Tuesday, July 11, 2017

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT DATA ANALYTICS

Getting actionable insights from SCM data analytics requires supply chain domain expertise.




SHIPPING CONTAINERS LOST AT SEA

Containers Lost At Sea – 2017 Update


In 2016, the international liner shipping industry transported approximately 130 million containers packed with cargo, with an estimated value of more than $4 trillion.  Proper packing, stowage and securing of containers and reporting of correct weight is very important to the safety of a container ship, its crew and its cargo, to shore-based workers and equipment, and to the environment.  However, even with proper packing of the cargo into the container, correct container weight declaration, and proper stowage and securing aboard ship, a number of factors ranging from severe weather and rough seas to more catastrophic and rare events like ship groundings, structural failures, and collisions can result in containers being lost at sea. 

 In the past, obtaining an accurate assessment of how many containers actually are lost at sea was a highly speculative process.  For many years, there were widely circulated, but unsupported and grossly inaccurate claims that the industry might lose as many as 10,000 containers a year at sea.   

Ocean carriers operating the containerships, which the World Shipping Council (WSC) represents, remain the best sources for accurate information on this subject. 1  Therefore, in an effort to provide greater clarity and a more accurate assessment of the number of containers lost at sea on an annual basis, WSC undertook the first survey of its member companies in 2011, with updates in 2014 and 2017, and has published the results to make the information readily available to all interested parties.   
                                                         
 1  The WSC’s member companies operate 80 percent of the global containership capacity; thus, a survey of their losses should provide a valid estimate of the number of containers lost at sea.  More information about WSC and the liner shipping industry can be obtained at: www.worldshipping.org

© 2017 World Shipping Council.         All rights reserved.                     Containers Lost at Sea 2017 Update        Page 2

Methodology of the Surveys

In each of the surveys conducted in 2011, 2014 and 2017, the WSC member companies were asked to report the number of containers lost overboard for the preceding three years.  For the 2017 report, all WSC member companies responded and together, they represent 80% of the total global vessel container capacity. WSC assumes for the purpose of its analysis that the container losses for the 20% of the industry’s capacity that is operated by carriers that did not participate in the survey would be roughly the same as those of the 80% of the industry that responded. 

   The total annual figure reported by WSC members is adjusted upward to provide an estimated loss figure for all carriers, both WSC members and non-members, and arrive at a total industry figure.  As expected, some carriers lost no containers during the period, while others noted a catastrophic loss, which for the purposes of this analysis is defined as a loss overboard of 50 or more containers in a single incident.  Catastrophic losses are rare, but the total number of containers lost in such events represents more than half of all containers lost. 

 Based on the 2011 survey results, the World Shipping Council estimated that on average there were approximately 350 containers lost at sea each year during the 2008-2010 time frame, not counting catastrophic events.  When one counted the catastrophic losses, an average annual total loss per year of approximately 675 containers was estimated for this three year period.   

 In the 2014 survey, WSC received reports from carriers on losses during 2011, 2012 and 2013.  From those results, WSC estimated that there were approximately 733 containers lost at sea on average for each of these three years, not counting catastrophic events.  When one includes catastrophic losses (as defined above) during these years, the average annual loss for the period was approximately 2,683 containers. 

This larger number in 2014 is due primarily to two factors: the complete loss in 2013 of the MOL Comfort in the Indian Ocean and all of the 4,293 containers on board – which remains the worst containership loss in history; and, in 2011, the grounding and loss of the M/V Rena off New Zealand, which resulted in a loss overboard of roughly 900 containers. Both of these incidents involved complete and total vessel losses. 

The most recent 2017 survey gathered input for 2014, 2015 and 2016.  All WSC member companies responded, and additional information was made available on certain non-member catastrophic events.  For each of the three years surveyed, the average number of containers lost at sea excluding catastrophic events was 612, which is about 16% less than the average of 733 units lost each year for the previous three year period.  When catastrophic losses are included, the total containers lost at sea averaged 1,390 with 56% of those lost being attributed to catastrophic events.  This is a 48% reduction from the average annual total losses of 2,683 estimated in 2014.   
© 2017 World Shipping Council.         All rights reserved.                     Containers Lost at Sea 2017 Update        Page 3





Analysis of the Nine Year Trends 

 


Upon review of the results of the nine year period (2008-2016) surveyed, the WSC estimates that there were on average 568 containers lost at sea each year, not counting catastrophic events, and on average a total of 1,582 containers lost at sea each year including catastrophic events.  On average, 64% of containers lost during the last decade were attributed to a catastrophic event.  

The data consistently demonstrates that container losses in any particular year can vary quite substantially based on differences in weather and other unusual events.  The data also consistently shows that the majority of containers lost at sea result from catastrophic events.  For example, in 2013, there was a total loss of 5,578 containers – 77% of which occurred with the sinking of the MOL Comfort in the Indian Ocean.  The tragic total loss of vessel El Faro occurred two years later in 2015.   All containers on the El Faro were lost and this event alone accounted for almost 43% of the total containers lost into the sea in 2015. 


 
© 2017 World Shipping Council.         All rights reserved.                     Containers Lost at Sea 2017 Update        Page 4



Active Safety Improvement Initiatives

While containers lost overboard represent about one thousandth of 1% of the roughly 130 million container loads shipped each year, the industry has been actively supporting a number of efforts to enhance container safety that should help reduce the number of containers lost at sea, including:  

• Amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention:  In November 2014, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted changes to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention requiring verification of container weights before packed containers may be loaded aboard ships.   This is an effort WSC advocated in support of for many years. The requirement making container weight verification a condition for vessel loading became legally binding internationally on July 1, 2016.  Misdeclared container weights have contributed to the loss of containers at sea, as well as to other safety and operational problems. For more information about this issue, visit: http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/cargo-weight 

• Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU):   The IMO, the International Labour Organization (ILO), and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), with industry support,  have produced a code of practice for the packing of CTU, including containers, outlining specific procedures and techniques to improve safety, such as how  to ensure correct distribution of the weight inside the container, proper positioning,  blocking and bracing according to the type of cargo, and other safety considerations. The code was approved in 2014.  For more information about this and other initiatives related to the improved safety of handling containers, visit: http://www.worldshipping.org/industryissues/safety/containers 

• Revised ISO standards for container lashing equipment and corner castings:  In support of the IMO’s efforts to enhance container safety, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), with the industry’s active participation, has revised its standards regarding lashing equipment and corner castings.  For more information about this issue visit: http://www.worldshipping.org/industryissues/safety/containers 

At any point in time, there are about 6,000 containerships active on the world’s seas and waterways linking continents and communities through trade.  The container shipping industry’s goal remains to keep the loss of containers carried on those ships as close to zero as possible.  Carriers will continue to explore and implement preventative and realistic measures to achieve that goal.  

Monday, July 10, 2017

LOGISTICS PROVIDERS -- WEAK ECONOMY VS CYBER ATTACKS

Analysis: a weak economy more of a threat to logistics than cyber attacks

maersk © Mohamed El Khamisy
© Mohamed El Khamisy
“Maersk ransomware attack may hit ‘tens of thousands’ of shippers”, ran The Loadstar headline at the end of last month, when Lars Jensen, chief executive of SeaIntelligence Consulting and CyberKeel, noted such an attack had the potential to throw global container supply chains into chaos.
Source: The New York Times
How big a threat is this, potentially? The full impact on the entire supply chain remains hard to quantify.
However, even though market reaction has been mixed so far, many observers seem to agree the alignment of IT solutions to shippers’ evolving needs should speed up in a fast-changing environment, where legacy systems should be abandoned.
“Cyber security woes are the tip of the iceberg for shippers, their suppliers and their clients,” the London-based advisor of a consumer staples company with worldwide exposure told me this week. He thought “blockchain could be the ultimate solution, but we are not there yet as it needs acceptance, trust and new investment”.
The next big thing
As far as blockchain is concerned, Goldman Sachs, one of its main backers, argues that it is the next big thing in the IT world; one reason being that if there’s any attempt to alter the ecosystem, “a previously created block, the hash that’s encoded in the next block won’t match up anymore. This mismatch will continue through all subsequent blocks denoting an alteration in the chain”.
Source: Goldman Sachs
In case you missed it, the ledger-style system debate continues to draw the attention of the main players in our industry; digitisation, as we argued earlier this week, could bring a new era for shipping, although only “the fittest” will survive.
But does it also mask bigger issues in supply chain activities and in the real economy?
Reaction
On 6 July the chief executive of Freightos, Zvi Schreiber, noted that, following last week’s cyber attack on Maersk, “it’s far from surprising that Maersk bookings on the Freightos AcceleRate platform dropped by about 35%”.
He added: “But despite disruptions at the world’s largest carrier, freight prices in the last week of June barely budged.”
With the shipping world in a flux, it is easy to conclude that many shippers might end up being seriously troubled – particularly the smaller ones.
Consumer behemoths as well as other producers are unlikely to feel the pinch over the long term, given their economic moats and advanced tech capabilities, and Maersk itself will unlikely be harmed meaningfully over the short term.
“The shutdown could cost over $50m in lost cargo bookings for Maersk, as some cargo was diverted to other carriers during the past week,” Alphaliner estimated.
After all, cyber attack victims Maersk and FedEx’s TNT Express managed to find ways to keep customers’ cargo moving, and the data I sighted indicates the damage for other shippers is contained. Moreover, the latest financial plans of some of the major players testify to a situation that needs to be addressed, but remains mostly manageable.
That also is what the public markets have pointed to over the last few days – news of the Maersk hack passed almost unnoticed by investors and its rally continued unabated on the stock exchange.
Finance
By pure coincidence, just a few hours after the cyber attack became public, Switzerland’s Nestlé – which ranks seventh among global supply chain operators, according to Gartner’s league tables (2017 Supply Chain Top 25) – announced its intention to splash out up to almost $21bn to buy back its own stock over the next three years, which equates to almost 10% of its current market cap.
Source: Gartner
This is not small change, and I seriously doubt Nestlé and other major shippers will amend their capital allocation plans in the wake of the Petya attack, although it confirms where rising earnings per share will come from – lower share count and efficiency measures – at a critical economic juncture for most consumer staples companies as well as others. Certain trailing trends since 2008 were confirmed this week by Microsoft’s latest announcement.
Analysts at Royal Bank of Canada told investors on 6 July that Nestlé’s new chief executive “Mark Schneider’s influence is becoming apparent on several fronts”, and “following years of narrowing sales outperformance versus the sector, he has spelt out Nestlé’s management’s desire to invest in growth”.
The broker added: “At the same time, increased restructuring spend suggests that Nestlé’s getting serious about cost reduction.” After 2017, when the analysts forecast flat ebit margins in line with guidance, while they assume a steady growth rate for core margins, “with 140 basis points to come by 2020”.
However, this is a modest growth trajectory, RBC added, compared with Unilever – the Anglo-Dutch company leads Gartner’s rankings and announced a €5bn buyback in May – and France’s Danone, “whose guidance implies over 300 and 200 basis points of margin growth respectively over the same period”, according to RBC analysts.
The broker remains cautious on the sector: changing consumer habits might have something to do with that but possibly, I speculate, relatively high trading multiples and the risk posed to consumer staples stocks by rising interest rates in the US, rather than weakening fundamentals, also play a part.
The free cash flow yield of most of the shippers I cover regularly – and most find themselves on Gartner’s top 25 list – have suffered only minor financial damage, but certain developments deserve a mention.
For example, Reckitt Benckiser, which ranks outside the top 25 supply chain providers based on Gartner’s league tables, issued a statement on 6 July essentially saying the situation was under control, yet some £800m in equity value were wiped off its market cap.
Source: Reckitt
Elsewhere in the retail sector, Associated British Foods this week reported quarterly results in which the performance of Primark stood out as sales beat consensus estimates, while margins held up. Its shares jumped in the wake of the trading update, but elsewhere some structural problems persist.
The big issue
“The consumer and retail industries are the most exposed to digital changes,” an air cargo operator told me this week, “but then supply chain risk is not only about the tech transformation and latest news on Petya.
“It’s about delivery, [and] several carriers under-delivering, as well as infrastructure adequacy, work ethic and human resources.
“For example, I doubt a shipper like Avon was particularly pleased recently with the performance of its carrier, Silk Way, which manages and transports its goods. It’s been messy for some time at least in Europe, and we are also partly to blame for a shortage of skilled workers.”
Avon’s performance (Source: MarketWatch)
“I can tell you, we, who have to get the Avon-labelled stuff off the Silk Way plane, have many other basic issues to sort out other than cyber security – from documentation, flights timetable, customs clearance and a slew of other problems that would drive mad even the most balanced human being.”
Earlier in May, Thomson Reuters reported that Avon was hit by a surprise quarterly loss as it “found fewer takers for its beauty products amid intense competition and economic slowdown in its key markets”.
“The real economy could end up being a much bigger problem than cyber attacks,” my source concluded.

LAST MILE DELIVERY

Manufacturers and retailers obsessed with last mile are looking at logistics costs, not supply chain performance. And the results show.




LEAN STRUGGLE

Lean sometimes struggles because of a cult like obsession to Japanese terms instead of the realities of today's global business world.




MANUFACTURERS, OMNICHANNEL, SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Manufacturing executives ponder if they need to transform their supply chains for omnichannel.




LOGISTICS BRANDING AND DIFFERENTIATION

Branding and differentiation are challenges for logistics service providers in a commoditized industry.








Sunday, July 9, 2017

CHINA-EUROPE RAIL SERVICE DEMAND GROWS

More shippers toast China-Europe rail services as demand grows in new sectors


kazkh rail © Meiram Nurtazin 78039757
© Meiram Nurtazin
While demand for and supply of China-Europe rail services is growing fast, there remain several challenges to transporting some commodities safely.
JF Hillebrand, the drinks specialist forwarder, today announced the results of its attempts to ship wine along the route.
Together with Groupe InterRail, it conducted a test shipment of French wine from Duisburg to Yiwu. The container was exposed to temperatures of between -2°C and +58°C, with big fluctuations in humidity.
However, JF Hillebrand had lined the container with VinLiner, its protective foil system, which limited the wine’s exposure to temperatures of  9°-32°C : better, but still significant.
Meanwhile, its data loggers noted a lot of container movement, particularly in Kazakhstan and China, possibly the result of uneven rail tracks. The company said: “It reached a maximum of 2G, the equivalent of a rollercoaster, which means potential damage to the bottles inside the container if left without suitable protection. During this test no damage to the bottles or packaging was observed.”
The wine forwarder concluded: “There is still much to be done and to look forward to. Rail tracks can be improved to ensure smoother shipments…[there will be] an increased reefer availability on more routes.
“Consolidations should soon be an option allowing smaller shipments by rail. Chemical trend research should reveal the difference (if there is any) between the wine at departure and the wine at arrival, but also the difference between wine shipped by rail and wine shipped by sea freight.”
JF Hillebrand and InterRail have scheduled another test this month, to move spirits. It said: “One thing is clear though, shipping with dry containers is not an option; beer and wine will need to be shipped with reefer containers or insulated with VinLiner.”
While some perishables are now going overland, the majority of goods so far have been electrical and building supplies. Hewlett-Packard was one of the first companies to take to the route and was still accounting for some 30-40% of volumes earlier this year.
Carmakers have also tested services and, last month, Volvo became the first to export China-made cars to Europe by train. The first S90 premium saloon cars, built at Volvo’s new Daqing plant in China, arrived at a distribution centre in Zeebrugge, in June.
The growing attraction of the route has sparked concerns from Europol that the route will be used by counterfeiters, looking for faster supply chains. A report released last week said it was “logical” that illicit shipments would find their way on to the service.
“As rail freight services between the EU and China become more numerous and efficient, and China develops its Belt and Road transport infrastructure, which are planned for the coming years, it is thought likely that increasing numbers of IPR (intellectual property rights)-infringing consignments may arrive at the eastern EU external borders by train; from where, if they are not intercepted, they could then travel throughout Europe.”
Volumes on the route are growing apace and services are expected to nearly triple by 2020, when some 5,000 trains a year, or 96 a week, will easily surpass last year’s 35 a week.
While the rail service is expected to take volumes from both sea and air, there have also been some concerns over security on the route. As a result, insurer the TT Club is looking to offer protection from liability exposures. It has drawn up “robust trading conditions” for multimodal transits, it said last week.
“These conditions aim to offer a contractual framework to meet the requirements of the ever-growing trade flowing from the ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative,” it said in a statement.
“The rail consignment note is a bilingual document in English and Mandarin, addressing these requirements of moving freight across two continents and through multiple jurisdictions, where a number of legal regimes may be in force. The contractual terms … of the rail consignment note regulate the operator’s liability during the transit.”
It drew up the terms following a request from a member in Hong Kong, it added.
Forwarders, meanwhile, are increasingly investing in China-Europe rail. Kerry Logistics, which claims to be the first Asian 3PL to offer backhaul services, has been particularly active. Yesterday it announced it had bought 50% of Lanzhou Pacific Logistics (LPL), and will form a joint-venture with LPL’s other shareholder, China Railway Container Transport Company.
LPL has a nationwide rail freight network covering more than 100 cities. It provides container freight stations and domestic logistics services, for clients shipping chemicals, auto parts, agriculture and building materials industries.
Last week, Kerry announced that it had launched a weekly LCL service between Duisberg and Shanghai. CEVA Logistics has also announced a new service, linking Shilong in Guangdong to Hamburg, in a 17-19 day trip. CEVA operates both FCL and LCL services out of China.

AMAZON'S DELIVERY PROBLEMS IN JAPAN

Amazon Japan challenged by glitches in delivery services

Online retailer could face blowback if logistics partners falter

Better late than never.
TOKYO -- Amazon Japan admitted Wednesday that some products bought online are arriving late to customers and in some cases not at all.
The problem involves only a tiny fraction of the total volume, but Amazon's delivery services, famed for reliability, are being tarnished on Twitter and elsewhere, where customers have complained of goods not arriving on the promised date and of not getting contacted for redelivery.
An Amazon Japan representative said the company has a handle on the problem and is working with its delivery partners to maintain the level of service. But some of its partners have trouble delivering parcels on the promised days, so if the delays continue and dissatisfaction spreads, Amazon Japan will need to take added measures.
Besides logistics giants like Yamato Transport, Amazon Japan also works with smaller companies called delivery providers in certain zones, and it appears these contractors are having the trouble with late deliveries.
Yamato Transport, the Yamato Holdings unit that handles the bulk of Amazon deliveries, is no longer willing to offer same-day delivery, and in some regions it has also narrowed the hours when it will make home deliveries.
Amazon Japan has responded by partnering with other companies so it can maintain its level of service. The delivery sector acknowledges, however, that there is a huge difference in quality between Yamato and these alternatives.
In Japan, parcels must be delivered to a person at home and cannot be dropped at the door.
"It does not matter how fast you deliver the parcel if no one is there to receive it," noted an executive of one online retailer. The company has accepted Yamato's decision to narrow the delivery window, believing it more important to make certain that packages arrive to its customers than partner with some other agent with a larger time window.
(Nikkei)

AMAZON PATENTS UNDERWATER STORAGE

Amazon patent underwater storage concept

By Chris Dawson July 3, 2017 - 12:40 pm
Amazon are on a bit of a roll with their patents at the moment and have just got a real doodie… they’ve patented the act of taking your FBA items (and their own retail stock), popping it into a waterproof container and dumping it in the nearest pond.
The thinking is that warehousing facilities are very expensive and Amazon are building them as rapidly as they can. Not only are the premises expensive but they come with business rates so what makes more sense than to dump your stock in the nearest reservoir?
The patent is quite far reaching and describes how each container would have an inflatable bladder which can be activated by sonar. Not only can a container be surfaced, but Amazon propose partial buoyancy to enable them to stage stock at different depths – roughly equivalent to having different floors in a conventional warehouse. The patent suggests that Amazon will forecast daily demand for any particular product and load a day’s supply at a time into the containers so that they’re delivered to the packaging line to meet demand.
“Upon receiving an order for the item, the depth control device may be configured to cause the density of the container to fall below the density of the liquid, e.g., by increasing a volume and/or decreasing a mass of the depth control device, thereby causing the item or the container to naturally rise to a surface or upper portion of the body of liquid, from which the item or the container and the device may be retrieved. Additionally, while an item or a container may be vertically positioned by varying a net density of the item or the container within a body of liquid, e.g., using a depth control device, the item or the container may be horizontally positioned by subjecting the item or the container to natural or artificial current flows in one or more directions, with such flows being initiated or halted by natural or artificial means.”
– Amazon ‘Aquatic storage facilities’ Patent
Don’t think that this is limited to a warehouse with a swimming pool next to it, Amazon also describe “a storage pool, a basin or another natural or artificial facility“. A natural lake could be used with parcels parachuted in from planes and then the retrieval involve the parcel floating down a river to the packing facility. It’s more likely that dumper trucks would simply tip the containers into a reservoir, and water jets would ‘stir’ the parcels to ensure that the required box wasn’t buried irretrievably beneath a stack of heavy items.
It’s an interesting concept but as with all Amazon patents very far fetched and the question has to be asked “Are Amazon serious or have they simply patented the concept to stop others using the idea?”.

COSCO BUYS OOCL

China’s Cosco Takes Majority Stake in Orient Overseas

Deal for $6.3 billion creates the world’s third-biggest container carrier


Orient Overseas (International) Ltd., which owns Orient Overseas Container Line, will retain its listing status and branding after the transaction.
Orient Overseas (International) Ltd., which owns Orient Overseas Container Line, will retain its listing status and branding after the transaction. Photo: European Pressphoto Agency
Cosco Shipping Holdings Co. has agreed to buy a majority stake in smaller rival Orient Overseas (International) Ltd. 0316 5.08% in a deal worth $6.3 billion, as the world’s shipping industry continues to consolidate amid a competitive operating environment.
The takeover deal confirmed an earlier Wall Street Journal report that the Chinese shipping giant was nearing a plan to buy the Hong Kong-based container shipping operator, which is controlled by the family of the city’s former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa.
Cosco has joined with the nation’s major port operator Shanghai International Port (Group) Co. to buy a combined 68.7% stake from Orient Overseas’ controlling shareholder the Tung family, the companies said Sunday in a joint statement.
The offer price of HK$78.67 per share ($10.07), represents a 31% premium over Orient Overseas’ Friday closing price of HK$60Friday. Orient Overseas’ controlling shareholder has signed an irrevocable undertaking to accept the offer, it noted.
The Chinese shipping group will be the world’s third-biggest container carrier after Denmark’s Maersk Line and Switzerland-based Mediterranean Shipping Co.
Cosco Shipping also said it offered to buy the remaining shares from Orient Overseas’ minority shareholders at the same offer price, though it plans to keep Orient Overseas’ listing status and branding after the transaction.
Shanghai International Port will own a 9.9% stake after the deal, which would require relevant approvals from regulators.
Individual container shipping players are struggling to stay profitable despite the industry’s $1 trillion a year revenues. Both Cosco and Orient Overseas posted losses last year.
After South Korea’s Hanjin Shipping Co. went bust last year, a wave of consolidation flooded the industry creating three global alliances. Cosco and Orient Overseas are members of the same alliance.
Upon completion of the offer, the combined Cosco Shipping Lines and Orient Overseas will have more than 400 ships and capacity exceeding 2.9 million twenty-foot equivalent unit container boxes, the joint statement said. Cosco Shipping said it believes the acquisition will enable both companies to realize synergies, enhance profitability and achieve sustainable growth in the long term.

Thursday, July 6, 2017

MANUFACTURERS, RETAILERS, AND TOTAL INVENTORIES

Blind as a bat. How many manufacturers and retailers are with knowing total inventories in their supply chains.




LOGISTICS OR SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT?


Does logistics make a good supply chain, or does the supply chain make good logistics?




SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT LEADERS OR LAGGARDS

Supply chain management for manufacturers and retailers has  transformed from where you are to where you will be.  Leaders vs Laggards. SCM




Wednesday, July 5, 2017

FREIGHT FORWARDERS AND LEAN

Logistics forwarders need to do lean assessment, identify waste, and implement change. And Value Stream Mapping.




Monday, July 3, 2017

INVESTORS LOOKING AT LOGISTICS AND SUPPLY CHAINS, NOT RETAIL

U.S. fund managers seek consumer stocks that Amazon can't conquer



left
right
FILE PHOTO: An Amazon.com Inc driver stands next to an Amazon delivery truck in Los Angeles, California, U.S. on May 21, 2016. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson/File Photo
1/2
By David Randall | NEW YORK
NEW YORK Amazon.com Inc's (AMZN.O) game-changing move to upend the grocery business with a surprise deal to buy Whole Foods Market Inc (WFM.O) compounds a problem already vexing fund managers: how to play U.S. consumer spending when the Seattle-based e-commerce giant is threatening to take over retail.Amazon's relentless growth and destruction of value among traditional retail rivals is forcing active fund managers to look for bets in areas they think Amazon can't or won't reach.

Emerging options include theme restaurant chains, recreational vehicle makers and sellers of stuff that's just too heavy to ship via Amazon's network. Meanwhile, some fund managers are increasingly convinced the only way to play consumer spending is to move away from brands and retailers and into logistics and supply chain companies, essentially betting e-commerce will render most consumer companies obsolete.
The challenge of investing in consumer companies comes a time when the category would typically shine.
Low unemployment and a solid housing market boost consumer stocks, yet companies in the category - excluding Amazon - are up just 5.2 percent for the year, or about 3 percentage points below the broad S&P 500 as a whole, according to Thomson Reuters data.
Amazon shares, by comparison, are up about 30 percent.
(For graphic on Amazon overshadows its competition, click tmsnrt.rs/2sr0mlA)

BIGGER DISRUPTION THAN WAL-MART'S Amazon now accounts for about 34 percent of all U.S. online sales and should see that number grow to about 50 percent by 2021, according to a Needham research note.
Amazon's growing dominance is in some ways akin to the rise of Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) in the early 2000s, when its rapid growth and move to branch out into groceries raised concerns it would put other retailers out of business. Yet Amazon's greater online reach and purchase of a top-shelf grocery store chain makes it far more formidable, said Barbara Miller, a portfolio manager at Federated Kaufmann funds.
"I've been in this industry for twenty-five years and this is the biggest transformation we've seen in the consumer space," she said.
While Wal-Mart put many small mom-and-pop stores out of business, Amazon is dragging down national competitors like Target and Macy's with its combination of low prices, broad range of inventory, and speed, she said.
At the same time, Amazon is expanding its e-commerce dominance when more shoppers are online, suggesting more pain ahead for competitors. E-commerce sales grew 14.7 percent in 2016, nearly triple the 5.1-percent growth rate of traditional retailers, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

BUGS AND COFFEE: THE HUNT FOR SURVIVORSFund managers say Amazon's growing dominance is forcing them to shift long-held strategies, by either putting less money into consumer stocks overall or by focusing on companies that can compete alongside Amazon or may be attractive buyout targets.
The company's outsized 15.4-percent weighting, more than double the next-largest stock in the S&P 500 Consumer Discretionary index, is problematic for fund managers who typically will not hold any positions greater than 5 percent of their portfolio in order to manage risk.
Josh Cummings, a portfolio manager at Janus Henderson funds, is avoiding shares of direct competitors of Amazon, such as Target Corp (TGT.N), Kroger Co (KR.N), and Wal-Mart, and instead focusing on companies with "idiosyncratic" attributes, he said.
Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O), for instance, offers an experience that Amazon would find hard to match, he said, while Servicemaster Global Holdings (SERV.N), parent company of pest control company Terminix, is largely immune from e-commerce competition.
"Could Amazon decide they want to be in the business of spraying for bugs? It doesn't seem likely," he said.
Miller, the portfolio manager at the Federated Kaufmann funds, said she is moving away from stores that could be found in a mall, focusing instead on companies like Dave & Busters Entertainment Inc (PLAY.O) and Wingstop Inc (WING.O) that offer food-based experiences. She also owns shares of Camping World Holdings Inc (CWH.N), which sells a mix of goods and services ranging from roadside assistance to accessories to the growing recreational vehicle market.
"This is a company with a strong membership base that has the sort of scale in its niche to rival Amazon," she said.
Jeff Rottinghaus, portfolio manager of the T. Rowe Price U.S. Large-Cap Core Equity fund, said he owns Home Depot Inc (HD.N) shares because its stores essentially function as warehouses and much of its merchandise is too heavy or bulky to profitably ship quickly online.
Gary Bradshaw, a portfolio manager at Hodges Capital in Dallas, said he expects that portfolio holding Wal-Mart will become more aggressive in acquiring small, private companies to broaden its online reach.
The company announced a deal to buy men's wear company Bonobos for $310 million in mid-June, following purchases of outdoor gear retailer Moosejaw and online shoe store ShoeBuy. Wal-Mart acquired online retailer Jet.com in a $3.3 billion deal last August.
"They're going to do whatever it takes to compete with Amazon. They may be losing the battle at the moment but that doesn't mean that they will back down," he said.
Other investors are getting their consumer exposure by focusing on behind-the-scenes companies that power the growth of e-commerce.
Laird Bieger, a portfolio manager of the Baron Discovery Fund - the top-performing small-cap growth fund year-to-date - said he is focusing on companies like CommerceHub Inc (CHUBA.O), which works with companies such as J C Penney Co (JCP.N) and Best Buy Inc (BBY.N) to allow them to sell more products online and ship directly from manufacturers.
Craig Richard, a co-portfolio manager of the Buffalo Emerging Opportunities fund, said he has been buying Kornit Digital Ltd (KRNT.O), which makes textile printers that can produce t-shirt and other apparel designs on demand, helping save inventory costs.
Amazon is Kornit's largest customer and has warrants to buy up to 2.9 million Kornit shares, about 8 percent of the company, at $13.03 a share over the next five years. Shares of Kornit, up 57 percent this year, traded at $19.95 on Friday.

(Reporting by David Randall; Editing by Dan Burns and Nick Zieminski)

MANUFACTURERS, ERP, AND THE PERFECT ORDER

Do manufacturers that use ERP perform better or worse at the supply chain metric--the perfect order--delivered complete, accurate, on time?




SOME REALITY FOR MANUFACTURERS AND OMNICHANNEL

Omnichannel for manufacturers and their Supply Chains--




DATA ANALYTICS

Is Data Analytics a fancy term for regression analysis on steroids?




OMNICHANNEL CHALLENGE FOR MANUFACTURERS

Omnichannel challenge for manufacturers is going from selling to intermediaries to selling to direct end-use customers.  And how it need different supply chains.