This story first appeared in the Special Issue 2020 edition of CSCMP’s Supply Chain Quarterly, a journal of thought leadership for the supply chain management profession and a sister publication to AGiLE Business Media’s DC Velocity.
During the first half of 2020 supply managers have been faced with unprecedented challenges. Forecasts and long-range plans have been cast aside as lockdowns and virus infection patterns have made planning for the future near-impossible. This uncertainty is reflected in the inventory situation many firms now find themselves in. Efficient inventory management has long been a hallmark of the most successful organizations. Firms went into the spring of 2020 expecting “business as usual,” betting on a continuation of high levels of consumer spending, and they built up inventory levels accordingly. When the economy shut down, sales dried up, and many firms found themselves holding an unprecedented level of inventory.
This is borne out in the U.S. Federal Reserve’s inventory-to-sales ratio, which measures the amount of inventory firms are carrying relative to the number of sales completed. In April 2020 this ratio hit 1.67, an all-time high in the history of this metric. Multiple sectors of the economy essentially shutdown without warning. Inventory was still flowing in when sales suddenly stopped, leading to a spike in the level of goods on-hand.
Exacerbating this is the fact that the secondary markets that often function as release valves for over-inventoried firms are experiencing the same issues. For example, in normal conditions a firm like Macy’s may disposition unsold inventory to a discount chain like TJ Maxx or Ross Stores. But if TJ Maxx and Ross Stores are also unable to make sales (as was the case during the lockdown), they may not be interested in taking Macy’s inventory. This is the case for many secondary market firms, meaning even the sub-optimal channels of inventory disposition are closed off for many companies.
Firms are dealing with this excess inventory in a number of ways, including cancelling orders, shifting goods around different network sites, destroying perishable goods, and having clearance sales so massive, The Wall Street Journal dubbed it “Black Friday in April”. Despite all of this, a significant percentage of inventory could not be burned off, meaning firms will need to hold onto it until normal economic activity resumes.
The largest barrier to holding so much inventory is the high cost of storing it. The Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) measures the growth and/or contraction of key logistics metrics on a monthly basis. Figure 1 presents the LMI’s month-to-month movement for inventory levels, inventory costs, available warehouse capacity, and warehouse utilization. When interpreting this figure, any value over 50.0 (represented by the dashed, black line) indicates month-to-month growth; any value below 50.0 indicates contraction.
[Figure 1] Warehousing & inventory movement July 2019 - June 2020
Enlarge this image
Over the last year, inventory levels have steadily risen. We observe a significant spike occurring in June of 2020, when parts of the economy (perhaps temporarily) reopened. This continued inventory buildup has had a significant impact on warehousing. Available warehousing capacity had been increasing and actually trending up for a year before March 2020, when the COVID-19 lockdown began in the United States. Warehouse capacity has contracted in every month since, reaching an all-time LMI low with a reading of 41.7 (a value which indicates significant contraction) in June 2020.
As warehouse capacity has dropped, warehouse utilization has increased, as firms try to squeeze inventory into every available nook and cranny. The lack of available capacity has in turn led to a spike in the costs associated with holding inventory. Some firms are even looking beyond warehouses, utilizing intermodal rail containers to slow-roll inventory, essentially using excess transportation capacity to supplement their limited storage space. Fundamentally, firms find themselves in the unenviable position of paying more for less-desirable space in order to hold goods they had anticipated selling in April.
Unfortunately, there may not be much relief in sight. When asked to predict logistics activity over the next 12 months, LMI respondents indicated that they expect both warehousing and inventory costs, along with inventory levels, to continue to rise.
Dealing with excess
It is likely that supply managers across multiple industries will spend the next 12 months dealing with the excess inventory built up during the initial COVID shutdown. If the reopening of the U.S. economy falters (at the time of this writing, many economists are predicting a slow-down in consumer spending due to the disruption of enhanced employment benefits), some managers may need to deal with a “double shock” in which they ordered additional inventory when the economy appeared to be reopening, but then faced a second shutdown. Supply managers, and the firms they work for, will continue to feel the financial pressure of holding high levels of inventory until the economy can permanently reopen.
Unfortunately, not all firms will be able to deal with this pressure. Firms like J.C. Penney and Nieman Marcus have already declared bankruptcy, and it is likely that more will follow over the next 12 months. To paraphrase Warren Buffet, when the tide goes out, everyone can see who is swimming naked. In other words, firms that are not well-positioned financially or are inefficient in the way they manage their inventory will have the most difficulty over the next year. In many ways, the COVID inventory shock will act as a catalyst, speeding up the demise of the firms who were already in decline, while facilitating the ascension of others.
Supply managers must remain vigilant, placing a premium on smart inventory management and flexibility throughout their supply chains. Managing inventory over the next 12 months will be difficult, but not impossible. The firms that are well-positioned and can make it through to the other side will likely emerge stronger and more efficient than they were before the crisis.
Author’s Note: For more insights like those presented above, please see the monthly LMI reports, which are posted the first Tuesday of every month at www.the-lmi.com.
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.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."