Geopolitical Damnation #31: China and the New Silk Road

China is arguably, and simultaneously, the world’s oldest culture and the world’s newest mega-economy and super-power. Not only does China have the 2nd largest GDP in the world, but it is one of only 4 countries that are net international creditors (the other three being Norway, Luxumbourg, and Switzerland). In comparison, the US, with the largest GDP (of slightly less than 18 Trillion), has an external debt that is roughly 18 Trillion. (In other words, it’s debt now exceeds its annual GDP!)

It’s also the world’s most populous country with 1.35 Billion people and the second largest country by land area. It has the world’s third longest river, 14,500 kilometers (or 9,000 miles) of coast lines, approximately 130 ports open to foreign ships, over 11,000 kilometers (or 6,800 miles) of rail, and over 180 commercial airports. It’s rail network and ships transport a significant percentage of the world’s global trade and traffic is still increasing annually.

China is no longer the emerging economy of the 80s and 90s that you outsourced to and imported from — now it is the emergent economy that is outsourcing to Brazil (to serve the North American Market, consider Foxconn) and Africa (to serve the European market). And, for most multi-nationals, it’s their newest, and most promising (and potentially most profitable) market. China already has over 220 billionaires, and this number increases annually. (The US has 442.)

And as a result, China is turning the traditional sourcing world topsy-turvy — especially now that the New Silk Road (China’s Grand Strategy has been operational for eight weeks. (Source: UNZ) As described in the UNZ article, and on SI last fall (in What Impact Will The New Silk Road Have on Global Trade?, for e.g.), this 13,000 km railroad that crosses China from East to West and then Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany, France, and finally Spain enables trade across most of Eurasia. And when the high-speed rail is complete, transport from China to Europe will take even less time than it does now. And China, which is home to 7 of the world’s top 10 container ports and which serves up air cargo that represents more than one-third of global trade value (even though only 1% by weight), will control even more of global trade then it does now! While also being your biggest customer.

You can’t deal with China in the old way anymore. Gone are the days when they were the low cost provider that needed your business. Gone are the days when you could fall back on Mexico. And gone are the days when you never needed to worry about the China market. Now they are a lower cost provider, due to their increases in efficiency (just like Japan increased in efficiency after WWII), but they don’t need your business. They have money and they have the world to sell you. Because Mexico was almost abandoned for China, there are few factories left that can produce modern electronics and none that can produce the volume to equal a Foxconn. And with most markets stagnant, China is one of your few opportunities for growth. Moreover, the supplier you are negotiating with to produce your cell phones for Engineering might be the same supplier your sales team is negotiating with to buy IT’s new mobile factory management software suite.

In other words, when China is across the table, they are not a vendor or supplier that can be beaten down with old-school hard-ball negotiation (even if they historically put melamine in the milk, lead in the paint, and who knows what in the pet food) — they are a partner, and equal, and must be approached as such. Even if you never sell to them, you might sell to one of their partners, and they talk just like we do. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be determined in your negotiations — as you should always fight for the best deal — but be fair, realistic, and base your demands on fact and should-cost models, not empty threats or baseless demands for unreasonable cost reductions.

China is about to become your upstream as well as your downstream supply chain. You have to abandon your old view of the world, accept this reality, and start preparing for it. It doesn’t have to be the damnation that causes your undoing. It can be your salvation. Your choice.

Infrastructure Damnation #13: Ports & Labour Strikes

Last year, in the fourth quarter during the critical Christmas shipping season, truckers, clerks, dockworkers, and other union workers went on strike and effectively closed the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The Port of LA typically receives over 330,000 TEUs (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units) of loaded inbounded containers each month, which equates to roughly 4 Million or so TEUs a year. A single TEU container can hold up to 47,000 lbs of cargo and can accommodate 796 bushels of soybeans or approximately 6,192 shoeboxes. (That’s a lot of shoes! At the rate of 1 pair a day, it would take over 17 years to wear them all.) And while we haven’t yet been able to find a tally of the losses, as a benchmark, if the ILWU (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) went on strike and shut down all the west coast ports, estimates are that it would cost the US economy 2 Billion a day. A complete shutdown at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would, thus, likely cost the US economy over 1 Billion a day since, of the roughly 116 M short tons of foreign imports that came into West Coast ports in 2012, 74 M (over 60%) of those short tons were through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach!

In 2013, a 40-day labour strike occurred at the Kwai Tsing Container Terminal in the Hong Kong Dock Strike. This strike cost Hongkong International Terminals almost HK $5 Million in daily losses as the loss of over one third of the workforce caused average delays of 2 to 4 days for all ships. That’s a loss of roughly HK $200 Million!

In 2012, the industry was almost paralyzed when the East Coast ports threatened to go on strike on October 1, as this strike was only narrowly averted at the last minute. This strike could also have cost the US Economy Billions.

In 2008, in protest of the Iraq War, the ILWU encouraged longshore workers to “shut down all West Coast ports” by walking off the job on May 1, 2008 to “Make May Day a ‘No Peace, No Work’ holiday”. On that day, more than 10,000 ILWU workers from all 29 West Coast ports voluntarily stopped work, effectively shutting down all west coast ports for a day.

In 2007, we saw the German National Rail strike of 2007. While it was only for 3 days, starting on November 14 and ending on November 17, it was the largest strike in history against Deutsche Bahn, shutting down freight service as well as passenger trains. Even though management brought in managers and other employers to keep trains running, more than 40% of freight trains — needed to carry cargo to and from docks — were halted. The strike cost over € 50 Million a day.

Strikes aren’t a new occurrence. We can keep going, all the way back to (at least) the 1792 Philadelphia River Pilot’s strike. More importantly, since unions aren’t going anywhere (and are, in fact, gaining ground in the emerging and newly emergent economies), strikes aren’t going anywhere either.

And they will bring your global trade to a halt if you are not prepared for them.

How do you prepare for them? Keep an eye on all of the ports, rail, and trucking companies you use to move your goods and when their union contracts expire. When expiration draws near, monitor the situation. If it looks like talks will break down, make sure you have alternate options at the ready. Have plans that use other ports, and other trucking companies, even if those ports are further and those trucking companies cost more, if the goods are critical to your bottom line — and if they are strategic, and small enough, consider air freight from a secondary airport to a secondary airport. (Solutions like FreightOS can often help you identify nearby ports and airports and relative costs.) While the hope is that you will never need to use less efficient and less cost-effective options, if the alternative is risking your goods trapped in a port for months, a less profitable sale is still much better than no sale. (Remember, No Sale, No Store.)

Finally, a Prediction SI Can Get Behind!

By now, everyone should know how SI, and the LOLCats who live under the desks, feel about futurists and their predictions. (You need only scroll back to December 31’s post if you have forgotten.)

So, needless to say, as per prior years, SI is not going to be jumping on the prediction bandwagon (and risk getting trampled by fellow bloggers on the way) as the new year rolls in.

That being said, it has to give a shout out to one prediction from a fellow blogger who may just have it right. Specifically, Peter Smith of Spend Matters UK who, pressed for a prediction, made the amazingly accurate prediction that we predict that all predictions will be wrong.

SI could not have said it better if asked.

LOLCat approves!

One Hundred and Forty Five Years Ago Today

One of the earliest US monopolies, as ruled by the US Supreme Court in 1911 under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, was formed.

Until its dissolution into 33 smaller companies, Standard Oil, formed by John D. Rockefeller, was the largest oil refineries in the world. By 1890, it controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the U.S. The company, which almost single-handedly innovated the business trust, mastered horizontal and vertical integration, streamlined production and logistics, lowered costs, and consistently undercut competitors. This alone is not a bad thing, as all supply chains should strive for this, but, as noted by the US Department of Justice, Standard Oil offered

Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent.”

and did what they could to force the competition out of business. This is monopolistic, illegal under the Sherman Anti-trust act, and, to be blunt, unfair. If your processes are efficient enough, your products good enough, and your costs low enough, the public will choose you on their own — there is no need for discriminatory practices or a refusal to work with suppliers that will also work with your competition. Plus, as some of us know all too well, some customers aren’t profitable and monopolies get stuck with those problem customers, but lean, mean, supply-chain machines don’t.

Standard Oil is a good business case to keep in the back of your mind. They did a lot right, and a lot wrong. Take the good, and leave the bad, and your business — and supply chain — might be better for it.

Grocery Retailers Waste So Much Food It Should Be Criminal!

Approximately 1/3rd of all food is wasted in North America. (See 2013’s Thanksgiving Post.) For years, I’ve been struggling to figure out why. It’s well known that the biggest offenders are

  1. processors in developing countries who (due to financial, managerial, and technical constraints) struggle to properly store, cool, and process the food on-time to preserve it.
  2. restaurants, who discard as much food as they discard other waste (Source SI)
  3. retailers, who through bad forecasting, order too much and then spoiled food goes in the dumpster

But it is not well known that retailers intentionally over-order and waste food just to make sure their produce section looks nice (Source Spend Matters “eating the cost of wasted food and sometimes thats ok waste matters part 6”). And that is definitely NOT OK! Never, ever, ever! Not when over 13% of the world’s population is undernourished (Source: KFF and Wikipedia) and 15% of Americans, that’s right, 15% of Americans are considered “food insecure” and experience hunger in their households. (Source: FAO Washington “the new face of hunger: why are people malnourished in the richest country on earth”)

In other words, the produce that is being wasted by retailers as an “acceptable loss” might be enough to counter a sizeable portion of the undernourishment problem in America — and that’s not counting the waste by restaurants and food processors! There’s no excuse for this. Not only are people going hungry, but we’re paying more for our retailers’ stupidity.

Why do they do this? According to Spend Matters, retailers believe that having a good-looking produce section that is fully stocked with fresh products is essential to get customers in a store. And that having more products than needed rather than running out tends to be better for business. While both of these statements are true, this doesn’t mean that a store has to considerably over-order to avoid stock out or waste food.

Not only has computing power increased dramatically since the pentium was released twenty years ago, which allows large amounts of historical data to be processed on the Procurement Manager’s workstation, but so has the accuracy of demand prediction models which can very accurately predict demand for any product at any time of the year, and even take into account the impact of sales, market shortages, and market recalls. A 1% buffer in these models is more than plenty to prevent stock-outs 99% of the time if these models are properly applied on enough data.

Furthermore, the standard practice of marking the produce down 50% when it starts to rot in hopes in that it will sell before it is unconsumable is stupid. When you see rotting tomatoes, moldy oranges, or squishy cucumbers, you’re not even going to buy them for 75% off. Stores have to smarten up and do two things.

  1. Mark produce down when it’s shelf-life gets down to 72 hours or less.
    Considering we also have very accurate models of shelf life under given situations, this isn’t hard to do.
  2. Donate produce with a shelf-life of less than 48 hours to a local shelter on a nightly basis.At this point, the store is taking a 75%+ write-off anyway and it knows it. It would be much better to donate the food, and get a charitable donation tax credit, when the food can still be safely used than throw the food in the waste bin. Especially since the retailer could use this to get a brand boost if it advertises that it donates X$ in food each year to the local food bank.

    No consumer expects every item to be in stock every time they go to the store with the never-ending stream of supply disruptions we experience these days, so the game has to change. And no consumer wants food to go to waste if people in their own city are starving! It’s not about the most fresh produce, but the most responsibility — and these days, a little goes a long way and the first store or chain in a region to capitalize on this is going to get a big brand boost.

And if you are a eco-nut who wants to protest something, here’s a cause. Protest grocery stores that build waste, or shrink, into their model without making sure that such food doesn’t end up in the dumpster. While some sustainability problems aren’t easily addressed, this one is.