Lead time takeaways from AMU's survey

At the same time, respondents no longer described imports as becoming less competitive.

Measured lead times

Lead times by week in December showed the largest increase observed across historical data for sheet, extrusions, and primary product groupings.

From November to December, average lead times rose sharply across each product category:

• Extrusions rose to an average of 7.33 weeks in December from 4.00 weeks in November.
• Primary lead times increased to an average of 6.67 weeks in December from 4.25 weeks at the end of the prior month.
• Sheet product lead times widened to 7.07 weeks from 5.31 over the same period.

Lead times by product type

Product-level lead-time data showed December’s increase applied across individual product types within sheet, extrusion, and primary aluminum.

However, the size and structure of those increases differed by product, which affected how December’s shift compared with prior months.

Sheet

Common alloy sheet lead times rose modestly in December, relative to other sheet product types, to seven weeks, extending further from an already elevated November baseline of six weeks.

Because of the elevated November baseline, the scope for additional extension was more limited than in other sheet types.

At the same time, responses clustered more tightly around the higher average, indicating the increase was broadly shared rather than driven by outliers.

Where end-market comparisons were possible, building- and construction-oriented respondents show a clearer upward move than transportation-linked responses, consistent with seasonal restocking and forward ordering ahead of the spring construction window.

Auto body sheet posted a sharper month-to-month increase, rising by nearly two weeks to just over seven-and-a-half weeks and becoming the longest-lead-time sheet product in December.

Responses across end markets consistently moved higher as well, illustrating a directional shift within that product rather than a redistribution across respondent types.

Can sheet was a clear outlier in terms of composition and magnitude of change, though it aligned with the overall upward direction of the other two sheet product lead times.

December lead times rose sharply from a relatively low November baseline but remained the shortest within the sheet grouping.

When compared with the distribution of prior month-to-month changes going back to July, the December increase stood out as unusually large.

This inferred that can sheet experienced a discrete lead-time adjustment in December rather than a continuation of the incremental changes observed earlier in the year.

Extrusion

Extrusion products recorded the largest absolute lead-time increases in December.

Both 6063 and 6061 mill-finish extrusions moved higher than in November.

The number of extrusion responses was smaller than for sheet products, but that pattern broadly reflects the market structure. Sheet represents a larger share of North American aluminum consumption and is more frequently purchased directly from large, integrated mills.

Extrusion demand is smaller in absolute volume and more dispersed across producers that commonly work from upstream inputs such as billet rather than purchasing finished extrusions directly from mills.

Within the extrusion category, 6063 mill-finish extrusion posted the largest month-to-month increase in the full product set.

However, that increase followed one of the sharpest declines in the historical data from October to November. As a result, December’s increase to six weeks reflected both a rebound from an unusually low prior reading and an extension to a higher level.

Lead times for 6061 mill-finish extrusion increased by a smaller amount, but it still posted the longer lead time of the two in December at seven weeks.

Primary and billet

Primary billet and P1020 or high-purity ingot both reached their longest lead times in the available historical series.

For billet, the December increase coincided with a notable reduction in variance among inputs. November responses varied widely, while December responses clustered more closely around a higher average just under six weeks.

That shift suggests a more uniform ordering environment

Like the broader upswing in lead times, the more uniform responses look less like a sudden tightening and more like a normalization at a higher level.

P1020 or high-purity ingot followed a similar directional increase.

Although the December increase to just over six weeks appeared large relative to the small month-to-month changes in the historical data, that comparison reflected a long period of stability rather than a highly volatile baseline.

The most defensible takeaway is simply that December broke a long run of stability in primary ingot lead times, pushing them decisively higher.

Lead time direction sentiment

The increase in measured lead times contrasted with survey responses on lead-time direction.

In December, a larger share of respondents described lead times as stable rather than extending or shrinking.

The share of survey respondents that answered “stable” of the three options (stable, extending, shrinking) marginally rose to 65% from 59% a month prior, while “extending” and “shrinking” both ticked down.

That shift hints that respondents viewed the higher lead-time levels as orderly rather than unpredictable.

The combination of higher measured lead times and steadier directional sentiment indicated that December functioned as an adjustment period, during which buyers recalibrated to longer ordering horizons without reporting heighted uncertainty.

As always, unlike the product-specific lead-time-by-week data, the lead-time direction question is not limited to upstream primary or semi-fabricated aluminum.

Respondents can apply sentiment to a wider range of aluminum-intensive goods, which supports the conclusion that respondents recognized longer lead time changes as orderly and consistent with typical seasonal or operational patterns.

Imported semis and primary competitiveness

Responses on import competitiveness shifted sharply in December.

No respondents described imports as becoming less competitive. Most responses centered around “no change,” making up 80% of the responses, while the remaining 20% noted “more competitive” imports.

In November, only 36% or respondents noted “no change” in import competitiveness, while 50% said they were less competitive.

One potential contributing factor to the shift in import competitiveness perceptions is that it coincided less with the absolute Midwest transaction price and more with changes in the Midwest premium embedded within it.

Earlier in the year, the Midwest premium often failed to cover replacement costs, leaving limited room for sellers to discount or absorb expenses without eroding margins. By December the premium had widened enough to provide that internal coverage.

In that environment, sellers had greater flexibility to place imported material without relying on price concessions that would otherwise make transaction economically unviable.

With pricing mechanics functioning more smoothly, perceptions of whether US primary and semi-fabricated supply was keeping up with demand likely reflected delivery timing and allocation rather than a lack of available metal.

New US primary and semis supply

According to the December results, the share of respondents who believed new US primary and semi-fabricated aluminum supply was keeping up with demand edged slightly higher than in November.

The overall split was 38% that answered “no” and a remaining 68% that answered that new supply was keeping up with demand.

The question showed a clearer split by company role than most others in the survey. Manufacturers and assemblers disproportionately answered “no,” while scrap recyclers and processors more often answered “yes.”

A plausible interpretation might be that even as both groups are evaluated the same primary and semi-fabricated aluminum supply, manufacturers tend to judge adequacy through delivery reliability and allocation at the point of use.

On the other hand, it is difficult to determine with certainty whether recyclers’ clustering around a “yes” response reflects a single underlying dynamic or a combination of factors.

Recyclers are more likely to judge it by whether volumes are flowing and being absorbed upstream, which would be consistent with sufficient primary and semi-fabricated aluminum availability in aggregate, even if conditions are tighter or less flexible for downstream buyers.

At the same time, recyclers’ tendency to view supply as keeping up may reflect the absence of substitution pressure rather than strong demand. Put another way, with primary and semi-fabricated aluminum availability perceived as adequate, there appears to be little need for downstream buyers to lean on scrap, leaving scrap supply ample and inventory drawdowns manageable.