Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
Peter J. Rose, whose business brilliance was matched only by his laconic wit, announced his retirement
yesterday from Expeditors International, a one-office company he joined 32 years ago and subsequently built
into a $6 billion-a-year global powerhouse.
Rose, the Seattle-based company's chairman and CEO, will retire from the CEO post on March 1, Expeditors said.
A successor will be announced in January, and Rose will remain as chairman through May 2015. In keeping with
Expeditors' "promote from within" culture, a successor is almost certain to come from inside the organization.
In July 1981, Rose and James Wang, both of whom had been in the shipping business for several years, met at a bar
on Hong Kong's Lantau Island. There, they sketched out on a cocktail napkin what was at the time a relatively unique
model of "one-stop shopping" for international freight forwarding and customs brokerage services. Later that year, Rose
and Wang, along with a third individual, Glenn Alger, joined Expeditors International of Washington Inc., a forwarder
founded in 1979 and that had only one office in Seattle.
The rest is history. Propelled by the great push toward globalization, the dramatic expansion of import traffic
from Asia to the U.S., and the growing need of companies for a logistics partner to manage increasingly complex
international transactions, Expeditors' business took off and never looked back.
Since it went public in 1984, Expeditors has generated double-digit annualized growth in earnings before interest
and taxes (EBIT) in all but four years, according to Robert W. Baird & Co., an investment firm. Even in the past decade,
a period marked by a nasty global recession and continued slowing in its core airfreight business, Expeditors posted
compound annual growth rates in net revenue—revenue after the costs of purchased transportation—and earnings
per share of 10 percent and 12 percent, respectively, according to Baird.
Along the way, long-term investors became very rich. From March 1990 through October 1 of this year, Expeditors stock rose
5,591 percent. That activity encompasses the last three years, during which time the stock price fell 20 percent from its late
2010 high due to a decline in airfreight demand and tighter capacity controls by carriers that pressured Expeditors' yields.
As of the end of 2012, air freight accounted for 44 percent of Expeditors' $5.98 billion in revenue. Ocean freight accounted
for 33 percent, and the category called "customs/distribution/other" made up the remaining 23 percent.
CULT OF THE PERSONALITY
In an industry replete with conventional wisdom, Rose trod down his own path. He rarely granted
media interviews and saw no need to employ a battery of public relations professionals, either in-house
or under contract. One public relations executive, hired in-house during the early 1990s, quit soon thereafter,
complaining she had nothing to do. The standing joke was that "P.R. was the company's PR," a reference to Rose's
initials.
Most of Rose's public comments were contained in the company's eagerly awaited "8-K" forms, financial disclosure
statements that essentially give managers free rein to discuss anything on their minds that might be important to
investors. In the documents, Rose and his "Sancho Panza," R. Jordon Gates, Expeditors' president and chief operating
officer, would provide lively and colorful analysis, and answer questions preselected by the company from the many
queries it would receive.
Many of the responses had a mildly sarcastic tone to them, perhaps reflecting Rose's antipathy toward the scions of Wall Street.
Indeed, Expeditors did little to stoke the fires of high finance. Expeditors did very few acquisitions, remarkably growing its
franchise in an organic fashion while rivals scrambled to build scale—often fruitlessly--through mergers. It sought no Wall
Street financing after its IPO. Analysts were left conflicted, having to be objective in writing glowing research about the
company's achievements, all the while knowing their firms would do little fee-based business with the company.
But Rose's approach sat very well with investors and with employees, who were motivated by the company's "no layoff" policy
and by the pot of gold at the end of their retirement rainbows. Rose, whose company owns no transportation assets, placed an
enormous premium on his employees, knowing their expertise and intelligence would be the difference in a world that increasingly
demanded knowledge-based solutions to difficult global problems. In return, Expeditors' employees were fiercely loyal to the
company and its chairman.
In a research note today, Benjamin J. Hartford of Baird said it will be extremely difficult to find a successor to match
Rose's "unique leadership style." Under his leadership, Expeditors became the "highest quality and most admired international
freight forwarder in the industry," Hartford wrote.
According to FedEx, the proposed breakup will create flexibility for the two companies to handle the separate demands of the global parcel and the LTL markets. That approach will enable FedEx and FedEx Freight to deploy more customized operational execution, along with more tailored investment and capital allocation strategies. At the same time, the two companies will continue to cooperate on commercial, operational, and technology initiatives.
Following the split, FedEx Freight will become the industry’s largest LTL carrier, with revenue of $9.4 billion in fiscal 2024. The company also boasts the broadest network and fastest transit times in its industry, the company said.
After spinning of that business, the remaining FedEx units will have a combined revenue of $78.3 billion based on fiscal year 2024 results for its range of time- and day-definite delivery and related supply chain technology services to more than 220 countries and territories through an integrated air-ground express network.
The move comes after FedEx has operated its freight unit for decades. After launching in 1971 as an overnight air courier service, FedEx grew quickly and in 1998 acquired Caliber System inc., creating a transportation “powerhouse” comprising the traditional FedEx distribution service and small-package ground carrier RPS, LTL carrier Viking Freight, Caliber Logistics, Caliber Technology, and Roberts Express. And in 2006, FedEx acquires Watkins Motor Lines, enhancing FedEx Freight’s ability to serve customers in the long-haul LTL freight market.
FedEx share prices rose after the announcement, as investors cheered a resolution to the debate that had lingered since June about whether the event would happen, according to a statement from Bascome Majors, a market analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group. And FedEx Freight will become a major player in the sector, based on its 16% share of industry revenue in 2023, well above Old Dominion Freight Lines (ODFL)’s 10% and SAIA’s 5%, he said.
Likewise, TD Cowen issued a “buy” rating for FedEx based on the long-awaited move, according to Jason Seidl, senior analyst focused on rail, trucking and logistics. That came as investors were soothed about their worries of potential “dis-synergies” from the split by the detail that FedEx Freight and legacy FDX have signed agreements that will continue the connectivity of the two networks.
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.