<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Canadian National Railway on Tuesday said net income dropped 23 percent to C$800 million ($520 milli</div>

Canadian National Railway on Tuesday said net income dropped 23 percent to C$800 million ($520 milli

<div>Canadian National Railway on Tuesday said net income dropped 23 percent to C$800 million ($520 million) in 2002 compared with $678 million in 2001 but said that if one-time items were excluded the adjusted net income was up 8 percent over a year ago.The railroad showed revenue gains in the petroleum, chemicals, automotive, intermodal and forest products sectors, partially offset by a 15 percent decline in grain amid a two-year drought, and a 5 percent decrease in coal. CN President and Chief Executive E. Hunter Harrison said in a conference call that the carrier expects the strong freight sectors to...

Canadian National Railway on Tuesday said net income dropped 23 percent to C$800 million ($520 million) in 2002 compared with $678 million in 2001 but said that if one-time items were excluded the adjusted net income was up 8 percent over a year ago. The railroad showed revenue gains in the petroleum, chemicals, automotive, intermodal and forest products sectors, partially offset by a 15 percent decline in grain amid a two-year drought, and a 5 percent decrease in coal. CN President and Chief Executive E. Hunter Harrison said in a conference call that the carrier expects the strong freight sectors to remain that way in 2003, with continued weakness in grain. Operating income was $955 million compared with $1.09 billion in 2001. Revenues increased 8 percent to $3.97 billion, while operating expenses were up 17 percent to just over $3 billion. The Montreal-based rail operator said adjusted net income in 2002 was up 8 percent to $684 million. It cited one-time items including a $183 million charge for personal injury, asbestos and other claims in the United States, and $78 million for expenses in laying off workers. Canadian National compared the 2002 figures adjusted for these developments with 2001 figures also adjusted, for layoff costs and for special investments and a deferred income tax recovery. Harrison said 2002 turned in "outstanding growth, to some degree camouflaged by the weakness in grain," and that he was "most pleased" with a record 2002 cash flow increase of 16 percent to $333 million. CN will spend it on a 16 percent dividend increase to US65 cents; a share repurchase program begun last October, and strengthening the balance sheet to allow for future railway-centered acquisitions as the opportunity arise. Fourth quarter results showed net income of only $14.3 million, compared with $192.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2001. As adjusted, however, fourth quarter net income was $178 million.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Grain hits Canadian National net

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales says developing the terminal would help ease the concerns of ocean carriers that the canal’s existing container terminals are concentrated among a handful of operators. </div>

ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales says developing the terminal would help ease the concerns of ocean carriers that the canal’s existing container terminals are concentrated among a handful of operators.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) could build and operate a long-stalled container terminal as part of a wider logistics hub development near Panama City on the Atlantic Ocean side of the canal, the authority’s top executive says. ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told the Journal of Commerce the move would help allay ocean carrier concerns that the canal’s existing container terminals are concentrated among a handful of operators, thus affecting the canal’s neutrality and competitiveness. ACP intends that the 5 million-TEU Corozal Container Terminal should be a common-user facility, open to all container lines. “We are studying the possibility of reactivating a project where the Panama Canal Authority would develop a logistics hub, which would include various terminals, within the canal area that safeguards neutrality for the canal and all of the shipping companies navigating the waterway,” Vásquez said. That comes as worries about market dominance have emerged since Hong Kong conglomerate CK Hutchison <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hutchison-inks-228-billion-deal-to-sell-majority-of-port-holdings-to-blackrock-til-5955819">agreed to a $23 billion preliminary deal in March</a> to sell its global port interests outside China to a consortium of BlackRock and Terminal Investment Limited (TiL). TiL is the terminals division of Mediterranean Shipping Co. and already has a presence in Panama’s terminals sector through its partnership with investment company Notarc Management Group (NMG) to develop the $1.4 billion Panama Colon Container Port (PCCP). TiL/NMG took over the project in 2022 after the Panama Maritime Authority canceled an earlier agreement with a Chinese consortium led by Hong Kong/China shipping and port group Landbridge for alleged non-compliance. “To be clear, the concessions made to port operators, including that of Panama Ports Company owned by Hutchinson, lie fully in the hands of the Panamanian government and are not within the purview of the Panama Canal Authority,” Vasquez said. “However, we are aware of the concerns surrounding a capacity concentration that our shipping clients anticipate with the current proposal on the table.” Details of the logistics hub, including the container terminals, will be given at an ACP briefing on June 19. <h3>Political intrigue </h3>The ACP selected four terminal operators in 2016 to bid for a concession to build and operate the Corozal terminal. The project has been in abeyance since 2017 after none of the four, which included APM Terminals, Singapore’s PSA International and CMA CGM’s Terminal Line, submitted a bid, according to then-ACP administrator Jorge Quijano. Neither TiL nor NMG responded to requests for comment this week from the Journal of Commerce. MSC, already the world’s biggest container line in terms of capacity, will also emerge as the largest global terminal operator with throughput volumes of almost 120 million TEUs based on 2023 figures, according to estimates from maritime consultancy Drewry. Hutchison has confirmed that TiL is the lead partner in the planned acquisition. The BlackRock-TiL deal comprises two agreements. The first covers the sale of Panama Ports Company (PPC), in which Hutchison has a 90% stake and operates Balboa and Christobal container terminals at either end of the canal; the second comprises Hutchison’s 80% stake in Hutchison Port Holdings, which controls its non-China terminals. Together, these cover a total of 43 ports with 199 berths in 23 countries. But the deal, particularly the sale of the Panama ports, is caught <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/beijing-issues-warning-over-hutchisons-proposed-sale-of-panama-ports-company-5962910">in the crosshairs of a geopolitical wrangle between the US and China</a>. Semi-official commentators in China have voiced opposition to the sale on the grounds of China’s national and security interests, while China’s anti-trust regulator is probing the sale partly on national security grounds. At the same time, the Trump administration has vowed to take back control of the canal to curb what it says is China’s control of cargo through the waterway. Panama legal officials are also probing the way Panama Ports Company secured an extension to its 25-year concession to operate the Balboa and Christobal terminals in 2021 for possible irregularities. The Panama government and PPC have denied any wrongdoing. There are currently five operators with terminals along the canal. Aside from Hutchison’s PPC, other firms with facilities are Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine, which operates Colon Container Terminal; PSA International, which controls the PSA Panama International Terminal at Rodman; SSA Marine, which operates the Manzanillo International Terminal at Colon; and TiL/NMG with the PCCP. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) could build and operate a long-stalled container terminal as part of a wider logistics hub development near Panama City on the Atlantic Ocean side of the canal, the authority’s top executive says. ACP Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez Morales told the Journal of Commerce the move would help allay ocean carrier concerns that the canal’s existing container terminals are concentrated among a handful of operators, thus affecting the canal’s neutrality and competitiveness. ACP intends that the 5 million-TEU Corozal Container Terminal should be a common-user facility, open to all container lines. “We are studying the possibility of reactivating a project where the Panama Canal Authority would develop a logistics hub, which would include various terminals, within the canal area that safeguards neutrality for the canal and all of the shipping companies navigating the waterway,” Vásquez said. That comes as worries about market dominance have emerged since Hong Kong conglomerate CK Hutchison agreed to a $23 billion preliminary deal in March to sell its global port interests outside China to a consortium of BlackRock and Terminal Investment Limited (TiL). TiL is the terminals division of Mediterranean Shipping Co. and already has a presence in Panama’s terminals sector through its partnership with investment company Notarc Management Group (NMG) to develop the $1.4 billion Panama Colon Container Port (PCCP). TiL/NMG took over the project in 2022 after the Panama Maritime Authority canceled an earlier agreement with a Chinese consortium led by Hong Kong/China shipping and port group Landbridge for alleged non-compliance. “To be clear, the concessions made to port operators, including that of Panama Ports Company owned by Hutchinson, lie fully in the hands of the Panamanian government and are not within the purview of the Panama Canal Authority,” Vasquez said. “However, we are aware of the concerns surrounding a capacity concentration that our shipping clients anticipate with the current proposal on the table.” Details of the logistics hub, including the container terminals, will be given at an ACP briefing on June 19. Political intrigue The ACP selected four terminal operators in 2016 to bid for a concession to build and operate the Corozal terminal. The project has been in abeyance since 2017 after none of the four, which included APM Terminals, Singapore’s PSA International and CMA CGM’s Terminal Line, submitted a bid, according to then-ACP administrator Jorge Quijano. Neither TiL nor NMG responded to requests for comment this week from the Journal of Commerce. MSC, already the world’s biggest container line in terms of capacity, will also emerge as the largest global terminal operator with throughput volumes of almost 120 million TEUs based on 2023 figures, according to estimates from maritime consultancy Drewry. Hutchison has confirmed that TiL is the lead partner in the planned acquisition. The BlackRock-TiL deal comprises two agreements. The first covers the sale of Panama Ports Company (PPC), in which Hutchison has a 90% stake and operates Balboa and Christobal container terminals at either end of the canal; the second comprises Hutchison’s 80% stake in Hutchison Port Holdings, which controls its non-China terminals. Together, these cover a total of 43 ports with 199 berths in 23 countries. But the deal, particularly the sale of the Panama ports, is caught in the crosshairs of a geopolitical wrangle between the US and China . Semi-official commentators in China have voiced opposition to the sale on the grounds of China’s national and security interests, while China’s anti-trust regulator is probing the sale partly on national security grounds. At the same time, the Trump administration has vowed to take back control of the canal to curb what it says is China’s control of cargo through the waterway. Panama legal officials are also probing the way Panama Ports Company secured an extension to its 25-year concession to operate the Balboa and Christobal terminals in 2021 for possible irregularities. The Panama government and PPC have denied any wrongdoing. There are currently five operators with terminals along the canal. Aside from Hutchison’s PPC, other firms with facilities are Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine, which operates Colon Container Terminal; PSA International, which controls the PSA Panama International Terminal at Rodman; SSA Marine, which operates the Manzanillo International Terminal at Colon; and TiL/NMG with the PCCP. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Maritime

Port News

Port infrastructure

International ports

Panama Canal mulls developing Corozal to allay neutrality fears over Hutchison deal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Liners have enjoyed the higher rates and profits that come from external market shocks, but it’s fair to wonder how sustainable that is, writes Peter Tirschwell.</div>

Liners have enjoyed the higher rates and profits that come from external market shocks, but it’s fair to wonder how sustainable that is, writes Peter Tirschwell.

<div class="phx-topic">It’s become a pattern that most ocean carriers are privately all too happy to accept, even at the expense of frustrated customers. The pattern is this: External shocks wreak havoc, system-wide capacity is effectively withdrawn due to port congestion, longer transits or re-deployed tonnage, and rates and profits go up. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6023285_0.1.jpg"></img></div>For carriers that had struggled for decades, these recent problems — beginning with the COVID-19 pandemic and continuing with the Red Sea, Panama Canal, tariffs and growing global port congestion — are good problems to have. But how long can it last? And what happens when the party’s over? The private view of carriers – that customers contributed to their years in financial purgatory – makes them minimally sympathetic to the impact, and increasingly willing to do their part to hit the brakes on capacity. Carriers went from having virtually no ability 25 years ago to pull capacity to embracing slow steaming, idling, blank sailings, and in the case of some carriers, buying versus chartering and thus controlling tonnage. Carriers “do not want to change the practices of [port] omissions, slow steaming, cut-and-runs, demurrage and detention,” said one knowledgeable observer of carriers. “They like disruptions and are not eager to move to a model where cargo is delivered as booked.” Years such as 2024 and now 2025, which were supposed to be awash in red ink for carriers, suddenly became profitable. But carriers must wonder how sustainable the “disruptive” model is. <h3>Carriers may soon need to be competitive </h3>The weakness is obvious. The pandemic could well have been a fluke, a once-in-a-century catastrophe; the Red Sea could reopen at any time and the US and China are taking steps toward a trade truce. Port congestion and its impact on end-to-end capacity could ease as global growth, including trade growth, slows due to US tariffs. And all the while overcapacity looms thanks to a massive ordering spree during and since the pandemic. JP Morgan noted last month that “industry dynamics remain unfavorable given structural oversupply, despite near-term disruption boosting short-term rates.” Thus, carriers could soon be facing a market where they will need to be competitive. Price is a given as rates will find a level commensurate with supply and demand. But what about service? In a purely commoditized market, rates alone are enough to attract cargo. But what if there is meaningful differentiation in schedule reliability beyond the few niche carriers such as Matson, UWL/Swire and Tailwind whose franchise is based on reliability? Regional Asian carriers serving mostly a forwarder market tell us they feel no pressure to improve schedule reliability, other than to avoid embarrassment when reliability rankings are published. Other carriers have long been only somewhat concerned about reliability, understanding that shippers are diverse, with a great many prioritizing price over transit time, and options are few as carriers consolidate. <h3>Gemini as a model </h3>But not all think this way. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in their Gemini Cooperation alliance have tacked away from the fleet with an offering that, instead of relying on disruption for profits, aligns their interests with that of customers. If it works, it won’t simply be price, trade lane presence or longstanding partnerships that determine where shippers direct their cargo. It will be results. That point is being made more loudly following the initial success of the hub-and-spoke-based Gemini in hitting its 90% reliability goal; it was 90.7% in March and April, including both origin and destination arrivals, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. “The effect of Gemini is really interesting,” industry veteran Per Starup Sennicksen wrote recently on LinkedIn. “Many old timers, who condemned the hub-and-spoke network model, will have to change their opinions.” Is the wider industry taking notice? With Gemini still young, it is premature to say whether it’s influencing other carriers. But carriers plowing investment into terminals on a global basis show the need for greater end-to-end control; that is the lynchpin of Gemini that is based on Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd’s control of hub ports. “I can’t say we’ve seen any real effort from competing alliances and carriers to up their game, from a purely operational angle,” said Simon Sundboell, CEO of eeSea, which monitors carrier schedule reliability. “The delays are still significant, and the last-minute changes and volatility are observable to anyone.” However, he added: “What I can confirm, though, is that we’ve had real interest in understanding the reliability methodology and numbers from several of the major carriers in just the past two months, as well as from cargo owners and logistics providers. So it’s on the radar out there.” Maersk is wasting no time in showing how its service is differentiated. “We are now sitting at a reliability level that we haven’t been able to see as an industry for a very long time,” Maersk North America President Charles van der Steen told the Journal of Commerce in late May. “There is a dynamic where we can see the opportunity in the not-too-distant future to start thinking about leveraging ocean freight to the benefit of our broader supply chain, taking inventory out, reducing cycle times, et cetera.” Could it be that out of the chaos of the past five years, real value will emerge? Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

It’s become a pattern that most ocean carriers are privately all too happy to accept, even at the expense of frustrated customers. The pattern is this: External shocks wreak havoc, system-wide capacity is effectively withdrawn due to port congestion, longer transits or re-deployed tonnage, and rates and profits go up. For carriers that had struggled for decades, these recent problems — beginning with the COVID-19 pandemic and continuing with the Red Sea, Panama Canal, tariffs and growing global port congestion — are good problems to have. But how long can it last? And what happens when the party’s over? The private view of carriers – that customers contributed to their years in financial purgatory – makes them minimally sympathetic to the impact, and increasingly willing to do their part to hit the brakes on capacity. Carriers went from having virtually no ability 25 years ago to pull capacity to embracing slow steaming, idling, blank sailings, and in the case of some carriers, buying versus chartering and thus controlling tonnage. Carriers “do not want to change the practices of [port] omissions, slow steaming, cut-and-runs, demurrage and detention,” said one knowledgeable observer of carriers. “They like disruptions and are not eager to move to a model where cargo is delivered as booked.” Years such as 2024 and now 2025, which were supposed to be awash in red ink for carriers, suddenly became profitable. But carriers must wonder how sustainable the “disruptive” model is. Carriers may soon need to be competitive The weakness is obvious. The pandemic could well have been a fluke, a once-in-a-century catastrophe; the Red Sea could reopen at any time and the US and China are taking steps toward a trade truce. Port congestion and its impact on end-to-end capacity could ease as global growth, including trade growth, slows due to US tariffs. And all the while overcapacity looms thanks to a massive ordering spree during and since the pandemic. JP Morgan noted last month that “industry dynamics remain unfavorable given structural oversupply, despite near-term disruption boosting short-term rates.” Thus, carriers could soon be facing a market where they will need to be competitive. Price is a given as rates will find a level commensurate with supply and demand. But what about service? In a purely commoditized market, rates alone are enough to attract cargo. But what if there is meaningful differentiation in schedule reliability beyond the few niche carriers such as Matson, UWL/Swire and Tailwind whose franchise is based on reliability? Regional Asian carriers serving mostly a forwarder market tell us they feel no pressure to improve schedule reliability, other than to avoid embarrassment when reliability rankings are published. Other carriers have long been only somewhat concerned about reliability, understanding that shippers are diverse, with a great many prioritizing price over transit time, and options are few as carriers consolidate. Gemini as a model But not all think this way. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in their Gemini Cooperation alliance have tacked away from the fleet with an offering that, instead of relying on disruption for profits, aligns their interests with that of customers. If it works, it won’t simply be price, trade lane presence or longstanding partnerships that determine where shippers direct their cargo. It will be results. That point is being made more loudly following the initial success of the hub-and-spoke-based Gemini in hitting its 90% reliability goal; it was 90.7% in March and April, including both origin and destination arrivals, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. “The effect of Gemini is really interesting,” industry veteran Per Starup Sennicksen wrote recently on LinkedIn. “Many old timers, who condemned the hub-and-spoke network model, will have to change their opinions.” Is the wider industry taking notice? With Gemini still young, it is premature to say whether it’s influencing other carriers. But carriers plowing investment into terminals on a global basis show the need for greater end-to-end control; that is the lynchpin of Gemini that is based on Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd’s control of hub ports. “I can’t say we’ve seen any real effort from competing alliances and carriers to up their game, from a purely operational angle,” said Simon Sundboell, CEO of eeSea, which monitors carrier schedule reliability. “The delays are still significant, and the last-minute changes and volatility are observable to anyone.” However, he added: “What I can confirm, though, is that we’ve had real interest in understanding the reliability methodology and numbers from several of the major carriers in just the past two months, as well as from cargo owners and logistics providers. So it’s on the radar out there.” Maersk is wasting no time in showing how its service is differentiated. “We are now sitting at a reliability level that we haven’t been able to see as an industry for a very long time,” Maersk North America President Charles van der Steen told the Journal of Commerce in late May. “There is a dynamic where we can see the opportunity in the not-too-distant future to start thinking about leveraging ocean freight to the benefit of our broader supply chain, taking inventory out, reducing cycle times, et cetera.” Could it be that out of the chaos of the past five years, real value will emerge? Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Carriers ride wave of ‘disruptive’ operating model, but for how long?

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Organic growth in the logistics business is hard to find with the global economy slowing and trade heavily disrupted by US tariffs, so forwarders have moved into acquisition mode. </div>

Organic growth in the logistics business is hard to find with the global economy slowing and trade heavily disrupted by US tariffs, so forwarders have moved into acquisition mode.

<div class="phx-topic">The completion of Danish forwarder DSV’s $16.25 billion all-cash acquisition of DB Schenker in April may have captured the headlines, but there is vigorous M&amp;A activity among second-tier forwarders searching for inorganic growth in a tariff-disrupted and slowing global economy. Valuations have come down from the sky-high levels reached after the pandemic and now forwarders are either making strategic takeovers or actively seeking acquisitions to grow scale, plug holes in networks or expand into new markets. “The market is soft and organic growth is hard to come by now, so inorganic growth may be the best option,” said Marc Iampieri, global co-leader of logistics and transportation at business advisory firm AlixPartners. “Freight forwarders will survive this short-term challenge, and the strongest will end up with more market share and better solutions to squeeze some of the smaller ones out,” Iampieri told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. A European forwarder making international takeover moves is Dachser, headquartered in Kempten, Germany. Burkhard Eling, CEO of the family-owned company, said the forwarder has made eight acquisitions within the last two years that have brought in $1 billion in revenue. “There will be more to come, that’s for sure,” he told the Journal of Commerce in an interview. “Last year we had 5% organic growth plus 8% unorganic growth from the acquisitions.” Eling noted that the markets outside Europe were growing faster than those inside the continent and that was the focus of Dachser’s acquisition campaign. “We want to build up a global groupage network in air and sea logistics that enables us to serve markets in and out of Europe as well as in America and Asia, focusing on high value products in verticals such as tech, fashion, sports, equipment and DIY, where we have a big presence,” he said. <h3>Aggressive expansion strategy </h3>Another European forwarder that is highly active in the M&amp;A department is Denmark-based Scan Global Logistics. Rene Bergerling, senior director of business management in Europe, Middle East and Africa at Scan, said 30 countries have been added to its controlled network in the past few years. “In our industry, big is beautiful and customers expect us to have our own offices globally and have end-to-end control of their cargo that minimizes their risk,” Bergerling told the Journal of Commerce. “We are continuously searching for companies that match our DNA and have the right people, because we are up against the big guys and finding the right people is very important,” he added. Expanding capabilities and strengthening its customer base was behind Toll Group’s acquisition of Transolve Global, an Australian-based specialist in international freight forwarding of wine, bulk liquids and perishables. Terms of the deal were not disclosed after it was finalized last week, but Suhail Qureshi, interim president of Toll Global Forwarding, gave an indication of the M&amp;A price point Toll has set for takeovers. “aFrom a size perspective, we’re owned by Japan Post, which is fairly large, so we’re not restricted in terms of size, although probably a sweet spot would be a company with revenue of around $250 to $300 million,” Qureshi said. “We are looking globally and not restricting ourselves to a particular geography, and our key focus areas right now are Germany and the Netherlands in Europe, plus Southeast Asia and the US,” he added. Qureshi said Toll’s M&amp;A strategy was to target companies that had expertise in a specific area or key vertical, such as food and wine, healthcare, technology and industrials. <h3>Logistics providers plugging holes, expanding networks </h3>Some notable targeted acquisitions from smaller forwarders recently were Illinois-headquartered AIT Worldwide Logistics’ agreement in January to take over St. Louis-based forwarder Krupp Trucking, which specializes in the transportation of high-value goods. Also in January, Arizona-based Q Logistics Holdings made a $1.2 billion offer for Dubai-headquartered Aramex, which has a global presence in express delivery and e-commerce. In February, Japan Post acquired integrated logistics provider Tonami Holdings for $630 million. Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, based in Osnabrück, Germany, acquired full ownership of Los-Angeles-based HPL Apollo in February, strengthening the global forwarder’s position in the perishable logistics market and expanding its footprint in the US and Latin America. Also in February, another German forwarder, Arvato, acquired US-based third-party logistics provider Carbel and Florida-headquartered United Customs Services, growing its US reach into e-commerce and strengthening capabilities in fashion, beauty and lifestyle logistics. Despite the many acquisitions being made by smaller forwarders, AlixPartners’ Iampieri noted that in the heavily disrupted global trading environment, securing finance was not always easy. “Financial buyers are afraid of the tariff risks and have the option of passing on this [forwarding] industry,” he said. “Financing is tough now for all buyers, but more so for financial buyers that must convince lenders to believe the tariff risks are small.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The completion of Danish forwarder DSV’s $16.25 billion all-cash acquisition of DB Schenker in April may have captured the headlines, but there is vigorous M&A activity among second-tier forwarders searching for inorganic growth in a tariff-disrupted and slowing global economy. Valuations have come down from the sky-high levels reached after the pandemic and now forwarders are either making strategic takeovers or actively seeking acquisitions to grow scale, plug holes in networks or expand into new markets. “The market is soft and organic growth is hard to come by now, so inorganic growth may be the best option,” said Marc Iampieri, global co-leader of logistics and transportation at business advisory firm AlixPartners. “Freight forwarders will survive this short-term challenge, and the strongest will end up with more market share and better solutions to squeeze some of the smaller ones out,” Iampieri told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. A European forwarder making international takeover moves is Dachser, headquartered in Kempten, Germany. Burkhard Eling, CEO of the family-owned company, said the forwarder has made eight acquisitions within the last two years that have brought in $1 billion in revenue. “There will be more to come, that’s for sure,” he told the Journal of Commerce in an interview. “Last year we had 5% organic growth plus 8% unorganic growth from the acquisitions.” Eling noted that the markets outside Europe were growing faster than those inside the continent and that was the focus of Dachser’s acquisition campaign. “We want to build up a global groupage network in air and sea logistics that enables us to serve markets in and out of Europe as well as in America and Asia, focusing on high value products in verticals such as tech, fashion, sports, equipment and DIY, where we have a big presence,” he said. Aggressive expansion strategy Another European forwarder that is highly active in the M&A department is Denmark-based Scan Global Logistics. Rene Bergerling, senior director of business management in Europe, Middle East and Africa at Scan, said 30 countries have been added to its controlled network in the past few years. “In our industry, big is beautiful and customers expect us to have our own offices globally and have end-to-end control of their cargo that minimizes their risk,” Bergerling told the Journal of Commerce. “We are continuously searching for companies that match our DNA and have the right people, because we are up against the big guys and finding the right people is very important,” he added. Expanding capabilities and strengthening its customer base was behind Toll Group’s acquisition of Transolve Global, an Australian-based specialist in international freight forwarding of wine, bulk liquids and perishables. Terms of the deal were not disclosed after it was finalized last week, but Suhail Qureshi, interim president of Toll Global Forwarding, gave an indication of the M&A price point Toll has set for takeovers. “aFrom a size perspective, we’re owned by Japan Post, which is fairly large, so we’re not restricted in terms of size, although probably a sweet spot would be a company with revenue of around $250 to $300 million,” Qureshi said. “We are looking globally and not restricting ourselves to a particular geography, and our key focus areas right now are Germany and the Netherlands in Europe, plus Southeast Asia and the US,” he added. Qureshi said Toll’s M&A strategy was to target companies that had expertise in a specific area or key vertical, such as food and wine, healthcare, technology and industrials. Logistics providers plugging holes, expanding networks Some notable targeted acquisitions from smaller forwarders recently were Illinois-headquartered AIT Worldwide Logistics’ agreement in January to take over St. Louis-based forwarder Krupp Trucking, which specializes in the transportation of high-value goods. Also in January, Arizona-based Q Logistics Holdings made a $1.2 billion offer for Dubai-headquartered Aramex, which has a global presence in express delivery and e-commerce. In February, Japan Post acquired integrated logistics provider Tonami Holdings for $630 million. Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, based in Osnabrück, Germany, acquired full ownership of Los-Angeles-based HPL Apollo in February, strengthening the global forwarder’s position in the perishable logistics market and expanding its footprint in the US and Latin America. Also in February, another German forwarder, Arvato, acquired US-based third-party logistics provider Carbel and Florida-headquartered United Customs Services, growing its US reach into e-commerce and strengthening capabilities in fashion, beauty and lifestyle logistics. Despite the many acquisitions being made by smaller forwarders, AlixPartners’ Iampieri noted that in the heavily disrupted global trading environment, securing finance was not always easy. “Financial buyers are afraid of the tariff risks and have the option of passing on this [forwarding] industry,” he said. “Financing is tough now for all buyers, but more so for financial buyers that must convince lenders to believe the tariff risks are small.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Forwarding

Targeted takeovers drive M&A activity among smaller global forwarders

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A widening spread between the West and East coasts comes as carriers have added fresh capacity, especially to Southern California, to take advantage of what had been a sharp jump in demand and rates following the US pause on higher tariffs against China.</div>

A widening spread between the West and East coasts comes as carriers have added fresh capacity, especially to Southern California, to take advantage of what had been a sharp jump in demand and rates following the US pause on higher tariffs against China.

<div class="phx-topic">Spot ocean rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific are diverging sharply this week, with prices to the US West Coast softening amid a fresh capacity injection and the East Coast market still showing strength. Rates to the West Coast were $5,700 per FEU as of June 9, down 6% on the week, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. East Coast rates, meanwhile, were up 4% at $7,400 per FEU. The $1,700 spread between the coasts is the widest variance since late January and comes as ocean carriers have moved capacity to Asia-West Coast routes to take advantage of what had been <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pause-on-tariffs-prompts-us-retailers-to-upgrade-summer-import-forecast-6022230">a sharp jump in demand and rates following the 90-day pause</a> announced May 12 by the Trump administration on higher tariffs against China. “The rates for cargo coming into the Pacific Southwest are going down, but pricing to the US East Coast is actually going up,” Stephen A. Nothdurft, vice president of sales for North America at the forwarder MOL Consolidation Services, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s due to all of these extra-loaders and services returning into rotation [to Los Angeles-Long Beach].” The spot rate variance between the two coasts is capacity-driven, Nothdurft said. “It’s a bit of an indication that the so-called ‘normal’ differential of $1,000 is all really based on supply and demand,” he said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8c13a3e-9f5a-412f-8741-adbf5e1a7779"></dynamic-object></div>A carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce that carriers have been “way too aggressive” in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-bring-in-more-trans-pacific-container-services-amid-rate-surge-6012725">adding capacity to the West Coast</a>, especially Southern California. Vessels leaving Asia for Los Angeles-Long Beach have been “half-full,” driving spot rates lower, the executive said. He added that despite what the indexes say, the spot rates that are actually moving cargo today to the Southern California gateway are $4,000 to $5,000 per FEU. <h3>East Coast volumes to build, then taper quickly </h3>A second carrier executive expects volumes will build to the East Coast in the coming weeks because retailers there must ship their holiday merchandise soon in order to have goods on the store shelves for the Black Friday sales on the day after Thanksgiving. “The volumes are going to be there,” the source said, adding carriers in the coming weeks are likely to add capacity to key East Coast gateways such as New York-New Jersey and Savannah. Despite the uncertainty over tariffs that is likely to continue into July for most Asian countries and into August for China, retailers importing through East Coast ports have to finalize their year-end holiday orders with factories in Asia and ship the merchandise soon, said Kevin Parkerson, an industry consultant and former logistics manager at national retailers. “For the East Coast, the deadline is early August,” Parkerson said. Forwarders say that with the extensive frontloading of product that has already taken place, it is likely the increased imports through the East Coast will taper off by late July. “Time will tell, but I’m not 100% confident in the East Coast extending its imports for very long,” said Jason Cook, CEO of Ardent Global Logistics. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Spot ocean rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific are diverging sharply this week, with prices to the US West Coast softening amid a fresh capacity injection and the East Coast market still showing strength. Rates to the West Coast were $5,700 per FEU as of June 9, down 6% on the week, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. East Coast rates, meanwhile, were up 4% at $7,400 per FEU. The $1,700 spread between the coasts is the widest variance since late January and comes as ocean carriers have moved capacity to Asia-West Coast routes to take advantage of what had been a sharp jump in demand and rates following the 90-day pause announced May 12 by the Trump administration on higher tariffs against China. “The rates for cargo coming into the Pacific Southwest are going down, but pricing to the US East Coast is actually going up,” Stephen A. Nothdurft, vice president of sales for North America at the forwarder MOL Consolidation Services, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s due to all of these extra-loaders and services returning into rotation [to Los Angeles-Long Beach].” The spot rate variance between the two coasts is capacity-driven, Nothdurft said. “It’s a bit of an indication that the so-called ‘normal’ differential of $1,000 is all really based on supply and demand,” he said. A carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce that carriers have been “way too aggressive” in adding capacity to the West Coast , especially Southern California. Vessels leaving Asia for Los Angeles-Long Beach have been “half-full,” driving spot rates lower, the executive said. He added that despite what the indexes say, the spot rates that are actually moving cargo today to the Southern California gateway are $4,000 to $5,000 per FEU. East Coast volumes to build, then taper quickly A second carrier executive expects volumes will build to the East Coast in the coming weeks because retailers there must ship their holiday merchandise soon in order to have goods on the store shelves for the Black Friday sales on the day after Thanksgiving. “The volumes are going to be there,” the source said, adding carriers in the coming weeks are likely to add capacity to key East Coast gateways such as New York-New Jersey and Savannah. Despite the uncertainty over tariffs that is likely to continue into July for most Asian countries and into August for China, retailers importing through East Coast ports have to finalize their year-end holiday orders with factories in Asia and ship the merchandise soon, said Kevin Parkerson, an industry consultant and former logistics manager at national retailers. “For the East Coast, the deadline is early August,” Parkerson said. Forwarders say that with the extensive frontloading of product that has already taken place, it is likely the increased imports through the East Coast will taper off by late July. “Time will tell, but I’m not 100% confident in the East Coast extending its imports for very long,” said Jason Cook, CEO of Ardent Global Logistics. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

North American ports

Asia-USWC spot rates weakening as vessel overcapacity takes hold

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The railroad said the higher fees, which are temporary, are meant to keep terminals fluid amid the higher volume of imports expected to land in the US over the coming weeks.</div>

The railroad said the higher fees, which are temporary, are meant to keep terminals fluid amid the higher volume of imports expected to land in the US over the coming weeks.

<div class="phx-topic">Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) will temporarily increase storage fees on cargo owners who do not retrieve their containers promptly, a measure the railroad says is intended to preserve terminal fluidity amid an expected surge in freight volume. The higher storage fees, a form of demurrage, will apply to ocean containers available for pickup beginning July 7. NS said the storage fees will be rolled back to current levels once port activity slows down. Domestic intermodal loads are not affected. Under the fee structure, ocean containers left more than two days beyond the free-time window will incur daily penalties of $200 per day, double the standard $100 rate. The fee rises to $300 after six days, up from the usual $200. An importer that leaves a container at an NS terminal for seven days beyond the free-time allowance would pay $1,500 per box, compared with $900 under the standard storage scale. The free-time window won’t change. In major terminals, the shipper has the day of notification plus an additional 24 hours to get the container out without penalties. If NS notifies the shipper after 5 p.m. local time, the next calendar day is treated as the start of the free-time period. <h3>‘Well-positioned’ to handle volume surge </h3>Meanwhile, NS’ intermodal network has been steady so far this year. The railroad’s intermodal traffic, both international and domestic containers, was up 3.5% through the end of May compared with the first five months of last year, according to data from the Association of American Railroads. “If we have any kind of surge that folks have been talking about, we’re well-positioned to handle it,” Jason Zampi, NS’ CFO, said Tuesday at a Wells Fargo investors conference. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="46372146-c5b4-4ec6-b12b-784cbc5611a9"></dynamic-object></div>NS’ Intermodal Service Z-score, as measured by the Journal of Commerce, has hovered near zero, indicating service levels remain close to long-term norms dating back to 2017. The metric compares intermodal train speeds, intermodal trains holding, and loaded intermodal railcars idling for more than 48 hours each week with the railroad’s own historical averages, as reported to the US Surface Transportation Board. Intermodal train speeds have been faster than the long-term average in 12 of the first 22 weeks, while the number of loaded intermodal railcars sitting idle for more than 48 hours was evenly split — 11 weeks above average, 11 below. NS in January introduced a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/norfolk-southern-launches-appointment-system-at-landers-terminal-5934009">mandatory appointment system</a> at its Landers terminal in Chicago for retrieving ocean containers from terminal stacks. The new system may face its most significant test yet in the coming weeks. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) will temporarily increase storage fees on cargo owners who do not retrieve their containers promptly, a measure the railroad says is intended to preserve terminal fluidity amid an expected surge in freight volume. The higher storage fees, a form of demurrage, will apply to ocean containers available for pickup beginning July 7. NS said the storage fees will be rolled back to current levels once port activity slows down. Domestic intermodal loads are not affected. Under the fee structure, ocean containers left more than two days beyond the free-time window will incur daily penalties of $200 per day, double the standard $100 rate. The fee rises to $300 after six days, up from the usual $200. An importer that leaves a container at an NS terminal for seven days beyond the free-time allowance would pay $1,500 per box, compared with $900 under the standard storage scale. The free-time window won’t change. In major terminals, the shipper has the day of notification plus an additional 24 hours to get the container out without penalties. If NS notifies the shipper after 5 p.m. local time, the next calendar day is treated as the start of the free-time period. ‘Well-positioned’ to handle volume surge Meanwhile, NS’ intermodal network has been steady so far this year. The railroad’s intermodal traffic, both international and domestic containers, was up 3.5% through the end of May compared with the first five months of last year, according to data from the Association of American Railroads. “If we have any kind of surge that folks have been talking about, we’re well-positioned to handle it,” Jason Zampi, NS’ CFO, said Tuesday at a Wells Fargo investors conference. NS’ Intermodal Service Z-score, as measured by the Journal of Commerce, has hovered near zero, indicating service levels remain close to long-term norms dating back to 2017. The metric compares intermodal train speeds, intermodal trains holding, and loaded intermodal railcars idling for more than 48 hours each week with the railroad’s own historical averages, as reported to the US Surface Transportation Board. Intermodal train speeds have been faster than the long-term average in 12 of the first 22 weeks, while the number of loaded intermodal railcars sitting idle for more than 48 hours was evenly split — 11 weeks above average, 11 below. NS in January introduced a mandatory appointment system at its Landers terminal in Chicago for retrieving ocean containers from terminal stacks. The new system may face its most significant test yet in the coming weeks. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Intermodal providers

North-American rail

Norfolk Southern will raise container storage fees ahead of expected surge

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE ON TPM26

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE ON TPM26: Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

Discover the news and analysis of supply chain strategies, sourcing and trends covered by the Journal of Commerce. Comprehensive coverage includes customs, trade news, transport news and the latest information about trade regulations.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

Logistics Technology News

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

Gateway

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

More News & Analysis

Panama Canal mulls developing Corozal to allay neutrality fears over Hutchison deal

Carriers ride wave of ‘disruptive’ operating model, but for how long?

Targeted takeovers drive M&A activity among smaller global forwarders