FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025
Contact:
Zac Rogers, Ph.D.
Logistics Manager’s Index Analyst
Associate Professor, Supply Chain Management
Department of Management
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
(970) 491-0890
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.the-lmi.com
Contact:
Zac Rogers, Ph.D.
Logistics Manager’s Index Analyst
Associate Professor, Supply Chain Management
Department of Management
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
(970) 491-0890
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.the-lmi.com
May 2025 Logistics Manager’s Index Report®
LMI® at 59.4
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Utilization, and Transportation Prices.
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels and Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization
NO CHANGE For Warehousing Capacity
LMI® at 59.4
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Utilization, and Transportation Prices.
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels and Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization
NO CHANGE For Warehousing Capacity
(Fort Collins, CO) — The May Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 59.4, up (+0.6) from April’s reading of 58.8. This marks two consecutive months of increasing expansion in the LMI. This is up (+3.8) from the reading of 55.6 a year ago, and up (+12.1) from May 2023’s reading of contraction at 47.3. The increase this month is largely driven by increased costs, as movements in inventories have slowed significantly compared to observations from earlier in the year. Despite the slowdown in volume buildup, Inventory Costs continue to increase (+2.8) to 78.4. This is the highest reading for this metric since October of 2022, and the 26.8-point gap between the two inventory metrics is the third largest in this history of the index. This suggests that the inventories that were rushed into the country earlier this year are now static and holding them is expensive. This buildup is clearly reflected in available Warehousing Capacity, which is down (-5.4) to 50.0 and no movement. Warehousing Prices (-0.2) read in at 72.1, reflecting the lack of available capacity. Interestingly, our three Transportation metrics held relatively steady in May, with none of them moving more than 0.9-points from their readings in April. This steady state involves Transportation Capacity (54.7) that is tight, but not too tight, anemic expansion in Transportation Utilization (52.6 – the lowest reading since November 2023), and moderate expansion in Transportation Prices (63.1).
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 May 2025.
The LMI read in 59.4 in May, up (+0.6) from April’s reading of 58.8 in April. This represents some stabilization after hitting a seven-month low in March at 57.1 immediately after February’s nearly three-year high reading of 62.1. Smaller firms were a more significant driver of logistics activity, reporting an overall LMI reading of 63.1, which is statistically significantly higher than the 56.2 reported by their larger counterparts. Similar to April, May’s readings are driven by the somewhat confounding forces of slowing (-5.5) Inventory Levels, which at 51.5 are now on the edge of no change, and costs increasing across the board. This is epitomized by Inventory Costs which are up (+2.8) to 78.4, their highest level since October of 2022 when firms were struggling with the end of the inventory bullwhip that resulted from the COVID buildup. These counteracting forces are representative of overall U.S. economic data, which has been a mixed a bag throughout the Spring.
The U.S. economy contracted by 0.2% in the first quarter of 2025. This is a reversal from the 2.4% expansion in the fourth quarter of 2024 and is the first drop in three years. Interestingly, it was a smaller drop than many expected due to the continued resilience of the U.S. consumer[1]. This slowness has been reflected in Q2, as U.S. consumer sentiment read in at 52.2 in May. This is unchanged (+/-0.0) from April’s reading but is down 24.5% from the same time a year ago. Consumers expect inflation to increase at 6.6% over the next year – similar to their expectations of 6.5% expansion last month. Consumers remain negative about the future direction of the economy, reporting expectations of 47.9. This is down 30.4% from a year ago and indicates expectations of economic contraction[2]. Consumers have cited several reasons for pessimism, including uncertainty about tariffs, the high costs of borrowing, and the continued aftermath of the inflation of the last few years[3]. There is pessimism in boardrooms as well. U.S. C.E.O.’s reported a confidence score of 34 in the Conference Board and Business Council report for the second quarter. This score read in at 60 in the first quarter, meaning this is the largest quarter-over-quarter drop in this metric in more than 50 years[4]. That being said, Up to this point, steady consumer spending has ensured that the employment market continues to forge ahead, with experts predicting that the U.S. added 150,000 jobs in May[5]. There are signs however that U.S. consumers are slowing down. Spending was up 0.2% in April, which is down from the 0.7% expansion we saw a month before. This came despite wages being up 0.8% on the month. A 0.6% increase in the savings rate over the same period suggests that U.S. consumer spending may have been high as consumers tried to avoid potential tariffs. Many of those large purchases (for products like autos) may have already happened, and now consumers might be holding steady as they wait for more certainty on global trade. The upside to the slowdown in spending is that the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index is down to 2.1% year-over-year, almost in line with the Fed’s preferred expansion rate of 2%[6].
Despite this, May was the best month for U.S. stock markets since late 2023. This is at least partially due to optimism on the part of analysts to the worst-case scenarios associated with potential tariffs will not come to pass[7]. This optimism was dinged somewhat on the last trading day of the month due to tensions with China when President Trump accused China of violating trade agreements. However the President did express confidence that U.S.-China relations can get back on track after the recent tension regarding access to rare-earth minerals[8]. Global markets continue to shift along with the relationship between the world’s two largest economies. It is difficult to have too much certainty in the trade situation however, as on May 30th President Trump announced a 50% tariff of steel and aluminum imports during a rally held at a steel mill in Pennsylvania. The tariffs are set to go into place on July 4th. This represents a doubling of the 25% tariffs that were imposed in March[9]. Supply chains are resilient and could eventually deal with trade regulations. However, the continued uncertainty around what the rules will actually be makes it difficult to implement any long-term shifts in strategy or spending.
The recent reduction in regulations and hopeful talk of resolution has caused optimism for importers and exporters alike, with some even forecasting a boom in imports similar to what we saw during COVID. There is reason to doubt this though. Port of LA Executive Director Gene Seroka does not forecast a COVID-level jump in volumes[10]. The COVID-spike happened in a context where imports had been cut off by an external shock. During this time, demand built up and consumers were given a trillion dollars in stimulus. When supply chains opened back up, consumers were waiting with pockets full of cash to spend, spurring the greatest surge of imports in history. The surge we saw in the first quarter of 2025 happened because shippers were attempting to bring in as many goods as possible ahead of potentially punitive tariffs. Even though costs were high, there was a sense that they could grow higher in the future. Today, after several rounds of start-and-stop tariffs, shippers may doubt that the highest levels of threatened tariffs will ever come to pass. At the same time, costs are higher on imports from essentially every country than they were a year ago. Taken together, it is possible that shippers will look at these three points, and be more cautious than many are expecting:
- Inventories are high already from the beginning of the year.
- There are still the equivalent of 30-40% tariffs on anything coming in from China, and 10% from most other countries.
- Given the pattern tariffs have taken thus far, the 145% tariffs that had been threatened on China may never actually come to pass – and if they do it is unlikely they will be permanent.
At this point of course, what will happen is still in the realm of speculation. We do however have some hard data, that can help us understand the current situation. Inventory Levels dropped (-5.5) to 51.5, which is just above no movement. At the same time, Inventory Costs are up (+2.8) to 78.4. The 26.8-point delta between these two metrics is the third-highest spread in the history of the index, behind only September (28.0) and November (28.8) of 2021. The delta between these two metrics over the last five years is represented by the purple line in the chart below. The dashed black line is set at a threshold of 20.0-points. The only other times these two metrics have been more than 20 points apart were May 2021-January 2022, and in August of 2023. The former period was the height of the COVID-era inventory rush that eventually resulted in a bullwhip effect that lasted for nearly 18 months. The one-month spike in August 2023 was due to a season surge in imports that came after four consecutive months of contracting Inventory Levels as retailers finally recovered from the previously-mentioned bullwhip. It remains to be seen whether May’s spike above a 20.0-point threshold will last, but the trajectory the spread has moved at over the last 2 months (it was only 9.4 points in March) is the sharpest we have seen in the history of the index. The high costs from late 2021 to early 2022 eventually led to the inflation that weighed the economy down for year. If the spread between these two metrics remains this high, it could spell trouble for the overall economy.
Inventory Levels dipped from expansion at 54.4 early in May to very mild contraction at 49.1 in the second half of the month. This is reflected in TEUs coming through the Port of Los Angeles being down 24.6% year-over-year in the last week of May. However, imports look to be increasing in the first two weeks of June however, with the week of June 8th expected to see over 100,000 TEUs come through the port for the first time since April when shippers were attempting to rush goods in ahead of potential tariffs[11]. Container imports into the Port of Long Beach was up 15.6% year-over-year, marking its busiest April ever. Much of this volume was driven by blank sailings however, at over 350,000 of the 867,000 TEUs were empty containers being brought in for transfer to shipping lanes that might be less impacted by tariffs[12].
Interestingly, it seems to manufacturers and wholesalers that are bringing in the highest volume of inventories. Upstream firms reported Inventory Level expansion at 56.5 in May, while their Downstream counterparts reported contraction at 43.1. This is the first instance of contraction at the Downstream level since January and may indicate that the pull-forward that characterized much of the Winter and early Spring has subsided. This dynamic may not hold for long, as Downstream firms predict that Inventory Levels will increase more quickly over the next 12 months, with their prediction of 65.3 coming in higher than the expansion of 58.9 predicted by Upstream firms. This robust prediction comes with a price tag on both sides. Downstream firms predict Inventory Cost expansion at 86.1, while their Upstream counterparts predict the, statistically significantly lower – but still quite high, expansion rate of 74.6. The high costs of importing and then holding inventories has led several retailers, including Target, Best Buy, T.J. Maxx, and Walmart to indicate that they will likely be forced to increase prices due to the higher costs related to the tariffs[13]. While some suggested that Walmart should “eat the tariffs”, it is unlikely that the U.S.’s largest retailer by sales will follow that advice. The reality of the increase costs is seen for Deere, which has already incurred $100 million in tariff costs, with expectations that they will incur another $400 million by the end of their fiscal year in October. As a result, they are attempting to shift sourcing to away from China to Mexico and lobby to get tractors to qualify for exemptions under the USMCA[14]. The costs seem to be particularly high for smaller respondents, who reported Inventory Cost expansion of 85.9 which is up significantly from the large respondent reading of 71.6, and as a reading over 80.0 pushed up against true inflationary territory. Conversely, some retailers, such as Home Depot or Dicks’ Sporting Goods that have diversified supply chain and a mix of high- and low-margin items, remain bullish on potential sales[15] [16].
The expected increase in inventories is due to the pullback in the tariffs the U.S. is levying on China has led to a jump in imports as shippers hurry to pull cargo across the Pacific. Retailers are especially frantic about getting back-to-school items into the country, as some of them are already behind schedule relative to where we might be in a traditional year. This has led to freight rates from China to the U.S. West Coast to increase by 8% in Mid-May (the same time we saw our Transportation Prices metric increase). At the moment containers moving from China to the West Coast are just over $3,500[17], but some analysts believe that – depending on the rush – we could see prices get up to be much closer to the $20,000 per container rate we saw during 2021[18]. While that level of increase would be a shock, it does seem likely that prices will continue to increase throughout the summer as shippers race to stay ahead of the most punitive tariffs. This is a marked shift from mid-May, when Maersk was offering flash sales on container shipments to drum up volume[19]. While there is a hope (and so far, a precedence), that the most punitive tariffs will either not happen or not be in place for an extended period, shippers are still struggling with the whiplash of flipping back and forth between tariffs being announced and then pulled back[20]. This is somewhat akin to start-stop traffic on the road, even when the flow of vehicles eventually does pick back up, starting and stopping has still likely slowed down progress and led to disruptions. This is further complicated by the recent ruling by the Court of International Trade that President Trump may not have the authority to implement tariffs with impunity. This stay was temporarily paused by a Federal Court of Appeals until at least June 9th[21]. It is possible that this question will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.
As always, the movements in inventories have significant implications for warehousing. Warehousing Capacity stopped expanding in May, dropping 5.4 points to the break-even level of 50.0. This is the lowest reading for this metric since March of 2024 and only the second time this metric hasn’t been expansion territory since February 2023. Warehousing Capacity actually contracted (47.9) in the first half of the month, before expanding very slightly (51.8) in the second half of May. Reflecting the expensive buildups in inventories, available Warehousing Capacity also contracted for smaller firms, at 44.9 to the expansion of 55.6 for larger firms. The costs were higher for smaller firms as well at 76.0 to 68.5 for larger firms. All of this speaks to the pressure that uncertainty around trade regulations has placed on smaller firms, who have limited abilities to absorb the costs of tariffs and have therefore been more likely to employ the over-order/pull-forward strategy. Capacity seems to be slightly tighter for Upstream firms as well, who reported contraction at 47.1 to the reading of 55.7 and expansion Downstream. Upstream and Downstream firms were largely in agreement with our other warehousing metrics however. Warehousing Utilization was up (+2.4) to 62.5, and Warehousing Prices stayed relatively stable (-0.2) at 72.1. The reading over 70.0 indicates significant expansion, which makes sense given the high levels of inventory that many supply chains are currently carrying.
None of the transportation metrics moved by even a full point from April to May. However, when digging into the nuances of these readings, we observe interesting and significant differences in the transportation market. Transportation Capacity dropped (-0.5) to 54.7, which is a very moderate rate of expansion. Upstream firms had a more difficult time finding space, with Upstream Transportation Capacity coming in at no movement at 50.0, contrasting sharply with the expansion of 65.3 reported by Downstream firms. Despite this gap, the differences in Transportation Prices between the two sides (61.7 Upstream and 66.7 Downstream) were not statistically significant. Transportation Utilization was down (-0.7) to 52.6 which is the lowest reading for this metric since November 2023 when it came in at 50.0. This metric has not contracted since July 2023 (41.8) which was the inflection point in the most recent freight recession. Transportation Utilization did however contract in the first half of the month, reading in at 47.1 in the first half of May, before increasing to 56.9 in the second half of the month. The difference between early and late May was even more pronounced for Transportation Prices, which went from almost no movement (and a negative freight inversion) at 52.8 early in the month, before bouncing up to significant expansion at 71.5 in the second half of May. This may have been driven by smaller firms, which reported strong rates of expansion at 69.8, far out-stripping the 56.7 reported by larger firms and continuing the trend of smaller respondents reporting much logistics costs.
The overall movement in Transportation Costs (+0.9 to 63.1) came despite U.S. diesel prices contracting to $3.487 per gallon in the last week of May. This is down $0.271 per gallon from the same time a year ago[22]. It seems unlikely that prices will increase significantly in the near future. U.S. oil companies are cutting spending and laying off workers in response to oil prices lingering near $60 per barrel for the last two months[23]. Intermodal has been a source of strength in freight markets, as J.B. Hunt has reported “steady” intermodal volumes so far this year[24]. Intermodal prices are lower than over-the-road (OTR) and the additional time it takes to move products through intermodal may have some advantages due to lack of availability at warehouses across the country. There is a possibility that The forecasted rush of imports into the U.S. could lead to a run on transportation moving from the ports to inland, stressing both intermodal and OTR transportation networks as firms attempt to move goods towards customers (Ferris, 2025). This will be an interesting test of domestic supply chains, and whether or not the flexibility they have added over the last five years is enough to absorb this potential rush. Some pressure on the freight market would line up with the predictions by Upstream firms that available Transportation Capacity will contract (46.2) over the next 12 month, contrasting with the moderate availability (59.7) forecast by Downstream firms. Despite their predictions of looser capacity, Downstream firms do predict faster rates of expansion for Transportation Prices than their Upstream counterparts (80.6 to 72.8), potentially reflecting the higher transportation costs that retailers often incur due to last-mile delivery and operating in high-demand shipping lanes.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index were 65.1, which is up (+4.5) from the expansion of 60.6 that were reported in both April and March. This pushes the future prediction above the all-time average of 61.6 for the first time since February. This is elevated by increased expectations for Inventory Levels expansion, which is up (+7.9) to 61.2, indicating a robust expansion in inventories. The expected high costs that would be associated with such a build up are apparent, with increased expectations for Inventory Costs (+1.4 to 78.9), Warehousing Prices (+1.4 to 79.4), and Transportation Prices (+2.7 to 75.0). AT the same time, expectations for Warehousing Capacity (-2.7 to 53.9) and Transportation Capacity (-3.4) to 50.0 are down, with both marks coming in near or at no expansion. Taken altogether, respondents expect higher than normal inventories, tight capacity, and significant cost expansion. These robust predictions may underlie a feeling that the current uncertainty surrounding trade issues will be wrapped up by this time a year from now.
Interestingly, it seems to manufacturers and wholesalers that are bringing in the highest volume of inventories. Upstream firms reported Inventory Level expansion at 56.5 in May, while their Downstream counterparts reported contraction at 43.1. This is the first instance of contraction at the Downstream level since January and may indicate that the pull-forward that characterized much of the Winter and early Spring has subsided. This dynamic may not hold for long, as Downstream firms predict that Inventory Levels will increase more quickly over the next 12 months, with their prediction of 65.3 coming in higher than the expansion of 58.9 predicted by Upstream firms. This robust prediction comes with a price tag on both sides. Downstream firms predict Inventory Cost expansion at 86.1, while their Upstream counterparts predict the, statistically significantly lower – but still quite high, expansion rate of 74.6. The high costs of importing and then holding inventories has led several retailers, including Target, Best Buy, T.J. Maxx, and Walmart to indicate that they will likely be forced to increase prices due to the higher costs related to the tariffs[13]. While some suggested that Walmart should “eat the tariffs”, it is unlikely that the U.S.’s largest retailer by sales will follow that advice. The reality of the increase costs is seen for Deere, which has already incurred $100 million in tariff costs, with expectations that they will incur another $400 million by the end of their fiscal year in October. As a result, they are attempting to shift sourcing to away from China to Mexico and lobby to get tractors to qualify for exemptions under the USMCA[14]. The costs seem to be particularly high for smaller respondents, who reported Inventory Cost expansion of 85.9 which is up significantly from the large respondent reading of 71.6, and as a reading over 80.0 pushed up against true inflationary territory. Conversely, some retailers, such as Home Depot or Dicks’ Sporting Goods that have diversified supply chain and a mix of high- and low-margin items, remain bullish on potential sales[15] [16].
The expected increase in inventories is due to the pullback in the tariffs the U.S. is levying on China has led to a jump in imports as shippers hurry to pull cargo across the Pacific. Retailers are especially frantic about getting back-to-school items into the country, as some of them are already behind schedule relative to where we might be in a traditional year. This has led to freight rates from China to the U.S. West Coast to increase by 8% in Mid-May (the same time we saw our Transportation Prices metric increase). At the moment containers moving from China to the West Coast are just over $3,500[17], but some analysts believe that – depending on the rush – we could see prices get up to be much closer to the $20,000 per container rate we saw during 2021[18]. While that level of increase would be a shock, it does seem likely that prices will continue to increase throughout the summer as shippers race to stay ahead of the most punitive tariffs. This is a marked shift from mid-May, when Maersk was offering flash sales on container shipments to drum up volume[19]. While there is a hope (and so far, a precedence), that the most punitive tariffs will either not happen or not be in place for an extended period, shippers are still struggling with the whiplash of flipping back and forth between tariffs being announced and then pulled back[20]. This is somewhat akin to start-stop traffic on the road, even when the flow of vehicles eventually does pick back up, starting and stopping has still likely slowed down progress and led to disruptions. This is further complicated by the recent ruling by the Court of International Trade that President Trump may not have the authority to implement tariffs with impunity. This stay was temporarily paused by a Federal Court of Appeals until at least June 9th[21]. It is possible that this question will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.
As always, the movements in inventories have significant implications for warehousing. Warehousing Capacity stopped expanding in May, dropping 5.4 points to the break-even level of 50.0. This is the lowest reading for this metric since March of 2024 and only the second time this metric hasn’t been expansion territory since February 2023. Warehousing Capacity actually contracted (47.9) in the first half of the month, before expanding very slightly (51.8) in the second half of May. Reflecting the expensive buildups in inventories, available Warehousing Capacity also contracted for smaller firms, at 44.9 to the expansion of 55.6 for larger firms. The costs were higher for smaller firms as well at 76.0 to 68.5 for larger firms. All of this speaks to the pressure that uncertainty around trade regulations has placed on smaller firms, who have limited abilities to absorb the costs of tariffs and have therefore been more likely to employ the over-order/pull-forward strategy. Capacity seems to be slightly tighter for Upstream firms as well, who reported contraction at 47.1 to the reading of 55.7 and expansion Downstream. Upstream and Downstream firms were largely in agreement with our other warehousing metrics however. Warehousing Utilization was up (+2.4) to 62.5, and Warehousing Prices stayed relatively stable (-0.2) at 72.1. The reading over 70.0 indicates significant expansion, which makes sense given the high levels of inventory that many supply chains are currently carrying.
None of the transportation metrics moved by even a full point from April to May. However, when digging into the nuances of these readings, we observe interesting and significant differences in the transportation market. Transportation Capacity dropped (-0.5) to 54.7, which is a very moderate rate of expansion. Upstream firms had a more difficult time finding space, with Upstream Transportation Capacity coming in at no movement at 50.0, contrasting sharply with the expansion of 65.3 reported by Downstream firms. Despite this gap, the differences in Transportation Prices between the two sides (61.7 Upstream and 66.7 Downstream) were not statistically significant. Transportation Utilization was down (-0.7) to 52.6 which is the lowest reading for this metric since November 2023 when it came in at 50.0. This metric has not contracted since July 2023 (41.8) which was the inflection point in the most recent freight recession. Transportation Utilization did however contract in the first half of the month, reading in at 47.1 in the first half of May, before increasing to 56.9 in the second half of the month. The difference between early and late May was even more pronounced for Transportation Prices, which went from almost no movement (and a negative freight inversion) at 52.8 early in the month, before bouncing up to significant expansion at 71.5 in the second half of May. This may have been driven by smaller firms, which reported strong rates of expansion at 69.8, far out-stripping the 56.7 reported by larger firms and continuing the trend of smaller respondents reporting much logistics costs.
The overall movement in Transportation Costs (+0.9 to 63.1) came despite U.S. diesel prices contracting to $3.487 per gallon in the last week of May. This is down $0.271 per gallon from the same time a year ago[22]. It seems unlikely that prices will increase significantly in the near future. U.S. oil companies are cutting spending and laying off workers in response to oil prices lingering near $60 per barrel for the last two months[23]. Intermodal has been a source of strength in freight markets, as J.B. Hunt has reported “steady” intermodal volumes so far this year[24]. Intermodal prices are lower than over-the-road (OTR) and the additional time it takes to move products through intermodal may have some advantages due to lack of availability at warehouses across the country. There is a possibility that The forecasted rush of imports into the U.S. could lead to a run on transportation moving from the ports to inland, stressing both intermodal and OTR transportation networks as firms attempt to move goods towards customers (Ferris, 2025). This will be an interesting test of domestic supply chains, and whether or not the flexibility they have added over the last five years is enough to absorb this potential rush. Some pressure on the freight market would line up with the predictions by Upstream firms that available Transportation Capacity will contract (46.2) over the next 12 month, contrasting with the moderate availability (59.7) forecast by Downstream firms. Despite their predictions of looser capacity, Downstream firms do predict faster rates of expansion for Transportation Prices than their Upstream counterparts (80.6 to 72.8), potentially reflecting the higher transportation costs that retailers often incur due to last-mile delivery and operating in high-demand shipping lanes.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index were 65.1, which is up (+4.5) from the expansion of 60.6 that were reported in both April and March. This pushes the future prediction above the all-time average of 61.6 for the first time since February. This is elevated by increased expectations for Inventory Levels expansion, which is up (+7.9) to 61.2, indicating a robust expansion in inventories. The expected high costs that would be associated with such a build up are apparent, with increased expectations for Inventory Costs (+1.4 to 78.9), Warehousing Prices (+1.4 to 79.4), and Transportation Prices (+2.7 to 75.0). AT the same time, expectations for Warehousing Capacity (-2.7 to 53.9) and Transportation Capacity (-3.4) to 50.0 are down, with both marks coming in near or at no expansion. Taken altogether, respondents expect higher than normal inventories, tight capacity, and significant cost expansion. These robust predictions may underlie a feeling that the current uncertainty surrounding trade issues will be wrapped up by this time a year from now.
We observe some differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents in May. Upstream firms continued to build up Inventory Levels at 56.5 while Downstream retailers saw Inventory Levels contract at 43.1. Despite this 13.4-point difference, Downstream firms still reported faster growth in Inventory Costs (80.6 to 77.0). This likely reflects the high levels of inventory that retailers are already holding, and the high costs they are paying for it. At the same time, it is possible that Upstream manufacturers brought in more inventory in May to take advantage of the pause in tariffs. Some evidence of this exists in Transportation Capacity, which Upstream firms reported at 50.0, indicating no movement and a tight market. At the same time, Downstream respondents reported 65.3 for Transportation Capacity, indicating that the freight capacity has loosened considerably in May. Taken altogether, it seems that Downstream retailers are being most impacted by the “air pocket” generated by the slowdown in imports, while Upstream logistics networks continue to churn.
When looking at future predictions, Downstream respondents (purple bars) predict significantly more logistics activity than their Upstream (green bars) counterparts. Essentially, Downstream retailers expect costs to be higher across the board than their Upstream counterparts, predicting higher readings in Inventory Costs (86.1 to 74.6), Warehousing Prices (86.8 to 75.7) and Transportation Prices (80.6 to 72.8). Downstream firms are also predicting higher levels of Warehousing Utilization (76.4 to 64.9). Despite all of this, Upstream firms are actually predicting much tighter capacity, forecasting significantly lower rates for both Warehousing Capacity (50.0 to 61.4) and Transportation Capacity (46.2 to 59.7). This combination suggests that while Downstream firms will be building up higher levels of inventory, and paying more to hold and move it, that Upstream firms will have maxed out their capacity, possibly in the form of inventory stored ahead of time to avoid additional trade costs.
We observe some interesting differences at play in May between responses that were collected early (gold bars) and late (green bars) in the month. While it was not statistically significant, Inventory Levels moved from expansion (54.4) early in May to mild contraction (49.1) later in the month. As a result of this Warehousing Capacity loosened from contraction (47.9) to mild expansion (51.8). Despite the slowdown in inventory buildups, transportation metrics picked up significantly later in May. Transportation Utilization went from contraction (47.1) to expansion (56.9) and Transportation Prices jumped 18.7-points from close to no movement (52.8) to significant expansion (71.5). This upward shift may reflect increasing activity during the temporary pullback on tariffs.
We observe some interesting differences at play in May between responses that were collected early (gold bars) and late (green bars) in the month. While it was not statistically significant, Inventory Levels moved from expansion (54.4) early in May to mild contraction (49.1) later in the month. As a result of this Warehousing Capacity loosened from contraction (47.9) to mild expansion (51.8). Despite the slowdown in inventory buildups, transportation metrics picked up significantly later in May. Transportation Utilization went from contraction (47.1) to expansion (56.9) and Transportation Prices jumped 18.7-points from close to no movement (52.8) to significant expansion (71.5). This upward shift may reflect increasing activity during the temporary pullback on tariffs.
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 May. Smaller firms report significantly more activity across the board this month. This starts with smaller firms reporting expansion in Inventory Levels (57.4) while their larger counterparts report contraction (46.1). This carries over into differences in Inventory Costs (85.9 for small to 71.6 for large), available Warehousing Capacity (44.9 for small to 54.6 for large), Transportation Prices (69.8 for small to 56.7 for large), and the overall index (63.1 for small to 56.2 for large). This difference likely reflects that smaller firms are 1) still bringing in high levels of inventories to stay ahead of tariffs; and 2) already brought in high levels of inventory earlier in the year. This sharp difference between smaller and larger respondents demonstrates the increased vulnerability that smaller firms have to significant changes in the overall economic status quo.
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 59.4, which is up (+0.6) from April’s reading of 58.8. The rate of expansion for Inventory Costs, Warehousing Utilization, and Transportation Prices increased month-over-month, while the other five sub-metrics reported slowing rates of expansion. Warehousing Capacity slowed (-5.4) to the point that it read in at 50.0, which indicates no movement from last month. When taken together with the anemic rate of growth for Inventory Levels (51.5) and the sky-rocketing Inventory Costs (78.4), these metrics suggest that after building up inventories for much of 2025, goods are now holding still, incurring significant costs.
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 59.4, which is up (+0.6) from April’s reading of 58.8. The rate of expansion for Inventory Costs, Warehousing Utilization, and Transportation Prices increased month-over-month, while the other five sub-metrics reported slowing rates of expansion. Warehousing Capacity slowed (-5.4) to the point that it read in at 50.0, which indicates no movement from last month. When taken together with the anemic rate of growth for Inventory Levels (51.5) and the sky-rocketing Inventory Costs (78.4), these metrics suggest that after building up inventories for much of 2025, goods are now holding still, incurring significant costs.
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 59.4 in May, up (+0.6) from April’s reading of 58.8. This month we see a continued slowdown in Inventory Levels but an increase in associated Inventory Costs. There was an associated slowdown in available capacity and expansion in Warehousing Costs. Interestingly, Transportation metrics held relatively steady month-over-month. Overall growth was particularly driven by small firms, with smaller respondents predicting a significantly faster rate of expansion than larger respondents (63.1 to 56.2) possibly suggesting more focus from smaller firms on staying ahead of tariffs – which they may be less able to afford. We see no significant differences between current Upstream/Downstream responses.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 65.1, which is up (+4.5) from April’s prediction of 60.6. We see that Downstream firms have more robust expectations of expansion (69.1) than their Upstream counterparts (62.3). This delta is once again fueled by heightened expectations for Inventory Levels and the associated costs at the Downstream retail level.
The overall index reads in at 59.4 in May, up (+0.6) from April’s reading of 58.8. This month we see a continued slowdown in Inventory Levels but an increase in associated Inventory Costs. There was an associated slowdown in available capacity and expansion in Warehousing Costs. Interestingly, Transportation metrics held relatively steady month-over-month. Overall growth was particularly driven by small firms, with smaller respondents predicting a significantly faster rate of expansion than larger respondents (63.1 to 56.2) possibly suggesting more focus from smaller firms on staying ahead of tariffs – which they may be less able to afford. We see no significant differences between current Upstream/Downstream responses.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 65.1, which is up (+4.5) from April’s prediction of 60.6. We see that Downstream firms have more robust expectations of expansion (69.1) than their Upstream counterparts (62.3). This delta is once again fueled by heightened expectations for Inventory Levels and the associated costs at the Downstream retail level.
Inventory Levels
The Inventory Levels index is down (-5.6) to 51.5, which is the lowest reading since January and is close to the 50.0-threshold that would indicate “no movement”. This value is 5.0 points higher than a year ago, and 2.0 points higher than two years ago at this time. May and June have been among the lowest readings for Inventory Levels over the last few years, so there is potentially some seasonality to this slowdown. However, we would then expect inventories to increase again rapidly as we move through the Summer, ahead of back-to-school season. Inventories seem to be amassing more quickly Upstream. Upstream respondents reported expansion at 56.5 while their Downstream counterparts reported contraction at 43.1. We also see that Inventory Levels tapered off over time, with early respondents reporting expansion at 54.4, and respondents from the second half of the month reporting contraction at 49.1. There were also divisions by size, with small firms reporting Inventory Levels of 57.4, and large firms reporting contraction at 46.1
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, the average value is 61.2, up (+7.9) from April’s future prediction of 53.3. There are some differences in future predictions by supply chain position. Upstream respondents expect expansion at 58.9 – which is up considerably (+14.5) from April’s Upstream future prediction of 45.4. This large swing from contraction to expansion may reflect optimism Upstream that the tariff issues will be more settled within the next 12 months. Downstream firms predict slightly more robust expansion at 65.3.
The Inventory Levels index is down (-5.6) to 51.5, which is the lowest reading since January and is close to the 50.0-threshold that would indicate “no movement”. This value is 5.0 points higher than a year ago, and 2.0 points higher than two years ago at this time. May and June have been among the lowest readings for Inventory Levels over the last few years, so there is potentially some seasonality to this slowdown. However, we would then expect inventories to increase again rapidly as we move through the Summer, ahead of back-to-school season. Inventories seem to be amassing more quickly Upstream. Upstream respondents reported expansion at 56.5 while their Downstream counterparts reported contraction at 43.1. We also see that Inventory Levels tapered off over time, with early respondents reporting expansion at 54.4, and respondents from the second half of the month reporting contraction at 49.1. There were also divisions by size, with small firms reporting Inventory Levels of 57.4, and large firms reporting contraction at 46.1
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, the average value is 61.2, up (+7.9) from April’s future prediction of 53.3. There are some differences in future predictions by supply chain position. Upstream respondents expect expansion at 58.9 – which is up considerably (+14.5) from April’s Upstream future prediction of 45.4. This large swing from contraction to expansion may reflect optimism Upstream that the tariff issues will be more settled within the next 12 months. Downstream firms predict slightly more robust expansion at 65.3.
Inventory Costs
Inventory Cost read in at 78.4 in May, an increase (+2.8) from April’s already high expansion of 75.6. While Inventory Level movements are somewhat season, Inventory Cost movements are not. The current value is 13.2 points higher than last year at this time, and 14.0 points higher than two years ago. This reflects the high levels of inventories that have been stored up over time. The delta in our two inventory metrics varies by supply chain position. Upstream showed an Inventory Level increase at 56.5, but an Inventory Cost increase of 77.0, a delta of 20.5 points. Downstream showed an Inventory Level decrease at 43.1, but an Inventory Cost increase of 80.6. In has a cost index 37.5 points higher than the level index. This month, small firms reported 85.9, and large firms report 71.6. So small firms reported a small increase in inventory levels, but a very large increase in costs. Large firms returned a small decrease in inventory values, and a large increase in inventory costs.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 78.9, up (+1.4) from April’s future prediction of 77.5. The movement of only 1.4 points represents a much smaller oscillation relative to the wild swings we had been observing earlier in 2025. Upstream respondents predict that Inventory Prices will expand at 74.6 over the next 12 months. That is a significant rate of expansion, but it pales in comparison to the 86.1 predicted by Downstream respondents. This is down from last month’s Downstream prediction of 94.0 but still signals expectations for tariffs to significantly impact the cost of consumer goods.
Inventory Cost read in at 78.4 in May, an increase (+2.8) from April’s already high expansion of 75.6. While Inventory Level movements are somewhat season, Inventory Cost movements are not. The current value is 13.2 points higher than last year at this time, and 14.0 points higher than two years ago. This reflects the high levels of inventories that have been stored up over time. The delta in our two inventory metrics varies by supply chain position. Upstream showed an Inventory Level increase at 56.5, but an Inventory Cost increase of 77.0, a delta of 20.5 points. Downstream showed an Inventory Level decrease at 43.1, but an Inventory Cost increase of 80.6. In has a cost index 37.5 points higher than the level index. This month, small firms reported 85.9, and large firms report 71.6. So small firms reported a small increase in inventory levels, but a very large increase in costs. Large firms returned a small decrease in inventory values, and a large increase in inventory costs.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 78.9, up (+1.4) from April’s future prediction of 77.5. The movement of only 1.4 points represents a much smaller oscillation relative to the wild swings we had been observing earlier in 2025. Upstream respondents predict that Inventory Prices will expand at 74.6 over the next 12 months. That is a significant rate of expansion, but it pales in comparison to the 86.1 predicted by Downstream respondents. This is down from last month’s Downstream prediction of 94.0 but still signals expectations for tariffs to significantly impact the cost of consumer goods.
Warehousing Capacity
Breaking the trend from the two months before, this month we see a slowdown in Warehouse Capacity as May's reading decreased by 5.4 points from the month prior and is now at 50.0 (neither increasing nor decreasing). This reading is down 5.6 points from the reading one year ago and is also down by 6.7 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was an 8.7-point split between Upstream (47.1) and Downstream (55.7) which was not statistically significant (p>.1), yet of note is that this month reverts back to the previously noted “see-saw” trend of Upstream and Downstream jostling between contraction and expansion, where now they are split with Downstream in expansionary territory and Upstream contracting. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 44.9 and 54.6, respectively. This 9.7-point split was marginally statistically significant (p <.1), with Upstream again showing a contraction rating (similar what was seen in the comments above).
Exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Capacity is expected to expand at 53.9, down (-2.7) from April’s future prediction of 56.6. Future Upstream Warehousing Capacity is expected to enter neutral territory at 50.0 whereas Downstream is expected to continue expansionary forecasts with a value of 61.4. This 11.4-point increase was marginally statistically significant.
Breaking the trend from the two months before, this month we see a slowdown in Warehouse Capacity as May's reading decreased by 5.4 points from the month prior and is now at 50.0 (neither increasing nor decreasing). This reading is down 5.6 points from the reading one year ago and is also down by 6.7 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was an 8.7-point split between Upstream (47.1) and Downstream (55.7) which was not statistically significant (p>.1), yet of note is that this month reverts back to the previously noted “see-saw” trend of Upstream and Downstream jostling between contraction and expansion, where now they are split with Downstream in expansionary territory and Upstream contracting. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 44.9 and 54.6, respectively. This 9.7-point split was marginally statistically significant (p <.1), with Upstream again showing a contraction rating (similar what was seen in the comments above).
Exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Capacity is expected to expand at 53.9, down (-2.7) from April’s future prediction of 56.6. Future Upstream Warehousing Capacity is expected to enter neutral territory at 50.0 whereas Downstream is expected to continue expansionary forecasts with a value of 61.4. This 11.4-point increase was marginally statistically significant.
Warehousing Utilization
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 62.5 points for the month of May 2025, reflecting a 2.4-point increase from the April’s reading of 60.1 prior, and marking two months in a row where this index saw an increase. This reading is down 1.5-points from the reading one year ago, and up 7.8-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 4.2-point split between Upstream (61.0) and Downstream (65.3) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 65.3 and 60.0, respectively. This 5.3-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 68.9, up significantly (+12.4) from April’s future prediction of 56.5, suggesting that capacity may be strained over the next 12 months. Future Upstream Warehousing Utilization (61.0) are lower than Downstream expectations (76.4), with the difference between these two decreasing from last month by nearly 7-points, and where this 11.5-point difference was marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 62.5 points for the month of May 2025, reflecting a 2.4-point increase from the April’s reading of 60.1 prior, and marking two months in a row where this index saw an increase. This reading is down 1.5-points from the reading one year ago, and up 7.8-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 4.2-point split between Upstream (61.0) and Downstream (65.3) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 65.3 and 60.0, respectively. This 5.3-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 68.9, up significantly (+12.4) from April’s future prediction of 56.5, suggesting that capacity may be strained over the next 12 months. Future Upstream Warehousing Utilization (61.0) are lower than Downstream expectations (76.4), with the difference between these two decreasing from last month by nearly 7-points, and where this 11.5-point difference was marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
Warehousing Prices
In the warehousing segment, pricing saw the smallest movement, with Warehousing Prices reading in at 72.1, nearly identical (-0.2) to April’s reading of 72.3. Both of these readings indicate significant price expansion. This reading is up 7.6-points from the reading one year ago, and also up nearly 10-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a less than 1 -point split between Upstream (71.3 and unchanged from the month prior) and Downstream (73.5) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 76.0 and 68.5 reflecting a 7.5-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 79.4, up (+1.4) from April’s future prediction of 78.0, indicating significant expansion. Future Upstream expectations (75.7 and largely unchanged from the reading one month prior) are predicted to be increasing at a slower rate than Downstream expectations (86.8, also expected to grow at a faster rate than last month), now for a fourth month in a row (and with growth rates increased on both of these). This month's 11.0 (vs last month’s 9.4)-point difference was again marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
In the warehousing segment, pricing saw the smallest movement, with Warehousing Prices reading in at 72.1, nearly identical (-0.2) to April’s reading of 72.3. Both of these readings indicate significant price expansion. This reading is up 7.6-points from the reading one year ago, and also up nearly 10-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a less than 1 -point split between Upstream (71.3 and unchanged from the month prior) and Downstream (73.5) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 76.0 and 68.5 reflecting a 7.5-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 79.4, up (+1.4) from April’s future prediction of 78.0, indicating significant expansion. Future Upstream expectations (75.7 and largely unchanged from the reading one month prior) are predicted to be increasing at a slower rate than Downstream expectations (86.8, also expected to grow at a faster rate than last month), now for a fourth month in a row (and with growth rates increased on both of these). This month's 11.0 (vs last month’s 9.4)-point difference was again marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
Transportation Capacity
The Transportation Capacity Index decreased .5 points to 54.7 percent in May 2025. With this small drop, the Transportation Capacity falls to a level that is 2.6 points lower than 1 year ago and 14.6 points from two year ago. As such, while the Transportation Capacity index remains in the slight expansion territory, it is relatively subdued when compared to seasonal data for the last two years.
While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index at 50.0, the Downstream index is significantly higher at 65.3. The future Transportation Capacity index also ticked slightly lower, and it is now at 50.0, indicating stable capacity for next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 46.2, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 59.7, and the difference is statistically significant. Hence, the Transportation Capacity seems to be continuing to tighten Upstream while it is more relaxed, and it is expected to remain somewhat looser Downstream.
The Transportation Capacity Index decreased .5 points to 54.7 percent in May 2025. With this small drop, the Transportation Capacity falls to a level that is 2.6 points lower than 1 year ago and 14.6 points from two year ago. As such, while the Transportation Capacity index remains in the slight expansion territory, it is relatively subdued when compared to seasonal data for the last two years.
While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index at 50.0, the Downstream index is significantly higher at 65.3. The future Transportation Capacity index also ticked slightly lower, and it is now at 50.0, indicating stable capacity for next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 46.2, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 59.7, and the difference is statistically significant. Hence, the Transportation Capacity seems to be continuing to tighten Upstream while it is more relaxed, and it is expected to remain somewhat looser Downstream.
Transportation Utilization
The Transportation Utilization Index continued its downward trend, decreasing another .7 points from last month and indicating 52.6 in May 2025. Despite this 5th consecutive drop, Transportation Utilization index remains slightly above the critical threshold, and it is still indicating a slight expansion. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 58.3, while the Upstream index is indicating 50.6, but the difference is not significant. So, the distribution of transportation activity across the supply chain remains similar to the previous month, and while Downstream activity seems to be expanding, Upstream activity remains close to the critical threshold of 50.0.
The future Transportation Utilization Index rebounds slightly (4.1 points) from last month, remaining in the expansion territory and indicating the 60.9 level for the next 12 months. There is not much difference between Upstream and Downstream, with the future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 61.5 and the Downstream index at 59.7.
The Transportation Utilization Index continued its downward trend, decreasing another .7 points from last month and indicating 52.6 in May 2025. Despite this 5th consecutive drop, Transportation Utilization index remains slightly above the critical threshold, and it is still indicating a slight expansion. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 58.3, while the Upstream index is indicating 50.6, but the difference is not significant. So, the distribution of transportation activity across the supply chain remains similar to the previous month, and while Downstream activity seems to be expanding, Upstream activity remains close to the critical threshold of 50.0.
The future Transportation Utilization Index rebounds slightly (4.1 points) from last month, remaining in the expansion territory and indicating the 60.9 level for the next 12 months. There is not much difference between Upstream and Downstream, with the future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 61.5 and the Downstream index at 59.7.
Transportation Prices
The Transportation Prices Index increased 0.8 points from the previous reading and recorder 63.1 in May 2025. The Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 61.7, and the Downstream index is at 66.7, but the difference is not significant, indicating that the price increases are felt across the supply chain.
The future Transportation Utilization Index rebounds slightly (4.1 points) from last month, remaining in the expansion territory and indicating the 60.9 level for the next 12 months. There is not much difference between Upstream and Downstream, with the future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 61.5 and the Downstream index at 59.7.
The Transportation Prices Index increased 0.8 points from the previous reading and recorder 63.1 in May 2025. The Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 61.7, and the Downstream index is at 66.7, but the difference is not significant, indicating that the price increases are felt across the supply chain.
The future Transportation Utilization Index rebounds slightly (4.1 points) from last month, remaining in the expansion territory and indicating the 60.9 level for the next 12 months. There is not much difference between Upstream and Downstream, with the future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 61.5 and the Downstream index at 59.7.
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] Wiseman, P. (2025, May 29). Hit by Trump trade wars, U.S. economy falls 0.2% in first quarter, an upgrade from initial estimate. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/economy-trump-tariff-contraction-2c17721ae91e3249850b7a48ab35edc1
[2] Hsu, J. (2025, May 30). Surveys of Consumers. Survey of Consumer - Final Results for May 2025. https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[3] Trovall, E. (2025, May 26). Consumers have been finding plenty of reasons to be pessimistic about the future economy. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/26/this-year-consumers-have-had-pessimistic-economic-outlooks
[4] The Conference Board. (2025, May 14). CEO Confidence Declined Significantly in Q2 2025. The Conference Board. https://www.conference-board.org/topics/CEO-Confidence/press/CEO-confidence-Q2-2025
[5] Hartman, M. (2025, May 30). Why is the U.S. economy cruising along despite tariff uncertainty? Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/30/wheres-the-job-market-headed-in-this-uncertain-economy
[6] Wallace, A. (2025, May 30). Americans pulled back on their spending in April amid tariff rollout | CNN Business. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/economy/us-consumer-spending-inflation-fed-pce-april
[7] Pitcher, J. (2025, May 30). Stocks Shrug Off Trade War to Post Best Month Since 2023. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/stocks-shrug-off-trade-war-to-post-best-month-since-2023-da8c5255
[8] Dlouhy, J. A. (2025, May 30). Trump Sees Xi Call Settling Trade Flap Over Rare Earth Exports. Bloomberg. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-sees-xi-call-settling-trade-flap-over-rare-earth-exports/ar-AA1FMKTQ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=448664d51e16421e81c0f3b840caa892&ei=14
[9] Goldman, D., & Buchwald, E. (2025, May 30). Trump doubles steel tariffs to 50% in ‘major announcement’ | CNN Business. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/business/trump-announces-50-percent-steel-tariff
[10] Chirls, S. (2025c, May 19). No container tsunami heading to Los Angeles, says port chief. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/no-container-tsunami-heading-to-los-angeles-says-port-chief
[11] Port of Los Angeles. (2025, May 31). Port Optimizer—Control Tower. Port of LA Signal - May 31, 2025. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[12] Chirls, S. (2025b, May 16). Long Beach sees record TEUs on trade war effect. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/long-beach-sees-record-teus-on-trade-war-effect
[13] Hamilton, K., & Seal, D. (2025, May 30). Retailers Flex Their Vocabulary to Warn of Potential Tariff-Driven Price Hikes. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/retailers-flex-their-vocabulary-to-warn-of-potential-tariff-driven-price-hikes-a5d9748c
[14] Maurer, M. (2025, May 30). Deere’s Plans for Offsetting $500 Million in Tariff Costs. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/deeres-plans-for-offsetting-500-million-in-tariff-costs-79ae52d8
[15] Peters, S. (2025, May 20). Home Depot bucks trend on tariff price hikes. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/20/why-home-depot-isnt-raising-its-prices-despite-tariffs
[16] Schwab, K. (2025, May 28). A few retailers are bucking the doom and gloom forecast trend. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/28/why-dicks-sporting-goods-is-bucking-the-gloomy-retail-trend
[17] Freightos. (2025, May 30). Shipping From China to US [Updated May 2025 ]. Freightos. https://www.freightos.com/shipping-routes/shipping-from-china-to-the-united-states/
[18] Paris, C. (2025, May 15). Shipping Rates Rise as U.S.-China Trade Truce Drives Import Surge. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/shipping-rates-rise-as-u-s-china-trade-truce-drives-import-surge-cb9a67bf
[19] Chirls, S. (2025a, May 14). Maersk looks to fill up corridors in a flash (sale). FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/maersk-looks-to-fill-up-container-ships-in-a-flash-sale
[20] Young, L., & Berger, P. (2025, May 29). Tariff Ruling Raises Uncertainty and Costs for U.S. Importers. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/tariff-ruling-raises-uncertainty-and-costs-for-u-s-importers-3206d468
[21] Grumbach, G., & Gregorian, D. (2025, May 30). Federal appeals court pauses rulings on Trump tariffs, allowing them to continue—For now. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/federal-appeals-court-temporarily-pauses-rulings-trump-tariffs-allowin-rcna209842
[22] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025, May 26). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS - May 26, 2025. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[23] Elliott, R. F. (2025, May 30). U.S. Oil Companies Are ‘Battening Down the Hatches.’ The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/business/energy-environment/oil-companies-production-prices-opec.html
[24] Trains com Staff. (2025, May 22). J.B. Hunt and Eastern and Canadian railways see steady intermodal volume. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/j-b-hunt-and-eastern-and-canadian-railways-see-steady-intermodal-volume
[2] Hsu, J. (2025, May 30). Surveys of Consumers. Survey of Consumer - Final Results for May 2025. https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[3] Trovall, E. (2025, May 26). Consumers have been finding plenty of reasons to be pessimistic about the future economy. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/26/this-year-consumers-have-had-pessimistic-economic-outlooks
[4] The Conference Board. (2025, May 14). CEO Confidence Declined Significantly in Q2 2025. The Conference Board. https://www.conference-board.org/topics/CEO-Confidence/press/CEO-confidence-Q2-2025
[5] Hartman, M. (2025, May 30). Why is the U.S. economy cruising along despite tariff uncertainty? Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/30/wheres-the-job-market-headed-in-this-uncertain-economy
[6] Wallace, A. (2025, May 30). Americans pulled back on their spending in April amid tariff rollout | CNN Business. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/economy/us-consumer-spending-inflation-fed-pce-april
[7] Pitcher, J. (2025, May 30). Stocks Shrug Off Trade War to Post Best Month Since 2023. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/stocks-shrug-off-trade-war-to-post-best-month-since-2023-da8c5255
[8] Dlouhy, J. A. (2025, May 30). Trump Sees Xi Call Settling Trade Flap Over Rare Earth Exports. Bloomberg. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-sees-xi-call-settling-trade-flap-over-rare-earth-exports/ar-AA1FMKTQ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=448664d51e16421e81c0f3b840caa892&ei=14
[9] Goldman, D., & Buchwald, E. (2025, May 30). Trump doubles steel tariffs to 50% in ‘major announcement’ | CNN Business. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/business/trump-announces-50-percent-steel-tariff
[10] Chirls, S. (2025c, May 19). No container tsunami heading to Los Angeles, says port chief. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/no-container-tsunami-heading-to-los-angeles-says-port-chief
[11] Port of Los Angeles. (2025, May 31). Port Optimizer—Control Tower. Port of LA Signal - May 31, 2025. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[12] Chirls, S. (2025b, May 16). Long Beach sees record TEUs on trade war effect. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/long-beach-sees-record-teus-on-trade-war-effect
[13] Hamilton, K., & Seal, D. (2025, May 30). Retailers Flex Their Vocabulary to Warn of Potential Tariff-Driven Price Hikes. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/retailers-flex-their-vocabulary-to-warn-of-potential-tariff-driven-price-hikes-a5d9748c
[14] Maurer, M. (2025, May 30). Deere’s Plans for Offsetting $500 Million in Tariff Costs. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/deeres-plans-for-offsetting-500-million-in-tariff-costs-79ae52d8
[15] Peters, S. (2025, May 20). Home Depot bucks trend on tariff price hikes. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/20/why-home-depot-isnt-raising-its-prices-despite-tariffs
[16] Schwab, K. (2025, May 28). A few retailers are bucking the doom and gloom forecast trend. Marketplace. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/05/28/why-dicks-sporting-goods-is-bucking-the-gloomy-retail-trend
[17] Freightos. (2025, May 30). Shipping From China to US [Updated May 2025 ]. Freightos. https://www.freightos.com/shipping-routes/shipping-from-china-to-the-united-states/
[18] Paris, C. (2025, May 15). Shipping Rates Rise as U.S.-China Trade Truce Drives Import Surge. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/shipping-rates-rise-as-u-s-china-trade-truce-drives-import-surge-cb9a67bf
[19] Chirls, S. (2025a, May 14). Maersk looks to fill up corridors in a flash (sale). FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/maersk-looks-to-fill-up-container-ships-in-a-flash-sale
[20] Young, L., & Berger, P. (2025, May 29). Tariff Ruling Raises Uncertainty and Costs for U.S. Importers. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/tariff-ruling-raises-uncertainty-and-costs-for-u-s-importers-3206d468
[21] Grumbach, G., & Gregorian, D. (2025, May 30). Federal appeals court pauses rulings on Trump tariffs, allowing them to continue—For now. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/federal-appeals-court-temporarily-pauses-rulings-trump-tariffs-allowin-rcna209842
[22] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025, May 26). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS - May 26, 2025. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[23] Elliott, R. F. (2025, May 30). U.S. Oil Companies Are ‘Battening Down the Hatches.’ The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/business/energy-environment/oil-companies-production-prices-opec.html
[24] Trains com Staff. (2025, May 22). J.B. Hunt and Eastern and Canadian railways see steady intermodal volume. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/j-b-hunt-and-eastern-and-canadian-railways-see-steady-intermodal-volume