the voice of the middleman: interview with Robert Voltmann
The brokers who used to hang around truck stops have been replaced by sophisticated transportation intermediaries who do an estimated $162 billion in business each year. It's Robert Voltmann's job to represent them.
Mitch Mac Donald has more than 30 years of experience in both the newspaper and magazine businesses. He has covered the logistics and supply chain fields since 1988. Twice named one of the Top 10 Business Journalists in the U.S., he has served in a multitude of editorial and publishing roles. The leading force behind the launch of Supply Chain Management Review, he was that brand's founding publisher and editorial director from 1997 to 2000. Additionally, he has served as news editor, chief editor, publisher and editorial director of Logistics Management, as well as publisher of Modern Materials Handling. Mitch is also the president and CEO of Agile Business Media, LLC, the parent company of DC VELOCITY and CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly.
It's not easy these days to find an executive who's bullish on his or her organization's growth prospects. But Robert Voltmann is just that. Voltmann is president and CEO of the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an organization that represents thirdparty logistics service companies of all stripes—freight forwarders, brokers, and intermodal marketing companies among them. TIA's membership has been growing for the past eight years, Voltmann reports, and he doesn't see that changing anytime soon. In fact, he aims to increase membership by a whopping 17 percent in 2009 alone.
There are a couple of reasons for Voltmann's optimism. First, he sees a large untapped pool of potential members. "We believe that at 1,200 members, we represent 10 percent of the industry by number—we estimate that there are 12,000 operating licensed brokers," he says. And he's confident the organization has much to offer members—online training classes, insurance and credit reporting services, and, of course, advocacy.
Prior to joining TIA in June 1997, Voltmann was director of policy for the National Industrial Transportation League—a position he took after serving as chief of staff to Interstate Commerce Commissioner Ed Emmett. Before coming to Washington, Voltmann worked for two economic development and area planning associations in Houston, Texas.
Voltmann met recently with DC VELOCITY Group Editorial Director Mitch Mac Donald to discuss the biggest challenges TIA faces today, the economy, and the call he has out to the oracle of Delphi.
Q: Could you begin by telling us a little bit about TIA?
A: TIA is the largest organization representing third-party logistics companies. We're at just over 1,200 members and growing. We have been growing in real terms year over year for the past eight years, and our plan is to double again over the next five years.
The association was established in 1978 by the 14 licensed property brokers that existed in the United States prior to deregulation. They decided to push for deregulation of the brokerage business and make that a provision of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. The association from that day forward has always been about the free market and ethics. They established a code of ethics for the industry, and we have added to it over the years.
Q: Who are your members?
A: The majority of our members are non-asset or asset "light" companies. About a third of our members own trucks. Maybe two or three hundred own warehouse space or broker warehouse space. Maybe 200 are air freight forwarders, a similar number handle ocean freight, and we have more intermodal marketing companies than the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA)—because we have all the small ones.
Q: How did you come to be in charge of this organization?
A: I came to know the Transportation Brokers Conference of America, which is what it was called at the time, when I was at the Interstate Commerce Commission during the first Bush administration. Then when I was at the National Industrial Transportation League, I worked closely with the association. I actually tried to get the job before and lost out to Joni Casey. If I had to pick somebody to lose out to, Joni is a great person to lose to.
Then the position at IANA opened up, and IANA hired Joni. I lost that to her, too, but this is where I really wanted to be. I knew it was a diamond in the rough, and I believe that I have shown it to be a diamond. There is just a really bright future here. I have more than doubled membership. We have built an online university of training courses for our members. We have entered into an agreement now with the Institute of Logistical Management to double our online course offerings. We have an insurance company. We have built a very effective advocacy department. I am more excited today than I was in June 1997 when I took over.
Q: What are the key issues for your members right now?
A: Right now, one of the key issues is credit management. One of the reasons that the third-party logistics industry has exploded is these companies use their free cash flow to become the industry's bank. What I mean by that is they pay the carrier as quickly as the day of delivery but don't expect to be paid by the shipper for 30 to 45 days. So they are financing the freight on their own cash flow.
Well, that worked well enough in the days when the market was booming and you could check your shipper's credit once and then watch your own receivables from that shipper. But in this market, a shipper can go south on you in 30 days because you don't have a clear picture of its total finances. There were credit bureaus like Dun & Bradstreet that gave you a snapshot of how the corporation was doing overall, but there was not any entity looking at a shipper's transportation-specific credit.
We have been working for the past three years—actually since the last dip in the economy—to build shipper transportation-specific credit reporting. The company that we have been working with, Forius, launched a product on March 2 that's going to allow users to track how shippers pay their small transportation providers on a daily basis.
Q: What other issues are you tracking besides credit?
A: Long term, the biggest threat to the industry is from increased regulation. The industry has worked quite well since the mid '90s, when we ended economic regulation of the industry and concentrated solely on safety. But in the last Congress, legislation was introduced that would have required brokers, forwarders, and motor carriers to reveal all of their costs, all of their income, and every invoice.
This is a devastating thing in any industry. Sure, you'd like to know exactly how much Best Buy paid for that Sony television or how much the auto dealer paid for that car you want to buy. You wouldn't have to go through all this nonsense of negotiation. But in our free market, it doesn't work that way. It would have tremendous ramifications. That is a huge threat on the horizon, and we have increased our presence on Capitol Hill to deal with that.
A: A related issue is that of taxation. We fought a provision in Texas two years ago that would have taxed service industries at their gross revenue level, not at net cost.
Q: That would be a bit onerous, wouldn't it?
A: Yes, very onerous, and other states are looking at this same thing, so as an industry we have got to get our hands around this. We have to figure out how to mobilize the opposition at the state level because, frankly, no state wants somebody from Washington coming in and saying, "We are from Washington and we don't like what you're doing."
Q: Let's shift gears a little. What are the biggest challenges your members face in serving their customers these days?
A: Well, the biggest challenge right now is the lack of freight. Everybody is facing it. As a result, we're seeing the strong preying on the weak to get more volume—for example, they might be offering to pay the carriers even faster.
Q: I almost hesitate to ask because nobody wants to go out on a limb and make a prediction, but we have to go through the routine. Is there an end in sight to this freight recession?
A: I don't know. I'm hearing different things from the group's members. The members who are heavily involved in the auto industtry are really hurt. But I talked to a small member last week who does a lot of work with a box company—a cardboard box company—and its freight is picking up.
I have a call out to the oracle of Delphi, but she hasn't returned my call yet, so I am not sure. I hope it is soon.
Q: We all do. I recall market analyst John Larkin saying at your annual conference, "Every day we are in this situation, we are one day closer to being out of it."
A: Well, I think that's right. I recently went back and read Franklin Roosevelt's first inaugural address. In it, he told the people that things were not as bad as they had been in the past. We are not plagued by locusts and other biblical plagues that our forefathers persevered through.
Things are certainly better today than they were when Roosevelt took office. What we have—and what America in 1933 didn't have—is a modern sophisticated logistics and distribution system. In March 1933, in the depth of the Great Depression, we left food rotting in the fields because we couldn't get it to market. We don't have any of those problems. At the depth of the Depression in 1933, we had 25 percent unemployment. Today, we are pushing at 10 percent—or maybe a little less.
Anyway, we have great things in place. Now that we have passed the stimulus bill, everything should be good. It is time to start instilling hope instead of selling fear.
Q: The economic environment aside, what does the future of logistics hold? If we were to take a nap and wake up 10 years from now, what would the market look like?
A: Oh, man, if I knew exactly what the market would look like 10 years from now, I would be really fat, dumb, and happy.
I think it will look a lot like it does today but with more logistics companies. Over the past 20 years, shippers have shed jobs from what used to be their traffic departments. They are not going to hire those back. They are going to have high-level experts in their systems to oversee outsourced providers and work with them in partnership.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.