FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, November 4th, 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
October 2025 Logistics Manager’s Index Report®
LMI® at 57.4
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Warehousing Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Capacity.
Inventory Levels are CONTRACTING
LMI® at 57.4
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Warehousing Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Capacity.
Inventory Levels are CONTRACTING
(Fort Collins, CO) —The October Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 57.4, indicating no movement (+/-0.0) from September’s reading. The lack of movement in the overall index is the result of cross-pressures from downward movements in inventories and warehousing metrics, counteracted by upward pressures in transportation metrics. The most significant downward movements are Inventory Levels dipping (-5.6) into contraction at 49.5 and a subsequent slowdown in Warehousing Utilization (-8.8) to a much slower expansionary rate of 56.5. The upward movements come disproportionately from transportation, with Transportation Prices (+7.5) up to 61.7 and Transportation Utilization (+7.3) up to 57.3 – a marked shift from the reading of 50.0 and no movement that was reported in September. The upward swing in Transportation Prices combined with the slight downtick (-0.7) in the expansion of available Transportation Capacity (54.5) breaks the two-month trend of a negative freight inversion. Given the very slim margins of last month’s negative inversion (a 0.9-point gap) as well as seasonal factors it is unsurprising that transportation markets have swung back towards expansion. As might be expected, this is largely due to activity at Downstream retailers. Downstream firms reported Transportation Price expansion of 70.0 and Transportation Capacity at 56.1. Conversely, Upstream firms reported a significantly milder Transportation Price expansion of 56.4, and Transportation Capacity expansion of 53.6. Essentially it seems that retailer expectations of consumer spending over the holiday shopping season, and the subsequent movements of inventories to serve that demand, has halted the previous downward trend we had been observing. This is similar to the dynamics observed in the Fall of 2018, when Upstream B2B freight slowed down to U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports but B2C movements remained steady due to strong U.S. consumer activity. The strong downstream activity led to steady growth in the freight market through the end of 2018. We did, however, eventually see a slowdown in early 2019, after holiday spending had concluded. It will be interesting to observe whether similar dynamics play out in 2026. That being said, based on October’s readings it seems likely that the transportation market is likely to remain strong – at least Downstream – through 2025.
Taken altogether it seems likely that inventories are dropping as holiday sales begin, easing the prior tightness in warehousing and leading to a greater utilization of transportation due to the increased movement of goods. Essentially, supply chains have gone from being somewhat static and weighted down by inventory, to moving in a more dynamic, seasonally consistent manner.
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 October 2025.
The October LMI read in at 57.4, which is unchanged (+/-0.0) from September’s reading. This is the eighth consecutive reading to come in below the all-time overall average of 61.4. The rate of expansion was more pronounced later in October, reading in at 60.3 during the second half of October – which was up significantly from the reading of 53.7 early in the month. Expansion was driven disproportionately by smaller respondents, who reported overall expansion of 60.2, which was statistically significantly faster than the 56.4 reported by larger respondents. In both cases these are likely indicative that inventories have begun flowing towards consumers in anticipation of the holiday spending season, off-setting some of the slowness we have observed in manufacturing and at the B2B level.
The anticipation of consumer spending is reflected in consumer sentiment holding steady in October, dropping by only 1.5% month-over-month. Year-over-year is a different story, as sentiment is down 24% from October 2024. This smaller monthly movement is due partially to a leveling off of expectations regarding inflation, which ticked down to a prediction of 4.6% (down from 4.7% in September). This represents the midway point of expectations a year ago contrasted with the expectation highwater mark from this May[1]. Consumers continue to identify uncertainty surrounding tariffs as a point of anxiety. There was some movement on this front in the late October meeting between Presidents Trump and Jinping which yielded several concessions between the world’s largest two economies. This includes loosening restrictions on rare earth metals, a promise for China to purchase a significant volume of soybeans, and a suspension of U.S. port fees on Chinese ships for at least a year. While there have not been any significant concessions to the pre-Liberation Day status quo, this does lend a level of certainty to U.S.-China relations that has been missing for most of the year[2]. It is also worth noting that this is only a walk-back of the October 9th ban on all rare earth exports, not on the controls that were already in place going back to last April and December 2024[3]. While shippers and carriers welcome the 10% reduction in tariffs, they are somewhat skeptical that it will lead to a meaningful increase in U.S.-China trade due to the controls that remain in place – which add up to an effective rate of 47% on Chinese imports[4]. In the wake of the additional 10% U.S. tariff on Canadian imports, Prime Minister Mark Carney has spent his trip to ASEAN nations attempting to build more robust economic relationships with Asian trading partners. This comes after the reestablishment of formal diplomatic relations between Canada and India. Canada is seems to be attempting to diversify its export base away from the U.S. in an attempt to protect itself from the unpredictability of the ongoing trade war[5]. The $1.15 billion investment in expanding the Port of Montreal to move away from being a “north-south” trading nation is further evidence of this[6]. It will be interesting to see if tariffs continue to fall away. The Senate voted to repeal U.S. tariffs on Brazil, citing the lack of a security concern behind the 50% tariff on South America’s largest economy – with which the U.S. actually runs a trade surplus. Without any movement by the house this vote is largely symbolic, but it may represent a desire to achieve additional certainty in international trade from the legislature[7].
Looking towards Europe, the Eurozone grew 0.2% in the third quarter, meaning they’re up 0.9% on the year and expanding more quickly than had been expected. Germany, which as the bloc’s largest exporter has been hit hardest by tariffs, avoided sliding into a recession in the quarter, offering hope that the Eurozone will weather the tariff the storm through at least the end of 2025[8]. This growth may be behind the European Central Bank holding their key interest rate steady at 2% - which is the level it has been at since June. This comes after a cycle of eight cuts since mid-2024[9] and represents a divergence from the U.S. Federal Reserve, which cut rates for the second consecutive meeting in October. The Fed’s cut of another quarter point brings the overall rate below 4 percent for the first time since late 2022. Chairman Powell, citing concerns over the unemployment rate, stated this rate is closer to “neutral” rate that would neither stimulate nor slow the economy[10]. Chairman Powel also noted that there is no guarantee that there will be another rate change at the December meeting. This is because the lack of government data due to the ongoing shutdown makes it difficult for the Fed to predict the direction of the economy. There has not been any government collection of data regarding inflation of employment in October, meaning that even if the government were to reopen tomorrow, it would still take additional time to get data collection up and running again[11].
Post-covid, we have often seen retail inventories peak in mid-October, and then gradually decline due to consumer spending during the holiday shopping season. This played out slightly differently in 2025, as inventories were pulled ahead early to avoid tariffs, meaning they peaked earlier than normal. This month’s readings seem to show some return to normalcy however, as there is evidence that inventories are being moved toward retail consumers. The first point of evidence here is that Inventory Levels shifted (-5.6) to contraction at 49.5, suggesting that holiday shopping has commenced. Inventory Levels contracted early in the month at the robust rate of 39.1, which is likely indicative of what had been huge stores of goods finally being run down. It is also notable that after several months of expansion, smaller firms saw Inventory Levels contract slightly at 49.0, which is consistent with the slight decline of 49.0 reported by their larger counterparts. Interestingly, we saw Inventory Levels expand slightly (54.3) in the second half of October. This is likely a combination of retail inventories growing and some backfilling of goods coming into the ports. After being down considerably year-over-year early in October, containers scheduled to come into the port of LA are up in the last week of the month, and predicted to increase again in mid-November[12]. Relatedly, the Drewery container index was up 4% to $1,822 per container, which is the third straight week of expansion following contraction through the previous 17 weeks. Interestingly, Drewery believes the primary factor behind this increase is the implementation of General Rate Increases (GRI) imminent on November 1st, and expect that momentum to decline after GRI is fully implemented[13]. It seems likely these backfilled inventories are going to Upstream wholesalers, as they saw Inventory Levels expand very slightly at 50.8, contrasting with slight contraction of 47.6 – which likely indicates strong turnover Downstream.
Despite the movements in inventory volumes, price expansion remains steady. Inventory Costs continue to grow (-2.3) robustly at a rate of 73.2, which indicates significant price expansion. This expansion is consistent both Upstream (75.0) and Downstream (70.0), as well as for smaller (73.4) and larger (72.5) firms. The continued increase in costs speaks to the concern that consumer Q4 spending may be held back by high prices. With the consumer price index (CPI) continuing to hover around 3%, it is expected that some retailer increases in earnings may be due more to an increase in the price, but not necessarily an increase in the volume, of the goods they sell during Q4[14]. This means that retail sales may be more disentangled from shipping volumes than normal, meaning that even if sales are up over the holidays (as seems likely) it may not necessarily mean we see a significant boost in the freight market. The other open question around consumer spending is how it will be impacted by the ongoing U.S. government shutdown. In the last week of October a federal judge ruled that the government to must use emergency funds to continue covering the 42 million Americans that receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits[15]. The majority of people receiving these benefits are children, the elderly, and the disabled. There is a concern that if nutritional benefits are not covered for this cohort, that it will have a significant negative impact on holiday spending[16].
Looking forward, Upstream firms expect Inventory Levels to grow only marginally (51.7) over the next year, while Downstream firms expect contraction (40.2). This is consistent with the recent statement from OL USA CEO Alan Baer that many of the shippers they work with remain uncertain about 2026, and are likely to be risk averse in terms of the inventory they plan to bring into the U.S. A report from Vizion shows that this downshift has already occurred, with 700,000 fewer containers having been shipped from China to the U.S. so far in 2025 than there were up to the same point in 2024[17].
Another hint regarding potential consumer spending can be seen in recent movements from Amazon. Despite the layoffs of 14,000 white collar workers in October, Amazon is planning to bring on 250,000 seasonal workers over the holiday season – indicating they are expecting strong consumer spending in Q4[18]. This optimism comes despite Amazon’s October Prime Day being down from the July event, with order sizes dropping by 15% from the Prime Day earlier this year. According to the National Retail Federation (NRF) the number of shoppers using the October Prime Day to get a jump on holiday shopping was down by almost 50% year-over-year[19].
The movement of inventories towards consumers has provided some long-awaited relief for warehousing metrics. This is most pronounced with Warehousing Utilization, where expansion slowed (-8.8) significantly to 56.5. This was driven almost totally by smaller firms later in the month. Early October saw Warehousing Utilization contract slightly at 48.4, whereas the second half of the month saw expansion at 60.3. Similarly, large firms contraction in Warehousing Utilization at 48.0, contrasting with expansion of 60.3 reported by their smaller counterparts. The two groups also saw a statistically significant difference in Warehousing Prices, with smaller firms reporting expansion at 71.7 and larger firms reporting slower – but still significant – expansion at 63.3. Warehousing Prices were the only one of the three warehousing metrics to demonstrate upward movement, increasing (+1.8) to 67.7. Like the moves in utilization, this was driven more by responses in the second half of October, when Warehousing Prices moved from 62.9 early on to 70.0 and robust expansion later on. This might reflect the continuous movements of inventory to retailers later in the month, as retail storage space tends to be more expensive due to its location near population centers.
Warehousing Capacity ticked up slightly (+0.5) to 52.0 in October, which represents a very small increase in available space. Once again, however we see several differences across respondent groups. The higher costs and utilization experienced by smaller respondents is explained by their report of slight contraction of available Warehousing Capacity at 47.9, which stands in contrast to the expansion of 55.0 reported by larger firms. We also saw Upstream respondents report slight contraction at 48.3 while Downstream respondents reported expansion at 57.7. The combination of slightly looser capacity with increasing prices is aligned with recent reporting that vacant warehousing space in the U.S. remained at an 11-year high at the end of the third quarter. Available space did not expand in this quarter – the first time this has happened in three years as construction of industrial storage space has slowed. Demand cooled in the third quarter as inventories stabilized but demand remained soft across many sectors. With this 7.1% vacancy, the average rent price moved to $10.10 per square foot, which is up1.7% year-over-year[20]. At the same time Prologis reported its Q3 revenue was up 9% to $2.21 billion, indicating that, despite the increase in vacancy rates, that the demand is for storage is up in some areas[21]. This might be partially explained by an increase in short-term leases, which tend to be more expensive but may have provided a means for wholesalers to hold extra inventory before shipping it off to retail customers.
Whereas inventory and warehousing metrics slowed down in October, the transportation metrics enjoyed a bit of a resurgence. Transportation Capacity had expanded slightly more quickly than Transportation Prices in August and September, indicating a negative freight inversion. This continued into early October, when Transportation Capacity read in at 61.8 and Transportation Prices were down to 52.9. This flipped dramatically in the second half of October, when Transportation Capacity dipped to nearly no movement at 51.3 and Transportation Prices exploded 12.6-points upward to robust expansion at 65.6. This bifurcation extended to Transportation Utilization as well, with the metric contracting (47.1) in early October before switching to robust expansion (61.8) in the second half of the month. The three transportation metrics were up a cumulative 37.9 points in the second half of October, which is the most significant within-month increase we have ever observed for a set of metrics. The reactivation of freight markets is likely due the long-awaited movement of the inventories that were built up early in the year to avoid tariffs downstream towards consumers. This is reflected in the way that Downstream retailers have largely driven the increase in Transportation Prices, reporting robust expansion at 70.0, contrasting with the milder upward movement of 56.4 for Upstream respondents.
It will be interesting to see how Transportation Prices which were up (+7.5) overall to 61.7, hold up over the next few months. While linehaul rates were up 2.6% year-over-year in September, it is not likely indicative of a significant peak season surge. According to the Journal of Commerce, much of the growth is coming from Southern California – leading to a freight imbalance which may be driving up spot rates in other areas[22]. Zach Strickland of FreightWaves postulates that the increase in spot rates in the middle of October may have been partially due to some capacity leaving the market. This is based on a simultaneous increase in spot rates despite the 20% dip in year-over-year tender volumes[23]. Another factor here is that fleets are imbalanced, with demand out of Southern California far outstripping demand in other parts of the country, leading to an abundance of deadhead hauls which might be skewing rejection rates. Long-haul demand is down 30% year-over-year, which is partially due to shippers utilizing higher ratios of intermodal freight to move early-arriving inventory across the country at cheaper rates[24]. Intermodal has also remained a popular method of cross-border shipping, as its lower cost mitigates some of the weight of the tariffs[25]. Taken together, this suggests that the increase in Transportation Price in the second half of October may have been at least partially due to an imbalance of fleets – which is likely due to an imbalance of inventory.
A hint about future outlooks for transportation can also be seen in recent movements by UPS and FedEx. In the past year UPS has reduced their workforce by 48,000 people – with 34,000 of those cuts coming from the ranks of their drivers and warehousing workers. While this represents a small portion of their nearly half a million employees, it does signal that UPS is downsizing as it attempts to get costs under control. This is something Wall Street is somewhat anxious about given that UPS share prices are down nearly a quarter in 2025. Rival FedEx is in a somewhat better, though by no means great, position, with their shares down 11% over the year[26]. Some relief may be on the way for carriers, with future predictions indicating that respondents across the board are predicting a much stronger freight market in the next year, with both Upstream and Downstream firms predicting tight capacity (37.0 Upstream and 48.8 Downstream) as well as robust increases in Transportation Prices (81.4 Upstream and 76.3 Downstream. Regardless of where this goes, for the moment we see slower expansion (-0.7) in available Transportation Capacity at 54.5, and a rebound in Transportation Utilization (+7.3) which is back into expansionary territory at 57.3, recovering from the reading of 50.0 and no movement in September.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index are 64.6, which is up (+5.0) from September’s prediction of 59.6. This would represent a slightly slower rate of growth than the all-time average of 61.4. This is driven by predictions of Inventory Levels contracting at 47.5, down significantly (-8.2) from September’s prediction of expansion at 55.7. Despite the softer predictions for inventories, cost expectations are up across the board, with Inventory Costs (+2.6), Warehousing Prices (+4.5), and Transportation Prices (+13.0) all predicted to read in over 70.0 (with transportation bordering on 80.0). This would suggest that prices will expand significantly over the next 12 months, while inventories run much leaner. Taken together this suggests that firms are expecting inventory to be expensive next year but to also move quickly. They are likely hoping that trade policy will stabilize by then (next October will be immediately before a midterm election in the U.S.), which will allow shippers to bring inventories in at a steadier pace, which would in turn allow them to better utilize available warehousing and transportation capacity. This could represent a heightened version of JIT, wherein inventories are kept low to mitigate tariff costs, and will therefore be turned over very quickly, leading to greater demand – and higher prices – for warehousing and transportation services.
Taken altogether it seems likely that inventories are dropping as holiday sales begin, easing the prior tightness in warehousing and leading to a greater utilization of transportation due to the increased movement of goods. Essentially, supply chains have gone from being somewhat static and weighted down by inventory, to moving in a more dynamic, seasonally consistent manner.
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 October 2025.
The October LMI read in at 57.4, which is unchanged (+/-0.0) from September’s reading. This is the eighth consecutive reading to come in below the all-time overall average of 61.4. The rate of expansion was more pronounced later in October, reading in at 60.3 during the second half of October – which was up significantly from the reading of 53.7 early in the month. Expansion was driven disproportionately by smaller respondents, who reported overall expansion of 60.2, which was statistically significantly faster than the 56.4 reported by larger respondents. In both cases these are likely indicative that inventories have begun flowing towards consumers in anticipation of the holiday spending season, off-setting some of the slowness we have observed in manufacturing and at the B2B level.
The anticipation of consumer spending is reflected in consumer sentiment holding steady in October, dropping by only 1.5% month-over-month. Year-over-year is a different story, as sentiment is down 24% from October 2024. This smaller monthly movement is due partially to a leveling off of expectations regarding inflation, which ticked down to a prediction of 4.6% (down from 4.7% in September). This represents the midway point of expectations a year ago contrasted with the expectation highwater mark from this May[1]. Consumers continue to identify uncertainty surrounding tariffs as a point of anxiety. There was some movement on this front in the late October meeting between Presidents Trump and Jinping which yielded several concessions between the world’s largest two economies. This includes loosening restrictions on rare earth metals, a promise for China to purchase a significant volume of soybeans, and a suspension of U.S. port fees on Chinese ships for at least a year. While there have not been any significant concessions to the pre-Liberation Day status quo, this does lend a level of certainty to U.S.-China relations that has been missing for most of the year[2]. It is also worth noting that this is only a walk-back of the October 9th ban on all rare earth exports, not on the controls that were already in place going back to last April and December 2024[3]. While shippers and carriers welcome the 10% reduction in tariffs, they are somewhat skeptical that it will lead to a meaningful increase in U.S.-China trade due to the controls that remain in place – which add up to an effective rate of 47% on Chinese imports[4]. In the wake of the additional 10% U.S. tariff on Canadian imports, Prime Minister Mark Carney has spent his trip to ASEAN nations attempting to build more robust economic relationships with Asian trading partners. This comes after the reestablishment of formal diplomatic relations between Canada and India. Canada is seems to be attempting to diversify its export base away from the U.S. in an attempt to protect itself from the unpredictability of the ongoing trade war[5]. The $1.15 billion investment in expanding the Port of Montreal to move away from being a “north-south” trading nation is further evidence of this[6]. It will be interesting to see if tariffs continue to fall away. The Senate voted to repeal U.S. tariffs on Brazil, citing the lack of a security concern behind the 50% tariff on South America’s largest economy – with which the U.S. actually runs a trade surplus. Without any movement by the house this vote is largely symbolic, but it may represent a desire to achieve additional certainty in international trade from the legislature[7].
Looking towards Europe, the Eurozone grew 0.2% in the third quarter, meaning they’re up 0.9% on the year and expanding more quickly than had been expected. Germany, which as the bloc’s largest exporter has been hit hardest by tariffs, avoided sliding into a recession in the quarter, offering hope that the Eurozone will weather the tariff the storm through at least the end of 2025[8]. This growth may be behind the European Central Bank holding their key interest rate steady at 2% - which is the level it has been at since June. This comes after a cycle of eight cuts since mid-2024[9] and represents a divergence from the U.S. Federal Reserve, which cut rates for the second consecutive meeting in October. The Fed’s cut of another quarter point brings the overall rate below 4 percent for the first time since late 2022. Chairman Powell, citing concerns over the unemployment rate, stated this rate is closer to “neutral” rate that would neither stimulate nor slow the economy[10]. Chairman Powel also noted that there is no guarantee that there will be another rate change at the December meeting. This is because the lack of government data due to the ongoing shutdown makes it difficult for the Fed to predict the direction of the economy. There has not been any government collection of data regarding inflation of employment in October, meaning that even if the government were to reopen tomorrow, it would still take additional time to get data collection up and running again[11].
Post-covid, we have often seen retail inventories peak in mid-October, and then gradually decline due to consumer spending during the holiday shopping season. This played out slightly differently in 2025, as inventories were pulled ahead early to avoid tariffs, meaning they peaked earlier than normal. This month’s readings seem to show some return to normalcy however, as there is evidence that inventories are being moved toward retail consumers. The first point of evidence here is that Inventory Levels shifted (-5.6) to contraction at 49.5, suggesting that holiday shopping has commenced. Inventory Levels contracted early in the month at the robust rate of 39.1, which is likely indicative of what had been huge stores of goods finally being run down. It is also notable that after several months of expansion, smaller firms saw Inventory Levels contract slightly at 49.0, which is consistent with the slight decline of 49.0 reported by their larger counterparts. Interestingly, we saw Inventory Levels expand slightly (54.3) in the second half of October. This is likely a combination of retail inventories growing and some backfilling of goods coming into the ports. After being down considerably year-over-year early in October, containers scheduled to come into the port of LA are up in the last week of the month, and predicted to increase again in mid-November[12]. Relatedly, the Drewery container index was up 4% to $1,822 per container, which is the third straight week of expansion following contraction through the previous 17 weeks. Interestingly, Drewery believes the primary factor behind this increase is the implementation of General Rate Increases (GRI) imminent on November 1st, and expect that momentum to decline after GRI is fully implemented[13]. It seems likely these backfilled inventories are going to Upstream wholesalers, as they saw Inventory Levels expand very slightly at 50.8, contrasting with slight contraction of 47.6 – which likely indicates strong turnover Downstream.
Despite the movements in inventory volumes, price expansion remains steady. Inventory Costs continue to grow (-2.3) robustly at a rate of 73.2, which indicates significant price expansion. This expansion is consistent both Upstream (75.0) and Downstream (70.0), as well as for smaller (73.4) and larger (72.5) firms. The continued increase in costs speaks to the concern that consumer Q4 spending may be held back by high prices. With the consumer price index (CPI) continuing to hover around 3%, it is expected that some retailer increases in earnings may be due more to an increase in the price, but not necessarily an increase in the volume, of the goods they sell during Q4[14]. This means that retail sales may be more disentangled from shipping volumes than normal, meaning that even if sales are up over the holidays (as seems likely) it may not necessarily mean we see a significant boost in the freight market. The other open question around consumer spending is how it will be impacted by the ongoing U.S. government shutdown. In the last week of October a federal judge ruled that the government to must use emergency funds to continue covering the 42 million Americans that receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits[15]. The majority of people receiving these benefits are children, the elderly, and the disabled. There is a concern that if nutritional benefits are not covered for this cohort, that it will have a significant negative impact on holiday spending[16].
Looking forward, Upstream firms expect Inventory Levels to grow only marginally (51.7) over the next year, while Downstream firms expect contraction (40.2). This is consistent with the recent statement from OL USA CEO Alan Baer that many of the shippers they work with remain uncertain about 2026, and are likely to be risk averse in terms of the inventory they plan to bring into the U.S. A report from Vizion shows that this downshift has already occurred, with 700,000 fewer containers having been shipped from China to the U.S. so far in 2025 than there were up to the same point in 2024[17].
Another hint regarding potential consumer spending can be seen in recent movements from Amazon. Despite the layoffs of 14,000 white collar workers in October, Amazon is planning to bring on 250,000 seasonal workers over the holiday season – indicating they are expecting strong consumer spending in Q4[18]. This optimism comes despite Amazon’s October Prime Day being down from the July event, with order sizes dropping by 15% from the Prime Day earlier this year. According to the National Retail Federation (NRF) the number of shoppers using the October Prime Day to get a jump on holiday shopping was down by almost 50% year-over-year[19].
The movement of inventories towards consumers has provided some long-awaited relief for warehousing metrics. This is most pronounced with Warehousing Utilization, where expansion slowed (-8.8) significantly to 56.5. This was driven almost totally by smaller firms later in the month. Early October saw Warehousing Utilization contract slightly at 48.4, whereas the second half of the month saw expansion at 60.3. Similarly, large firms contraction in Warehousing Utilization at 48.0, contrasting with expansion of 60.3 reported by their smaller counterparts. The two groups also saw a statistically significant difference in Warehousing Prices, with smaller firms reporting expansion at 71.7 and larger firms reporting slower – but still significant – expansion at 63.3. Warehousing Prices were the only one of the three warehousing metrics to demonstrate upward movement, increasing (+1.8) to 67.7. Like the moves in utilization, this was driven more by responses in the second half of October, when Warehousing Prices moved from 62.9 early on to 70.0 and robust expansion later on. This might reflect the continuous movements of inventory to retailers later in the month, as retail storage space tends to be more expensive due to its location near population centers.
Warehousing Capacity ticked up slightly (+0.5) to 52.0 in October, which represents a very small increase in available space. Once again, however we see several differences across respondent groups. The higher costs and utilization experienced by smaller respondents is explained by their report of slight contraction of available Warehousing Capacity at 47.9, which stands in contrast to the expansion of 55.0 reported by larger firms. We also saw Upstream respondents report slight contraction at 48.3 while Downstream respondents reported expansion at 57.7. The combination of slightly looser capacity with increasing prices is aligned with recent reporting that vacant warehousing space in the U.S. remained at an 11-year high at the end of the third quarter. Available space did not expand in this quarter – the first time this has happened in three years as construction of industrial storage space has slowed. Demand cooled in the third quarter as inventories stabilized but demand remained soft across many sectors. With this 7.1% vacancy, the average rent price moved to $10.10 per square foot, which is up1.7% year-over-year[20]. At the same time Prologis reported its Q3 revenue was up 9% to $2.21 billion, indicating that, despite the increase in vacancy rates, that the demand is for storage is up in some areas[21]. This might be partially explained by an increase in short-term leases, which tend to be more expensive but may have provided a means for wholesalers to hold extra inventory before shipping it off to retail customers.
Whereas inventory and warehousing metrics slowed down in October, the transportation metrics enjoyed a bit of a resurgence. Transportation Capacity had expanded slightly more quickly than Transportation Prices in August and September, indicating a negative freight inversion. This continued into early October, when Transportation Capacity read in at 61.8 and Transportation Prices were down to 52.9. This flipped dramatically in the second half of October, when Transportation Capacity dipped to nearly no movement at 51.3 and Transportation Prices exploded 12.6-points upward to robust expansion at 65.6. This bifurcation extended to Transportation Utilization as well, with the metric contracting (47.1) in early October before switching to robust expansion (61.8) in the second half of the month. The three transportation metrics were up a cumulative 37.9 points in the second half of October, which is the most significant within-month increase we have ever observed for a set of metrics. The reactivation of freight markets is likely due the long-awaited movement of the inventories that were built up early in the year to avoid tariffs downstream towards consumers. This is reflected in the way that Downstream retailers have largely driven the increase in Transportation Prices, reporting robust expansion at 70.0, contrasting with the milder upward movement of 56.4 for Upstream respondents.
It will be interesting to see how Transportation Prices which were up (+7.5) overall to 61.7, hold up over the next few months. While linehaul rates were up 2.6% year-over-year in September, it is not likely indicative of a significant peak season surge. According to the Journal of Commerce, much of the growth is coming from Southern California – leading to a freight imbalance which may be driving up spot rates in other areas[22]. Zach Strickland of FreightWaves postulates that the increase in spot rates in the middle of October may have been partially due to some capacity leaving the market. This is based on a simultaneous increase in spot rates despite the 20% dip in year-over-year tender volumes[23]. Another factor here is that fleets are imbalanced, with demand out of Southern California far outstripping demand in other parts of the country, leading to an abundance of deadhead hauls which might be skewing rejection rates. Long-haul demand is down 30% year-over-year, which is partially due to shippers utilizing higher ratios of intermodal freight to move early-arriving inventory across the country at cheaper rates[24]. Intermodal has also remained a popular method of cross-border shipping, as its lower cost mitigates some of the weight of the tariffs[25]. Taken together, this suggests that the increase in Transportation Price in the second half of October may have been at least partially due to an imbalance of fleets – which is likely due to an imbalance of inventory.
A hint about future outlooks for transportation can also be seen in recent movements by UPS and FedEx. In the past year UPS has reduced their workforce by 48,000 people – with 34,000 of those cuts coming from the ranks of their drivers and warehousing workers. While this represents a small portion of their nearly half a million employees, it does signal that UPS is downsizing as it attempts to get costs under control. This is something Wall Street is somewhat anxious about given that UPS share prices are down nearly a quarter in 2025. Rival FedEx is in a somewhat better, though by no means great, position, with their shares down 11% over the year[26]. Some relief may be on the way for carriers, with future predictions indicating that respondents across the board are predicting a much stronger freight market in the next year, with both Upstream and Downstream firms predicting tight capacity (37.0 Upstream and 48.8 Downstream) as well as robust increases in Transportation Prices (81.4 Upstream and 76.3 Downstream. Regardless of where this goes, for the moment we see slower expansion (-0.7) in available Transportation Capacity at 54.5, and a rebound in Transportation Utilization (+7.3) which is back into expansionary territory at 57.3, recovering from the reading of 50.0 and no movement in September.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index are 64.6, which is up (+5.0) from September’s prediction of 59.6. This would represent a slightly slower rate of growth than the all-time average of 61.4. This is driven by predictions of Inventory Levels contracting at 47.5, down significantly (-8.2) from September’s prediction of expansion at 55.7. Despite the softer predictions for inventories, cost expectations are up across the board, with Inventory Costs (+2.6), Warehousing Prices (+4.5), and Transportation Prices (+13.0) all predicted to read in over 70.0 (with transportation bordering on 80.0). This would suggest that prices will expand significantly over the next 12 months, while inventories run much leaner. Taken together this suggests that firms are expecting inventory to be expensive next year but to also move quickly. They are likely hoping that trade policy will stabilize by then (next October will be immediately before a midterm election in the U.S.), which will allow shippers to bring inventories in at a steadier pace, which would in turn allow them to better utilize available warehousing and transportation capacity. This could represent a heightened version of JIT, wherein inventories are kept low to mitigate tariff costs, and will therefore be turned over very quickly, leading to greater demand – and higher prices – for warehousing and transportation services.
We observe some differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents in October. As was the case in September, the most notable difference is in Transportation Prices, which read in at 70.0 Downstream, which is significantly higher than the 56.4 reported Upstream. This continues the trend of their being considerably more freight activity Downstream as retail inventories peak ahead of the holiday season. Warehousing is a different story, where Upstream firms continue struggling to find available space, with Warehousing Capacity contracting (48.3), which is in contrast to the expansion (57.7) Downstream. Beyond these two metrics, the differences between Upstream and Downstream firms are relatively marginal, with only an average of 3.5-points between them for the other six sub-metrics and 0.2 points separating the overall index between Downstream (58.1) and Upstream (58.3) firms.
We also split future predictions by Downstream respondents (purple bars) and Upstream respondents (green bars). As was the case in September, we note several statistically significant differences between the predictions made across the supply chain in October. Once again, Upstream firms are predicting significantly more activity over the next 12 months than their Downstream counterparts. The origin of this is their expectation that inventories will expand very moderately at 51.7, which is significantly different than the expectation of robust contraction (40.2) expected Downstream. This bleeds over into both capacity metrics, with Upstream firms predicting contraction in Warehousing Capacity (46.6) while Downstream foresees solid rates of expansion (59.0). All sides of the supply chain predict a strong freight market, with Upstream firms predicting Transportation Capacity tightening at a very sharp rate of 37.0, and Downstream predicts slight contraction at 48.8. Taken together, the overall index is marginally statistically higher Upstream (64.5) than Downstream (59.5). These readings are relative to current activity, so they likely indicate that firms, particularly those Upstream, are hoping for a return to more normal peak seasonality next year, which would be a change from the rapid buildup and then sharp slowdown that happened in 2025. Essentially it seems that all parties are expecting inventories to be much lower in 2026 as trade policy hopefully stabilizes. This is particularly true Upstream, where activity has been highly irregular.
Continuing what we saw in September, we observe a few notable differences in responses collected in early (gold bars) versus late (green bars) October. The logistics industry picked up across the board through October, with 6 of a possible 9 metrics showing increased activity. Inventory Levels shot up from contraction at 39.1 in early October to 54.3 in the second half of the month. The growth in inventories unsurprisingly led to Warehousing Utilization moving from contraction (48.4) to robust expansion (60.3). The biggest movements were in transportation metrics. Transportation Capacity dropped (-10.5) throughout the month, going from robust expansion (61.8) to very mild expansion bordering on no movement (51.3). Transportation Utilization was in contraction territory (47.1) early on before increasing rapidly at 61.8. Transportation Prices jumped as well from close to no movement (52.9) in early October to robust expansion (65.6) in the second half of the month. These all combined to significantly boost the overall index from 53.7 to 60.3. These movements are consistent with what we have come to expect post-Covid, with retail inventories generally peaking in mid-October and then the holiday shopping and shipping season beginning in earnest starting in the second half of October and continuing through the rest of the year. The difference this year was that all of the inventory had already been staged far ahead of time, so essentially nothing was moving in the first half of October, leading to tight storage, high costs, and a slow freight market. All three of these were flipped on their heads in the back half of the month as good began moving towards consumers.
Continuing what we saw in September, we observe a few notable differences in responses collected in early (gold bars) versus late (green bars) October. The logistics industry picked up across the board through October, with 6 of a possible 9 metrics showing increased activity. Inventory Levels shot up from contraction at 39.1 in early October to 54.3 in the second half of the month. The growth in inventories unsurprisingly led to Warehousing Utilization moving from contraction (48.4) to robust expansion (60.3). The biggest movements were in transportation metrics. Transportation Capacity dropped (-10.5) throughout the month, going from robust expansion (61.8) to very mild expansion bordering on no movement (51.3). Transportation Utilization was in contraction territory (47.1) early on before increasing rapidly at 61.8. Transportation Prices jumped as well from close to no movement (52.9) in early October to robust expansion (65.6) in the second half of the month. These all combined to significantly boost the overall index from 53.7 to 60.3. These movements are consistent with what we have come to expect post-Covid, with retail inventories generally peaking in mid-October and then the holiday shopping and shipping season beginning in earnest starting in the second half of October and continuing through the rest of the year. The difference this year was that all of the inventory had already been staged far ahead of time, so essentially nothing was moving in the first half of October, leading to tight storage, high costs, and a slow freight market. All three of these were flipped on their heads in the back half of the month as good began moving towards consumers.
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 September. As has been the case for most of 2025, we see significant differences between our smaller and larger respondents. However, these differences are markedly different from September. Last month we observed smaller firms holding significantly greater Inventory Levels (61.7 to 48.0), that has evened out this month as both small and large firms came in at 49.0, signaling that inventories are dropping for all types of firms. This likely represents relief for smaller firms, who up to this point had been holding a disproportionate volume of the inventories that were pulled forward to stay ahead of tariffs. The statistically significant differences in October (of which there are five out of a possible nine) come from the warehousing and transportation metrics. Warehousing is the most pronounced of these, with significant differences for Warehousing Utilization (64.6 for small, 48.0 for large) and Warehousing Prices (71.7 for small, 63.3 for large), as well as a non-significant difference in Warehousing Capacity, where we see contraction from smaller firms (47.9) and expansion for larger respondents (55.0). Smaller firms also report faster growth in Transportation Prices (66.4 to 56.4) and in the overall index (60.2 to 56.0). Taken together this suggests that inventories are really moving downstream, giving relief to smaller wholesalers and boosting the freight market
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 57.4, which is identical (+/-0.0) from September’s reading. The steady reading comes from a slowdown in inventory and warehousing metrics combined with an increase in transportation activity. The most significant downward movements are Inventory Levels dipping (-5.6) into contraction at 49.5 and a subsequent slowdown in Warehousing Utilization (-8.8) to a much slower expansionary rate of 56.5. The upward movements come disproportionately from transportation, with Transportation Prices (+7.5) up to 61.7 and Transportation Utilization (+7.3) up to 57.3 – a marked shift from the reading of 50.0 and no movement that was reported in September. Taken altogether it seems likely that inventories are dropping as holiday sales begin, easing the prior tightness in warehousing and leading to a greater utilization of transportation due to the increased movement of goods.
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 57.4, which is identical (+/-0.0) from September’s reading. The steady reading comes from a slowdown in inventory and warehousing metrics combined with an increase in transportation activity. The most significant downward movements are Inventory Levels dipping (-5.6) into contraction at 49.5 and a subsequent slowdown in Warehousing Utilization (-8.8) to a much slower expansionary rate of 56.5. The upward movements come disproportionately from transportation, with Transportation Prices (+7.5) up to 61.7 and Transportation Utilization (+7.3) up to 57.3 – a marked shift from the reading of 50.0 and no movement that was reported in September. Taken altogether it seems likely that inventories are dropping as holiday sales begin, easing the prior tightness in warehousing and leading to a greater utilization of transportation due to the increased movement of goods.
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 October Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 57.4, which is unchanged (+/-0.0) from September’s reading. The lack of movement hides significant differences across logistics metrics, with inventory and warehousing slowing down and transportation speeding up as firms move goods towards consumers in the first few weeks of the holiday season. The beginning of holiday shopping in the second half of October clearly impacted our numbers, with early October’s overall index coming in at 53.7 and then shooting up to 60.3 in the second half of the month. This movement had different impacts on respondents depending on size, with smaller firms reporting significantly more robust growth (60.2) than their larger counterparts (56.60).
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 64.6, which is up (+5.0) from September’s future prediction of 59.6 and would be above the all-time average. Respondent expectations vary across the supply chain, with Upstream respondents predicting overall expansion of 64.5, and Downstream respondents predicting a significantly slower (although still notable) rate of expansion at 59.5.
The October Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 57.4, which is unchanged (+/-0.0) from September’s reading. The lack of movement hides significant differences across logistics metrics, with inventory and warehousing slowing down and transportation speeding up as firms move goods towards consumers in the first few weeks of the holiday season. The beginning of holiday shopping in the second half of October clearly impacted our numbers, with early October’s overall index coming in at 53.7 and then shooting up to 60.3 in the second half of the month. This movement had different impacts on respondents depending on size, with smaller firms reporting significantly more robust growth (60.2) than their larger counterparts (56.60).
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 64.6, which is up (+5.0) from September’s future prediction of 59.6 and would be above the all-time average. Respondent expectations vary across the supply chain, with Upstream respondents predicting overall expansion of 64.5, and Downstream respondents predicting a significantly slower (although still notable) rate of expansion at 59.5.
Inventory Levels
The Inventory Level index is 49.5, which is down (-5.7) from September’s reading of 55.2 and represents a slight move into contraction territory. Inventory Levels are 9.9 points lower than a year ago, and 3.9 points lower than two years ago at this time. This month early (39.1) was 15.2 points lower than later respondents (54.3). Responses showed significantly increasing inventory levels over the month. So, although the overall average for the month shows an average value of a slight decrease, the results started out at a significant decrease and increased significantly over the month. The decline was driven by Downstream respondents, who reported contraction at 47.6 – 3.3 points lower than Upstream’s slight expansion (bordering on no movement) of 50.8. This month, small firms and large firms returned exactly the same average, at 49.0. This is a big change from last month, when small firms’ response was much higher at 61.7 and large firms showed a slight decrease, at 48.0.
Predictions for future Inventory Level growth are 47.5, down (-8.2) from September’s prediction of 55.7 and suggesting an expectation for leaner inventories in 2025. Similar to what we’re seeing in the present, the decline is driven Downstream, where respondents expect marked contraction at 40.2. This is significantly lower than the very moderate expansion of 51.7 predicted by Upstream respondents. These predictions paint a picture of actors across the supply chain that are hoping for the lower inventories, and the lower costs that would come with that.
The Inventory Level index is 49.5, which is down (-5.7) from September’s reading of 55.2 and represents a slight move into contraction territory. Inventory Levels are 9.9 points lower than a year ago, and 3.9 points lower than two years ago at this time. This month early (39.1) was 15.2 points lower than later respondents (54.3). Responses showed significantly increasing inventory levels over the month. So, although the overall average for the month shows an average value of a slight decrease, the results started out at a significant decrease and increased significantly over the month. The decline was driven by Downstream respondents, who reported contraction at 47.6 – 3.3 points lower than Upstream’s slight expansion (bordering on no movement) of 50.8. This month, small firms and large firms returned exactly the same average, at 49.0. This is a big change from last month, when small firms’ response was much higher at 61.7 and large firms showed a slight decrease, at 48.0.
Predictions for future Inventory Level growth are 47.5, down (-8.2) from September’s prediction of 55.7 and suggesting an expectation for leaner inventories in 2025. Similar to what we’re seeing in the present, the decline is driven Downstream, where respondents expect marked contraction at 40.2. This is significantly lower than the very moderate expansion of 51.7 predicted by Upstream respondents. These predictions paint a picture of actors across the supply chain that are hoping for the lower inventories, and the lower costs that would come with that.
Inventory Costs
Inventory Costs are 73.2, which is down (-2.2) from September’s reading of 75.5 but still indicates very significantly increasing costs The current value is 7.4 points higher than last year at this time, and 3.4 points higher than two years ago, so compared to the last two years, this month is higher than we have come to expect for this time of year. The current value is 7.7 points lower than the June reading, which was the highest of the last two years, continuing the recent string of high Inventory Costs readings. Despite respectively reporting minimal growth and contraction for Inventory Levels, Upstream (75.0) and Downstream (70.0) respondents both predict significant expansion in costs. Small firms reported 73.4, while large firms reported 72.5. So large and small are seeing more or less the same changes in their inventory costs.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 72.5, up (+2.6) from September’s future prediction of 69.9. Upstream returned a future prediction of 75.0 and Downstream returned 67.9, so the two were quite similar. Both expect significant increases in inventory costs. This is interesting as Downstream respondents expected Inventory Levels to actually decrease significantly over the next year (40.2), while Upstream expect a very moderate increase (51.7). This disparity likely speaks to the higher costs that are often inherent to retail firms.
.
Inventory Costs are 73.2, which is down (-2.2) from September’s reading of 75.5 but still indicates very significantly increasing costs The current value is 7.4 points higher than last year at this time, and 3.4 points higher than two years ago, so compared to the last two years, this month is higher than we have come to expect for this time of year. The current value is 7.7 points lower than the June reading, which was the highest of the last two years, continuing the recent string of high Inventory Costs readings. Despite respectively reporting minimal growth and contraction for Inventory Levels, Upstream (75.0) and Downstream (70.0) respondents both predict significant expansion in costs. Small firms reported 73.4, while large firms reported 72.5. So large and small are seeing more or less the same changes in their inventory costs.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 72.5, up (+2.6) from September’s future prediction of 69.9. Upstream returned a future prediction of 75.0 and Downstream returned 67.9, so the two were quite similar. Both expect significant increases in inventory costs. This is interesting as Downstream respondents expected Inventory Levels to actually decrease significantly over the next year (40.2), while Upstream expect a very moderate increase (51.7). This disparity likely speaks to the higher costs that are often inherent to retail firms.
.
Warehousing Capacity
Very slightly increasing, and remaining in expansionary territory, we see the reading for Warehousing Capacity notching in at 52.0 for October 2025 reflecting a 0.5-point increase. This reading is down 3.8 points from the reading one year ago and is also down by 5.0 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a rather large 9.4-point split between Upstream (48.3) and Downstream (57.7) which was marginally statistically significant (p<.1). Previously (in September 2025) we as a break in Upstream entering expansion (>50), yet this month we see a reversal back to contraction in this subset of the Warehousing Capacity space. Whether this becomes a long running trend remains to be seen but is worth noting and watching as the months progress. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 47.9 and 55.0, showing larger firms are expanding while smaller firms seem to be contracting. This 7.1-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Capacity, respondents predict very mild expansion of 51.5, which is up (+2.0) from September’s future prediction of 49.5. Downstream respondents expect to continue the contraction from the past two months with a value of 46.6 whereas Upstream respondents expect continued expansion, with the predicted value one year out registering in at 59.0. This12.4-point difference was statistically significant (p<.5).
Very slightly increasing, and remaining in expansionary territory, we see the reading for Warehousing Capacity notching in at 52.0 for October 2025 reflecting a 0.5-point increase. This reading is down 3.8 points from the reading one year ago and is also down by 5.0 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a rather large 9.4-point split between Upstream (48.3) and Downstream (57.7) which was marginally statistically significant (p<.1). Previously (in September 2025) we as a break in Upstream entering expansion (>50), yet this month we see a reversal back to contraction in this subset of the Warehousing Capacity space. Whether this becomes a long running trend remains to be seen but is worth noting and watching as the months progress. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 47.9 and 55.0, showing larger firms are expanding while smaller firms seem to be contracting. This 7.1-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Capacity, respondents predict very mild expansion of 51.5, which is up (+2.0) from September’s future prediction of 49.5. Downstream respondents expect to continue the contraction from the past two months with a value of 46.6 whereas Upstream respondents expect continued expansion, with the predicted value one year out registering in at 59.0. This12.4-point difference was statistically significant (p<.5).
Warehousing Utilization
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 56.5 points for the month of October 2025, reflecting a sharp 8.8-point decline from the month prior, breaking the previous two months’ rise in capacity levels. This reading is down 6.4 points from the reading one year ago, and down by 10.4 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 4.7-point split between Upstream (58.5) and Downstream (53.8) which was also not statistically significant (p>.1) both remaining in expansion and a break from a previous oscillation pattern between contraction and expansion. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees, we see that these values are 64.6 and 48.0, with small firms remaining in expansionary territory and larger firms contracting (i.e. reducing) relative to last month. This 16.5-point split was statistically significant (p <.05).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Utilization, respondents predict significant expansion at 70.0, which is up significantly (+11.8) from September’s future prediction of 58.2. Expectations for growth are consistent across the supply chain but are driven more by future Upstream expectations (71.2) which look to be faster than Downstream expectations (67.5). This 3.7-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 56.5 points for the month of October 2025, reflecting a sharp 8.8-point decline from the month prior, breaking the previous two months’ rise in capacity levels. This reading is down 6.4 points from the reading one year ago, and down by 10.4 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 4.7-point split between Upstream (58.5) and Downstream (53.8) which was also not statistically significant (p>.1) both remaining in expansion and a break from a previous oscillation pattern between contraction and expansion. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees, we see that these values are 64.6 and 48.0, with small firms remaining in expansionary territory and larger firms contracting (i.e. reducing) relative to last month. This 16.5-point split was statistically significant (p <.05).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehousing Utilization, respondents predict significant expansion at 70.0, which is up significantly (+11.8) from September’s future prediction of 58.2. Expectations for growth are consistent across the supply chain but are driven more by future Upstream expectations (71.2) which look to be faster than Downstream expectations (67.5). This 3.7-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Prices
The Warehousing Pricing index registered in at a 1.8-point increase with a value of 67.7 for October 2025. This reading is up less than 2 points from the reading one year ago, and down 3 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 1.1-point split between Upstream (66.9) and Downstream (68.1) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 71.7 and 63.3 reflecting an 8.5-point difference between the two which was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehouse Price, respondents predict robust expansion at 72.4, which is up (+4.5) from September’s future prediction of 67.9. Expectations across the supply chain are very consistent, with future Upstream expectations of 72.0 and Downstream expectations at 72.2. This month's 0.2-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
The Warehousing Pricing index registered in at a 1.8-point increase with a value of 67.7 for October 2025. This reading is up less than 2 points from the reading one year ago, and down 3 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 1.1-point split between Upstream (66.9) and Downstream (68.1) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 71.7 and 63.3 reflecting an 8.5-point difference between the two which was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for Warehouse Price, respondents predict robust expansion at 72.4, which is up (+4.5) from September’s future prediction of 67.9. Expectations across the supply chain are very consistent, with future Upstream expectations of 72.0 and Downstream expectations at 72.2. This month's 0.2-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Transportation Capacity
The Transportation Capacity Index dropped .6 points to 54.5 percent in October 2025. Despite this second consecutive drop, the Transportation Capacity index remains in slight expansion territory and is 3.7 points higher than one year ago. While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 53.6, the Downstream index is slightly higher at 56.1 but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Capacity index dropped 10 points, and it is now at 41.4, indicating contraction for the next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 37.0, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 48.8, both indicating contraction, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, significantly greater contraction is expected Upstream than Downstream.
The Transportation Capacity Index dropped .6 points to 54.5 percent in October 2025. Despite this second consecutive drop, the Transportation Capacity index remains in slight expansion territory and is 3.7 points higher than one year ago. While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 53.6, the Downstream index is slightly higher at 56.1 but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Capacity index dropped 10 points, and it is now at 41.4, indicating contraction for the next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 37.0, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 48.8, both indicating contraction, and the difference is statistically significant. As such, significantly greater contraction is expected Upstream than Downstream.
Transportation Utilization
The Transportation Utilization Index jumped 7.3 points, indicating 57.3 in October 2025 and moving back into expansion after September’s reading of no movement at 50.0. With this increase the Transportation Utilization is back at levels we are accustomed to seeing at this time of the year, however the index remains 2.4 points from one year ago and 3.4 points lower than two years ago. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 60.0, while the Upstream index indicates 55.8, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Utilization Index is up 7.9 points from last month, indicating 67.3 points for the next 12 months. The future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 55.8 and the Downstream index at 60.0 but the difference is not statistically significant.
The Transportation Utilization Index jumped 7.3 points, indicating 57.3 in October 2025 and moving back into expansion after September’s reading of no movement at 50.0. With this increase the Transportation Utilization is back at levels we are accustomed to seeing at this time of the year, however the index remains 2.4 points from one year ago and 3.4 points lower than two years ago. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 60.0, while the Upstream index indicates 55.8, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Utilization Index is up 7.9 points from last month, indicating 67.3 points for the next 12 months. The future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 55.8 and the Downstream index at 60.0 but the difference is not statistically significant.
Transportation Prices
The Transportation Prices Index jumped 7.5 points from the previous reading and recorded 61.7 in October 2025. This is a big jump up from September’s reading o 54.7, which was the lowest reading of this year. It also pushed Transportation Price expansion above Transportation Capacity, pushing the index out of a 2-month negative freight inversion. While the Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 56.4, the Downstream index is at 70.0 and the difference is statistically significant. As such, inflationary pressure on Transportation Prices is much higher Downstream than Upstream.
The future index for Transportation Prices also increased from last month, jumping 13.2 points to 79.9. The Upstream future Transportation Prices index is at 81.4 while the Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 76.3, but the difference is not statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that while the expectations of higher Transportation Prices are very strong across the economy, both Upstream and Downstream.
The Transportation Prices Index jumped 7.5 points from the previous reading and recorded 61.7 in October 2025. This is a big jump up from September’s reading o 54.7, which was the lowest reading of this year. It also pushed Transportation Price expansion above Transportation Capacity, pushing the index out of a 2-month negative freight inversion. While the Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 56.4, the Downstream index is at 70.0 and the difference is statistically significant. As such, inflationary pressure on Transportation Prices is much higher Downstream than Upstream.
The future index for Transportation Prices also increased from last month, jumping 13.2 points to 79.9. The Upstream future Transportation Prices index is at 81.4 while the Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 76.3, but the difference is not statistically significant. As such, it can be concluded that while the expectations of higher Transportation Prices are very strong across the economy, both Upstream and Downstream.
About This Report
The data presented herein are obtained from a survey of logistics supply executives based on information they have collected within their respective organizations. LMI® makes no representation, other than that stated within this release, regarding the individual company data collection procedures. The data should be compared to all other economic data sources when used in decision-making.
Data and Method of Presentation
Data for the Logistics Manager’s Index is collected in a monthly survey of leading logistics professionals. The respondents are CSCMP members working at the director-level or above. Upper-level managers are preferable as they are more likely to have macro-level information on trends in Inventory, Warehousing and Transportation trends within their firm. Data is also collected from subscribers to both DC Velocity and Supply Chain Exchange as well. Respondents hail from firms working on all six continents, with the majority of them working at firms with annual revenues over a billion dollars. The industries represented in this respondent pool include, but are not limited to: Apparel, Automotive, Consumer Goods, Electronics, Food & Drug, Home Furnishings, Logistics, Shipping & Transportation, and Warehousing.
Respondents are asked to identify the monthly change across each of the eight metrics collected in this survey (Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices). In addition, they also forecast future trends for each metric ranging over the next 12 months. The raw data is then analyzed using a diffusion index. Diffusion Indexes measure how widely something is diffused or spread across a group. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been using a diffusion index for the Current Employment Statics program since 1974, and the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) has been using a diffusion index to compute the Purchasing Managers Index since 1948. The ISM Index of New Orders is considered a Leading Economic Indicator.
We compute the Diffusion Index as follows:
PD = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Declining,
PU = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Unchanged,
PI = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Increasing,
Diffusion Index = 0.0 * PD + 0.5 * PU + 1.0 * PI
For example, if 25 say the category is declining, 38 say it is unchanged, and 37 say it is increasing, we would calculate an index value of 0*0.25 + 0.5*0.38 + 1.0*0.37 = 0 + 0.19 + 0.37 = 0.56, and the index is increasing overall. For an index value above 0.5 indicates the category is increasing, a value below 0.5 indicates it is decreasing, and a value of 0.5 means the category is unchanged. When a full year’s worth of data has been collected, adjustments will be made for seasonal factors as well.
Logistics Managers Index
Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute Logistics Managers Index Content can be made by contacting in writing at: Dale S. Rogers, WP Carey School of Business, Tempe, Arizona 85287, or by emailing [email protected] Subject: Content Request.
The authors of the Logistics Managers Index shall not have any liability, duty, or obligation for or relating to the Logistics Managers Index Content or other information contained herein, any errors, inaccuracies, omissions, or delays in providing any Logistics Managers Index Content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. In no event shall the authors of the Logistics Managers Index be liable for any special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of the Logistics Managers Index. Logistics Managers’ Index, and LMI® are registered trademarks.
About The Logistics Manager’s Index®
The Logistics Manager’s Index (LMI) is a joint project between researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, University of Nevada, Reno, Florida Atlantic University, and Rutgers University, supported by CSCMP. It is authored by Zac Rogers Ph.D., Steven Carnovale Ph.D., Shen Yeniyurt Ph.D., Ron Lembke Ph.D., and Dale Rogers Ph.D.
The data presented herein are obtained from a survey of logistics supply executives based on information they have collected within their respective organizations. LMI® makes no representation, other than that stated within this release, regarding the individual company data collection procedures. The data should be compared to all other economic data sources when used in decision-making.
Data and Method of Presentation
Data for the Logistics Manager’s Index is collected in a monthly survey of leading logistics professionals. The respondents are CSCMP members working at the director-level or above. Upper-level managers are preferable as they are more likely to have macro-level information on trends in Inventory, Warehousing and Transportation trends within their firm. Data is also collected from subscribers to both DC Velocity and Supply Chain Exchange as well. Respondents hail from firms working on all six continents, with the majority of them working at firms with annual revenues over a billion dollars. The industries represented in this respondent pool include, but are not limited to: Apparel, Automotive, Consumer Goods, Electronics, Food & Drug, Home Furnishings, Logistics, Shipping & Transportation, and Warehousing.
Respondents are asked to identify the monthly change across each of the eight metrics collected in this survey (Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices). In addition, they also forecast future trends for each metric ranging over the next 12 months. The raw data is then analyzed using a diffusion index. Diffusion Indexes measure how widely something is diffused or spread across a group. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been using a diffusion index for the Current Employment Statics program since 1974, and the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) has been using a diffusion index to compute the Purchasing Managers Index since 1948. The ISM Index of New Orders is considered a Leading Economic Indicator.
We compute the Diffusion Index as follows:
PD = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Declining,
PU = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Unchanged,
PI = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Increasing,
Diffusion Index = 0.0 * PD + 0.5 * PU + 1.0 * PI
For example, if 25 say the category is declining, 38 say it is unchanged, and 37 say it is increasing, we would calculate an index value of 0*0.25 + 0.5*0.38 + 1.0*0.37 = 0 + 0.19 + 0.37 = 0.56, and the index is increasing overall. For an index value above 0.5 indicates the category is increasing, a value below 0.5 indicates it is decreasing, and a value of 0.5 means the category is unchanged. When a full year’s worth of data has been collected, adjustments will be made for seasonal factors as well.
Logistics Managers Index
Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute Logistics Managers Index Content can be made by contacting in writing at: Dale S. Rogers, WP Carey School of Business, Tempe, Arizona 85287, or by emailing [email protected] Subject: Content Request.
The authors of the Logistics Managers Index shall not have any liability, duty, or obligation for or relating to the Logistics Managers Index Content or other information contained herein, any errors, inaccuracies, omissions, or delays in providing any Logistics Managers Index Content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. In no event shall the authors of the Logistics Managers Index be liable for any special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of the Logistics Managers Index. Logistics Managers’ Index, and LMI® are registered trademarks.
About The Logistics Manager’s Index®
The Logistics Manager’s Index (LMI) is a joint project between researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, University of Nevada, Reno, Florida Atlantic University, and Rutgers University, supported by CSCMP. It is authored by Zac Rogers Ph.D., Steven Carnovale Ph.D., Shen Yeniyurt Ph.D., Ron Lembke Ph.D., and Dale Rogers Ph.D.
[1] Hsu, J. (2025, October 24). Surveys of Consumers—October 2025. https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[2] Megerian, C., & Tang, D. (2025, October 30). Deal between the US and China is undoing damage from a self-inflicted trade war. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-china-united-states-trade-war-05f263e824a3e83fa0cc8158f834493a
[3] Bradsher, K. (2025, October 30). China’s Pause on Rare Earth Controls: What to Know. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/30/business/china-rare-earth-export-controls.html
[4] LaRocco, L. A. (2025b, October 30). Shipping sector skeptical Trump’s latest trade truce with China will reverse import decline. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/30/trump-china-trade-shipping-freight-imports-tariffs.html
[5] Seal, T. (2025, October 28). Trump Tariff Fight Has Canada Eyeing Asia Trade Ties—Bloomberg. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-29/trump-tariff-fight-has-canada-eyeing-asia-trade-ties
[6] Berger, P. (2025b, October 22). U.S. Trade War Drives Canada to Fast-Track Port Expansion. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-trade-war-drives-canada-to-fast-track-port-expansion-09641ceb
[7] Bhutani, A. (2025, October 28). Senate Rebukes Trump on Brazil Tariffs. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/senate-rebukes-trump-on-brazil-tariffs-72580d3c
[8] Frankl, E. (2025, October 30). Eurozone Economy Picks Up Speed as Hopes for Revival Gather Pace. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/frances-economy-unexpectedly-accelerates-7ba2ab34
[9] Dulaney, C. (2025, October 30). The ECB and Fed Are Going in Different Directions. Can It Last? Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/central-banking/the-ecb-and-fed-are-going-in-different-directions-can-it-last-58b9827d
[10] Smith, C. (2025, October 29). Fed Cuts Rates as Officials Worry About Labor Market. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10/29/business/federal-reserve-interest-rates
[11] Casselman, B., & Smith, C. (2025, October 30). A Month Without Data Muddles the Economic Picture. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/30/business/a-month-without-data-muddles-the-economic-picture.html
[12] Port of Los Angeles. (2025, October 31). Port Optimizer—Control Tower—October 31, 2025. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[13] Schuler, M. (2025, October 30). Container Spot Rates Climb for Third Week, But Drewry Warns Momentum Unlikely to Last. gCaptain. https://gcaptain.com/container-spot-rates-climb-for-third-week-but-drewry-warns-momentum-unlikely-to-last/
[14] LaRocco, L. A. (2025a, October 28). How tariffs may skew retail sales results this earnings season. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/28/how-tariffs-may-skew-retail-sales-results-this-earnings-season.html
[15] Mangan, D. (2025, October 31). Trump administration must pay SNAP benefits despite government shutdown, judge rules. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/31/snap-trump-judge-food-stamps-shutdown.html
[16] Casey, M., & Mulvihill, G. (2025, October 30). Judge questions the Trump administration’s plan to suspend SNAP benefits for millions. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-aid-ruling-shutdown-trump-09f9807264385f0beab61a68dcbbdd66
[17] LaRocco, L. A. (2025b, October 30). Shipping sector skeptical Trump’s latest trade truce with China will reverse import decline. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/30/trump-china-trade-shipping-freight-imports-tariffs.html
[18] Mahoney, N. (2025, October 30). Amazon invests $1.9B in delivery partner network as Q3 profits rise. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/amazon-invests-1-9b-in-delivery-partner-network-as-q3-profits-rise
[19] Danziger, P. N. (2025, October 9). Amazon Prime Day Underwhelms Shoppers, Signaling Caution For Holidays. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2025/10/09/amazon-october-prime-day-underwhelms-shoppers-signaling-caution-for-holiday-2025/
[20] Long, M. R. (2025, October 6). U.S. Warehouse Vacancies Steady as Demand Rises With Less New Space. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-warehouse-vacancies-steady-as-demand-rises-with-less-new-space-e2b9064c
[21] Young, L., & Miller, N. G. (2025, October 15). Prologis Raises Outlook as Warehouse Leasing Picks Up. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/prologis-raises-outlook-as-warehouse-leasing-picks-up-ab528522
[22] Cassidy, W. B. (2025, October 16). US truckload pricing inches higher as trucking’s peak beckons | Journal of Commerce. Journal of Commerce. https://joc.com/article/us-truckload-pricing-inches-higher-as-truckings-peak-beckons-6097962
[23] Strickland, Z. (2025a, October 12). Spot rates climb but lack support. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/spot-rates-climb-but-lack-support
[24] Strickland, Z. (2025b, October 26). Truckload capacity is falling faster than demand. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truckload-capacity-is-falling-faster-than-demand
[25] Trains com Staff. (2025, October 30). CPKC defies economic uncertainty with profit growth. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/cpkc-defies-economic-uncertainty-with-profit-growth
[26] Eavis, P. (2025, October 28). UPS Has Cut 48,000 Workers Since Last Year. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/business/ups-layoffs-48000-workers-this-year.html