Tag Archives: supply chains

Mexican regs create new requirements for importers and exporters

Posted on October 3, 2022 by | 1 comment

Changes in the Mexican government’s regulations for bills of materials and shipment documentation are poised to take effect January 1, 2023. The changes are substantial, and require much more data collection.

I interviewed Josefina Blanco, Legal and Compliance Lead at Nuvocargo, talking from Mexico City. She’s a lawyer, and an expert on Mexican trade regulations.

Nuvocargo is a full-service digital platform for US-Mexico trade, offering freight forwarding and brokerage services, customs broker services, cargo insurance, and supply chain financing for both shippers and carriers. They specialize in 53-foot truckload transport.

The genesis of the new regulations is the Miscellaneous Tax Resolution, passed in Mexico in June 2021. That act imposes new Bill of Lading requirements on anyone moving cargo within Mexico, as well as into and out of Mexico. The new requirements are captured in documents known as Complemento Carta Porte or CCP. They require more detailed information to accompany each shipment, verifying its origin and ownership. It’s an attempt to reduce contraband, an important problem for Mexican trade.

There are severe penalties for non-compliance, including loss of ability to operate, fines, and felony charges. Originally, the regulations were to have begun with spot checks in 2021, but fines were not to occur till January 1, 2022. The deadline for enforcement has slipped five times. Now authorities insist that January 1, 2023, will begin enforcement with sanctions.

Under the new rules, drivers must carry the CCP documentation with them, and it must be correctly filled in. There could be spot checks of cargo, leading to issues for drivers. In addition, the CCP is an electronic form. Nuvocargo has a lot of information about the CCP supplementary information in a FAQ on its website.

The Mexican authorities, according to Josefina, included design criteria that help make the CCP and bill of lading electronically compatible. However, the present result seems to contain a lot of redundant information in its over 200 fields. That means a computer system to prepare the forms is almost essential for efficiency, though it is legal to fill the CCP in by hand. Josefina Blanco indicated that about 20% of firms in Mexico are building software themselves to comply.

Now you would think that large firms would not oppose this regulation too much, because they would be in a good position to provide correct CCPs. However, the deadline slips were due to objections from larger companies, represented by industry organizations. Josefina says this was due to the considerable difficulty of programming computer systems to gather data and create the CCP documents correctly. System development takes time and cost, and collecting the information could add as much as 15% to the freight bill, according to Josefina. Many smaller carriers and businesses do not have what’s required to meet these new requirements, and have not started yet.

Brokers themselves are not required to file the CCP forms; according to Josefina, shippers and carriers are the ones in the spotlight. But freight brokers like Nuvocargo, who specialize in Mexican and US transport, can provide service which insures compliance for their loads. Nuvocargo, for instance, includes both shippers and carriers in their offering. Carriers they suggest are likely ready to meet the new rules. and Nuvocargo’s digital platform for managing a shipment collects the proper information and provides the proper CCP documentation, paper and electronic.

Josefina indicated that Nuvocargo specializes in international trade crossing the border at Laredo, TX, US/Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, MX. This port of entry is one of the largest in the US. I was surprised to learn how much truck traffic crosses this border every day. Recently, congestion has grown so great that the US government is expanding several smaller border crossings in Texas to handle larger amounts of traffic. They may provide alternatives for avoiding the congestion at Laredo.

Nuvocargo has recently received major injections of new capital, showing that they are meeting a need perceived by investors as growing. One of their investors is Flexport, the San Francisco unicorn of user interface (UI) based freight brokerages. Other top investors include Tiger Global, one of the largest funders of entrepreneurial firms, and YCombinator, the MIT-related incubator of startups. This article from Techcrunch details the recent trajectory of the company from an entrepreneurial perspective.

Nuvocargo has offices in New York City, a major financial center and hotbed of entrepreneurial activity, and in Mexico City, MX.

https://www.nuvocargo.com/en

1 Comment

Posted in Logistics, Supply Chains, Trucking

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Your ‘chassis deal’ – and terms – may be costing you

Posted on September 30, 2022 by | 1 comment

Obtaining a chassis from a pool is a good idea for some truckers. But beware the terms and conditions. The article indicates that pools, often owned by leasing companies and investment houses, have a goal of making money. I believe the biggest risk of renting from a pool is that the pool may be cheating on maintenance, so the chassis you pick up may have deficiencies that show up during the trip. In that case, the trucker must fix it at her expense. It’s always true that who is in possession of the chassis is required to pay for fixing the problems that occur on the trip.

Some pools, such as the one in SoCal connected with the ports, have union workers doing the maintenance. There’s probably less risk of under-maintaining chassis there. But privately operated pools have an incentive to cheat on the maintenance, because they can lay it off on the truckers.

And there is information asymmetry. There are few figures on the incidence of repairs for chassis from various pools. Such real data would inform everyone whether a pool is doing enough preventative maintenance. But without such data, it’s just a gamble for the trucker.

The article claims carriers are better off purchasing their own chassis. But I’m not convinced. Owning the chassis requires an upfront expense, or a lease, which is money out the door. If you buy the chassis you will need to put it to use often to recover your investment plus your profit. You now have to do all the maintenance. And chassis vary for different needs; a chassis for forty-foot ocean cargo won’t fit twenty-foot ocean cargo; or you might need a reefer-compatible chassis. Unless you have high predictability, you are better off taking what you need for each load.

My understanding of the situation in Europe was that chassis were mostly owned by the large drayage firms. That prompted the movement several years ago by ocean carriers in the US to divest themselves of chassis, to try to get the truckers to own them as in Europe. But as the author points out, most drayage drivers in the US are owner-operators, and don’t work for a large firm. They can’t support the capital expense of a chassis unless they are convinced that they will be able to employ the chassis for money on most loads. We did a paper on this in 2014. They would need to believe that they could almost always get paid for using the chassis. But that isn’t the way it is; somewhere around 40% of all cargoes come with a chassis provided by the ocean carrier. And that is going up nowadays, with ocean carriers getting into last-mile and end-to-end delivery promises.

So I wonder. But there should be ways to make maintenance data more visible, and make it easier for truckers to dispute charges for chassis repairs if the repairs should have been done at the pool first. I’m afraid that will be quite a while coming, though.

Ashley Coker Thursday, September 29, 2022

Your ‘chassis deal’ – and terms – may be costing you – FreightWaves

1 Comment

Posted in Logistics, Ports, Shipping, Supply Chains, Trucking

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Avoiding Dead-end Streets As We Build the Future of Supply Chain Planning – Sep 23, 2022

Posted on September 26, 2022 by | 1 comment

Lora Cecere, the Supply Chain Shaman, has given us once again something to think about– big time. She goes off on some of the current fads in supply chain that she thinks are not worth pursuing.

It’s always wise to listen to Lora. She has a wealth of experience and many years of consulting with top companies to inform her thinking.

Here are some of her dead-end streets that you should be avoiding.

  • Dashboards
  • Lights-out planning
  • Real-time planning
  • DDMRP (demand-driven material requirements planning)
  • Forecast Sharing
  • Sales Forecasting

She believes future applications are adaptive and distributed. Read the article to see what she means, and how those two keywords play out.

The SCOR methodology she claims is useful in devising a new approach to planning. Figure 3 shows an outside-in model of planning for a company.

I’m particularly intrigued by her comments on dashboards. I’ve felt they were more about visibility than improving processes. While some of that is necessary, the real value will be if you can make changes quickly. And most dashboards, I’m afraid, don’t let the operators do that. They look cool but don’t help making critical changes.

Her remarks about real-time planning are also on point. If you rerun too frequently, the plans thrash— they oscillate between one action and another completely different one. There is value in following a consistent pattern and making slow changes rather than swinging back and forth. We saw that in spades during the Covid epidemic. Look at the auto manufacturers who canceled their chip orders and then six months later could not place them again because the capacity had been diverted to other chips that were more profitable as it happened. Acting too quickly caused them anguish that has persisted for three years now. Reruns generate noise that affects partners and destroys relationships.

I also share her skepticism about DDMRP which bases an entire manufacturing progression on orders. It’s better than not looking at orders, but it fails to capture the richness of what might happen in the future. We can point to the same auto manufacturers and see that they have hundreds of cars in an ‘almost-complete’ state while they wait for certain electronics to be delivered.

And she provides some good references on checking how forecasting is improved by getting the customer’s forecast in advance. Statistical tests indicate that for the most part they are not helpful. What characterizes the few that are? That’s worth research.

And finally, salesmen are the worst forecasters. First of all, they’re liars. And the best ones are the worst liars. Why? Especially if they are paid on commission, or via a plan that pays for meeting targets or provides spiffs for beating them, they will try to get the target set low. And for commission sales often they are not guaranteed, as to size especially. So the salesman might predict low-ball, because he’s sure he will get that as a target. Then the big order comes as an extra. But for manufacturing planning, that is not reality. Often big orders do not come exactly when anticipated, so they might not fall at quarter end when the financials are due. Timing is harder to predict than size.

In the past at a mid-size manufacturer, we had better luck eyeballing a steady rate of production from history (moderated by some anticipation of the future market) and then trying to get salespeople to tell us about big orders and when they anticipated them. We laid the big order forecasts on top of the ‘run-rate’ forecast to determine the timing of production. A few days’ change in big order timing didn’t then blow our whole manufacturing plan.

Salespeople are a good source of info about products and customers, but as manufacturing forecasters they are awful. Yet you need to cultivate them to get that key information about their expectations which is valuable.

Here’s a PDF of her post.

supply-chain-shaman-2022-09-26Download

Avoiding Dead-end Streets As We Build the Future of Supply Chain Planning

1 Comment

Posted in Logistics, Supply Chains

Tagged , , , ,