FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, October 7th, 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
September 2025 Logistics Manager’s Index Report®
LMI® at 57.4
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Capacity, and Transportation Prices
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Warehousing Capacity and Warehousing Utilization.
NO MOVEMENT for: Transportation Utilization
LMI® at 57.4
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Capacity, and Transportation Prices
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Warehousing Capacity and Warehousing Utilization.
NO MOVEMENT for: Transportation Utilization
National Harbor, MD) LIVE from CSCMP —The September Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 57.4, down (-1.9) from August’s reading of 59.3. This is the lowest reading for the overall index since March. The slowdown in logistics expansion is due to a declining rate of growth across the majority of our sub-metrics, with Transportation Utilization down (-4.7) to 50.0 which indicates no movement. This is the first time we have seen a reading this low for Transportation Utilization in September, which is generally a busy season in the freight market. The average reading for Transportation Utilization in September over the last eight years of the LMI is 65.1, which indicates a robust rate of growth. We also see the slight negative freight inversion that began in August continue in September, with Transportation Prices (-1.9) coming in at 54.2, which is just below the Transportation Capacity (-2.2) of 55.1. While Transportation Prices are still expanding, this is the lowest rate of growth we have tracked for this metric since April of 2024, which was the last month of the most recent freight recession. It is worth noting that the negative inversion is driven entirely by Upstream respondents. Upstream firms reported very marginal Transportation Price expansion at 51.4. This is in sharp contrast to their Downstream counterparts, who reported robust expansion at 61.1. This suggests a continuation of the trends we observed in August. Essentially, Upstream respondents at the manufacturing and wholesale level have been relatively stagnant in terms of new inventories because so many of them front-loaded goods early in the year. Upstream firms are still be weighed down by these, as evidenced by their tight Warehousing Capacity of 50.8. Downstream firms are the reverse of this. After being fairly stagnant through the summer we see them increasing their Inventory Levels (54.2), which has led to high Inventory Costs (79.2) and a greater use of the freight market. This Downstream activity has blunted the Upstream slowdown and kept overall Transportation Prices above water. Seasonality would predict that Downstream activity will remain elevated through the rest of 2025. Whether this will enough to prop up the freight market (as it was in late 2018 when we saw similar dynamics) remains to be seen.
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 September 2025.
The LMI read in at 57.4, down (-1.9) from August’s reading of 59.3. This is the seventh consecutive reading to come in below the all-time overall average of 61.5. The rate of expansion was more pronounced later in September, reading in at 60.5 during the second half of September – which was up significantly from the reading of 55.9 early in the month. The drop can be largely attributed to slowdowns in the expansion of supply chain costs. Taken together, the three cost/price metrics were down 11.9 points in September, reading in at 195.66. This is the slowest rate of cost expansion since March and the second lowest in 2025.
This slowdown is reflective of uncertainty in the overall economy. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index came in at 55.1, down 5.3% from August’s reading and 21.4% down from the same period one year ago. The drop was more severe for forward-looking expectations, with the reading of 51.7 down 7.5% from August and down 30.5% from a year ago. Price increases are a major factor here, with 44% of respondents spontaneously reporting that higher prices have impacted their personal finances[1]. Many of these costs are related to uncertainty regarding tariffs, which continued to roll in this month. Chief among these were new plans to implement duties of 50% on soft lumber, home goods, and furniture. There has been some fallout already in related stocks, and these could lead to increased construction costs down the road[2]. The largest exports of soft lumber goods into the U.S. is Canada. The industry-specific tariffs are protected under different laws than country-specific regulations. The announcement of industry-specific tariffs may be a way to avoid potential issues if the Supreme Court rules that some of the existing tariffs are not legal. Staying with our neighbors to the north, Canada reported slight GDP growth of 0.2% in July, which is the first evidence of expansion in their overall economy in four months. There may be some headwinds here as Canadian manufacturers reported contraction in August[3]. To the south, the Bank of Mexico vote to cut interest rates for the tenth consecutive time in early October, dropping rates to 7.5%, which is the lowers in three years. This cut comes in the face of 3.75 inflation in the U.S.’s largest trading partner[4].
The other major economic story at the time of this writing is the U.S. government shutdown. The ongoing government shutdown in the U.S. will leave 750,000 workers furloughed, which the CBO estimates will cost in the neighborhood of $400 million per day. It also presented the release of official jobs data for September[5]. The BLS numbers may be on hold due to the government shutdown, but payroll firm ADP did release September job numbers. They estimate that the U.S. lost 32,000 jobs in September, a sharp drop from the 3,000 positions that were added in August. The contraction was propelled by smaller firms, with companies with less than 50 employees accounting for 40,000 lost positions. Conversely, firms with 500 employees or more added 33,000 positions[6]. Throughout the year we have seen that smaller firms have shouldered most of the increased cost due to tariffs. The fact that they are shedding jobs so quickly may be a byproduct of this bifurcated imbalance. Taken altogether, we see that in September the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released predictions for the next three years. They have revised their previous predictions for employment, inflation, and overall GDP growth downward due to shifts in policy[7].
Overall Inventory Level expansion slowed (-3.1) to 55.2 in September. Despite this, costs remain high (-3.7) at 75.5. As has been the case through much of 2025, these costs are driven more by Downstream firms (79.2) than their Upstream counterparts (73.3). The gap in costs comes despite almost no difference in Inventory Levels (55.7 Downstream and 54.2 Upstream) as firms across the supply chain have been hesitant to add significant levels of inventory after the big pull forward of the first seven months of the year. This caution has in turn has led to a softer-than-normal freight market[8]. We also see that seasonal retail hiring is generally an indicator of anticipated consumer activity. Retailers are expected to add less than 500,000 positions in the last three months of the year, which is down 8% from 2024 and would represent the weakest Q4 hiring market since the Great Recession in 2009[9]. We saw some evidence of these reduce expectations in Nike’s recent earnings report. In addition to the additional $1.5 billion costs related tariffs, Nike is expecting a “low single digit decline” in their Q4 sales – much of which is driven by decreasing international sales in places like China where some U.S. brand reputations have suffered[10].
There is little relief for U.S. based manufacturers due to the adverse effect of tariffs on the cost of components. U.S. Manufacturing output was down in September, with the PMI reading in at 49.1. This is up 0.4 points from August but marks the seventh consecutive month. ISM also reports new orders contracting (-2.5 at 48.9) and overall inventories (-1.7 at 47.7)[11]. Taken together, this suggests that the manufacturing sector has contracted for the last seven months, which has put the brakes on freight volumes. The softness in new orders suggests that this dynamic will continue in the immediate future. The news was no better in China, where factory activity contracted (-0.4) to 49.4, marking the sixth consecutive month of contraction. This is the longest run of contraction since 2019 and suggests that the components that many of those U.S. factories rely on (along with finished goods purchased by consumers) will not be coming in at high level. This contraction comes even as Chinese factories have cut prices in recent months to offset the costs of tariffs and attract new customers[12]. Imports from China were down 27% year-over-year for three straight weeks in late August and early September, which is highly unusual for the period right before Golden Week[13]. Overall imports into the Port of Los Angeles in August were down 6.6% from the all-time highs reached in July[14]. This downward trend seems likely to continue, with predicted container imports during the first two weeks of October down a cumulative 42% year-over-year[15]. Conversely, the port of Savannah saw a 9% increase in year-over year container imports in August[16]. Even with this increase volume in the Southeast, inbound U.S. container volume is down compared to movements in other parts of the world, suggesting the U.S. is a “less relevant player” in global supply chains according to shipping analyst Josh McCown[17].
As inventory flows have slowed, we have seen a commensurate decline in the expansion of our warehousing metrics. Warehousing Prices saw the biggest drop of any metric in September, dipping (-6.3) to 66.0. It should be noted that this is still a robust rate of expansion and, while it is the second lowest reading of 2025, would be above the 2024 average of 65.2 for this metric – which speaks to the elevated costs we’ve seen through the first nine months of this year. Some of this reprieve seems to have originated primarily from the first half of the month, when Warehousing Prices read in at 61.1, which was statistically significantly lower than the 70.4 reported in the second half of September. This coincided with Warehousing Capacity going from expansion at 54.2 early in the month to slight contraction at 49.0 in late September. Despite the late contraction, this metric was up slightly (+1.1) overall in September, reading in at 51.6 which is a marginal rate of expansion. Warehousing Utilization continued to expand (+3.2) as well at a rate of 65.3.
Due to their high costs, we have seen some centralization in warehousing networks, with firms who had considered insourcing their storage and distribution moving back towards more of an outsourced model. Delivery by Amazon is now available for over 600,000 unique sellers[18], with their offerings recently expanding to ship goods sold through e-commerce competitors such as Walmart and Shopify. Amazon has announced plans to put $15 billion into the expansion of their existing distribution network (with $4 billion earmarked for rural delivery) to facilitate this increased demand[19]. Cisco-Eagle, which specializes in handling logistics for retailers, have partnered with SAVOYE in a bid to increase automation offerings for their partners[20]. This speaks to both the increased need to improve efficiency and cut costs at the retail level, as well as the continued expansion of automation throughout distribution and fulfillment networks.
There has been a similar push to increase efficiency in transportation as well. C.H. Robinson is increasing margins in spite of the soft market. They have done this in part through leaning on AI, estimating that artificial intelligence now generates approximately half of their bookings and appointments[21]. Trucking tonnage was up 0.9% in August, reaching its highest level since December of 2023. However, analysts believe that the market will be considerably softer through the last four months of the year due to uncertainty from tariffs[22]. We see some evidence of this slowdown in Transportation Utilization dropping (-4.7) to 50.0, which is the lowest rate since November 2023, when the industry was still mired in a freight recession. As mentioned above, this is a dramatic seasonal departure, as this number has come in at an average level of 65.1 in September over the history of the index. At 50.0, Warehousing Utilization is officially at “no movement”. This metric has not contracted since July of 2023, which was the inflection point in the previous recession. If trends continue and utilization moves back to contraction it would represent a significant shift. We actually did observe mild contraction of 48.1 for larger respondents, but the overall score was pushed up by the slight expansionary read of 52.9 from smaller respondents.
The dynamics first observed in August continue in September as Transportation Capacity (-2.2) comes in higher at 55.1 than Transportation Prices (-2.0) at 54.2. While this is a very modest 0.9-point difference, it is technically the second consecutive month that capacity has read in higher than price, signaling a negative freight inversion. In the past, anytime we have seen three consecutive months of either a positive or negative inversion it has signaled a significant shift in the transportation market. This is not a prediction of a freight recession, but that would change if these dynamics remain on their current trajectory. One thing that could keep them away from this is the ongoing burst of Downstream activity. Downstream Transportation Prices were 9.7 points higher than their Upstream counterparts at a disparity of 61.1 to 51.4. This is likely due to Upstream inventories holding relatively steady, while Downstream retailers have been pulling product down in anticipation of Q4 sales. Retail inventories often peak in mid-October, so we would expect high levels activity on that side of the supply chain to continue through the next month or more. However, given the paucity of imports it is unclear how long the Downstream side of the supply chain can hold the market up. Some movements in price could be impacted by surge pricing. Amazon, FedEx, and USPS have all reported plans to once again place surcharges on packages delivered during the holiday season[23]. This comes despite predictions of a low double-digit increase in volumes relative to earlier this year, a far cry form the 50% surge during the pandemic in 2020. Peak season has essentially been flat since 2021, calling the necessity of these surges into question[24].
Finally, in terms of the government shutdown, trucking operations will be relatively insulated in the short-term. This is because Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FSMCA) employees will remain on the job as they receive funding through a different mechanism than many other federal agencies. The situation is less certain for maritime, railroad, and aviation regulators all of whom will see workers staying home – particularly the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who will see approximately 11,000 furloughs through the shutdown[25]. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents at the ports will also largely remain on the job as they have been deemed “essential”[26].
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index are 59.6, down (-4.3) from August’s more optimistic prediction of 63.9. This would represent a slightly slower rate of growth than the all-time average of 61.5. This is driven by notably softer predictions for supply chain costs, with lower future predictions for Inventory Costs (-9.6 to 69.9), Warehousing Prices (-7.4 to 67.9), and Transportation Prices (-5.2 to 66.7). These lower costs come despite steady predictions for Inventory Levels (+0.7) at 55.7, which indicates a fairly lean policy. As will be discussed below, the cost reduction is largely attributable to softer expectations from Downstream retailers. Whether that is inspired by expectations of softer consumer demand, better cost control due to more stable policies, or some combination of the two, remains to be seen.
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 September 2025.
The LMI read in at 57.4, down (-1.9) from August’s reading of 59.3. This is the seventh consecutive reading to come in below the all-time overall average of 61.5. The rate of expansion was more pronounced later in September, reading in at 60.5 during the second half of September – which was up significantly from the reading of 55.9 early in the month. The drop can be largely attributed to slowdowns in the expansion of supply chain costs. Taken together, the three cost/price metrics were down 11.9 points in September, reading in at 195.66. This is the slowest rate of cost expansion since March and the second lowest in 2025.
This slowdown is reflective of uncertainty in the overall economy. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index came in at 55.1, down 5.3% from August’s reading and 21.4% down from the same period one year ago. The drop was more severe for forward-looking expectations, with the reading of 51.7 down 7.5% from August and down 30.5% from a year ago. Price increases are a major factor here, with 44% of respondents spontaneously reporting that higher prices have impacted their personal finances[1]. Many of these costs are related to uncertainty regarding tariffs, which continued to roll in this month. Chief among these were new plans to implement duties of 50% on soft lumber, home goods, and furniture. There has been some fallout already in related stocks, and these could lead to increased construction costs down the road[2]. The largest exports of soft lumber goods into the U.S. is Canada. The industry-specific tariffs are protected under different laws than country-specific regulations. The announcement of industry-specific tariffs may be a way to avoid potential issues if the Supreme Court rules that some of the existing tariffs are not legal. Staying with our neighbors to the north, Canada reported slight GDP growth of 0.2% in July, which is the first evidence of expansion in their overall economy in four months. There may be some headwinds here as Canadian manufacturers reported contraction in August[3]. To the south, the Bank of Mexico vote to cut interest rates for the tenth consecutive time in early October, dropping rates to 7.5%, which is the lowers in three years. This cut comes in the face of 3.75 inflation in the U.S.’s largest trading partner[4].
The other major economic story at the time of this writing is the U.S. government shutdown. The ongoing government shutdown in the U.S. will leave 750,000 workers furloughed, which the CBO estimates will cost in the neighborhood of $400 million per day. It also presented the release of official jobs data for September[5]. The BLS numbers may be on hold due to the government shutdown, but payroll firm ADP did release September job numbers. They estimate that the U.S. lost 32,000 jobs in September, a sharp drop from the 3,000 positions that were added in August. The contraction was propelled by smaller firms, with companies with less than 50 employees accounting for 40,000 lost positions. Conversely, firms with 500 employees or more added 33,000 positions[6]. Throughout the year we have seen that smaller firms have shouldered most of the increased cost due to tariffs. The fact that they are shedding jobs so quickly may be a byproduct of this bifurcated imbalance. Taken altogether, we see that in September the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released predictions for the next three years. They have revised their previous predictions for employment, inflation, and overall GDP growth downward due to shifts in policy[7].
Overall Inventory Level expansion slowed (-3.1) to 55.2 in September. Despite this, costs remain high (-3.7) at 75.5. As has been the case through much of 2025, these costs are driven more by Downstream firms (79.2) than their Upstream counterparts (73.3). The gap in costs comes despite almost no difference in Inventory Levels (55.7 Downstream and 54.2 Upstream) as firms across the supply chain have been hesitant to add significant levels of inventory after the big pull forward of the first seven months of the year. This caution has in turn has led to a softer-than-normal freight market[8]. We also see that seasonal retail hiring is generally an indicator of anticipated consumer activity. Retailers are expected to add less than 500,000 positions in the last three months of the year, which is down 8% from 2024 and would represent the weakest Q4 hiring market since the Great Recession in 2009[9]. We saw some evidence of these reduce expectations in Nike’s recent earnings report. In addition to the additional $1.5 billion costs related tariffs, Nike is expecting a “low single digit decline” in their Q4 sales – much of which is driven by decreasing international sales in places like China where some U.S. brand reputations have suffered[10].
There is little relief for U.S. based manufacturers due to the adverse effect of tariffs on the cost of components. U.S. Manufacturing output was down in September, with the PMI reading in at 49.1. This is up 0.4 points from August but marks the seventh consecutive month. ISM also reports new orders contracting (-2.5 at 48.9) and overall inventories (-1.7 at 47.7)[11]. Taken together, this suggests that the manufacturing sector has contracted for the last seven months, which has put the brakes on freight volumes. The softness in new orders suggests that this dynamic will continue in the immediate future. The news was no better in China, where factory activity contracted (-0.4) to 49.4, marking the sixth consecutive month of contraction. This is the longest run of contraction since 2019 and suggests that the components that many of those U.S. factories rely on (along with finished goods purchased by consumers) will not be coming in at high level. This contraction comes even as Chinese factories have cut prices in recent months to offset the costs of tariffs and attract new customers[12]. Imports from China were down 27% year-over-year for three straight weeks in late August and early September, which is highly unusual for the period right before Golden Week[13]. Overall imports into the Port of Los Angeles in August were down 6.6% from the all-time highs reached in July[14]. This downward trend seems likely to continue, with predicted container imports during the first two weeks of October down a cumulative 42% year-over-year[15]. Conversely, the port of Savannah saw a 9% increase in year-over year container imports in August[16]. Even with this increase volume in the Southeast, inbound U.S. container volume is down compared to movements in other parts of the world, suggesting the U.S. is a “less relevant player” in global supply chains according to shipping analyst Josh McCown[17].
As inventory flows have slowed, we have seen a commensurate decline in the expansion of our warehousing metrics. Warehousing Prices saw the biggest drop of any metric in September, dipping (-6.3) to 66.0. It should be noted that this is still a robust rate of expansion and, while it is the second lowest reading of 2025, would be above the 2024 average of 65.2 for this metric – which speaks to the elevated costs we’ve seen through the first nine months of this year. Some of this reprieve seems to have originated primarily from the first half of the month, when Warehousing Prices read in at 61.1, which was statistically significantly lower than the 70.4 reported in the second half of September. This coincided with Warehousing Capacity going from expansion at 54.2 early in the month to slight contraction at 49.0 in late September. Despite the late contraction, this metric was up slightly (+1.1) overall in September, reading in at 51.6 which is a marginal rate of expansion. Warehousing Utilization continued to expand (+3.2) as well at a rate of 65.3.
Due to their high costs, we have seen some centralization in warehousing networks, with firms who had considered insourcing their storage and distribution moving back towards more of an outsourced model. Delivery by Amazon is now available for over 600,000 unique sellers[18], with their offerings recently expanding to ship goods sold through e-commerce competitors such as Walmart and Shopify. Amazon has announced plans to put $15 billion into the expansion of their existing distribution network (with $4 billion earmarked for rural delivery) to facilitate this increased demand[19]. Cisco-Eagle, which specializes in handling logistics for retailers, have partnered with SAVOYE in a bid to increase automation offerings for their partners[20]. This speaks to both the increased need to improve efficiency and cut costs at the retail level, as well as the continued expansion of automation throughout distribution and fulfillment networks.
There has been a similar push to increase efficiency in transportation as well. C.H. Robinson is increasing margins in spite of the soft market. They have done this in part through leaning on AI, estimating that artificial intelligence now generates approximately half of their bookings and appointments[21]. Trucking tonnage was up 0.9% in August, reaching its highest level since December of 2023. However, analysts believe that the market will be considerably softer through the last four months of the year due to uncertainty from tariffs[22]. We see some evidence of this slowdown in Transportation Utilization dropping (-4.7) to 50.0, which is the lowest rate since November 2023, when the industry was still mired in a freight recession. As mentioned above, this is a dramatic seasonal departure, as this number has come in at an average level of 65.1 in September over the history of the index. At 50.0, Warehousing Utilization is officially at “no movement”. This metric has not contracted since July of 2023, which was the inflection point in the previous recession. If trends continue and utilization moves back to contraction it would represent a significant shift. We actually did observe mild contraction of 48.1 for larger respondents, but the overall score was pushed up by the slight expansionary read of 52.9 from smaller respondents.
The dynamics first observed in August continue in September as Transportation Capacity (-2.2) comes in higher at 55.1 than Transportation Prices (-2.0) at 54.2. While this is a very modest 0.9-point difference, it is technically the second consecutive month that capacity has read in higher than price, signaling a negative freight inversion. In the past, anytime we have seen three consecutive months of either a positive or negative inversion it has signaled a significant shift in the transportation market. This is not a prediction of a freight recession, but that would change if these dynamics remain on their current trajectory. One thing that could keep them away from this is the ongoing burst of Downstream activity. Downstream Transportation Prices were 9.7 points higher than their Upstream counterparts at a disparity of 61.1 to 51.4. This is likely due to Upstream inventories holding relatively steady, while Downstream retailers have been pulling product down in anticipation of Q4 sales. Retail inventories often peak in mid-October, so we would expect high levels activity on that side of the supply chain to continue through the next month or more. However, given the paucity of imports it is unclear how long the Downstream side of the supply chain can hold the market up. Some movements in price could be impacted by surge pricing. Amazon, FedEx, and USPS have all reported plans to once again place surcharges on packages delivered during the holiday season[23]. This comes despite predictions of a low double-digit increase in volumes relative to earlier this year, a far cry form the 50% surge during the pandemic in 2020. Peak season has essentially been flat since 2021, calling the necessity of these surges into question[24].
Finally, in terms of the government shutdown, trucking operations will be relatively insulated in the short-term. This is because Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FSMCA) employees will remain on the job as they receive funding through a different mechanism than many other federal agencies. The situation is less certain for maritime, railroad, and aviation regulators all of whom will see workers staying home – particularly the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who will see approximately 11,000 furloughs through the shutdown[25]. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents at the ports will also largely remain on the job as they have been deemed “essential”[26].
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index are 59.6, down (-4.3) from August’s more optimistic prediction of 63.9. This would represent a slightly slower rate of growth than the all-time average of 61.5. This is driven by notably softer predictions for supply chain costs, with lower future predictions for Inventory Costs (-9.6 to 69.9), Warehousing Prices (-7.4 to 67.9), and Transportation Prices (-5.2 to 66.7). These lower costs come despite steady predictions for Inventory Levels (+0.7) at 55.7, which indicates a fairly lean policy. As will be discussed below, the cost reduction is largely attributable to softer expectations from Downstream retailers. Whether that is inspired by expectations of softer consumer demand, better cost control due to more stable policies, or some combination of the two, remains to be seen.
We observe some differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents in August. The most notable difference is in Transportation Prices, which read in at 61.1 Downstream – a full 9.7-points higher than the meager 51.4 reported Upstream. There seems to be considerably more freight activity at the Downstream retail level. They have a positive freight inversion (61.1 in Transportation Prices and 52.9 in Transportation Capacity), which is in sharp contrast to the negative inversion we observe Upstream (51.1 in Transportation Prices and 56.5 in Transportation Capacity). We also see that, despite the slight Upstream edge in Inventory Levels (55.7 Upstream and 54.2 Downstream), Downstream firms are reporting higher Inventory Costs (73.3 Upstream and 79.2 Downstream). This likely points to firms across the supply chain trying to keep inventories relatively lean, but the nature of retail distribution networks means that Downstream firms are paying higher prices. Taken all together, there is clearly more energy at the Downstream retail level – particularly in the transportation market.
We also split future predictions by Downstream respondents (purple bars) and Upstream respondents (green bars). Last month there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. This could not be further from the case in September, as this month we note several statistically significant differences between the predictions made across the supply chain. The difference across expectations is most pronounced in Inventory Levels, where Upstream firms are predicting robust expansion at 60.7, and their Downstream counterparts predict contraction at 47.2. While this differences is only lightly reflected in Inventory Costs (71.1 Upstream and 68.1 Downstream), this delta is likely the driving force behind the difference in the predicted availability of Warehousing Capacity, were Downstream respondents predict mild expansion (52.9) and Upstream respondents predict contraction (47.6). Upstream firms are also predicting robust expansion for Transportation Utilization (62.3) to no movement (50.0) Downstream. As would be expected given these differences, Upstream respondents are predicting significantly higher expansion in the overall index (62.8) than their Downstream counterparts (55.3). These readings suggest that expansion is expected across supply chains. However, clearly Downstream retailers are hoping to keep inventories lean, likely in an attempt to slow the rate of cost expansion for themselves. The predicted byproduct of this is that some of that cost they are attempting to mitigate will be shifted by their Upstream partners.
We observe a few notable differences in responses collected in early (gold bars) versus late (green bars) September. This is a shift from July and August, which were fairly uniform across the month. The differences are most pronounced in our cost metrics. Inventory Costs (70.7 to 80.2), Warehousing Prices (61.1 to 70.4) and Transportation Prices (50.9 to 58.3) were notably higher in the second half of September. We also saw Transportation Utilization go from contraction (49.0) to slight expansion (51.9) and Warehousing Capacity move from expansion (54.2) to contraction 49.0). Taken all together, this suggests that supply chain activity picked up in the second half of September – something that is reflected in the overall LMI moving from 55.9 to 60.5. Retail inventories usually peak in mid-October, so direction of these movements are consistent with what we would expect in this part of the year, even if the overall rate expansion is slower than what we would normally see during this part of the year.
We observe a few notable differences in responses collected in early (gold bars) versus late (green bars) September. This is a shift from July and August, which were fairly uniform across the month. The differences are most pronounced in our cost metrics. Inventory Costs (70.7 to 80.2), Warehousing Prices (61.1 to 70.4) and Transportation Prices (50.9 to 58.3) were notably higher in the second half of September. We also saw Transportation Utilization go from contraction (49.0) to slight expansion (51.9) and Warehousing Capacity move from expansion (54.2) to contraction 49.0). Taken all together, this suggests that supply chain activity picked up in the second half of September – something that is reflected in the overall LMI moving from 55.9 to 60.5. Retail inventories usually peak in mid-October, so direction of these movements are consistent with what we would expect in this part of the year, even if the overall rate expansion is slower than what we would normally see during this part of the year.
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 to most of 2025, we see smaller firms carrying significantly more inventory. Smaller respondents reported Inventory Levels expanding at the robust rate of 61.7, significantly higher than the mild contraction of 48.0 reported by their larger counterparts. This is return to the large respondent contraction we observed in July, and suggests that larger firms may be having their smaller supply chain partners hold onto costly inventory until right before they need it, allowing the larger firms to minimize costs by operating a quasi-JIT inventory policy. This is also reflected in the difference in Transportation Capacity, where smaller firms reported significantly higher expansion at 58.7, to the much more robust 50.9 reported by larger respondents. In addition to this, smaller firms reported almost no expansion (50.9) for Transportation Prices, suggesting that, like Upstream firms, they are currently reporting a negative freight inversion. Taken all together this suggests that smaller firms are loaded down with inventory but are not moving it. This is likely an expensive endeavor and may offer some explanation for the loss of 40,000 small firm jobs that was reported for September.
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 down (-1.9) from August’s reading of 59.3, and is the lowest reading for the overall index since March of this year. This is driven by slowing rates of growth across several of the metrics, as long as expansion in available Warehousing Capacity. The three cost/price metrics dropped by a cumulative 11.9 points, reflecting slowing demand for overall logistics services. It is unusual for logistics costs to drop in September, which is usually at the heart of peak season ahead of the holiday shopping season. Even more unusual is Transportation Utilization dipping to 50.0. The average reading for this metric in September over the previous eight years is 65.1, a reading that suggests a robust level of expansion. Transportation Utilization reading in at no movement during what should be one of the busiest times of the year suggests a real slowness in 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 down (-1.9) from August’s reading of 59.3, and is the lowest reading for the overall index since March of this year. This is driven by slowing rates of growth across several of the metrics, as long as expansion in available Warehousing Capacity. The three cost/price metrics dropped by a cumulative 11.9 points, reflecting slowing demand for overall logistics services. It is unusual for logistics costs to drop in September, which is usually at the heart of peak season ahead of the holiday shopping season. Even more unusual is Transportation Utilization dipping to 50.0. The average reading for this metric in September over the previous eight years is 65.1, a reading that suggests a robust level of expansion. Transportation Utilization reading in at no movement during what should be one of the busiest times of the year suggests a real slowness in the freight market.
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 September Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 57.4, down (-1.9) from August’s reading of 59.3. This is the lowest reading for the overall index since March. The slowdown in logistics expansion is due to a declining rate of growth across the majority of our sub-metrics, with Transportation Utilization down (-4.7) to 50.0 which indicates no movement. We also see the slight negative freight inversion that began in August continue in September, with Transportation Prices (-1.9) coming in at 54.2, which is just below the Transportation Capacity (-2.2) of 55.1. It is worth noting that the negative inversion is driven entirely by Upstream respondents. Upstream firms reported very marginal Transportation Price expansion at 51.4. This is in sharp contrast to their Downstream counterparts, who reported robust expansion at 61.1. This suggests a continuation of the trends we observed in August. The index showed a bit more activity in the second half of the month, registering in at 60.5, which is statistically significantly higher than the 55.9 we saw in the first half of September.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 59.6, which is down (-4.3) from August’s future prediction of 63.9, and just below the all-time average. Respondents expectations vary across the supply chain, with Upstream respondents predicting overall expansion of 62.8, and Downstream respondents predicting a significantly slower rate of expansion at 55.3.
The September Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 57.4, down (-1.9) from August’s reading of 59.3. This is the lowest reading for the overall index since March. The slowdown in logistics expansion is due to a declining rate of growth across the majority of our sub-metrics, with Transportation Utilization down (-4.7) to 50.0 which indicates no movement. We also see the slight negative freight inversion that began in August continue in September, with Transportation Prices (-1.9) coming in at 54.2, which is just below the Transportation Capacity (-2.2) of 55.1. It is worth noting that the negative inversion is driven entirely by Upstream respondents. Upstream firms reported very marginal Transportation Price expansion at 51.4. This is in sharp contrast to their Downstream counterparts, who reported robust expansion at 61.1. This suggests a continuation of the trends we observed in August. The index showed a bit more activity in the second half of the month, registering in at 60.5, which is statistically significantly higher than the 55.9 we saw in the first half of September.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 59.6, which is down (-4.3) from August’s future prediction of 63.9, and just below the all-time average. Respondents expectations vary across the supply chain, with Upstream respondents predicting overall expansion of 62.8, and Downstream respondents predicting a significantly slower rate of expansion at 55.3.
Inventory Levels
The Inventory Level index is 55.2, down (-3.0) from August’s reading of 58.2, up (+2.6) from July’s reading of 55.6. Inventory Levels are 4.6 points lower than a year ago, and 7.8 points higher than two years ago at this time. Upstream returned 55.7, while Downstream returned 54.2, a difference of 1.5 points. Last month, the values were only a few points higher, with almost the same difference, so there has been no change in the relative position of Upstream and Downstream respondents. Last month small firms (59.3) reported inventory growth only slightly higher than large firms (55.6), a difference of 3.7 points. This month, small firms’ response has increased slightly to 61.7, while large firms have decreased to 48.0, showing a very slight decrease in inventory levels. Small firms are seeing significant inventory increases, while large firms are seeing a decrease, a difference of 13.7 points. This is very similar to July, when small firms reported a higher inventory levels by 15.8 points.
Predictions for future Inventory Level growth are 55.7, slightly up (+0.7) from August’s future prediction of 55.0. Upstream respondents reported a value 13.4 points higher than their Downstream counterparts (47.2). Downstream respondents expect a slight decrease in inventories over the next year, and Upstream respondents expect significant growth. This is a far cry from September, when expectations were relatively consistent across the supply chain.
The Inventory Level index is 55.2, down (-3.0) from August’s reading of 58.2, up (+2.6) from July’s reading of 55.6. Inventory Levels are 4.6 points lower than a year ago, and 7.8 points higher than two years ago at this time. Upstream returned 55.7, while Downstream returned 54.2, a difference of 1.5 points. Last month, the values were only a few points higher, with almost the same difference, so there has been no change in the relative position of Upstream and Downstream respondents. Last month small firms (59.3) reported inventory growth only slightly higher than large firms (55.6), a difference of 3.7 points. This month, small firms’ response has increased slightly to 61.7, while large firms have decreased to 48.0, showing a very slight decrease in inventory levels. Small firms are seeing significant inventory increases, while large firms are seeing a decrease, a difference of 13.7 points. This is very similar to July, when small firms reported a higher inventory levels by 15.8 points.
Predictions for future Inventory Level growth are 55.7, slightly up (+0.7) from August’s future prediction of 55.0. Upstream respondents reported a value 13.4 points higher than their Downstream counterparts (47.2). Downstream respondents expect a slight decrease in inventories over the next year, and Upstream respondents expect significant growth. This is a far cry from September, when expectations were relatively consistent across the supply chain.
Inventory Costs
Inventory Costs are 75.5, down (-3.7) from August’s reading of 79.2 but still indicating very significantly increasing costs. The current value is 4.2 points higher than last year at this time, and 10.9 points higher than two years ago. The current value is only 5.4 points lower than the June reading, which was the highest of the last two years. Upstream reported slightly higher inventory levels (by 1.6 points), and yet Downstream reported higher costs (79.2 compared to 73.3 Upstream). We also saw costs increase later in the month, as early respondents returned a value of 70.7, and later firms returned a value of 80.2.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 69.9, down considerably (-9.6) from August’s future prediction of 79.5. Upstream returned 71.1, and Downstream returned 68.1, 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 over the next year (47.2), while Upstream expect an increase (60.7). This disparity likely speaks to the higher costs that are often inherent to retail firms..
Inventory Costs are 75.5, down (-3.7) from August’s reading of 79.2 but still indicating very significantly increasing costs. The current value is 4.2 points higher than last year at this time, and 10.9 points higher than two years ago. The current value is only 5.4 points lower than the June reading, which was the highest of the last two years. Upstream reported slightly higher inventory levels (by 1.6 points), and yet Downstream reported higher costs (79.2 compared to 73.3 Upstream). We also saw costs increase later in the month, as early respondents returned a value of 70.7, and later firms returned a value of 80.2.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 69.9, down considerably (-9.6) from August’s future prediction of 79.5. Upstream returned 71.1, and Downstream returned 68.1, 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 over the next year (47.2), while Upstream expect an increase (60.7). This disparity likely speaks to the higher costs that are often inherent to retail firms..
Warehousing Capacity
Bouncing back ever so slightly from near neutrality, this month we see Warehouse Capacity tick up 1.1-points and remain into expansionary territory where the reading for September Warehousing Capacity index comes in at 51.6. This reading is down 4.3 points from the reading one year ago and is also down by 5.7 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 2.1 -point split between Upstream (50.8) and Downstream (52.9) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Notable also is that the previous three-month contraction in the Upstream market has been broken, and now it appears that capacity is slightly expanding Upstream whereas Downstream continues to expand. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 51.0 and 51.1, showing a rise in smaller firms and a negligible change in larger firms’ capacity. This 0.1-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Capacity is expected to contract slightly at 49.5, essentially unchanged (+0.1) from August’s future prediction of 49.4. Downstream is expected to continue contraction from last month with a slight increase of just over a-point from last month to 47.6 whereas Upstream’s expansion is expected to continue expansion, with the predicted value one year out registering in at 52.9 . This 5.4-point increase was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Bouncing back ever so slightly from near neutrality, this month we see Warehouse Capacity tick up 1.1-points and remain into expansionary territory where the reading for September Warehousing Capacity index comes in at 51.6. This reading is down 4.3 points from the reading one year ago and is also down by 5.7 points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 2.1 -point split between Upstream (50.8) and Downstream (52.9) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Notable also is that the previous three-month contraction in the Upstream market has been broken, and now it appears that capacity is slightly expanding Upstream whereas Downstream continues to expand. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 51.0 and 51.1, showing a rise in smaller firms and a negligible change in larger firms’ capacity. This 0.1-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Capacity is expected to contract slightly at 49.5, essentially unchanged (+0.1) from August’s future prediction of 49.4. Downstream is expected to continue contraction from last month with a slight increase of just over a-point from last month to 47.6 whereas Upstream’s expansion is expected to continue expansion, with the predicted value one year out registering in at 52.9 . This 5.4-point increase was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Utilization
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 65.3-points for the month of September 2025, reflecting a modest 3.2-point increase from the month prior, continuing a now two month rise in capacity levels. This reading is up 4.4-points from the reading one year ago, and also up by the same amount from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was no-point split between Upstream and Downstream (both registered in at 65.3-points) 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 63.5 and 66.3, with small firms remaining in expansionary territory and growth in both market sizes strengthening from last month. This 2.8-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
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 58.2, down (-7.0) from August’s future prediction of 65.2, suggesting that utilization could expand more slowly over the next 12 months. Future Upstream expectations (61.3) are being predicted to be expand much faster than Downstream expectations (52.8), although this 8.5-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 65.3-points for the month of September 2025, reflecting a modest 3.2-point increase from the month prior, continuing a now two month rise in capacity levels. This reading is up 4.4-points from the reading one year ago, and also up by the same amount from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was no-point split between Upstream and Downstream (both registered in at 65.3-points) 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 63.5 and 66.3, with small firms remaining in expansionary territory and growth in both market sizes strengthening from last month. This 2.8-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
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 58.2, down (-7.0) from August’s future prediction of 65.2, suggesting that utilization could expand more slowly over the next 12 months. Future Upstream expectations (61.3) are being predicted to be expand much faster than Downstream expectations (52.8), although this 8.5-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Warehousing Prices
The Warehousing Pricing index registered at a rather sharp 6.3-points coming in at 66.0 -points for the month of September 2025, likely reflecting the increase in utilization and capacity (though in a more sensitive and responsive fashion than previous months). This reading is down a mere .9-points from the reading one year ago, and down 5.2-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 2.7 -point split between Upstream (65.1) and Downstream (67.7) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 61.7 and 68.9 with a notable 10-point decrease in small firms’ pricing from last month) reflecting a 7.2-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 67.9, down (-7.7) from August’s future prediction of 75.3. Future Upstream expectations (69.8 down again from the reading one month prior) are being predicted to be increasing, at a similar rate as Downstream expectations (64.1). This month's 5.8-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
The Warehousing Pricing index registered at a rather sharp 6.3-points coming in at 66.0 -points for the month of September 2025, likely reflecting the increase in utilization and capacity (though in a more sensitive and responsive fashion than previous months). This reading is down a mere .9-points from the reading one year ago, and down 5.2-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 2.7 -point split between Upstream (65.1) and Downstream (67.7) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 61.7 and 68.9 with a notable 10-point decrease in small firms’ pricing from last month) reflecting a 7.2-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 67.9, down (-7.7) from August’s future prediction of 75.3. Future Upstream expectations (69.8 down again from the reading one month prior) are being predicted to be increasing, at a similar rate as Downstream expectations (64.1). This month's 5.8-point difference was not statistically significant (p>.1).
Transportation Capacity
The Transportation Capacity Index decreased 2.2 points to 55.1 percent in September 2025. Despite this decrease, the Transportation Capacity index remains in expansion territory and is 5.1 points higher than one year ago. While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 56.5, the Downstream index is slightly lower at 52.9 but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Capacity index moved back above the critical threshold, and it is now at 51.4, indicating slight expansion for the next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 50.7, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 52.9, both indicating slight expansion, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The Transportation Capacity Index decreased 2.2 points to 55.1 percent in September 2025. Despite this decrease, the Transportation Capacity index remains in expansion territory and is 5.1 points higher than one year ago. While the Upstream Transportation Capacity index is at 56.5, the Downstream index is slightly lower at 52.9 but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Capacity index moved back above the critical threshold, and it is now at 51.4, indicating slight expansion for the next 12 months. While the future Upstream index is at 50.7, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 52.9, both indicating slight expansion, but the difference is not statistically significant.
Transportation Utilization
The Transportation Utilization Index dropped 4.7 points, indicating 50.0 in September 2025. With this drop the Transportation Utilization is at the lowest level seen this year. In fact, the last time the index was at this level was in November 2023. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 50.0, while the Upstream index indicates 51.4, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Utilization Index drops 3 points from last month, indicating 59.4 points for the next 12 months. The future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 62.3 and the Downstream index at 50.0 and the difference is statistically significant. As such, the data indicates that while business to business transportation is expected to expand, business to customer transportation is expected to stay flat for the next year.
The Transportation Utilization Index dropped 4.7 points, indicating 50.0 in September 2025. With this drop the Transportation Utilization is at the lowest level seen this year. In fact, the last time the index was at this level was in November 2023. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 50.0, while the Upstream index indicates 51.4, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future Transportation Utilization Index drops 3 points from last month, indicating 59.4 points for the next 12 months. The future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 62.3 and the Downstream index at 50.0 and the difference is statistically significant. As such, the data indicates that while business to business transportation is expected to expand, business to customer transportation is expected to stay flat for the next year.
Transportation Prices
The Transportation Prices Index dropped 1.9 points from the previous reading and recorded 54.2 in September 2025. This is the lowest level for this index this year, and the lowest since April 2024. The Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 51.4, and the Downstream index is at 61.1 but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future index for Transportation Prices also decreased from last month, indicating 5.2 points lower at 66.7. The Upstream future Transportation Prices index is at 68.8 while the Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 62.5, but the difference is not significant. As such, it can be concluded that while the expectations of higher Transportation Prices remain prevalent across the economy, both Upstream and Downstream supply chains, those expectations are dampening.
The Transportation Prices Index dropped 1.9 points from the previous reading and recorded 54.2 in September 2025. This is the lowest level for this index this year, and the lowest since April 2024. The Upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 51.4, and the Downstream index is at 61.1 but the difference is not statistically significant.
The future index for Transportation Prices also decreased from last month, indicating 5.2 points lower at 66.7. The Upstream future Transportation Prices index is at 68.8 while the Downstream Transportation Prices index is at 62.5, but the difference is not significant. As such, it can be concluded that while the expectations of higher Transportation Prices remain prevalent across the economy, both Upstream and Downstream supply chains, those expectations are dampening.
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] Hsu, J. (2025, October 1). Surveys of Consumers—September 2025. Universith of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey. https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[2] Rhone, K. (2025, September 26). Trump’s New Tariffs Hit Furniture and Home Goods Stocks. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/business/trumps-tariffs-furniture-home-goods-stocks.html
[3] Stewart, R. M. (2025, September 26). Canada Economy Stalls in August After First Growth in Four Months. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-economy-stalls-in-august-after-first-growth-in-four-months-99766680
[4] Harrup, A. (2025, September 25). Bank of Mexico Makes 10th Straight Interest-Rate Cut. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bank-of-mexico-makes-10th-straight-interest-rate-cut-cf549d88
[5] Sorkin, A. R., Warner, B., Kessler, S., de la Merced, M. J., Gallogly, N., & Holman, J. (2025, October 1). Markets Brace for the Costs of a Shutdown. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/01/business/dealbook/markets-shutdown-costs.html
[6] Putzier, K. (2025, October 1). U.S. Lost 32,000 Jobs in September, Says Payroll Processor. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/u-s-lost-32-000-jobs-in-september-says-payroll-processor-06528340
[7] Hussein, F. (2025, September 12). Unemployment, inflation and GDP growth will be worse this year than projected, budget office says. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/cbo-outlook-trade-tariffs-58a06e8b72aab4f145e2ca18f44549a4
[8] LaRocco, L. A. (2025a, September 4). Holiday inventory levels are tea leaves to read the state of retailers and consumer spending. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/04/holiday-inventory-levels-give-tea-leaves-to-read-state-of-consumer-spending-.html
[9] Fonrouge, G. (2025a, September 24). Seasonal retail hiring to fall to lowest level since 2009, signaling trouble for holidays, report says. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/24/seasonal-hiring-2025-to-fall-to-lowest-level-since-2009-recession.html
[10] Fonrouge, G. (2025b, September 30). Nike posts surprise sales growth, but warns of sluggish holiday season and bigger than expected tariff hit. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/30/nike-nke-q1-2026-earnings.html
[11] Institute for Supply Management. (2025, October 1). September Purchasing Managers’ Index—Manufacturing PMI® at 49.1%. https://www.ismworld.org/supply-management-news-and-reports/reports/ism-pmi-reports/pmi/september/
[12] Ho-Him, C. (2025, September 30). China’s factory activity contracts for a 6th straight month as trade tensions weigh on the economy. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/china-manufacturing-economy-pmi-tariffs-ff446efcd48e45125c854185aae0212a
[13] LaRocco, L. A. (2025b, September 10). It’s not just Chinese imports. Peak season freight trade bound for U.S. slows to a crawl. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/10/china-exports-imports-trade-war-freight-shipping.html
Berger, P. (2025a, September 17). Surge of Imports Into Southern California Ends. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/surge-of-imports-into-southern-california-ends-1e0c79e5
[15] Port of Los Angeles. (2025, October 3). Port Optimizer—Control Tower. Port of LA Signal. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[16] Chirls, S. (2025c, October 1). Trade war? Savannah containers near record volume. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trade-war-savannah-containers-near-record-volume
[17] Chirls, S. (2025a, September 24). Tariffs torching U.S. container imports: Analyst. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/tariffs-torching-u-s-container-imports-analyst
[18] Mehta, D. (2025, September 18). Independent sellers move 5 billion products annually through Amazon’s network of global logistics, domestic freight, and bulk warehousing. Amazon. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/small-business/selling-on-amazon-supply-chain-explain
[19] Modern Materials Handling Staff. (2025, September 18). Amazon opens fulfillment network to Walmart, Shopify, and SHEIN. Modern Materials Handling. https://www.mmh.com/article/amazon-multi-channel-fulfillment-expands-to-walmart-shopify-shein
[20] Modern Materials Handling Staff. (2025, August 13). SAVOYE North America, Cisco-Eagle team up to improve warehouse technology. Modern Materials Handling. https://www.mmh.com/article/savoye-cisco-eagle-warehouse-partnership
[21] Berger, P. (2025c, September 30). How AI Helps a Logistics Giant Thrive During a Downturn. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ai-helps-a-logistics-giant-thrive-during-a-downturn-3c734c5a
[22] Greenhalgh, K. (2025, September 24). August Truck Freight Tonnage Highest Since December 2023—TT. Transport Topics. https://www.ttnews.com/articles/ata-truck-freight-0825
[23] Supply Chain 24/7 Staff, 24/7. (2025, October 1). Amazon Shipping Adds Higher Peak Season Fees for 2025 Holidays. Supply Chain 24/7. https://www.supplychain247.com//article/amazon-shipping-2025-holiday-surcharges
[24] Kulisch, E. (2025, September 29). FedEx, UPS peak season surcharges could drive shippers to competitors. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/fedex-ups-peak-season-surcharges-could-drive-shippers-to-competitors
[25] Transport Topics. (2025, October 1). What DOT’s Shutdown Plan Means for Trucking—TT. Transport Topics. https://www.ttnews.com/articles/dot-shutdown-plan-trucking
[26] Chirls, S. (2025b, September 30). Ports brace for government shutdown. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/ports-brace-for-government-shutdown