AMU Survey: January lead times stable, but still uneven across products

Beyond lead times, respondents also offered insight into shifting perceptions of import competitiveness and supply adequacy. This revealed divergences that are less visible in the headline figures alone.

Semi-fabricated and primary aluminum lead times

Lead times were flat to lower in January’s AMU survey.

Sheet

Sheet lead times remained near the upper end of the historical range at 6.7 weeks, easing from the 7.3-week mark reached in December—the highest level recorded over the past seven months of AMU data collection.

Extrusion lead times dropped more noticeably, falling to 6.0 weeks in January from a seven-month high of 7.3 weeks in December.

Primary aluminum lead times, covering 6061/6063 billet and P1020 ingot, held steady at 6.7 weeks, effectively levelling off at the higher level reached in December.

But trends at the product level reveal a modest departure from last month’s pattern when components within each category broadly moved higher.

Common alloy sheet and automotive body sheet remained positioned toward the longer end of the January ranges at 7.0 and 7.5 weeks, respectively. Can sheet continues to stand apart with shorter lead times at 5.0 weeks.

For common alloy sheet, lead times reported by manufacturers and assemblers, particularly those serving building and construction and transportation, was wider than times cited by distributors and traders.

That gap may reflect differences in sourcing dynamics rather than outright supply tightness. Distributors and traders typically draw from a broader pool of producers or rely on more inbound material flows. Manufacturers and assemblers may purchase less frequently or in smaller volumes, depending on the company.

It may also reflect differences between domestically sourced material used by manufacturers and assemblers and imported material more commonly handled by distributors and traders. Meanwhile, established vessel schedules can make replenishment cycles more predictable.

In that context, longer reported lead times appear to mean that supply isn’t constrained, but that access is uneven.

Can sheet shows a different pattern.

Lead times at the lower end of the January range align more closely with domestically sourced material. Longer lead times align with supply that is more likely to be imported.

Although those longer lead times remain low in absolute terms and broadly consistent with what is reported by the same respondents across sheet products more generally, the contrast points to a quicker turnaround for domestic can sheet compared to imports. In that respect, the can sheet dynamic runs counter to what we see in common alloy sheet.

Extrusions and primary

Extrusion lead times show clearer internal differentiation by alloy, with 6063 and 6061 no longer moving in lockstep as in December. Lower lead times for 6061 mill finish extrusion weighed on the broader extrusion lead time figure in January.

Primary lead times were unchanged from December. This result is consistent with the underlying conditions evident at the end of last year. While January did not introduce new directional signals in reported lead times, several recent developments explain why primary availability may appear stable (or tight) relative to widening sheet and extrusion lead times.

The recent increase in the Midwest delivery premium—which more fully incorporates replacement costs after tariffs—coincided with restocking activity ahead of the new year, potentially absorbing near-term availability without extending lead times.

At the same time, expectations for primary supply remain constrained amid uncertainty surrounding global smelter capacity and China’s adherence to its production cap.

With domestic primary supply limited and imports typically filling a sizable share of demand, these dynamics may be keeping lead times anchored even as downstream products show greater dispersion.

The introduction of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) tax may have had a knock-on effect on primary flows heading into 2026.

The US primary market relies on imports to cover a structural deficit that is much larger than domestic supply. Meanwhile, European buyers appear to have stocked more heavily than usual ahead of 2026, attempting to clear customs ahead of the Jan. 1 implementation of CBAM.

That dynamic would delay any reallocation of global primary volumes, helping explain why lead times have yet to register a response.

As those European inventories are worked down, the relative attractiveness of the US market for marginal seaborne tons could become more visible.

Qualitative lead times

January’s qualitative lead-time question—whether respondents described lead times as “extending,” “stable” or “shrinking,” regardless of the material—adds context to the numeric data.

Responses in January consolidated around “stable,” further drawing the added basis points from the relatively small pool of respondents that said lead times were “shrinking” in December.

The share of respondents describing lead times as “stable” rose to 70%. Those indicating “extending” lead times edged up to 25%. Only 5% of respondents described lead times as “shrinking.”

This pattern suggests respondents increasingly see lead times as stabilizing, even as some underlying semi-fabricated figures moved in the opposite direction.

By end market, the concentration of “stable” responses was most evident among those selling into the scrap recycling supply chain, the building and construction sector, and transportation.

Among the quarter of respondents noting “extending” lead times, responses were concentrated among traders and scrap recyclers.

Import competitiveness

January also marks a notable inflection in how respondents describe import competitiveness.

Historically, “no change” has dominated this question, with periodic swings toward “more competitive.” January’s reading stands out as more respondents, 38%, chose “more competitive.” That’s the largest share since AMU began collecting responses to this question and nearly double the level reported in December.

Responses indicating “more competitive” imports were not confined to a single role.

Producers, manufacturers and assemblers, as well as distributors and traders all reported increased import competitiveness. Recyclers continued to report “no change,” consistent with an environment characterized by elevated competition since the implementation of increased Section 232 tariffs.

As mentioned earlier, the EU’s carbon border adjustment means another layer of regulations for seaborne exporters, including emissions reporting, certificate purchases and ongoing compliance requirements.

The CBAM framework applies to unwrought aluminum and certain semi-fabricated and semi-finished products entering Europe. While this does not necessarily map directly to the specific participants or products referenced in the survey responses, it may influence the relative attractiveness of those markets.

Combined with a higher Midwest premium that more fully reflects replacement costs and provides buyers with greater pricing flexibility, the US market may appear more competitive than it did prior to the end of 2025.

New US supply against demand

Responses to whether US primary and semi-fabricated supply is keeping up with demand remained balanced compared to historical data. January marked one of the most evenly split readings since the survey began, compared to the May result.

At the aggregate level, the distribution offers little directional signal, suggesting neither a clear deterioration nor improvement in supply.

Where the question becomes more informative depends on the company role. Recyclers and producers are evenly divided, mirroring the overall response split and reinforcing the lack of clear consensus at the market-wide level.

Manufacturers and assemblers, however, skew more decisively toward “no,” indicating greater skepticism about supply keeping pace with demand. Simultaneously, distributors and traders unanimously responded “yes,” standing apart from other roles and underscoring how perceptions of supply adequacy vary depending on where respondents sit in the value chain.

The results suggest while the headline response remains neutral, downstream fabricators appear more constrained in their assessment of new supply than those positioned closer to material sourcing and distribution.

Looking ahead

Taken as a whole, January’s survey depicts a market that has moved out of a tightening phase and into a more stable, but uneven, equilibrium.

Product-level lead times no longer move in unison, with downstream dispersion reflecting differences in sourcing, access, and end-market exposure rather than broad constraint. At the same time, perceptions of import competitiveness have shifted more meaningfully than supply adequacy.