higher than a year ago, and 5.6 points higher than two years ago at this time. In a reverse from February, March’s expansion is driven by retailers, with Downstream firms reporting expansion at 66.7 to Upstream’s 58.9, suggesting that the mass of inventory that was coming into the U.S. in February has trickled down to the retail level in March. It will be interesting to see whether these levels decrease at all with consumer demand, or if they remain high through Q2, which is generally a time that inventories are lower.
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, the average value is 55.7, down significantly (-13.6) from February’s future prediction of 69.1. Respondents are predicting similar levels of growth across the supply chain with Upstream coming in at 54.9 and Downstream at 57.4, which would seem to indicate a return to the principles of JIT that characterized 2024. Whether this will be due to looser supply chain capacity, strengthening consumer demand, or a combination of the two remains to be seen.
Inventory Costs
Inventory costs read in at 70.6, which is down (-6.7) from February’s reading of 77.3, but fairly consistent with January’s reading of 70.2. We consider any number at or above 70.0 to be indicative of “significant expansion”, a level that Inventory Costs have been at throughout 2025. The current value is 3.8 points higher than last year at this time, and 4.6 points higher than two years ago. Similar to dynamics with Inventory Levels, Downstream returned a value 7.8 points higher than upstream. Upstream returned a value of 68.1, and downstream respondents returned a value of 75.9. Putting this all together, everyone saw higher Inventory Levels and higher costs. The only significant difference was that Downstream firms did see larger Inventory Levels, by 7.8 points, and larger costs, also by 7.8 points. Downstream firms may have taken more measures to stock up on inventories, in preparation for cost increases caused by the recent tariffs.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 70.6, down significantly (-9.6) from February’s future prediction of 80.2, but in line with January’s future prediction of 69.8. Expectations of high costs are fairly uniform across the supply chain, as Upstream future predictions averaged 70.7 and Downstream read in almost identically at 70.4. When taken altogether LMI respondents are clearly signaling that they believe costs will continue expanding significantly in 2025.
Inventory costs read in at 70.6, which is down (-6.7) from February’s reading of 77.3, but fairly consistent with January’s reading of 70.2. We consider any number at or above 70.0 to be indicative of “significant expansion”, a level that Inventory Costs have been at throughout 2025. The current value is 3.8 points higher than last year at this time, and 4.6 points higher than two years ago. Similar to dynamics with Inventory Levels, Downstream returned a value 7.8 points higher than upstream. Upstream returned a value of 68.1, and downstream respondents returned a value of 75.9. Putting this all together, everyone saw higher Inventory Levels and higher costs. The only significant difference was that Downstream firms did see larger Inventory Levels, by 7.8 points, and larger costs, also by 7.8 points. Downstream firms may have taken more measures to stock up on inventories, in preparation for cost increases caused by the recent tariffs.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 70.6, down significantly (-9.6) from February’s future prediction of 80.2, but in line with January’s future prediction of 69.8. Expectations of high costs are fairly uniform across the supply chain, as Upstream future predictions averaged 70.7 and Downstream read in almost identically at 70.4. When taken altogether LMI respondents are clearly signaling that they believe costs will continue expanding significantly in 2025.
Warehousing Capacity
Breaking last month’s decreasing trend in capacity, the reading for March's Warehousing Capacity index increased by 1.8 points to 52.3. This reading is up 7.7 points from the reading one year ago yet is up 6.1 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 6.0-point split between Upstream (53.9) and Downstream (47.9) which was not statistically significant (p>.1), yet quite interesting, the Upstream/Downstream trend has reversed where now Upstream has entered into expansionary territory and Downstream is contracting. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 54.0 and 50, respectively, with the small firm value reversing from contraction to expansion, and large firms neither expanding nor contracting. This 4-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Capacity is expected to contract at 45.5, identical (+/-0.0) from February’s future prediction of 45.5. Future Upstream expectations (60.2) are similar to Downstream expectations (62.5), with the difference between these two shortening from last month (by just over 4 points), and where this 2.3-point difference is not statistically significant (p>.1).
Breaking last month’s decreasing trend in capacity, the reading for March's Warehousing Capacity index increased by 1.8 points to 52.3. This reading is up 7.7 points from the reading one year ago yet is up 6.1 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 6.0-point split between Upstream (53.9) and Downstream (47.9) which was not statistically significant (p>.1), yet quite interesting, the Upstream/Downstream trend has reversed where now Upstream has entered into expansionary territory and Downstream is contracting. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 54.0 and 50, respectively, with the small firm value reversing from contraction to expansion, and large firms neither expanding nor contracting. This 4-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Capacity is expected to contract at 45.5, identical (+/-0.0) from February’s future prediction of 45.5. Future Upstream expectations (60.2) are similar to Downstream expectations (62.5), with the difference between these two shortening from last month (by just over 4 points), and where this 2.3-point difference is not statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Utilization
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 59.7 points for the month of March 2025, reflecting a 5.8-point decrease from the February’s regain of 65.5. This reading is down 3.9 points from the reading one year ago, and also down 5.3 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 9.6-point split between Upstream (57.0) and Downstream (66.7) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 60.2 and 59.0, respectively. This 1.2-point split was not statistically significant (p >.01).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Utilization is expected to continue to stay in expansionary territory one year out at 60.8, down (-6.4) from February’s future prediction of 67.2. Future Upstream expectations (60.2) are predicted to be similar to Downstream expectations (62.5), with the difference between these two shortening from last month (by just over 4 points), and where this 2.3-point difference is not statistically significant (p>.1).
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 59.7 points for the month of March 2025, reflecting a 5.8-point decrease from the February’s regain of 65.5. This reading is down 3.9 points from the reading one year ago, and also down 5.3 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 9.6-point split between Upstream (57.0) and Downstream (66.7) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 60.2 and 59.0, respectively. This 1.2-point split was not statistically significant (p >.01).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Utilization is expected to continue to stay in expansionary territory one year out at 60.8, down (-6.4) from February’s future prediction of 67.2. Future Upstream expectations (60.2) are predicted to be similar to Downstream expectations (62.5), with the difference between these two shortening from last month (by just over 4 points), and where this 2.3-point difference is not statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Prices
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 61.0 points for the month of March 2025, reflecting a substantial 16.0-point decrease from the month prior. This reading is down 2.8 points from the reading one year ago, and also down 9.9 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a negligible 0.9-point split between Upstream (61.3) and Downstream (60.4) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 58.5 and 64.1 reflecting a 5.6-point difference between the two which was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Prices are expected to continue to stay in expansionary territory one year out at 66.7, down significantly (-11.7) from February’s future prediction of 78.4. Future Upstream expectations (61.4) are predicted to grow but at a much slower rate than Downstream expectations (81.4), now for a second month in a row, and with a substantial difference between the two. This 19.9-point difference was statistically significant (p<.01).
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 61.0 points for the month of March 2025, reflecting a substantial 16.0-point decrease from the month prior. This reading is down 2.8 points from the reading one year ago, and also down 9.9 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a negligible 0.9-point split between Upstream (61.3) and Downstream (60.4) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 58.5 and 64.1 reflecting a 5.6-point difference between the two which was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Prices are expected to continue to stay in expansionary territory one year out at 66.7, down significantly (-11.7) from February’s future prediction of 78.4. Future Upstream expectations (61.4) are predicted to grow but at a much slower rate than Downstream expectations (81.4), now for a second month in a row, and with a substantial difference between the two. This 19.9-point difference was statistically significant (p<.01).
Transportation Capacity
The Transportation Capacity Index fell back down to 53.6 percent in March 2025. This constitutes a decrease of 1.5 percentage points from last month’s reading. Although this level is slightly higher than that recorded three months ago, it is 6 points lower than a year ago and 17.8 points below the level recorded two years ago. There is no significant difference between Upstream and Downstream, with Upstream Transportation Capacity index at 52.8 and the Downstream index at 55.6. As such, despite the drop, the slight expansion trend in Transportation Capacity remains present both Upstream and Downstream, across the supply chains.
The future Transportation Capacity index is now at 51.5, indicating expectations of a slightly increasing Transportation Capacity over the next 12 months. While the Upstream index is at 51.4, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 51.8, both indicating expectations of slight expansion over the next 12 months.
The Transportation Capacity Index fell back down to 53.6 percent in March 2025. This constitutes a decrease of 1.5 percentage points from last month’s reading. Although this level is slightly higher than that recorded three months ago, it is 6 points lower than a year ago and 17.8 points below the level recorded two years ago. There is no significant difference between Upstream and Downstream, with Upstream Transportation Capacity index at 52.8 and the Downstream index at 55.6. As such, despite the drop, the slight expansion trend in Transportation Capacity remains present both Upstream and Downstream, across the supply chains.
The future Transportation Capacity index is now at 51.5, indicating expectations of a slightly increasing Transportation Capacity over the next 12 months. While the Upstream index is at 51.4, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 51.8, both indicating expectations of slight expansion over the next 12 months.
Transportation Utilization
The Transportation Utilization Index decreased dropped another 3.8 points, indicating 54.0 in March 2025. This denotes the lowest level recorded in Transportation Utilization in the past 12 months and is 3 points below the level recorded a year ago. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 64.3, while the Upstream index is indicating 50.0, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, it can be inferred that the drop in Transportation Utilization index is mainly driven by Upstream supply chain activity. While Downstream activity seems to be expanding, Upstream activity is currently at the critical threshold of 50.
The future Transportation Utilization Index decreases another .8 points from last month, however it is still indicating expansion at 64.0 level for the next 12 months. There is not much difference between Upstream and Downstream, with the future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 63.9 and the Downstream index at 64.3.
Transportation Prices
The Transportation Prices Index dropped 9.1 points from the previous reading and recorder 56.4 in March 2025, continuing its fast retreat from the recent high registered in January. Despite this second consecutive large drop, the Transportation Prices Index is still 3.4 points higher than the level indicated a year ago and a total of 25.3 points higher than the level indicated two years ago. The Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 58.3, and the Downstream index is at 51.7, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future index for Transportation Prices also continues to drop, with another 16.8-point decrease from the previous reading, and now indicating 60.0. The Downstream future Transportation Prices index is at 56.9 while the Upstream Transportation Prices index is at 66.9, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The Transportation Prices Index dropped 9.1 points from the previous reading and recorder 56.4 in March 2025, continuing its fast retreat from the recent high registered in January. Despite this second consecutive large drop, the Transportation Prices Index is still 3.4 points higher than the level indicated a year ago and a total of 25.3 points higher than the level indicated two years ago. The Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 58.3, and the Downstream index is at 51.7, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future index for Transportation Prices also continues to drop, with another 16.8-point decrease from the previous reading, and now indicating 60.0. The Downstream future Transportation Prices index is at 56.9 while the Upstream Transportation Prices index is at 66.9, but the difference is not statistically significant.
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.
[a] Despite the date, there will be no wacky gags in this report.
[1] Hsu, J. (2025, March 28). Surveys of Consumers. Survey of Consumer - Final Results for March 2025. http://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[2] Grossman, M. (2025a, March 25). Consumer Survey’s Decline Adds to Evidence of Gloom. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/consumer-surveys-march-decline-adds-to-evidence-of-poor-sentiment-af39c303
[3] Bade, G., & Otts, C. (2025, March 27). Trump Plans to Impose 25% Tariff on Imported Vehicles. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-considers-more-limited-tariff-plans-09b36d26
[4] Alderman, L. (2025, March 27). Germany and France Say Europe Must Respond to Trump’s Auto Tariffs. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/27/business/germany-trump-auto-tariffs.html
[5] Iordache, R. (2025, March 13). U.S. tariffs could thrust Germany into recession, central bank governor says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/13/us-tariffs-could-thrust-germany-into-recession-ecbs-joachim-nagel.html
[6] Kiderlin, S. (2025, March 27). Trump’s tariffs are making the ECB’s interest rate path “more complicated,” policymaker says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/27/ecbs-wunsch-trump-tariffs-are-making-rate-path-more-complicated.html
[7] Smith, C. (2025, March 12). U.S. Inflation Eased More Than Expected in February. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/business/economy/inflation-cpi-february-economy.html
[8] Cox, J. (2025a, March 13). Wholesale price measure was flat in February, compared with expected increase. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/13/ppi-inflation-report-february-2025-.html
[9] Parvini, S. (2025, March 26). Trump says he would consider reducing China tariffs if there’s a deal on TikTok. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-tiktok-china-tariffs-3bc8eef6fa75987c52bd86bab5eb6f05
[10] Bade, G., & Otts, C. (2025, March 27). Trump Plans to Impose 25% Tariff on Imported Vehicles. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-considers-more-limited-tariff-plans-09b36d26
[11] Chirls, S. (2025c, March 26). Port of Savannah sets record container, rail and truck moves in February. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/port-of-savannah-sets-container-rail-and-truck-moves-in-february
[12] Hampstead, J. P. (2025, March 26). Trucking, copper, cocoa: Volatility roils commodities. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trucking-copper-cocoa-volatility-roils-commodities
[13] Young, L. (2025b, March 24). Retailers Bulk Up Inventories to Blunt Tariff Impact—WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/retailers-bulk-up-inventories-to-blunt-tariff-impact-dd6e964f?mod=hp_minor_pos14
[14] Young, L., & Berger, P. (2025, March 18). For Importers Rushing to Beat Tariffs, It’s Life on the Edge. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/for-importers-rushing-to-beat-tariffs-its-life-on-the-edge-6099f674
[15] Paris, C., & Berger, P. (2025, March 24). Farmers, Dockhands and Shipowners Fight Against U.S. Fees on Chinese Ships. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/farmers-dockhands-and-shipowners-fight-against-u-s-fees-on-chinese-ships-821e5698
[16] LaRocco, L. A. (2025, March 27). If Chinese-built containership fines take effect, “we’re out of business in U.S.,” ocean carrier says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/27/if-china-freight-ship-fines-hit-were-out-of-business-in-us-carrier-warns.html
[17] Josephs, G. F., Leslie. (2025, March 14). U.S. consumers are starting to crack as tariffs add to inflation, recession concerns. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/14/delta-walmart-warn-about-consumer-spending-amid-tariffs-inflation.html
[18] Young, L. (2025a, March 12). Target Beefs Up Grocery Supply Chain as Consumer Spending Shifts. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/target-beefs-up-grocery-supply-chain-as-consumer-spending-shifts-e3c516c3
[19] Hadero, H. (2025, March 3). Why Asian logistics operators are leasing more US warehouses. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trade-warehouse-china-online-shopping-eba5283b0762fa958ab90fb731370117
[20] Maiden, T. (2025, March 25). E-commerce buildout supporting logistics space leasing activity. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/e-commerce-buildout-supporting-logistics-space-leasing-activity
[21] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025, March 24). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. Petroleum & Other Liquids - March 24, 2025. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[22] Baudendistel, M. (2025a, March 19). Fear of more tariffs prolongs retail pull-forward. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/fear-of-more-tariffs-prolongs-retail-pull-forward
[23] Chirls, S. (2025a, March 21). Trans-Pacific container rates below lowest 2024 levels: Freightos. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trans-pacific-container-rates-below-lowest-2024-levels-freightos
[24] Chirls, S. (2025b, March 22). China’s largest shipping line sees stunning gains in revenue, profits. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/chinas-largest-shipping-line-sees-stunning-gains-in-revenue-profits
[25] Baudendistel, M. (2025b, March 26). Flatbed market anything but flat. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/flatbed-market-anything-but-flat
[26] Baudendistel, M. (2025a, March 19). Fear of more tariffs prolongs retail pull-forward. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/fear-of-more-tariffs-prolongs-retail-pull-forward
[1] Hsu, J. (2025, March 28). Surveys of Consumers. Survey of Consumer - Final Results for March 2025. http://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[2] Grossman, M. (2025a, March 25). Consumer Survey’s Decline Adds to Evidence of Gloom. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/consumer-surveys-march-decline-adds-to-evidence-of-poor-sentiment-af39c303
[3] Bade, G., & Otts, C. (2025, March 27). Trump Plans to Impose 25% Tariff on Imported Vehicles. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-considers-more-limited-tariff-plans-09b36d26
[4] Alderman, L. (2025, March 27). Germany and France Say Europe Must Respond to Trump’s Auto Tariffs. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/27/business/germany-trump-auto-tariffs.html
[5] Iordache, R. (2025, March 13). U.S. tariffs could thrust Germany into recession, central bank governor says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/13/us-tariffs-could-thrust-germany-into-recession-ecbs-joachim-nagel.html
[6] Kiderlin, S. (2025, March 27). Trump’s tariffs are making the ECB’s interest rate path “more complicated,” policymaker says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/27/ecbs-wunsch-trump-tariffs-are-making-rate-path-more-complicated.html
[7] Smith, C. (2025, March 12). U.S. Inflation Eased More Than Expected in February. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/business/economy/inflation-cpi-february-economy.html
[8] Cox, J. (2025a, March 13). Wholesale price measure was flat in February, compared with expected increase. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/13/ppi-inflation-report-february-2025-.html
[9] Parvini, S. (2025, March 26). Trump says he would consider reducing China tariffs if there’s a deal on TikTok. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-tiktok-china-tariffs-3bc8eef6fa75987c52bd86bab5eb6f05
[10] Bade, G., & Otts, C. (2025, March 27). Trump Plans to Impose 25% Tariff on Imported Vehicles. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-considers-more-limited-tariff-plans-09b36d26
[11] Chirls, S. (2025c, March 26). Port of Savannah sets record container, rail and truck moves in February. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/port-of-savannah-sets-container-rail-and-truck-moves-in-february
[12] Hampstead, J. P. (2025, March 26). Trucking, copper, cocoa: Volatility roils commodities. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trucking-copper-cocoa-volatility-roils-commodities
[13] Young, L. (2025b, March 24). Retailers Bulk Up Inventories to Blunt Tariff Impact—WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/retailers-bulk-up-inventories-to-blunt-tariff-impact-dd6e964f?mod=hp_minor_pos14
[14] Young, L., & Berger, P. (2025, March 18). For Importers Rushing to Beat Tariffs, It’s Life on the Edge. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/for-importers-rushing-to-beat-tariffs-its-life-on-the-edge-6099f674
[15] Paris, C., & Berger, P. (2025, March 24). Farmers, Dockhands and Shipowners Fight Against U.S. Fees on Chinese Ships. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/farmers-dockhands-and-shipowners-fight-against-u-s-fees-on-chinese-ships-821e5698
[16] LaRocco, L. A. (2025, March 27). If Chinese-built containership fines take effect, “we’re out of business in U.S.,” ocean carrier says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/27/if-china-freight-ship-fines-hit-were-out-of-business-in-us-carrier-warns.html
[17] Josephs, G. F., Leslie. (2025, March 14). U.S. consumers are starting to crack as tariffs add to inflation, recession concerns. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/14/delta-walmart-warn-about-consumer-spending-amid-tariffs-inflation.html
[18] Young, L. (2025a, March 12). Target Beefs Up Grocery Supply Chain as Consumer Spending Shifts. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/target-beefs-up-grocery-supply-chain-as-consumer-spending-shifts-e3c516c3
[19] Hadero, H. (2025, March 3). Why Asian logistics operators are leasing more US warehouses. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trade-warehouse-china-online-shopping-eba5283b0762fa958ab90fb731370117
[20] Maiden, T. (2025, March 25). E-commerce buildout supporting logistics space leasing activity. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/e-commerce-buildout-supporting-logistics-space-leasing-activity
[21] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025, March 24). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. Petroleum & Other Liquids - March 24, 2025. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[22] Baudendistel, M. (2025a, March 19). Fear of more tariffs prolongs retail pull-forward. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/fear-of-more-tariffs-prolongs-retail-pull-forward
[23] Chirls, S. (2025a, March 21). Trans-Pacific container rates below lowest 2024 levels: Freightos. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trans-pacific-container-rates-below-lowest-2024-levels-freightos
[24] Chirls, S. (2025b, March 22). China’s largest shipping line sees stunning gains in revenue, profits. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/chinas-largest-shipping-line-sees-stunning-gains-in-revenue-profits
[25] Baudendistel, M. (2025b, March 26). Flatbed market anything but flat. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/flatbed-market-anything-but-flat
[26] Baudendistel, M. (2025a, March 19). Fear of more tariffs prolongs retail pull-forward. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/fear-of-more-tariffs-prolongs-retail-pull-forward