Month: April 2022

Two independent analyses

On April Fool’s Day I looked at some Federal Reserve and Bureau of Economic Analysis outputs for February and offered a big picture flow assessment for the United States. I felt a bit exposed offering, “The demand patterns in yesterday’s report reinforce this sense of improving equilibrium between pull and push.” This afternoon I am feeling less exposed. This morning’s Logistics Managers Index (LMI) Report for March (a much more rigorous blending of many more data indictors) offers, “… we are finally seeing a move away from the unsustainable supply/demand mismatch we have seen over the past 18 months and moving back towards a more viable market equilibrium.”

Reading the complete LMI will provide important details and a much more comprehensive view. The authors also reinforce a “sense” that I was picking up from chatter and observations, but for which I had no credible data. The LMI has data that suggest:

In March 2022 we detected significant differences between Upstream and Downstream predictions for two of the eight components of the LMI, as well as for the overall index. Similar to the current day comparisons, Downstream firms are more bearish on available Transportation Capacity, likely reflecting the demands placed upon them by the growth of ecommerce.  Conversely, Upstream firms are predicting significantly higher (+14.2) Warehousing Prices Growth as they struggle to hold the growing levels of inventory that firms across all levels of the supply chain are predicting in 2022. While both Upstream and Downstream respondents predict growth this year, it is interesting to note that the rate of growth predicted is significantly higher for Upstream firms than for their Downstream counterparts. 

What is upstream eventually flows downstream.

More even demand

Yesterday’s release by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on February Personal Income and Outlays includes good news for supply chains. Overall personal expenditures increased slightly, from $16,678 billion in January to $16,713 billion in February. Considering inflation, this implies a potential reduction in product flow. This potential seems to be confirmed by a 2.5 percent decline in durable goods expenditures compared to (an admittedly high) January pull signal. Meanwhile expenditures on services continued to increase and are now above pre-pandemic levels. Almost two years of intense demand for durable goods is dissipating as other consumption channels become more available (and, perhaps, as inflation-influenced prices encourage alternatives). In late December and early January we saw a decline in flow that was precipitous enough to cause concern. But even before yesterday’s numbers, we had seen February freight volumes recover a more sustainable level (see chart below, March 14 release for February). The demand patterns in yesterday’s report reinforce this sense of improving equilibrium between pull and push. This was the flow context just before the war in Ukraine spiked fuel prices and introduced significant uncertainty into flows of key agricultural products and strategic minerals. The lock-downs in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and elsewhere have since contributed their own ebbs and flows. We continue to ride some rapids. Class III or even more exciting?