How to Qualify a Vessel Appraiser

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. 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!


© 2013 – present Basil M Karatzas & Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.  All Rights Reserved.

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.

 

Advertisements

Can money still be made in shipping by flipping ships?

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

© 2013 – present Basil M Karatzas & Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.  All Rights Reserved.

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.

 

‘Shipshape 10’ News for Week Ending December 11, 2016

‘Shipshape 10 List’, a list of news and articles published in the current week that a senior executive in shipping, shipping finance, commodities, energy, supply chain and infrastructure should had noticed; news and articles that are shaping the agenda and the course of the maritime industry.

Sometimes seemingly tangential, sometimes humorous, occasionally sarcastic, but always insightful and topical.

And, this week’s ‘Shipshape 10’:

With the freight markets fairly decent and with the continuous buoyancy of the equity markets, we think the recent news of shipping companies accessing the capital markets has been the most noteworthy and encouraging of all; still, the amounts are small for most practical purposes, but it’s encouraging to see that capital markets are not completely shut for shipping; this week, Seanergy (ticker: SHIP) successfully raised $15 mil which follows on the $14 million Safe Bulkers (ticker: SB) and $72 mil Costamare (ticker: CMRE), $106 million Höegh LNG (ticker: HMLP) and the $100 million the Saverys’ backed Hunter Maritime Acquisition Corp (ticker: HUNTU) in the form of a SPAC (blank check) raised.

1. Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp. Prices $15 Million Offering (company press release)

Small disclaimer that Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co. has contributed the Industry Section Report for the F-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); the F-1 filing can be found here, Form F-1.

Still on the financial front, HSH Nordbank AG has reported taking more than $1 billion provisions for their non-core shipping loan portfolio; sobering developments…

2. HSH preparing for change of ownership ─ net profit € 163 million after nine months (company press release)

No doubt that shipping finance is a tough market; Oaktree has been making yet another approach to shipping, this time by providing credit (lending) to shipowners. It’s another effort to capitalize on the opportunity created by the shipping banks leaving the industry. The news on Splash 24/7:

3. Oaktree develops financing model for smaller owners seeking secondhand bargains (from Splash24/7)

Without trying to toot our own horn, Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co. had written about the business opportunity in the Cayman Financial Review in October 2015, more than one year ago;

Credit funds in the wake of departing shipping banks

On more commercial issues, Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Iranian Offshore Oil Co.) finally entered into the newbuilding market with a decent order of four new-panamax containerships of 14,000-teu and six product tankers; the news of newbuilding orders is disheartening in this market, but again, Iran does have to rebuild their fleet, having remained away from the markets since 2006; interesting to note that the order for the newbuildings is going to Korean and not to Chinese as speculation held that ships-for-oil trade with the Chinese may had offered more value:

4. Iran Shipping Lines Close to $650 Million Korean Order (from the Wall Street Journal)

The markets are completely moribund, and this week’s auction by Mexico for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico drew strong demand, from the usual suspects (ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total), but also by the national Chinese oil company (China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC):

5. Oil and Gas Industry Leaders Eagerly Take Stakes in Mexican Offshore Fields (from The New York Times)

While often much more attention is paid to shipping and ships, one has to keep in mind that often complimentary businesses may be as enticing as shipping; Dubai-based global ports operator DP World joined forces with Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), one of Canada’s biggest pension funds, to create a $3.7 billion vehicle to invest in ports and terminals; individual ships or shipping companies can come and go, sink or sail, but they always need ports to load an discharge, a seemingly lower risk investment in an otherwise volatile industry:

6. DP World Joins Canadian Pension Fund to Create $3.7 Billion Investment Vehicle (from the Wall Street Journal)

While Ontario’s pension fund (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, OMERS) has divested a majority stake in V.Ships, the vessels’ management company; the economics of the transaction were not made public, but likely at a nice return for OMERS since 2011 when they bought the company for $520 million:

7. V.Group Changes Hands (from the Maritime Executive)

while there has been stipulation for the UK to seek a more hands-on approach with the national flag:

8. UK eyes part-privatisation of Ship Register to compete for flags (from the Financial Times)

The timing of the transactions above is interesting however; could this be a headwinds environment for vessel management companies too if growth is to slow down?

9. Get used to it: Economists see “new normal” of slow growth (from the Associated Press)

while the strength of the US dollar causing undue pressures on trade movements

10. Why a strengthening dollar is bad for the world economy (from The Economist)


mv-wuchow-bmk_2143-3

All too familiar picture: pretty ship sitting high in the water. Credit image: Karatzas Images

© 2013 – present Basil M Karatzas & Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.  All Rights Reserved.

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.