AMU Survey: Lead times extend as undersupply expectations rise

Measured lead times (primary and semis)

February averages increased across all three categories compared with January.

Sheet

Sheet lead times rose to 7.3 weeks, up roughly half a week, largely driven by a sharp increase in can sheet.

Auto body sheet, which had been the longest of the three subcategories in January (common alloy, auto body, and can), held at 7.5 weeks in February, while can sheet expanded by two and a half weeks month over month to match it. Meanwhile, common alloy sheet edged higher to 7.2 weeks.

The intra-sheet spread compressed to its narrowest level since tracking began in July.

Can sheet continues to exhibit the greatest month-to-month volatility, recording the sharpest swings within the category, aside from the October-to-November surge in auto body sheet following the fire at Novelis’ facility in Oswego, N.Y. in the fall.

Extrusions

Extrusion lead times have converged on a more narrow low-high spread as 6063 mill-finished extrusion lead times dropped to six weeks from seven. And 6061 mill-finished lead times rose to 6.5 weeks from 5 the previous month. Notably, the number of respondents providing input for 6061 extrusion far outpaced the number of those providing 6063 extrusion lead times, which is usually pretty evenly split.

The divergence in the number of inputs provided for both categories might illustrate a trend unto itself. It also may explain why 6061 extrusion saw a relatively sharp increase in lead times of 1.5 weeks.

Lead times for 6063 mill-finished extrusion declined to six weeks from seven. And 6061 mill-finished extrusion increased to 6.5 weeks from five the previous month.

Primary

Primary lead times rose to their highest level since tracking began in July 2025. A sharp increase in P1020 drove the new high.

The move extends a pronounced shift that began in December, when P1020 increased by roughly 2.5 weeks.

The increase was sufficient to lift the broader primary category to its highest average in the survey’s history, even as primary billet (6061/6063) lead times softened by a few days month to month.

Among respondents who provided inputs for both products, each reported longer lead times for P1020 relative to billet. That internal consistency reinforces the divergence between the two subcategories.

P1020

Several structural factors may be influencing lead times. The idling of the Mozal smelter in Mozambique removes a source of low-carbon primary metal at a critical juncture, when the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) launched at the beginning of 2026. The regulations require verified emissions reporting and the purchase of CBAM certificates.

In addition, Century Aluminum’s Icelandic smelter remains partially offline. During its fourth-quarter earnings call, the company projected full-year shipment volumes would decline by about 60,000 metric tons due to lost output. Full capacity is not expected until late in the second quarter. Iceland has been another low-carbon source for European markets.

Because lower-carbon aluminum carries a smaller tax burden under that framework, demand for qualifying units has increased as supply has tightened. Mozal and Century’s Grundartangi smelter did not meaningfully ship primary aluminum to the US in recent years. Rather, they supplied Europe.

Reduced supply into Europe may prompt European buyers to secure alternative sources, altering established trade flows and tightening availability for US spot buyers, particularly in imported units.

At the start of the year, some European buyers moved to clear and stock primary metal ahead of full CBAM implementation. That front-loading likely satisfied near-term needs. However, two months into the new regulations, replenishment cycles may begin again.

Market participants also report Canadian primary volumes have increasingly moved to Europe following a year of tariff adjustments. That shift could alter traditional patterns and potentially contribute to longer lead times. Because Canada remains the dominant supplier of primary to the US, sustained diversion of those flows — particularly low-carbon units that are advantaged under the EU’s CBAM framework — would reduced metal earmarked for the US market.

The dynamic follows a fourth quarter of 2025 in which US unwrought aluminum imports declined 35% year over year, according to Commerce Department data, further limiting the cushion of inbound primary metal heading into the new year.

Even as global primary aluminum production is expected to increase, that growth is concentrated in Indonesia, a supplier that has served Asian markets rather than Western Europe or the US. As a result, incremental capacity additions may not directly offset disruptions in Western low-carbon trade flows.

Still, it is important to consider that some of the recent movement may reflect seasonal ordering patterns.

Lead-time sentiment (value chain)

In the broad lead-time direction question, the share of respondents calling lead times “Extending” rose to 53% in February, from 25% in January. “Stable” fell to 40% from 70%. “Shrinking” stayed marginal (7%, up slightly from 5%). The month-to-month move is the most abrupt of any response in February’s survey.

Aside from October, when the fire at Novelis’ Oswego plant pushed the share of “Extending” responses to 38%, the proportion citing “Extending” had not exceeded 30%. February marks the first month in which “Stable” responses fell below 50% and “Extending” climbed above the 50% threshold.

The shift is notable in light of the prior two months.

In December, measured lead times for primary and semi-fabricated products rose sharply form November, yet 65% of respondents described overall lead-time direction as stable, with only 23% selecting extending.

January showed somewhat softer measured lead times than December (and February), but sentiment became even more anchored with 70% reporting stable and just 25% extending.

It is important to distinguish between the two data sets.

Measured lead times are typically concentrated among producers, manufacturers, and traders of primary and semi-fabricated aluminum.

The lead-time direction question captures sentiment across a broader mix of upstream, midstream, and downstream roles, and applies to a wider range of aluminum-intensive goods.

Therefore, the sequencing is notable. It suggests upstream lead-time expansion was visible in December before it was fully reflected in broader market perception. If downstream buyers initially viewed the increased as contained to raw material supply, February may represent the point at which that pressure was more widely felt along the value chain.

In fairness, the data does not isolate causation. However, the timing is consistent with a lagged impact effect rather than an immediate, supply chain-wide adjustment.

Import competitiveness

Perceptions of import competitiveness shifted in February as well.

Responses split between “more competitive” at 57% and “no change” at 43%. No respondents selected “less competitive.” In January, a larger share reported no change, and a small portion characterized imports as less competitive. The latter category disappeared in February.

The shift was not uniform across company roles.

Distributors and traders as well as producers who responded to the question aligned entirely with the “more competitive” view. Manufacturers and assemblers clustered in “no change.”

End-market exposure also influenced responses.

Transportation-focused participants skewed toward “more competitive.” Those serving machinery and industrial equipment more often reported no change. Recycling and scrap-related respondents were mixed.

New US supply (primary and semi-fabricated)

Responses to the question of whether new primary and semi-fabricated supply is keeping pace with demand shifted meaningfully in February.

Two-thirds of respondents (67%) said new supply is not keeping up. That’s up from 53% in January. The share answering “yes” declined to 33% from 47% the prior month.

The distribution of responses suggests skepticism is concentrated among distributors and traders as well as scrap recyclers and processors. These roles are positioned close to spot markets and physical flow dynamics, where constraints or reallocations may be immediately visible.

Manufacturers and assemblers were more mixed in their responses. Participants serving transportation-related end markets reported that supply is not keeping up, while those tied to machinery and industrial segments showed less concern.

The February shift is consistent with other signals in the survey, particularly the rise in P1020 lead times and the sharp increase in the share of respondents characterizing the three-month market balance as undersupplied.

Survey framework

Because tracking began mid-2025, year-over-year comparisons for January and February are not yet available. The series continues to build each month, allowing for more data points.

Participation in the survey is open to industry professionals across the aluminum value chain, regardless of subscription status. Those interested in contributing may contact Nicholas.bell@crugroup.com.

Survey contributors receive early access to results, including select breakdowns and comparative data not published in full on the website.

Subscribers retain access to expanded survey analysis and an archive of historical results.