When Does a Comment to Investors Become an Illegal "Signal" to Competitors?

On July 18, 2015 I wrote a blog post entitled:  DOJ Investigates Airlines - Are the Trucking Companies Next?  At that time I had just read an article about the DOJ investigating the airlines concerning collusion on capacity and ticket pricing (The original article was on Bloomberg News and titled: What Does it Take to Prove Airline Collusion).  What I found interesting is they were investigating statements made during earnings calls and "investor" conferences where one airline executive might say they are going to practice things such as "disciplined capacity control" or have "expected price increases through disciplined revenue management".

The question raised by the investigation was essentially whether these were statements to investors so they could make a good investment decision or where they "signals" to the competitors?  For example, does the statement "disciplined capacity control" state a good business practice to the investors or does it state to the competition "If you don't add capacity I won't add capacity".

As part of the post, I posited this exact question could be applied to the trucking and freight transportation industry.  Every conference I have been to and every investor deck I have seen usually has the freight transportation executive using these exact words. 

The example used in the lawsuit is, according to the article:

"...airline officials repeatedly assured one another on earnings calls and at conferences that exercising "capacity discipline was good for the industry"

Sound familiar?

It is a fascinating question and it really puts the companies in a pickle.  If they do not disclose "material" items to the investors they can get sued for not disclosing but if they disclose too much they can (and are) get sued for collusion. 

Well, there is an update to the story and I think it is a big deal.  In today's NY Times it is reported: Southwest Airlines Settles Suit but Denies Colluding to Keep Ticket Prices High.  Southwest has agreed to pay $15M in cash and "provide extensive cooperation" with the on-going investigation against American Airlines, Delta Airlines and United Airlines. "Extensive Cooperation is defined as:

 "a full account of facts relevant to the plaintiff's case as well as a series of informational meetings and interviews with industry experts and Southwest employees facilitated by the company."

How could this effect trucking:

1. We all have been to the many conferences where this type of language has been used by top executives.  Could the airline case be used as a precedent for a case against transportation?
   
2.  Does SWA have something and essentially became the first one to talk - get a lighter penalty for turning?  $15M is a lot more than just "nuisance" money.  Something is going on here.
   
3. Will trucking companies start being a lot more careful at conferences and public statements as a result of this settlement?

As I said in 2015, this is definitely a case to keep an eye on and it could have broad and deep implications for the transportation industry as a whole.  

Cass Indices for June Report Real Issues with Trucking and Intermodal

The Cass Indices for June reported what observers knew was to be the case:  Once again the trucking "recovery" has stalled and capacity exceeds demand.  Part of this is due to the elevated inventory levels with retailers and part just due to increased capacity.  Remember, items are much smaller today then ever and with advances in packaging, the trucking industry just has too many assets chasing too few loads to sustain a lot of pricing.

For the last three months, the truckload index has decreased 2.3%, 1.2% and 1.8% respectively and the graph shows how difficult this market has become.  We now are looking into 2017 before there is any tightening of capacity and pricing.  I believe capacity will need to exit the market as not only is there too much today but the economy will start slowing and that means just the normal cycle would require removal of capacity.

Interestingly, this comes at a time where trucking costs are rising and as we saw in the Swift 2Q reporting, OR rates are starting to increase (SWFT 2Q2016 OR rate was 92.7% - highest in the last three years). JB Hunt sees margin erosion in the latter half of the year for both trucking and intermodal.  Great if you are a shipper as soon trucking companies will start working to get any contribution to fix but bad if you are an investor or a trucking company itself.

Starting in late 2015 and through this year, the pricing index has gone down and continues to go that direction.

Suffice to say, Intermodal is following the same trends.

So, what is going on here?  Why do we continually get told that "this is the year" and yet for the last 3 years at least, the tightening has never arrived?  I attribute it to three main items:

1. The Economy is not nearly as robust as you may think watching the markets.  Remember, finance (which requires no trucking) has grown to be a substantial part of our economy.  In the past when you said GDP went up x% you could correlate that directly to an increase in the need for transportation of goods.  Today, that is untrue.

2.  Inventory levels remain elevated.  Think of it this way, when inventory levels are as high as they are this essentially means you shipped the product in previous quarters.  This is like "borrowing" against the future.  Made those quarters look good but because there was not enough sell through, the product just sat and now when sales tick up, the inventory has already been shipped.

3. Miniaturization, packaging and digitization of products.  I have always said the shippers would not sit idly by and just watch rates go up.  They have figured out ways to streamline packaging, digitize what they can (including the growth of 3d printing, and make things smaller.  This means less transportation capacity needed.  

Overall, given the way the economy is headed, I would be shocked if 2017 was anything different.  Hunker down, we are in for a bit of a ride here.

Pricing Declines in Both Truckload and Intermodal

The promise of "pay me now so you don't have to pay me later" continues to be a mirage.  With the release of the March CASS reports we saw that pricing actually declined in the truckload sector YoY for the first time since 2010.  Intermodal continues to be a problem as well with significant price declines.  Intermodal declines were 3% YoY in March and 2.2% in January YoY and 3.8% in February YoY.

This all stems from the fact there is overcapacity.  Further, as shippers get far smarter in terms of network design, designing products for efficient shipping and inventory management, the problem of overcapacity is being exacerbated.  Avondale partners believes the "risk" is to the downside of 1% to 2%.  The overcapacity in rail can be attributed to the sharp decline in some commodity shipping such as oil.   The other part playing havoc on transportation is the Inventory to Sales ratio which I will discuss in my next posting.

At the end of the day, this continues to behave as a commodity market.  The idea that you should "pay up" during overcapacity months / years so you are protected when the market "turns" is a fools errand.  Of course, you should always be a good partner, you should always work to turn drivers fast, make their life easier and work with your carrier partners to balance demand.  But those are things a good business person does anyway.  Just makes sense.

But, to think you should "pay up" to be a "shipper of choice" is crazy and will only put you in a position of uncompetitiveness relative to your peer group.

DOJ Investigates Airlines - Are the Trucking Companies Next?

A while back I wrote about how I thought executives in the trucking industry were getting dangerously close to collusion as they discussed capacity in the industry.  My comments were around a concept of "signaling".

I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be one but "signaling" is when one company sends a signal to the other about its intents in terms of key actions effecting pricing.  So, for example, an executive says in an interview in a prominent industry magazine something like, "Until we see better ROI we cannot and will not add capacity to our system".

Ok, what just happened?  He essentially told his competitors two things which normally a company, especially a private one, would want to keep private.  He (or She) said:  "I am restricting capacity and raising rates".   Now, the executive on the other end knows he or she can do exactly the same thing and voila!  you know have thinly veiled collusion.

See the graph below, from the article cited below, which displays the profitability of the airline companies who publicly "restrict capacity":

I was thinking about this yesterday as I read in Bloomberg BusinessWeek an article about the FTC complaint against the airlines entitled "What Does it Take To Prove Airline Collusion"?  The core of the matter is what they call "unlawful coordination". A line from that article:

"A trigger may have been the June meeting ... where airline executives talked openly about 'capacity discipline', a not so subtle code for limiting the number of seats available" [My comment: thus increasing prices] (Bloomberg Businessweek, July 20, 2015)

It went on to say the following:

"At a press conference, Delta President Ed Bastian said his company is "continuing with the discipline the marketplace is expecting".  American Airlines CEO Doug Parker told Reuters it was important to avoid over capacity: "I think everybody in the industry knows that." (Bloomberg Businessweek, July 20, 2015)

 Does any of this sound familiar to the shipping community out there?  The DOJ has never really looked at the trucking industry because it was so fragmented.  However, is is becoming very consolidated at the top with the top 5 or 10 carriers commanding a huge market share and, of course, if you are a very large shipper, about the only carriers you can use are the very large ones.

At least we have come a long way. Businessweek recounts the following from 1982:

"Robert Crandall of American Airlines told the CEO of Braniff Airlines, Howard Putnam, 'I have a suggestion for you. Raise your goddamn fares 20%. I'll raise mine the next morning. "

While doing what is right for drivers and treating people right is the right thing to do (the infamous "shipper of choice" debate),  I really think shippers should be far more concerned about this.

CASS Freight Indices

I should have remarked on this earlier although I have been busy, busy, busy!  Looks like freight rates have leveled off from the somewhat aggressive increases over the last few months.  Intermodal seems flat while truck rates are up a bit.  This is what the CASS data would suggest although I personally think generalizing about this is a very dangerous game.

Depending on your freight flows and freight characteristics you may or may not see this trend.  If you are a "mega shipper" then perhaps the averages apply however most have specific and unique freight patterns.  My advice is to dive deep into those patterns and understand, in depth, regional movements along with nuances in the areas you operate.