The Unbearable Boredom of Marine Asset Prices

Posted on September 7, 2020 by Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been the low-probability-high-impact novel risk that few people had seen coming and warned about it (mostly statisticians and epidemiologists) but the greater business community had ignored it till now. Coping with COVID-19 is still an evolving process, and the shipping industry has been learning to react and adjust to the forces the pandemic has unleashed on supply chains and logistics, some with a positive impact, but mostly with adverse or very adverse implications.

We have argued elsewhere on some of those implications, and we will follow up soon with a few more thoughts. However, for now, the subject of marine asset pricing and vessel values, more than six months since the pandemic has started in the West, seems to be too intriguing to pass up.

Once the magnitude of the pandemic started taking shape by March 2020, and the extent of lockdowns and closing of borders and travel restrictions were evident, the first expectations were that this is going to be very bad for the shipping industry and for shipping values. After all, once the industrial base of China and the United States and the European Union coming to a screeching halt, and trade volumes collapsed, one had to expect the worst. And, indeed, the first couple of weeks of the pandemic were brutal in anticipation, from the world stock markets to the long lines snaking outside supermarkets.

The Baltic Exchange [Disclaimer: Karatzas Marine Advisors is a Baltic Exchange member company] freight indices (both for dry bulk and tankers) were edging marginally higher at the beginning of the year on renewed hopes of market recovery. When COVID-19 smote the market, dry bulk freight rates quickly collapsed; it was not that demand for raw materials collapsed simultaneously with the rising of the pandemic, but port operations pushed forward any cargo requirements, thus pulling the freight market down fast in the short term. However, the very same disrupted port operations that pulled the freight market down had a completely different effect for tankers: combined with a glut of crude oil and petroleum products that brought the energy markets into a contango, and quickly tanker rates skyrocketed, at least temporarily. But, once oil companies and refineries managed to handle their excess inventory, as one would had predicted back in April, the tanker market deflated as well.

From the following graph of the Baltic Exchange Indices, freight rates presently are lower than at the same time last year (2019) and the year before (2018). There is a current, rather seasonal, rally in the dry bulk market (the US Dollar has lost appr. 10% of its value in 2020, and commodities priced in USD being cheaper in local currencies have spurred regional trades), but still below break-even cash levels. VLCCs are earning appr. $15,000 pd spot now (vs. $45,000 pd average 2019 earnings) and Capesize bulkers are earning $14,000 pd spot now (vs. $14,500 pd average 2019 earnings). Not great numbers, but again, as solace, in 2016 the market was much worse with Capesize vessels earning the grand sum of $4,500 pd. And, when considering the GDP of many OECD countries has dropped more than 10% in the first half of 2020, and the OECD formally expects global economic activity to drop by 6% to 7.6% annualized in 2020 (based on average scenarios), the current freight market is not bad at all.

Baltic Exchange Tanker & Dry Bulk Freight Indices since 2015

And, accordingly, since freight rates are highly correlated to marine asset prices, one’s attention turns to the secondary value of ships: at least the shipowners, and the shipping lenders and the investors as the use shipping asset prices as their main benchmark for equity (and wealth) creation, as collateral to shipping loans (Loan-to-Value or LTV) and the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the company. In the two graphs herebelow, we are using values of five-year old both dry bulk and tanker vessels, the major asset classes per market sector as a proxy, although prices for older and newer vessels show similar characteristics. The data were provided by the Baltic Exchange and Karatzas Marine Advisors.

For Capesize, Panamax and Ultramax dry bulk vessels, asset prices have declined since last year; in a sense, this is to be expected given the state of the market, but nominally, one would expect that dry bulk vessel prices to be lower at present than where they really stand. Not only freight rates are low, but also several complimentary factors (i.e. momentum, financing, etc) are worse than the freight market may imply. What is noteworthy is that although the overall marine asset pricing curve is negative, in the last several months, it’s effectively flatlined, showing signs of minimal variance and volatility. If the shipping industry is known for one thing is that it’s that flat lines rarely exist in shipping.

Tanker Vessel Assets Prices (5yr-old Vessels)

Likewise for tanker asset pricing, for five-year old VLCC, Suezmax, Aframax, Panamax LR1 and Medium Range MR2 and MR1 tankers, the overall trend is negative, but again, the several last months show a flat line as well. Minimal movement in tanker asset pricing, in a market that is known to move around widely.

Dry Bulk Vessel Assets Prices (5yr-old Vessels)

If any conclusions could be drawn from the current pricing activity (and a weak secondary market activity in the sale & purchase market) is that there is a tug of war between buyers and sellers that currently stands at equilibrium. Both buyers and sellers trade along the status quo and “last done” pricing as neither group has the upper hand. Despite the weak freight market, sellers still earn enough to pay their bills (and possibly their lenders, too), and buyers do not really have a reason to pay up to acquire tonnage (but also, they do not find “distressed” opportunities to feast on).

We would think that the market is bound to move, and rather strongly, in either direction in the near future. Both industry idiosyncratic variables (financing, banks, newbuilding activity, etc) or exogenous variables (the upcoming elections in the US are expected to be unusually contentious and impactful worldwide) could move the market and marine asset values, and the current boredom in the vessel value pricing is deceiving.

———————————————————————————————————

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, NEW BLOG POSTINGS ON SALE & PURCHASE MATTERS WILL APPEAR ON KARATZAS AUCTIONS –

PLEASE FEEL TO FOLLOW US THERE!

———————————————————————————————————

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Access to this blog signifies the reader’s irrevocable acceptance of this disclaimer. No part of this blog can be reproduced by any means and under any circumstances, whatsoever, in whole or in part, without proper attribution or the consent of the copyright and trademark holders of this website.Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that information herewithin has been received from sources believed to be reliable and such information is believed to be accurate at the time of publishing, no warranties or assurances whatsoever are made in reference to accuracy or completeness of said information, and no liability whatsoever will be accepted for taking or failing to take any action upon any information contained in any part of this website. Thank you for the consideration.

How to Qualify a Vessel Appraiser

Posted on September 22, 2018 by Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.

The shipping industry has been bobbing along ever since the financial crash of 2018. There is, of course, the expected market sector rotation with certain asset classes coming in and getting out of favor; at present, dry bulk vessels are cash flow positive, containerships rather weak, and tankers and offshore assets downright miserable. Following the whims of the freight market, values of ships fluctuate up and down; when certain sectors are out of favor, there have been sales on occasion at eye-popping low levels – and when the market improves, there may even be a chance for a shipowner’s favorite game, the famous “flipping of assets” to monetize on asset appreciation.

While the shipping market keeps doing what it does best – being volatile, shipping banks and capital for shipping are getting even tighter and costlier, which impacts not only vessel asset prices but also the volume of sale and purchase of vessels in the secondary market. For instance, at present, given the state of the tanker market, there have been months without the sale of tanker vessels in certain asset classes (there have been almost six months without the sale of modern VLCC, suezmax, aframax, LR2, MR2 and MR1 tankers that were not between affiliated parties or not subject to financing), which makes pricing and valuing of vessels all more complicated. All along, regulatory requirements keep piling on the industry (IMO2020 is the latest concern), while new technologies and innovation keep raising the technological risks for the industry.

Commercial considerations aside, the current state of the market is impacting not only vessel valuations but also the process of arriving at an accurate (and, some even say honest) vessel valuation. The standard definition of Fair Market Value (FMV) is premised upon the existence of a liquid secondary market; when the last comparable sale was six months ago, it might as well it had been six years ago given the volatility of the industry. As a result, delivering an accurate vessel appraisal when there is dearth of data, it can be considered an “art” at the very least, or worse, the subject of intense scrutiny of not only the outcome of the valuation but also of the process of the valuation, including questioning the qualification of the vessel valuator themselves. Valuation is not just the outcome, the value of something, but also, the qualification and the standards of the valuation process as well – the integrity of the process.

When times were easier for shipping… STS Leeuwin II in Fremantle, Perth, Australia. Image credit: Karatzas Images

Standard industry practice is that vessel valuations are commissioned from shipbrokers on the assumption that they have their finger on the pulse of the market. On the other hand, one has to keep in mind that there are concerns of the integrity of the process of deriving a number, especially when data is old and have to be “interpreted” and judgement comes into play. And, as uncomfortable as it is talking about it, there are conflicts as shipbrokers make much more money on commissions by selling vessels than providing valuations for vessels, thus, they may ensure when providing valuations to ingratiate themselves to the party that likely will give them more sale-and-purchase (“S&P”) business in the future. There are cases where shipbrokers and vessel valuators in the same shipbrokerage company are often at odds, given that they have conflicting interests: vessel valuations are a loss leader for many shipbrokerage companies (at a typical $1,000 per desktop valuation) while a commission of 1% on the sale of the same vessel can generate a much higher bonus. One does not want to upset the owner / seller of a vessel with a tight valuation of their property.

Of course, there have been online platforms whereby automated vessel valuations can be provided instantly via an algorithmic process. Such an automated approach would presume there is no bias, such as un-intentional personal judgement of interpreting the data or intentional skewing the results of the valuation to favor a certain party. While such a presumptions seem credible, on the other hand, one has to be aware that the algorithmic process is backward looking (historical data with historical bias), and still it has to depend on judgement as certain sales should be adjusted or disqualified since they may not be true comparable sales (judicial sales, auctions, subject to financing, sale-and-leaseback transactions, etc) In our experience, and convenience aside, algorithmic valuations overall do not provide much higher accuracy than qualified, unbiased actual vessel appraisers.

As we have discussed elsewhere in previous post, there are also additional valuation methods to be considered than the market comparable approach, such as the income approach method and the replacement cost method. However, such methodology often gets beyond the realm of expertise of a shipbroker as concepts of finance, economics, accounting, and possibly taxation may come into play. We have seen in the past, a partner at a shipbrokerage shop googling for Net Present Value (NPV) formulas in order to provide an income approach for a vessel valuation; we feel disheartened for such practices and for people being so cavalier with asset values; and, coincidentally, we would love to see such partner explain themselves in a court of law under oath in a scenario of litigation, where they would had to explain their methodology – when it’s clear they lacked any fundamental understanding for the valuation process. There is clearly legal liability for poorly prepared valuations.

Reflections on watery matters… Image credit: Karatzas Images

Most U.S. banks, leasing companies, commercial asset finance and equipment finance companies have now raised the bar for the firms and the people providing valuations; as such firms have a fiduciary duty to ensure that they look diligently after the money of their depositors and investors, it would make absolute sense that whoever is providing ship valuations has to meet certain academic standards, are subject to continuing education and that they have to abide by a set of professional rules and code of ethics. “Gray lenders” such as credit funds and other investment firms active in shipping seem to keep working with their preferred brokers, but this can be a liability claim in the waiting. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been known to have taken an extra look in the last few years at certain publicly listed entities and their vessel valuation methodology and accounting practices. When investors lose money with their shipping investments, it’s hard to see what would stop them from pursuing legally asset managers for not credentialing properly their vessel valuation practices.

We do not want to be warmongers but in an environment of higher regulations for banks and investors, as well as people in shipping, one should be surprised to see how vessel appraisals are delegated as a matter of favor or a matter of inconvenience. Reality should be expected to soon catch up.

The sponsor of this blog, Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co., is pleased to announce that they have taken the matter of ship valuations or vessel valuations or ship valuations or ship appraisals – however valuation of marine assets is called, to a higher level. The firm employs Accredited Senior Appraisers (ASA) for Machinery and Technical Specialties who have met high academic standards, have passed qualifying exams, and most importantly, have to strictly abide to an extensive code of ethics. The firm also employs Fellows of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (FICS) who have passed extensive exams and had to demonstrate years of experience in the maritime industry to qualify for such accreditation. Additional qualifications for the firm’s personnel include Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and Certified Marine Surveyor (CMS) by the National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMS). The firm is a member of BIMCO and the Baltic Exchange among several professional memberships. The firm also employs Ivy League MBAs and graduates who can provide an income approach valuation without having to google the NPV formula!

Can money still be made in shipping by flipping ships?

Posted on May 29, 2018 by Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.

Unlike other capital assets whose value depreciates over the economic life of the asset, ships are known to appreciate in value if markets are strong. When freight markets are exuberant, the value (price) of ships can appreciate as investors expect stronger cash slow streams and higher earnings. It’s not unheard of ships having doubled or trebled in value in a matter of years, generating exceptional windfalls for their owners.

It is said that much more money in shipping has been made by timing the purchase and sale of ships by an owner and benefiting from the asset appreciation rather than by generating operating profits. And, conceptually, this is true: over the long term of a business cycle, as markets are efficient, the operating profit cannot be much higher than the risk undertaken from investing in a ship. On the other hand, as shipping is subject to a myriad variables – a few of them beyond the realm of logical projection such as geo-political events or natural disasters – volatility in the shipping spot freight markets is notoriously gigantic (both VLCCs and capesize vessels in the last decade experienced spot rates ranging from $1,000 pd to $200,000 pd), ships prices can vary accordingly. There have been cases of ships that have doubled or trebled in value in a matter of a few short months, even – and, inversely there have been cases where ships have collapsed in value in a matter of weeks (actually, there has been a well-published Harvard Business School case study – to which we have contributed, whereby two sistership capesize vessels were sold a few months apart in 2008 at a price differential of more than $90 million. By timing the market decently, many a shipowner have made a fortune in the last decades by just buying and selling vessels at the right time.

The 2008 market correction saw a precipitous drop in asset prices. Many buyers hoped for vessel acquisitions at distressed prices – mostly from fire sales from shipping banks, but really only a small portion of vessels mortgaged with bad loans ever got to be sold cheaply. There was no doubt in the minds of many people that 2010 asset price levels were strong buying opportunities.

Once the markets normalized, 2012-2015 saw a tremendous interest in newbuilding vessels, which, by boom-year standards, were at competitive prices; and, of course, shipbuilders did their best to encourage more newbuilding activity by actually sharing the subsidy windfalls from their governments with international buyers of newbuilding ships.

Let’s say that a market recovery did not play out as expected and 2016, for the dry bulk market, saw one of the worst times on record; freight rates and asset prices just collapsed. As a matter of proportion, ten-year-old drybulk vessels were selling in early 2016 at twice their scrap value, while historically ships of that age would be expected to sell at approximately 5x their scrap value. Once again, 2016 was a screaming buying opportunity in the mind of many people, of buying “cheap ships”.

Fast forward two years later, drybulk asset prices are higher than the lows of 2010 and 2016; but, really, not exuberantly higher; and, definitely, no higher than the highs of 2013-2014. Yes, there have been cases of ships getting flipped at double their purchase price between the low and the high, but such evidence is limited to one-off deals, older tonnage, or transactions where the seller had to sell at any price.

The tanker market, the other main commodity shipping market that it’s prone to asset flipping, has experienced similar trends, only in a different sync cycle than dry bulk. Tankers actually are at a cycle low at present with the trade of crude oil being dislocated by OPEC’s production cuts and the boost of shale oil in the US. Tanker asset prices are low – so much so that an institutional investor recently sold a vintage VLCC for scrap – which was bought three years ago; sale was at a loss by our calculations, and much pre-maturely than the expectations of the tanker’s economic life. Making money on this cheap but vintage supertanker did not work out.

What has happened to the asset play game in commodity shipping? Is the game over? Freight rates still are fair and drybulk vessels generate positive cash flows; what would take to pull prices up from the depths of the 2016 crisis?

We wish we had a crystal ball on this, but we think that making money by flipping ships these days is not the “game” it was. The market is getting more complicated, more efficient and transparent, and more demanding; higher demands by all: bankers, charterers, operators, regulators, etc And, ships have been evolving, and they have to catch up with new regulations; it was ballast water treatment management last year, it’s emissions this year, likely it will be IoT and bunkering fuel in the next few years. And, likely many more factors to worry about.

And, cheap and plentiful financing leverage to lubricate the market to make purchasing of ships easier is only getting costlier and more complicated. And, lack of cheap leverage, among other things, has kept a lid on asset prices.

Not saying that asset play is dead; ships seem reasonably priced in today’s markets. But, asset players have to have access to capital and buy opportunistically fleets (not just a ship) when the timing is right (i.e. Angelicoussis and Ofer Groups in the past), and also have the flexibility for financial structuring (while Star Bulk sold have their capesize fleet (at a major loss) in 2016, now they are consolidating the market by paying in paper (shares) to acquire the Songa drybulk fleet and the Augustea Atlantica / York Capital tanker fleet). By buying and operating fleets, they give themselves the benefit of finding employment with established charterers, accessing the banks and capital, having an operating platform – if the asset play does not work out, they will have the capacity to sustain the cycle and go for operating profits.

Borrowing from a credit fund at 10% interest to play the asset game for one or two ships is like playing with the fire. Even worse if the asset player has to put 100% of the purchase money themselves.

Several shipowners tried to raise capital since the 2016 crisis based on the investment thesis that buying cheap ships pays off. We are aware of no institutional investor who actually paid much attention to the theme or even funded the project, since 2016, tempting the theme as it may have been. At least, some lessons have been learned on this matter from the past.

Still shipping is an exciting industry and there is money to be made. But for now, the asset play game is not the way to make money in shipping. At least not by playing the same game with the old rules…

Flipping is hard to do! Image credit: Karatzas Images

The Institution of Shipping

Posted on February 6, 2018 by Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.

For someone to get an academic degree in accounting, for instance, it does not automatically qualify them to represent clients on accounting matters. This approach to qualification is not a judgment against the institution granting the degree, but the premise that the professional society of accountants – wherever they may be – make the effort to ensure that their members have to meet certain standards – professional, academic, legal, ethical, etc – and practice the profession under a certain set of rules. There are people who have studied accounting but failed to pass the professional exam, and as a consequence, they ended up slaving in the back office doing book-keeping at a substantially lower pay scale. For the professionals in law or medicine, “passing the bar” is even more critical and demanding. Professional societies go to a great length to ensure that their members are knowledgeable and current and of a certain standing; and they do weed out the “bad apples”. In exchange for maintaining (certain) standards, the profession enjoys a high degree of reputation and its members earn a respectable living.

Having ourselves being in the shipping profession for almost two decades, and only becoming a member – after passing a series of exams – of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS) in the UK in the last three years, and now in the final stages of becoming an accredited appraiser (valuator) with the American Society of Appraisers (ASA) (after again passing series of exams of law, ethics and subject matter) in the USA, it got us thinking that the shipping industry really lacks professional organizations whose credentials are a sine qua non in the industry.

To be a practitioner shipbroker, there are really no professional certifications to hold or minimum body of knowledge to possess in order to practice the profession. True, most young shipbrokers usually have studied a subject matter related to the maritime industry, but there are no minimum standards of the breadth and depth of such knowledge or some uniformity. And, given that ship-brokerage involves aspects of law and finance, the actual field of knowledge can be quite substantial. Most ship-brokerage offices would hire people apparently good at selling and getting compensated on commission and let Darwin’s law of survival do the rest of the work. And, true, certain ship-brokerage houses have their own in-house training, but again, this rests with the employer, who still can opt how to train young professionals.

Why there should not be a mandatory license in order to practice the profession of a shipbroker? Why there should not be professional assurances of standards of practice and also of ethics – including consequences for breaking the rules?

Likewise, almost all shipbroker houses advertise their vessel valuation service as part of their set of services offered. Most of vessel valuations are so-called “desktop valuations” where no physical inspection of the asset is required, and typically ships are valued based on the “last done” – a process shipbrokers should be good at. However, when valuing an asset to the tune of millions of dollars, one would expect more effort and detail to reach a complete valuation, and, actually assurances of the integrity of the valuation process. Ship valuations and appraisals are used for loan documentation and on-going loan-to-value (LTV) tests for the loan, are used for insurance and claims purposes, for arbitration and court proceedings, and many other factions, where small detail is crucial. Yet, the ship appraisal process is approached in a cavalier way in terms of competence, or even worse. It has been known that vessel valuations services can be used to curry favor with principals and shipowners for shipbroking business, and there have been known instances of “broker shopping” for vessel valuations that will render the highest vessel value (dear reader, please keep in mind when asset prices are low and sometimes “underwater” in terms of LTV, vessel values are critical for triggering default clauses with severe consequences). Once again however, there is no professional body ensuring accuracy and integrity of ship valuations. The “loss leader” model seem to work for many parties when it comes to vessel valuations, with the exception of US banks and lessors and equipment finance companies that steadily are demanding that vessel appraisers to be certified, qualified and obeying by a professional code of ethics by the American Society of Appraisers.

The Baltic Exchange’s –another venerable maritime organization to which Karatzas Marine Advisors is a member of – keystone premise is “Our word our bond”, an expression that is rather encompassing of the mentality of the shipping industry. In an industry of perfect competition, it’s an open field for providing services in the maritime industry: the qualified and less-qualified, the competent and not, the good and the bad… There is room for many a “cowboy” and “buccaneer” in the shipping industry, and sometimes lots of caveat emptor, along with people in shipping whose word is their bond.

For strangers new to the shipping industry, sometimes it’s a learning curve before finding one’s bearings in terms of people to depend on. The push for new technologies in shipping is offering a quick bypass to professional credentials as now an agnostic algorithm can be programmed to provide the services; an algorithm build (hopefully) by experts in the field, an algorithm that obeys a set of rules (but not a code of ethics).

Besides technology, there is an underlying trend to bring shipping into an age of an “institution” where services and products are better defined and where the buccaneer and un-predictability element of the business go away. Charterers want to see bigger shipowners with efficiencies and critical mass and predictability of service, shipping financiers want to see bigger shipowners with better practices and efficiencies, etc, Taking inefficiencies and un-predictability out of the system, professional accreditation for services would go a long way.

A new day, a new epoch for shipping? Image credit: Karatzas Images

A Sale & Purchase Market in Shipping that Was … or, It Wasn’t It, in 2017

Posted on December 29, 2017 by Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.

2017 was a fairly good year for the drybulk market. As compared to 2016, truth being told, 2017 was an exceptional year. All segments of the drybulk market have moved from severely depressed levels (with a meaningful part of the world fleet idle then) to profitable levels; at some point in early 2016, it seems that all types of drybulk vessels, irrespective of size and segment, were earning $4,000 per diem, if they managed to find employment at all. By comparison, in November 2017, capesize vessels most noticeably were etching earnings close to $30,000 pd.

And, looking forward, the prospects for 2018 seem at least fair for the drybulk market, while tankers and containerships hold hope. Shipping is far from showing a full recovery from the crisis, but at present the market seems optimistic, especially when one considers the abysmal days of the market bottom in March 2016.

Drybulk freight indices in 2017, provided by the Baltic Exchange

2017 has been a fairly decent market for the sale and purchase (S&P) of shipping assets. Vessels were bought and sold, but mainly they were bought, at a livelier pace than in 2015 or 2016; overall, S&P activity has been higher by 34% in 2017 for the drybulk market than the previous two years, a welcome development for S&P brokers. And, most of the vessels were bought in expectations of a recovering market instead of getting sold as in the past in a bloodbath of a market at auctions and other forced sale scenarios.

With increasing volume for S&P in an improving freight market, one would be forgiven to assume that shipping assets prices were on a roll in 2017. It’s true that vessels’ values for dry bulk have improved, driven by an improving freight market and good prospects for the immediate and near future; however, asset pricing was nowhere close to match the freight market’s buoyancy. Freight rates increased by a multifold factor, while asset prices dragged along. As per the attached graph, prices of asset classes tracked by the Baltic Exchange under their Baltic Exchange S&P Assessment Index (BSPA) for five-year old vessels, both tankers and bulkers, have been steady. [Karatzas Marine Advisors is an active member of The Baltic Exchange]. For tankers, prices have shown in 2017 as much liveliness as if trading in a sea of tranquility – exhibiting almost prefect flat lines. For bulkers, there has been a relatively mild improvement in the spring of 2017, but flat lines that resemble tanker prices followed. Still, year-over-year, there is a 25% increase for capesize vessels and milder improvements for other types of dry bulk vessels. Again, these are data for five-year old vessels, and older vessels performed better and newer vessels performed a bit worse than five-year old vessels; and again, these are asset price increases in 2017 alone, not from the bottom of the market in 2016 – where price improvements have been more significant. But again, and without wishing to burst anyone’s bubble, the Standard & Poor’s (S&P 500) index in the USA achieved almost a 20% performance in 2017, and this with all the benefits of a liquid investment.

Shipping asset prices in 2017 and the Baltic Sale & Purchase Assessment Index (BSPA), provided by The Baltic Exchange

Asset prices in 2017 have been un-inspiring for all types of vessels, including drybulk, tankers and containerships. We have written in a different post about the sale & purchase market and asset playing as a business idea that seems that it lost its luster. Hopefully there are much better days in shipping and we are in the early stages of a lengthy and strong recovery; and, likely those who bought ships in 2017 and 2016 will get to enjoy much stronger markets and asset prices.

Our skepticism on the subdued state of the sale & purchase market and its impact on the asset play theme is that they may be early signs that the shipping industry is facing structural changes while we all celebrate the strength of the freight market recovery. It would appear that with the lack of plentiful and cheap debt financing, flipping shipping assets is not as appealing any more. More of one’s money has to be committed to the “bet”, which is makes it costlier to buy ships and play and game. And, more importantly, lack of availability of cheap money for other buyers makes it harder for other people (and potential buyers) of one’s assets to get optimistic and bid up asset prices and pay you a strong price to buy your assets. Or, it may be that shipping is finding its calling that it is actually for transporting goods and being part of the logistics chain and not a speculative instrument for buying and selling ships and stretching one’s fleet like an accordion and being highly opportunistic with the market and business relations.

Even more concerning that the lack of shipping finance prospect affecting asset prices is that the freight market recovery may not considered to be real and sustainable by the “smart money”. Even shipowners with access to cash, few reference names have made substantial purchases in 2017, a few individual acquisitions notwithstanding. Shipowners who in previous down-cycles were loading up on cheap tonnage, it seems this time around have gone on a buyer’s strike. It’s interesting seeing who’s doing the buying and who is doing the preaching, and who’s buying with their own money and who is buying with other people’s money. As another of Yogi Berra’s pith quotations has it, “you can observe a lot by just watching”. And who has been doing the buying in the S&P market in 2017 is not strongly convincing.

There have been reports elsewhere that Greeks and Americans have been the highest buyers of ships in 2017, and the geography of these two countries may indicate trends in the market, at least in the short term and at least for 2017. Access to shipping expertise and access to capital have always been two competitive advantages to have in shipping. Hopefully the trend will continue as our firm has intimate access to both of these markets.

We only hope that 2018 will be a better and more active year for S&P that 2017 has been, and we wish that much more money stands to be made in the new year. Having been very active in 2017 ourselves, we only hope that any S&P activity and asset appreciation is based on fundamentals and not on speculation, and any signs of concern mentioned above remain just that!

Happy New Year!

The hope of the new day and the dangerous of the treacherous seas… Bass Harbor Light, in Mount Desert Island, Maine, USA. Image credit: Karatzas Images

Karatzas Shipbrokers Register

The Shipping Sale and Purchase (S&P) Worldwide Report

Category Archives: Commentary