2010 February |

January Trade Data: A Sluggish Recovery?

Josh Green | February 10, 2010

The word from the Panjiva research team: global trade activity declined in January.  Specifically, there was a 5% decrease in the number of global manufacturers shipping to the U.S. market, as well as a 7% decrease in the number of U.S. companies receiving waterborne shipments from global manufacturers.

Panjiva January 2010 Trade Data

The decline in manufacturers from December to January is slightly less than last year’s December-to-January decline (6%), but more than the decline from December 2007 to January 2008 (-4%).  Global trade appears to be tracking its typical seasonal path, though absolute level of global trade activity is still well below where we were before the 2009 recession.

Clearly, global trade is still vulnerable to shocks, but the news is not all negative.  A couple of positive items from our team’s latest analysis:

  • The percentage of significant manufacturers on the Panjiva Watch List declined slightly from 23% to 22%.
  • Similarly, the percentage of significant buyers having done business with a Panjiva Watch List supplier in the preceding three months declined from 33% to 31%.

Methodological notes for the data junkies:

  • Manufacturers that have suffered a 50% or greater decline in volume shipped to American customers in the most recent three month period, versus the same period a year ago, are on the Panjiva Watch List.
  • “Significant manufacturers” are companies that have sent 10 or more shipments to American customers within the last year.  As of the end of January, there were 87,396 significant manufacturers.
  • “Significant buyers” are U.S. companies that have received 10 or more shipments from overseas manufacturers within the last year.  As of the end of January, there were 75,307 significant buyers.

Panjiva Predicts: Saints 24 – Colts 3 (#SB44)

Josh Green | February 6, 2010

Can Panjiva Trends give us a sense of who will win Super Bowl 44?  Not a chance.

But, just for fun, we took a look at shipments that included the word “Saints” and shipments that included the word “Colts.”  In December, there were 24 “Saints” shipments and 3 “Colts” shipments.

Powered by Panjiva Trends

Powered by Panjiva Trends

A Skeptic’s View of the Wal-Mart / Li & Fung Deal

Josh Green | February 4, 2010

Earlier this week, Apparel Magazine featured our thoughts on the recently announced Wal-Mart / Li & Fung deal.  I’m reprinting the piece below, with Apparel Magazine’s permission.  Would love to hear your perspective.  josh@panjiva.com

A Skeptic’s View of the Wal-Mart/Li & Fung Deal

There’s a lot of praise for both Wal-Mart and Li & Fung in the wake of Thursday’s announcement that the two inked a sourcing deal worth up to $2 billion annually. Indeed Li & Fung should be congratulated for expanding a relationship with a huge client. And Wal-Mart deserves high marks for identifying a low-risk way to test a new approach to global sourcing, at a time when new approaches are clearly needed. But is this deal actually going to create significant value? I’m a skeptic.

Problem #1: Li & Fung’s lack of scale advantage

Typically, the best argument for working with Li & Fung is the sourcing giant’s ability to reduce your cost base. Think you have leverage over your suppliers? Chances are that Li & Fung has more, because Li & Fung is bigger than you. Unless, of course, you’re Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is world famous for getting the world’s best prices from its suppliers — no surprise, given its unrivaled scale. Can Li & Fung really get better prices than Wal-Mart can? Unless the answer to this question is yes, Li & Fung will be hard-pressed to reduce Wal-Mart’s overall cost base. Specifically, Li & Fung will have to find a way to run the sourcing process more efficiently than Wal-Mart, which is of course legendary for its efficiency.

Problem #2: Wal-Mart’s focus on transparency

Earlier this year, Wal-Mart announced an ambitious initiative to promote environmentally sustainable practices in its supply chain. In time, Wal-Mart will provide more transparency to consumers about the environmental impact of their purchases. To do this, Wal-Mart will require more transparency from its suppliers about the environmental impact of their operations. However, it’s unlikely that more transparency will be the result of the Li & Fung deal — which will create a layer of separation between Wal-Mart and many of its suppliers. Unless Li & Fung can take steps to ensure that the flow of information to Wal-Mart grows, rather than shrinks, as a result of this deal, Wal-Mart’s efforts to promote transparency will be frustrated.

Problem #3: Technology culture clash

For years, Wal-Mart has been aggressive in using technology to build and sustain competitive advantage. Just as Wal-Mart’s scale exceeds that of Li & Fung, Wal-Mart’s embrace of technology almost certainly exceeds that of Li & Fung. (To be fair to Li & Fung, Wal-Mart’s embrace of technology likely exceeds that of every would-be partner.) Can these two companies with different approaches to technology find a way to work together seamlessly? We’re about to find out.

* * *

For Li & Fung, this deal is the latest in a series of a high profile successes. Over the last several years, Li & Fung has convinced a variety of big name companies to hand over significant aspects of their sourcing operations.

Not surprisingly then, there are those who argue that the Li & Fung model is the future of global trade. Given Li & Fung’s scale and expertise, why won’t more and more companies trust their sourcing to Li & Fung? Meanwhile, there are others who argue that the Li & Fung model will be unsustainable as buyers and suppliers increasingly insist on direct interaction. Who’s right? Interestingly, the outcome of Wal-Mart’s experiment with Li & Fung may point us to the answer.

Therefore the stakes of this experiment are quite high for Li & Fung. My advice to Li & Fung (a company that’s done quite well for 100 years without the benefit of my advice)? Take advantage of your expanded relationship with Wal-Mart to cultivate new assets: specifically, a bias toward transparency and an enhanced commitment to technology. Otherwise, I suspect you’ll prove skeptics like me right.

What about the stakes for Wal-Mart? Well, even at $2 billion, the sourcing deal with Li & Fung represents only about 2% of Wal-Mart’s private label business. Therefore, the stakes for Wal-Mart are relatively low. Meanwhile, if the experiment goes well, Wal-Mart has the option to buy the operations that Li & Fung is building. Bottom line: whether or not this deal with a key supplier ultimately creates value, Wal-Mart will be in good shape. Is anyone surprised?

Josh Green is co-founder and CEO of Panjiva, an intelligence platform for sourcing executives.