5 Companies to Consider for Supply Chain Finance

Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily, Stories

5 Companies to Consider for Supply Chain Finance

September 19th, 2019 Matt Coker Leave a comment

Supply chain finance is a set of technology-based business and financing processes that link the various parties in a transaction—buyer, seller and financing institution— to lower financing costs and improve business efficiency. Short-term credit that optimizes working capital for both the buyer and the seller is provided by what the hip kids refer to as SCF.

There are several SCF transactions, including an extension of buyer’s accounts payable terms, inventory finance and payables discounting. The SCF solutions differ from traditional supply chain programs to enhance working capital, such as factoring and payment discounts, by connecting financial transactions to value as it moves through the supply chain. Also, SCF encourages collaboration between the buyer and seller, rather than the competition that often pits buyer against the seller and vice versa.

Tom Roberts, senior vice president of Marketing at PrimeRevenue, warned Global Trade readers in September 2016 that a multinational bank may not be the way to go when it comes to SCF. “First, both global supply chains and multinational banks are highly susceptible to changes in the economic and geopolitical landscape,” Roberts wrote. “Supply chain finance programs that are locked into a single source of funding are held hostage to that funder’s risk tolerance. It’s a dangerous game, especially as the global coverage of multinational banks continues to be a moving target.”

No one bank—no matter how global—has the processes and systems in place to serve all currencies and jurisdictions, he also noted. “If a company needs to add a supplier that can’t be funded by their multinational bank, they have to not only source alternative funding, they have to handle the back-end systems integration required to facilitate the trading of receivables. It’s a resource-intensive approach that many companies simply can’t afford.”

The best-in-class supply chain finance programs are typically based on multi-funder platforms, rather than closed, bank-proprietary platforms, according to Roberts. “While it may seem counter-intuitive to simplify supply chain finance by adding more players, it’s not,” he wrote. “With the right processes and systems in place, a multi-funder strategy can increase program participation, secure more competitive pricing and discounts, and ultimately increase cash flow predictably and sustainably for both buyers and suppliers.”

What follows are Global Trade’s picks for places to consider for SCF.

Raistone Capital

Located on Madison Avenue in New York City, Raistone Capital started as a division of Seaport Global, a full-service, independent investment bank. Today, Raistone Capital has access to significant levels of institutional capital and the ability to deliver on customer’s needs, “whether it’s $50,000 or $300,000,000+,” according to the company. Raistone even created invoiceXcel (iX), a complementary financial solution so banks “can continue to serve clients in this ever-changing regulatory environment by providing additional capital offerings to customers—such as supply chain finance and accounts receivable finance.”

Flexport

Headquartered in San Francisco—with global offices in several major U.S. cities as well as Hong Kong, mainland China, Germany and Holland—Flexport offers clients lines of credit ranging from $100,000 to $20 million to finance inventory, freight and duty and so that customers can accelerate product expansion and revenue growth; enable strategic decisions that reduce landed costs; and minimize supply chain disruption. Best of all, it costs nothing to connect with a Flexport Capital expert to discuss how your supplier terms, customer terms, and capital structure can be optimized to support your working capital goals and business growth.

PrimeRevenue

Giving the expertise Tom Roberts has already shared via Global Trade, how could we in good conscience skip over his Atlanta-based company that also has offices in Hong Kong, Australia, London, Frankfurt, and Prague. Billed as “the leading provider of working capital financial technology solutions,” PrimeRevenue helps more than 30,000 clients in 70+ countries optimize their working capital to efficiently fund strategic initiatives, gain a competitive advantage and strengthen relationships throughout the supply chain. Established in 2003, PrimeRevenue boasts of now having “the largest and most diverse global funding network of more than 100 funding partners.” They support 30+ currencies on a single cloud-based, multi-lingual, cross-border network, facilitating a volume of more than $200 billion in payment transactions per year.

Trade Finance Global

London-based TFG assists companies with raising debt finance, accessing many traditional forms of finance while also specializing in alternative finance and complex funding solutions related to international trade. “We help companies to raise finance in ways that are sometimes out of reach for mainstream lenders,” according to the company, which taps into more than 250 lenders with unique focuses on different products and/or geographies. And TGF boasts of being able to “quickly get to the key decision-makers of financiers, to make sure your application gets through to the right person.” That ability is built on reputation alone, as TGF is 100 percent independent and not tied to any lenders. Instead, they find the most appropriate SCF solution for the individual customer.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Okay, much of this article details why a multinational bank may not be the best option when it comes to SCF, but Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Merrill Lynch, which also has central hubs in New York City, London, Hong Kong, Minneapolis, and Toronto, does have a solid, end-to-end SCF program. Bank of America Merrill Lynch boasts of having a number of tools to help: segment suppliers and analyze rates; design an optimal marketing program; and educate suppliers on program benefits.

“Bank of America Merrill Lynch made sure that the resources needed—support staff, legal, credit and such—all worked towards achieving the efficient deployment of the program,” says Philippe Andre Marcoux, credit and treasury manager at SCF customer Uni-Select Inc., a large multiservice corporation that distributes motor vehicle replacement parts, tools equipment and accessories. “Communication between Bank of America Merrill Lynch, our suppliers and ourselves was the driving force behind the successful implementation. Tools to evaluate the benefits to our suppliers and ourselves were key in convincing our team to participate.”

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Stories

Blume CarrierGo Provides Motor Carriers with All-Encompassing Business Solutions

September 18th, 2019 Haylle Sok Leave a comment

This year’s Intermodal Expo in Long Beach, California featured some of the latest solution offerings disrupting the transportation sector. Among leading industry experts including logistics and supply chain solutions provider, Blume Global unveiling their latest product offering, Blume CarrierGo. Blume Global boasts over 25 years of transportation solution offerings in the cloud enabling international multimodal operations including shipment planning, execution, visibility, invoicing, invoice processing & settlement.

“Blume CarrierGo is a product we created that offers our global network of 7,000-plus carriers more than just execution, adding more value for both the carriers and the drivers,” explains Glenn Jones, GVP Product Strategy at Blume Global. “CarrierGo is localized in 22 languages and utilized by customers around the globe, so it’s not limited to the United States. This solution enables carriers to increase turns per day while reducing empty miles and maximizing efficiencies.”

The days of manual processes are becoming a thing of the past, particularly in transportation and carrier services as automation continues setting a new and more improved standard of streamlining operations. Blume CarrierGo solution identifies processes such as appointment scheduling for carriers lacking levels of automation needed for optimization. Another example is opportunities with street turns found within the Blume import and export-heavy freight forwarding customers.

“We have insight into what independent freight forwarders might not be able to see, such as import and export maps leading to an opportunity for a street turn recommendation or automatic allocation. Dwell times also provide an opportunity for automation. We may have 20, 30, or even 50 carriers trying to pick up containers out of the same terminal. By leveraging our visibility across multiple freight forwarders we can either make recommendations or we can delay making appointments through the insight we have into marine terminals with delays,” Jones adds.

And how about invoicing? Blume covers all bases for carriers in terms of accessorials and eliminating the element of surprise when it comes to unpredictable charges backing up processing times. The Blume solutions process requires carriers to gain approval for accessorials before they even happen.

“If a carrier needs to get to a port and they’re unable to, there might be a demurrage charge or there might be a carrier in a dwell time charge situation unexpectedly. They can gain approval from the buyer for that accessorial and when it appears on the invoice days – or hours later, there’s no surprise and the invoice will be processed faster,” Jones adds. “This is particularly useful for carriers in 3rd world countries, where the carriers tend to be much smaller and require payments quicker than what the freight terms offer,” Jones adds.

Processes like these are found within the CarrierGo solution, providing maximized efficiencies and reducing costly and time-consuming overhead freight audits and manual payment processes. Carriers are not only paid on time, but have increased opportunity for invoice factoring discussions in international markets. This is a major differentiator found within the Blume solutions structure impacting global scale capabilities across the supply chain, creating seamless flows between all players and competitors in the multimodal sector.

For more information about how Blume CarrierGo can improve your cargo needs, please visit booth 512 at Intermodal Expo or visit Blume Global on the web.

__________________________________________________________

Glenn Jones, GVP Product Strategy, Blume Global

Glenn has a proven track record of growing businesses by building and leading product management/marketing and R&D organizations to define, develop, position, and sell highly innovative and high value enterprise solutions delivered in the cloud. He was formerly the COO of Sweetbridge and the CTO of Steelwedge Software. He also held leadership positions at several other companies, including Elementum and E2Open.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Global Coconut Market 2019 – Thailand’s Imports Continue to Grow Robustly, While Domestic Production Declines

September 18th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Coconuts – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2018, the global coconut market size increased by 3.5% to $35.6B. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price).

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of coconut consumption in 2018 were Indonesia (19M tonnes), the Philippines (14M tonnes) and India (12M tonnes), with a combined 72% share of global consumption. Sri Lanka, Brazil, Viet Nam, Papua New Guinea, Mexico and Thailand lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 16%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of coconut consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Viet Nam, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, India ($10B), the Philippines ($6.7B) and Indonesia ($4.5B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, with a combined 60% share of the global market. These countries were followed by Sri Lanka, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Viet Nam and Mexico, which together accounted for a further 20%.

The countries with the highest levels of coconut per capita consumption in 2018 were Papua New Guinea (140 kg per person), the Philippines (131 kg per person) and Sri Lanka (124 kg per person).

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of coconut per capita consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Viet Nam, while the other global leaders experienced mixed trends in the per capita consumption figures.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 61M tonnes of coconuts were produced worldwide; leveling off at the previous year. Overall, coconut production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2012 with an increase of 5.3% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global coconut production attained its peak figure volume at 62M tonnes in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum. The general negative trend in terms of coconut output was largely conditioned by a relatively flat trend pattern of the harvested area and a relatively flat trend pattern in yield figures.

In value terms, coconut production stood at $36.3B in 2018 estimated in export prices. Overall, the total output indicated a mild expansion from 2007 to 2018: its value decreased at an average annual rate of -0.1% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, coconut production increased by +35.7% against 2016 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2009 when production volume increased by 50% y-o-y. In that year, global coconut production reached its peak level of $49.4B. From 2010 to 2018, global coconut production growth remained at a lower figure.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of coconut production in 2018 were Indonesia (19M tonnes), the Philippines (14M tonnes) and India (12M tonnes), together accounting for 73% of global production. These countries were followed by Sri Lanka, Brazil, Viet Nam, Papua New Guinea and Mexico, which together accounted for a further 15%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of coconut production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Viet Nam, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Harvested Area 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 12M ha of coconuts were harvested worldwide; standing approx. at the previous year. In general, the coconut harvested area continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 2.5% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the harvested area dedicated to coconut production attained its peak figure in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Yield 2007-2018

In 2018, the global average yield of coconuts amounted to 4.9 tonne per ha, approximately reflecting the previous year. In general, the coconut yield continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2012 with an increase of 4.3% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average coconut yield attained its maximum level at 5.4 tonne per ha in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, yield stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports 2007-2018

Global exports stood at 555K tonnes in 2018, surging by 49% against the previous year. Overall, the total exports indicated resilient growth from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +7.3% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 with an increase of 49% against the previous year. In that year, global coconut exports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, coconut exports totaled $269M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, the total exports indicated a buoyant increase from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +7.3% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, coconut exports increased by +107.2% against 2012 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 33% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global coconut exports reached their maximum in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Exports by Country

Indonesia was the largest exporter of coconuts in the world, with the volume of exports amounting to 290K tonnes, which was near 52% of total exports in 2018. Thailand (70K tonnes) took the second position in the ranking, followed by Viet Nam (57K tonnes). All these countries together held near 23% share of total exports. The following exporters – Cote d’Ivoire (23K tonnes), Malaysia (19K tonnes), the Netherlands (16K tonnes), Mexico (14K tonnes), Guyana (12K tonnes) and India (11K tonnes) – together made up 17% of total exports.

Exports from Indonesia increased at an average annual rate of +12.8% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Guyana (+97.7%), Viet Nam (+43.2%), Malaysia (+18.9%), India (+11.3%), the Netherlands (+6.8%), Thailand (+6.4%), Cote d’Ivoire (+4.2%) and Mexico (+3.9%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Guyana emerged as the fastest-growing exporter in the world, with a CAGR of +97.7% from 2007-2018. While the share of Indonesia (+38 p.p.), Viet Nam (+10 p.p.), Thailand (+6.2 p.p.), Malaysia (+2.9 p.p.) and Guyana (+2.1 p.p.) increased significantly, the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, the largest coconut markets worldwide were Thailand ($70M), Indonesia ($65M) and Viet Nam ($22M), with a combined 58% share of global exports. Cote d’Ivoire, the Netherlands, India, Mexico, Guyana and Malaysia lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 23%.

Among the main exporting countries, Guyana (+104.1% per year) recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to exports, over the last eleven years, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average coconut export price amounted to $483 per tonne, declining by -12.6% against the previous year. Overall, the coconut export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 an increase of 19% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average export prices for coconuts reached their peak figure at $553 per tonne in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was India ($1,127 per tonne), while Indonesia ($223 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by India, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 671K tonnes of coconuts were imported worldwide; surging by 26% against the previous year. In general, coconut imports continue to indicate a resilient increase. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2016 when imports increased by 48% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global coconut imports reached their peak figure in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, coconut imports totaled $334M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, coconut imports continue to indicate a remarkable expansion. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 with an increase of 43% y-o-y. The global imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

Thailand (210K tonnes) and Malaysia (199K tonnes) were the largest importers of coconuts in 2018, reaching approx. 31% and 30% of total imports, respectively. China (60K tonnes) ranks next in terms of the total imports with a 9% share, followed by the U.S. (5.7%). The United Arab Emirates (27K tonnes), the Netherlands (19K tonnes) and Singapore (11K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Malaysia, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Thailand ($77M) constitutes the largest market for imported coconuts worldwide, comprising 23% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the U.S. ($34M), with a 10% share of global imports. It was followed by China, with a 8.9% share.

In Thailand, coconut imports increased at an average annual rate of +30.9% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: the U.S. (+12.0% per year) and China (+8.2% per year).

Import Prices by Country

The average coconut import price stood at $498 per tonne in 2018, falling by -5.9% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the coconut import price continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 when the average import price increased by 23% year-to-year. In that year, the average import prices for coconuts reached their peak level of $631 per tonne. From 2016 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average import prices for coconuts remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the U.S. ($880 per tonne), while Malaysia ($147 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the United Arab Emirates, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

TARIFFS: NAVIGATING THE LATEST TARIFFS ON CHINESE GOODS

September 12th, 2019 Mark Ludwikowski and Courtney Taylor Leave a comment

Despite recent plans to revive moribund negotiations, the prospects for a near term solution to the U.S.- China trade conflict are very much in doubt. The United States has expanded the tariffs already in place to cover nearly all imports from China, and in response China has hit back with tariffs of its own where it may hurt U.S. exports the most, mainly in swing-state industries such as farming and automobile production.

The stock markets and economic growth in each country have increasingly shown signs of strain from the trade war and a cease-fire could provide a welcome respite. Although the Trump administration has agreed to renew trade negotiations in early October, it would be irresponsible to expect these talks to arrive at a meaningful resolution based on how entrenched each side has become. Leaving fate in the hands of the negotiators is risky business since prior negotiations have stalled or led to further escalations. So what can companies do to protect their interests and to mitigate the impact of the tariffs?

Many companies find they cannot quickly change their supply chains or stop doing business with China. This is because U.S. importers and producers are dependent on Chinese parts makers. Some of these parts may not be available in the United States or third countries. Moving production to the United States could itself take years. But in the short term, companies can take certain steps to mitigate the impact of the tariffs.

First, companies should consider seeking official exclusions from the tariffs with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Since importers are responsible for paying the tariff amounts, it is crucial that they are well informed about the exclusion process and consider filing requests as soon as possible since deadlines are looming.

Tariffs on imports from China have been divided into four separate Lists; goods on Lists 1 and 2 encompass roughly $50 billion of imports from China and their exclusion process has closed. Lists 3 and 4 cover the remaining $500 billion of imports and are entering their final phase.

List 3 goods have been subject to a 25 percent tariff since May 2019, but the rate is set to increase to 30 percent on October 15, 2019 (originally the increase was set for October 1, but President Trump has extended it by two weeks as a gesture of “good will” towards China). The deadline for requesting List 3 exclusions is September 30.

List 4 goods, or all goods not presently covered by Lists 1-3, are subject to a 15 percent tariff effective September 1 (List 4A), or December 15 (List 4B). The exclusion process for List 4 has yet to be announced, but is likely to resemble that which applied to the previous Lists.

What makes an exclusion request successful? This has been like reading tea leaves, although certain patterns have emerged. Namely, successful applications are extremely detailed and provide adequate information for USTR staff on which to base their opinion. Products not manufactured in the United States, products for which the manufacturer has a U.S. or foreign patent, or products which are difficult to manufacture in the United States due to high costs or environmental concerns are examples of those for which the USTR has approved exclusions.

Other factors which have shown to affect exclusions include: potential U.S. jobs lost; financial impact on an industry sector; store of facility closings; customer demographics; ability of the customers to accept some of the tariff costs; geographic location; whether the products are included in the “Made in China 2025” policies; capacity of U.S. manufacturers to produce the quantities and quality required for the product; impact on swing states in the next presidential election; or effective public relations.

However, an exclusion request can take time to submit, and often much longer for the USTR to reach a determination. Exclusions have also been rare.

For those looking for another option, a change in the product’s customs classification may provide a viable option. U.S. Customs and Border Protection can only levy tariffs on the condition of goods as imported. When goods are imported, they are assigned a specific classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading. Each subheading for Chinese imports is assigned a specific tariff rate depending on where it falls on Lists 1-4. U.S. companies can work with their Chinese suppliers to determine whether certain products could be shipped in separate parts, finished or unfinished, or in embellished forms so that they legally fall under an HTS subheading assigned to a lower tariff rate.

For some U.S. companies, passing on of the tariff cost to their consumers may be preferable. But for many, this is not a competitive solution. Some customers simply will not tolerate the increased pricing and demand for the products would correspondingly decline.

While it is not always a quick solution, U.S. companies concerned about the duration of the current trade war may also consider diversifying their sourcing away from China altogether by shifting some or all manufacturing to the United States, or to a third country. A product with a non-China country of origin would not be subject to the current tariffs. However, country of origin rules are not harmonized internationally and different rules may apply under free trade agreements, or the substantial transformation test. Therefore, it is important for importers to understand the applicable rules and carefully verify the country of origin when considering this option.

Finally, another approach would be to lower the dutiable value of the product upon importation to the United States through the so-called “first sale” valuation. In this scenario, U.S. importers pay duty on the price that a trading company pays the manufacturer instead of the higher price the importer pays the trading company. While the tariffs would still apply in this case, their impact would be less severe because the dutiable value would be significantly lower.

_____________________________________________________________________

Mark Ludwikowski is the leader and Courtney Taylor is an Associate of the International Trade practice of Clark Hill, PLC. They are resident in the firm’s Washington D.C. office and can be reached at 202-772-0909; mludwikowski@ClarkHill.com and cgtaylor@ClarkHill.com

Archives, Commentary, Global Trade Daily

How Small Steps Can Drive Big Results For Your Business

September 10th, 2019 Shawn Burcham Leave a comment

In business, it’s the major leaps that people notice and remember.

Apple introduced the iPhone and the methods in which we communicate and gather information were changed forever. LEGO took some audacious steps over the last couple of decades and expanded its toy franchise into video games, TV and movies.

Big steps. Big results.

But not every move you make with your business or in your personal life needs to be of earth-shattering significance, says Shawn Burcham (www.shawnburcham.com), founder and CEO of PFSbrands and author of Keeping Score with GRITT: Straight Talk Strategies for Success.

Sometimes, it’s the small steps that eventually lead to big rewards.

“One example with my own company is that there was a time when I didn’t believe in meetings,” Burcham says. “I thought they were a waste of time, probably because most of the meetings I had been in had indeed been a waste.”

But as his business grew, Burcham realized meetings are a necessity for communicating within a large organization. So, PFSbrands took the “small step” of instituting regularly scheduled meetings, which he says have been critical to accomplishing personal, departmental, and company-wide goals.

Burcham offers a few more examples of small steps that can pay big dividends for you and your business:

Make a habit of setting goals. “It may seem like a basic thing, but setting goals is crucial to success both personally and professionally,” Burcham says. “Everyone in your company should be setting goals, and regularly reviewing those goals and checking their progress.” Sounds easy enough, but this is one small step that many people don’t take. “That’s why just the act of setting goals already gives you a competitive advantage,” he says.

Write down those goals. Setting goals is a good first step, but don’t just memorize them, Burcham says. Write them down because studies have shown that people who do that are more likely to achieve what they are after than people without written goals.

Build an accountability system. One of the best ways to make sure you follow through on your goals is to create a network of people who will hold you accountable, Burcham says. If no one knows you set a goal, it’s easy to let it slide. But if there are people who know about your goal, and better yet are depending on you to accomplish it, then you are more likely to follow through. In a business, it’s good for everyone to know everyone else’s goals and every department’s goals. That way, Burcham says, you can all hold each other accountable.

Stop trying to do everything. Burcham suggests asking yourself what duties you can pass on to others because those activities are not a productive use of time and energy for you or for the company. “I’ve often made the mistake of hanging onto responsibilities far longer than necessary; everything from accounting, to email management, to sales management,” he says. As a company grows, Burcham says, that small step of finding things you can stop doing will be crucial to success.

“While each of these individually may be a small step, they are all important for personal growth and your business’ success,” Burcham says. “If you don’t set goals, write them down, and work to improve, you’ll likely be the exact same person 12 months from now. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. Being who you are is okay, but the question is: Are you content with being the same? Or do you want to be better?”

_______________________________________________________________

Shawn Burcham (www.shawnburcham.com), author of Keeping Score with GRITT: Straight Talk Strategies for Success, is the founder & CEO of PFSbrands, which he and his wife, Julie, started out of their home in 1998. The company has over 1,500 branded foodservice locations across 40 states and is best known for their Champs Chicken franchise brand which was started in 1999. Prior to starting PFSbrands, Burcham spent five years with a Fortune 100 company, Mid-America Dairymen (now Dairy Farmers of America). He also worked for three years as a Regional Sales Manager for a midwest Chester’s Fried chicken distributor.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

U.S. Coated Fabric Market Amounted to $4.5B in 2018, with Accelerating Expansion of Imports

September 10th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. Coated Fabric Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2025’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the coated fabric market in the U.S. amounted to $4.5B in 2018, picking up by 4.6% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +5.5% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 9.8% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the coated fabric market reached its peak figure level in 2018 and is likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

Coated Fabric Production in the U.S.

In value terms, coated fabric production stood at $2.6B in 2018. Overall, coated fabric production, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 when production volume increased by 4.4% year-to-year. In that year, coated fabric production attained its peak level of $2.7B. From 2015 to 2018, coated fabric production growth remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports from the U.S.

Coated fabric exports from the U.S. amounted to 13K tonnes in 2018, dropping by -3% against the previous year. Overall, coated fabric exports continue to indicate a noticeable descent. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when exports increased by 4.4% against the previous year. Exports peaked at 15K tonnes in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, coated fabric exports amounted to $151M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +4.2% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2015 when exports increased by 11% against the previous year. Exports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

The Dominican Republic (1.9K tonnes), Germany (1.8K tonnes) and the UK (1.7K tonnes) were the main destinations of coated fabric exports from the U.S., together comprising 43% of total exports. These countries were followed by Mexico, China, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, China, Hong Kong SAR, Brazil, Taiwan, Chinese and India, which together accounted for a further 32%.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by the Philippines (+69.7% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest markets for coated fabric exported from the U.S. were the UK ($22M), the Dominican Republic ($22M) and Germany ($17M), together accounting for 41% of total exports. These countries were followed by Japan, China, the Philippines, China, Hong Kong SAR, Australia, Mexico, India, Brazil and Taiwan, Chinese, which together accounted for a further 34%.

Among the main countries of destination, Taiwan, Chinese (+59.2% per year) experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to exports, over the last five years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The average coated fabric export price stood at $12 per kg in 2018, picking up by 7.4% against the previous year. Over the period from 2013 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +7.7%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 an increase of 13% year-to-year. The export price peaked in 2018 and is likely to see steady growth in the near future.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Japan ($26 per kg), while the average price for exports to Mexico ($5.6 per kg) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to China, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of coated fabrics imported into the U.S. amounted to 215K tonnes, growing by 9.5% against the previous year. Overall, the total imports indicated a buoyant increase from 2013 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +12.0% over the last five-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, coated fabric imports increased by +76.1% against 2013 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 17% year-to-year. Imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, coated fabric imports stood at $1.1B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +6.9% over the period from 2013 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 when imports increased by 12% against the previous year. Over the period under review, coated fabric imports attained their maximum in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Imports by Country

In 2018, China (101K tonnes) constituted the largest coated fabric supplier to the U.S., with a 47% share of total imports. Moreover, coated fabric imports from China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, India (38K tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by South Korea (16K tonnes), with a 7.3% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume from China stood at +11.1%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: India (+55.9% per year) and South Korea (+2.2% per year).

In value terms, China ($393M) constituted the largest supplier of coated fabric to the U.S., comprising 36% of total coated fabric imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Japan ($97M), with a 9% share of total imports. It was followed by India, with a 8.6% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value from China totaled +9.6%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Japan (+2.7% per year) and India (+48.2% per year).

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average coated fabric import price amounted to $5,009 per tonne, leveling off at the previous year. Overall, the coated fabric import price continues to indicate an abrupt deduction. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2014 a decrease of -0.1% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average import prices for coated fabrics reached their maximum at $6,306 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Japan ($18,533 per tonne), while the price for India ($2,460 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Thailand, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced mixed trend patterns.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Tonoga, The Haartz Corporation, Aoc, Schneller, Beaver Manufacturing Company, Sika Sarnafil, Duro-Last, Shawmut Corporation, Engineered Polymer Solutions, Aberdeen Road Company, Clear Edge Filtration, Holliston, Atlas Resin Proppants, Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Precision Custom Coatings, Adell Plastics, Uniroyal Engineered Products, Dyna-Mix, UIC Maintenance & Manufacturing, Cooley Incorporated, Fiberite, Westlake Pvc Corporation, Dti Leather Solutions, Bondcote Holdings, The Adell Corporation

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

WAVE OF GLOBAL SAND TRADE MAY BE DEPLETING BEACHES

September 9th, 2019 Lauren Kyger Leave a comment

Not just sand castles

It’s September, which officially marks the end of summer. Kids have headed back to school and the sandcastles are long since washed away from the shore. But you’re never really far from the beach. It’s actually all around you since most of the infrastructure in your homes, schools and offices is made of sand.

Sand is a critical component in many of the products we depend on every day: glass, concrete, asphalt, computer chips, and more. We use up to 50 billion tons of it every year, making it the second-largest resource extracted and traded by volume each year, behind water. Despite our necessity for sand, there are no international conventions that specifically regulate the extraction, use and trade of land-based sand. As demand outpaces supply, shortages have even led to illicit trade in sand in some regions of the world.

The many uses of sand

Sand is made of rocks that have eroded over thousands of years. There are many different types of sand and each has its own purpose. Sand from riverbeds is the most desired for construction materials like cement and asphalt. Silica sand from quartz is used for glass, ceramics and electronics. Marine sand is used for land reclamation. The list goes on.

Sand is also pivotal for oil and gas companies for hydraulic fracking. Oil companies mix silica sand (also called “frac sand”) with water and shoot it into shale rocks to break them apart and access the oil and natural gas inside. Companies recently discovered that using more silica sand makes the fracking process more efficient. This has led to increased U.S. consumption of industrial sand and gravel, up 13 percent to 110 million tons consumed in 2018.

Despite increased consumption of sand, the United States is still the world’s top exporter, responsible for nearly 30 percent of the world’s natural sand exports in 2018. Top destinations for U.S. sand exports include Canada, China, Japan and Mexico.

As cities grow, so does demand for sand

Demand for sand is expected to increase in the coming years, especially in developing countries faced with increasing populations, urbanization and economic growth. Nearly two-thirds of global cement production happens in China and India, reflecting their rapidly urbanizing populations. China alone produced more cement last year than the rest of the world combined.

In the past, sand trade has stayed mostly regional because it’s heavy to transport. But in the coming years, as demand outpaces supply, international trade in sand is forecasted to grow at 5.5 percent each year, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Resource-constrained countries will be particularly dependent on sand imports to meet the needs of their rapidly growing urban areas.

Singapore is the world’s largest sand importer, importing an estimated 517 million tons of sand over the last 20 years. Most of this sand came from its Southeast Asian neighbors including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Cambodia. Singapore has used this sand to increase its land area by 20 percent over the last 40 years, but Singapore’s thirst for sand has led to tensions in the region.

According to the UNEP, sand exports to Singapore were reportedly responsible for the disappearance of 24 Indonesian sand islands. Indonesia formally banned sand exports to Singapore in 2007. In the last two years, Cambodia and Malaysia have also banned sea sand exports citing environmental concerns. Malaysia’s 2018 ban will likely have a big impact on Singapore, since Malaysia was the source for 96 percent of Singapore’s sand imports last year.

Another top importer of sand in the region is the United Arab Emirates, which is surprising given its prime desert location. Desert sand, however, is not useable for construction purposes since desert winds make it too fine and smooth. The UAE is thus dependent on sand imports to continue making roads, buildings and other infrastructure in Dubai. The UAE imported over two million tons of natural sand in 2018, according to the International Trade Centre.

Sand mafias are stealing entire beaches

The growing need for sand has led to illicit sand trade and “sand mafias” in developing and emerging economies across the world. Stories abound of beaches disappearing overnight, rivers drying up and more.

In Morocco, an estimated 10 million cubic meters per year— about half the sand the country uses— is illegally stripped from its coast. The erosion has caused serious issues for the country’s tourism sector, as many buildings are now at risk from beach erosion due to illegal sand mining.

“Sand mafias” are another example of the perils of the illegal sand trade. Due to the increasing price of sand, organized crime surrounding it is also thriving, according to the UNEP. Activists who speak out against these sand mafias that illegally strip river beds and coasts in countries like India have been threatened and even killed, the organization says.

Likes grains in an hourglass

We may take sand for granted, but we’re extracting it far faster than nature can replenish it. Most major rivers across the world have already lost between 50 and 95 percent of their natural sand and gravel, the UNEP says. Matters are made worse by irrigation and hydroelectricity dams, which also reduce the natural amount of sediment flowing in rivers. These factors can cause serious environmental issues, including erosion, pollution, flooding and droughts.

Despite its importance worldwide, sand is one of the least regulated resources today. There are no international conventions regulating the extraction, use or that specifically govern trade in land-based sand. Rules for sand extraction are largely written at the national and regional levels, leading to a variation of standards and different levels of enforcement across the world.

The UNEP is trying to change this by calling on international organizations, national governments, private sector companies, civil society groups and local communities to come together and have a global conversation on sand extraction. As the world’s sand grains continue to slip quickly through the hourglass, the time for that conversation should be sooner rather than later.

______________________________________________________________

Lauren Kyger is Associate Editor for TradeVistas. Prior to joining TradeVistas, she was a Research Associate at the Hinrich Foundation focused on international trade issues. She is a Hinrich Foundation Global Trade Leader Scholar alumna, earning her Master’s degree in Global Business Journalism from Tsinghua University in Beijing. She received her Bachelor’s degree from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Software

THIS TINY CHIP IS PLAYING A BIG ROLE IN THE TRADE WAR

September 9th, 2019 Andrea Durkin Leave a comment

Small and mighty

In one of the most successful branding campaigns, “Intel Inside” helped us all become aware that semiconductors are the brains behind modern consumer electronics in our computers, in our mobile phones, in our televisions and in our cars. It’s wondrous such power begins life as grains of sand (and other pure elements). The silicon in sand is purified and melted into solid cylinders that get sliced into one-millimeter thick wafer discs. The discs are polished, printed with circuit designs, and cut into the tiny individual semiconductor chips that get embedded into our devices.

The next generation of smarter and more powerful machines will rely on even more sophisticated semiconductors to achieve new capabilities. The pace of change is dizzying. Pressure is on to “win” in the global chip race, which is why efforts to protect innovations in chipmaking are front and center in the current trade war – for better and for worse.

Strength in numbers

The American semiconductor industry dominates the field with close to half of the global market share. Some industry leaders thrive by maintaining a high degree of vertical integration, but most have achieved a competitive edge by developing reliable value chains that leverage industry clusters located in different regions, while also tapping into the expertise of thousands of small, niche firms inside and outside the United States.

Some firms focus on supplying raw materials or manufacturing equipment, others create “intellectual property cores” or the building blocks for chips, or cultivate skilled engineers who lay out the circuitry of chips. Closer to the end users are companies that have achieved efficiencies in manufacturing, assembling, testing, packaging and distributing semiconductors.

According to the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), Canada, European countries and the United States are leaders in semiconductor design and high-end manufacturing. Japan, the United States and some European countries are main sources for equipment and raw materials. China, Taiwan, Malaysia and others in the Asia-Pacific tend to concentrate in the manufacturing, assembling, testing and packaging segment of the industry. R&D hubs are spread across the world.

One American company might have over 7,000 suppliers across almost every state and also have another 8,500 suppliers outside the United States. In creating strategic value chains, American companies can invest in R&D to advance the science while keeping production costs down.

China’s growing chip army

The Trump administration approaches trade with China through the lens of national security as well as economic preeminence. As the Economist rightly points out, in this clash of economic titans, “the chip industry is where America’s industrial leadership and China’s superpower ambitions clash most directly.”

China currently spends as much on imported semiconductors every year as it does imports of crude oil. Importing semiconductors was crucial to China’s ascendance as an assembler of telecommunications equipment, computers, displays, monitors and a variety of electronic components that China exports around the world.

But it’s high-end semiconductor development and manufacturing that China has its eye on now as the foundation for sustained economic growth and military might. Under its “Made in China 2025” strategy, the Chinese government set a goal to supply 40 percent of its own semiconductor needs by 2020, increasing to 70 percent by 2025.

Enlisting the big guns

U.S. firms spend twice as much on R&D as their Chinese counterparts – 17.4 percent of sales versus 8.4 percent. How to counter? Pull out some big funding guns. China’s Ministry of Science & Technology orchestrated the $800 million Hou An Innovation Fund to acquire technologies to help its industry semiconductor industry leapfrog. The fund purchased a controlling stake in the world’s leading developer of semiconductor IP blocks. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology also built a $31.7 billion war chest, even opening its China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund to foreign investors.

According to Price Waterhouse Coopers, China has gone from 16 integrated circuit design firms in 1990 to 664 in 2014. Chinese wafer production firms tripled over a similar span, and the number of testing and packaging firms has increased by 50 percent. E-commerce giant, Alibaba, acquired in-house capacity to design semiconductors tailored for artificial intelligence in a bid to compete with Microsoft and Google. Baidu, Huawei and other major Chinese firms are also enlisted soldiers in the fight.

Secret Weapons

Powerful chips are critical for any industry that relies on collecting, managing and computing with data – and that includes the defense industry. Our most sophisticated defense weapons depend on them. The U.S. Department of Defense has a strategy for “Microelectronics Innovation for National Security and Economic Competitiveness.” The U.S. government has imposed billions in tariffs on imports from China to generate leverage in negotiating an agreement to crackdown on forced technology transfers and theft of intellectual property. But it is also deploying other tools to control U.S. exports of critical technologies, another avenue for China to access U.S. innovation.

The U.S. government has proposed expanding its list of “emerging and foundational technologies” (microprocessors for example) deemed essential to national security that would be subject to licensing under the Export Administration Regulations before U.S. companies could export them. Also under review is the Commerce Control List (CCL) to assess any changes that should be made to controls on items to embargoed destinations, which may include China.

The Commerce and Justice Departments have visibly stepped up enforcement and applied existing authorities in novel ways against Chinese companies that might steal technology. In November last year, the Department of Justice announced it would proactively investigate and prosecute Chinese companies for alleged trade secret theft and economic espionage. The announcement was swiftly followed by an indictment of Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Company, Ltd., a state-owned Chinese semiconductor manufacturer, for alleged crimes related to a conspiracy to possess and convey the stolen trade secrets of Micron Technology, Inc., an American semiconductor company. The Commerce Department added Fujian Jinhua to the list of entities to which U.S. companies cannot sell without obtaining a license.

The United States is not alone in applying policies designed to prevent technology transfer to Chinese companies either through export or acquisition. Taiwan and South Korea have done the same. Foreign firms are also wary of violating U.S. laws. According to Reuters, Japan’s Tokyo Electron, the world’s third-largest supplier of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, announced in June it would not supply to Chinese firms on a U.S. list.

On the front lines

The Administration’s tariff war is leaving almost no industry or product untouched, affecting semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, raw materials, printed circuit boards, and a variety of other products in the industry’s supply chain. American semiconductors often criss-cross the globe during production, so U.S. firms might end up paying this import tax on its own product — not to mention the higher costs of tariffs on the consumer products that run on semiconductors.

While supportive of the administration’s goals, the U.S. semiconductor industry has urged a balanced approach that will protect its intellectual assets from theft and preserve U.S. national security while not unduly hamstringing innovation and growth that is in part derived from international collaboration.

Current technologies and methods of fabrication proprietary to incumbent firms keep them in the lead, for now. But in the near future, chips will run on light rather than electricity. Artificial intelligence and quantum computing will be applied to gain computing speed. Breakthroughs like these will determine who are the future industry leaders, and China has an opportunity to gain entry on the ground floor of those frontiers.

_____________________________________________________________

Andrea Durkin is the Editor-in-Chief of TradeVistas and Founder of Sparkplug, LLC. Ms. Durkin previously served as a U.S. Government trade negotiator and has proudly taught international trade policy and negotiations for the last fourteen years as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service program.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Global Plywood Market 2019 – The Industry Desperately Needs New Growth Drivers

September 9th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Plywood – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The global plywood industry is currently affected by the US-China trade war and the slowdown of China’s economy. In 2018, its market size was estimated at $73.9B, surging by 2.6% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price).

Over the period under review, plywood consumption continues to indicate a buoyant increase. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 34% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the global plywood market reached its peak figure level at $93.9B in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.