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

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

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

© 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.

Dry Bulk Sale & Purchase (S&P) Update

The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) established a 30yr low point in February this year; actually the lowest reading of the index ever. Since then, the market has been bouncing along the bottom with a very anemic improvement to show since then. There are concerns that the industry has entered a long-term phase of malaise with chronic oversupply of tonnage; certain trends point to such direction such as massive orders by cargo interests and end users building up their own fleets (i.e. Cosco, Vale, etc) that will make life for independent dry bulk owners difficult, or at the very least ‘shave the market peaks’. China is done for now with their exponential growth of their market as they try to position their economy towards services and focus on a more equal distribution of wealth that can assure social peace. There also have been structural shifts in the markets associated with shipping, such as replacement of coal with natural gas for electricity and power generation; at present the trend against coal is so bad that it seems coal is becoming a ‘four letter word’ as investors, institutions and sovereign funds are competing for the fastest exit from the industry; for sure, natural gas will need also shipping but not on dry bulk vessels; and the coal trade as almost as big as iron ore at almost 1.2 bln tonnes of coal expected to be transported this year vs. 1.5 bln tonnes of iron ore, based on data by Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.

2015 06JUN_BDI Graph

Baltic Dry Index: not a day at the beach, regrettably! (Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.)

Most institutional investors and shipping banks have turned their backs on the dry bulk market, at least for now; thus, there is extremely limited liquidity, which further compounds the downward pressure on dry bulk asset pricing that are inflicted by the weak freight market. The main sources of financing for dry bulk projects today are from the capital markets (selectively available and often at a substantial discount; $SALT’s secondary offering at 30% discount is a clear example of a fallen angel) or with sweat equity and own equity. Independent shipowners and sweat equity have their own capital limitations and likely to opt for older tonnage at rock-bottom pricing, mostly looking for vessels older than 15yrs of age at about scrap pricing; if one has access to cargo or charterers or niche markets, buying a vintage bulker at scrap is not a bad investment proposition: for a few million dollars (small amounts in absolute terms that can be afforded by individual investors) and with minimal capital at risk (premium over scrap), if a buyer can squeeze a few year’s of economic life out of cigarette-butt (think of Benn Graham and Warren Buffett), what can go wrong? And, if the market unexpectedly recovers, these buyers will have hit the jackpot. The access to capital accurately reflects the market dynamics and asset pricing, as big, cash-rich, prime buyers go for beaten-down prices of modern, top quality tonnage, while small, cash-rich owners with access to cargo go for bottom-fishing; thus, there is relative demand from buyers on the opposing ends of the spectrum while demand is sagging for middle-aged vessels; for those involved with volatility analysis and option trading, what’s happening in the dry bulk market reminds of a so-called ‘volatility smile’.

Activity in the dry bulk market is ebbing and flowing, but mostly ebbing as most buyers are taking their sweet time before make any decisions, to buy at all, and if so, at what price. Since asset prices are low and most of the market really is focused on older and cheap tonnage, sale & purchase commissions often are laughable, putting pressure on many smaller brokerage houses.

In the capesize market, Scorpio Bulkers (ticker: SALT) has been continuing their selective divestment of assets in an effort to fill the funding gap for their massive newbuilding program (along with their discounted pricing of secondary offerings as announced earlier this week for 133,000,000 shares of common stock at $1.50 per share; the stock was trading well above $2.20/share at the time of the announcement). In early April, Scorpio has sold three units of capesize bulkers at $44 mil each (2015/2016 deliveries of 180,000 dwt tonnage at Daewoo-Mangalia, MV ‘SBI Churchill’, MV ‘SBI Perfecto’ and MV ‘SBI Presidente’) while this week it has been reported that additional sales took place at $41 mil each, indicating an 8% drop in asset pricing in approximately two months (MV ‘SBI Corona’, MV ‘SBI Estupendo’ and MV ‘SBI Diadema’, 180,000 dwt, 2016, Shanghai Waigaoqiao/China). Approximately one month ago, the still modern cape MV ‘Blue Everest’ (180,000 dwt, 2010, Daehan) was sold at $27 mil, and the older MV ‘Jiang Jun Shan’ (177,000 dwt, 2006, Namura) was sold at $18.2 million. Most market reports have a standardized 5yr-old cape at $30 mil ($29.2 mil as per the Baltic Exchange Sale & Purchase Assessment Index (BSPA)), while just one year ago, such number was pushing the $50 mil mark ($49.08 mil as per BSPA); this is a monumental illustration is value destruction, where $20 mil per vessel has evaporated into thin air, a 40% drop. Few people could have envisioned such a market decline (at least not us, we have to confess), but for professional asset managers, institutional investors, portfolio managers, private equity funds and shipowners on roadshows pounding the table about the market getting this so wrong is a humbling example to watch and wonder.

In the panamax market, MV ‘Navios Esperanza’ (75,000 dwt, Universal S.B., 2007) was sold to $14 mil with her intermediate survey due. Interestingly, MV ‘F.D. Jacques Fraubart’ (76,500 dwt, Imabari S.B. Marugame, 2007) was sold less than six months ago at $19 mil, indicating the magnitude of the asset declines in this sector; presuming appr. $1 mil for the cost of the intermediate survey, this sale represents more than 25% decline in less than six months. The sale of the MV ‘Navios Esperanza’ however is in line with present market given than two weeks ago MV ‘Lowlands Queen’ (76,500 dwt, Imabari S.B. Marugame, 2008) was sold at $15 mil. Decade-old tonnage in this segment has just been decimated as recently the Japanese-built MV ‘Million Trader’ (76,500 dwt, Tsuneishi Zosen, 2004) was sold for appr. $9.5 mil; given that the salvage value of the vessel is $4.5 mil in the present market, she’s Japanese-built and her remaining economic life is more than ten years (fifteen actually remaining years as far design life is concerned), it is hard to see how this can be a bad investment, negative cash flows in the immediate future notwithstanding. And, the market is so terrible for pricing panamax bulkers of this vintage that actually the sale of MV ‘Million Trader I’ (76,000 dwt, Tsuneishi Zosen, 2006) at $12 mil in early May was actually considered at ‘overpriced’ territory by one prospect buyer. Similar and tonnage and pricing, MV ‘Medi Sinagpore’ (75,500 dwt, Universal S.B., 2006) was sold for $12.8 mil while the slightly older MV ‘Rose Atlantic’ (75,500 dwt, Sanoyas, 2005) at $11.0 mil. As a matter of comparison, this time last year, the consensus estimate for a 5yr old panamax bulkers was standing at $26 mil ($26.9 mil as per BSPA index), while now the market stands at appr. $17 mil ($16.4 mil as per BSPA), representing an impressive 40% drop in asset prices.

In the ultramax / supramax market, Norden A/S has disposed of two 60,000 dwt Ultramax newbuildings at Oshima Shipbuilding for delivery in Q4-2015 and Q1-2016 for a price in the region of $25m each (N/B RESALE HULL 10781 / 10782, Oshima Shipbuilding, 2015/2016); EastMed of Greece has been reported as buyers. Similarly sized tonnage but older, MV ‘Nord Liberty’ (58,750 dwt, Tsuneishi Cebu, 2008, 4x30T cranes) was sold to Sea World Management for a price region $12.5 mil. The lightly newer MV ‘Hudson Trader II’ less than a month ago (58,00 dwt, Tsuneishi Zhoushan, 2009) had achieved a more respectable $14.2 mil. From Nisshin Shpg.Co.Ltd. Again, as a matter of comparison, BSPA for a modern surpramax was standing at $25.8 mil this time last year and only at $15.46 mil at present; as painful as it has been, supramaxes / ultramaxes / handymaxes have been another great way of value destruction since last year.

MV MONSTEIN 6

Wishing that all waters in shipping were so clear to read! (Image source: Karatzas Photographie Maritime)

While dry bulk asset prices have dropped substantially over the last year, the consensus is that is the ‘glass is half empty’, still. There many reasons to think so, given still the outstanding orderbook to be delivered, excess shipbuilding capacity, low interest rates and excess liquidity for certain markets, mentions of additional credit lines for export credit from China, and lots and lots of dry powder from institutional investors that can move the market at any given point. On the other hand, as we outlined in a recent post, smart money are getting a second look on certain types of vessels in the dry bulk market. Prices are low enough to be tempting, despite negative cash flows in the near term that will have to be ‘added’ to any purchase price; however, delays in deliveries are negotiated each day from buyers, newbuilding orders have stopped – to the delight and surprise of many a shipowner, charterers have gone on a limp to stay away from the period market and delay as much as possible their chartering requirements. There are some smart money that have start thinking that most of the bad news have been priced in the market and, at least in the near future, any surprises likely to have a positive effect on the market. Maybe it’s time to start seeing the dry bulk glass as half-full.


© 2013-2015 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.

What’s Sale & Purchase (‘S&P’) in Shipping?

What does ‘S&P’ stand for in the shipping industry?  It definitely doesn’t stand for Standard & Poor’s, although a few shipping companies have been aspiring to be part of the well-respected ‘S&P 500’ index.  It doesn’t stand for ‘Salt and Pepper’, although sailors and the Navy are dressed seasonally in Summer Blue (“Salt and Pepper”.)  It doesn’t stand for Shipping & Processing, even evocatively, although we are still talking about the shipping industry.  It doesn’t stand for Standards & Practices applied in the broadcasting industry, Standards and Protocols or Security and Privacy used in the computer science, Sensation and Perception in psychology, Subcontract and Procurement in workflow analysis, or Strategy and Policy used in consulting and business analysis.

It simply stands for Sale & Purchase (S&P), the business practice of buying and selling commercial ships in the open market.  As grandiose ships as they may look, there is a need for their brokerage, whether as newbuilding contracts to be ordered at the shipbuilders when they first are getting built, or as ‘used’ vessels in the secondary market, or finally as old vessels now are destined sale for scrapping (demolition.) The professionals who are brokering the vessels are called ship brokers (or S&P brokers,) and are offering different services from charter brokers (who are brokering the freight / employment for the vessels but not the vessels themselves; brokers focusing on the tanker market are called tanker brokers.)

Capesize Vessel

Capesize Vessel

S&P brokers, much like real estate agents, do not hold any inventory on their balance sheets, that is that they do not own the vessels they sell; they just sell other people’s vessels to buyers without actually undertaking any risk at all (besides the time and effort they put into a transaction) or making any capital commitment in the transaction.  As such, the barriers to enter the industry are relatively low, and when times are good, there are many entrants, a great deal of which will wash out during the next market trough.  As great as this may be for most of the time for the principals (shipowners) looking to buy or sell vessels, since brokers usually provide liquidity, efficiency and, yes, more transparency than otherwise in the market, it’s not always an accretive situation for the market and its interests; low barriers mean that jetsam and flotsam enters and leaves the market depending on whether quick buck can be made without necessarily contributing value to the market.

S&P brokers may specialize in certain market segments by asset class such as dry bulk vessels or containerships  or tankers, of gas carriers, etc; they may specialize in certain geographic markets dealing with clients or types of vessels in certain ‘contained’ markets such as vessels in the cabotage business or customized vessels for a certain trade such as mini-bulkers or shallow draft vessels, etc; ship brokers may also specialize by function such as focus on newbuilding vessels or scrap brokers – there are distinct intricacies dealing with a newbuilding contract to a shipbuilding yard where financing and technical details for a vessel expected to be market competitive for the next twenty-five years are extremely vs. selling a vessel by the pound (actually by lightship deadweight tonnage (ldt)) for her last voyage of no return to the scrap pile.  There are specialist ship brokers who have been working with clients lacking shipping market expertise, such as leasing companies or equity investors or lenders, who have to depend on proven track-records of solid experience and dedication at accessing not only top notch ship brokerage services but also hands-on expertise and logistical support (since unlike an operating shipowner cannot depend on in-house expertise.) Finally, ship brokers can be ‘competitive’ brokers offering their services to any potential buyer or seller, while there are also ‘in-house’ brokers who work exclusive for a ship owner (usually larger or active shipowners who trade fairly often and need in-house, dedicated expertise which they can control.)

What are the services that ship brokers usually offer in their regular course of their business?  The short, sweet answer is that they ‘broker ships’ between buyers and sellers and make a commission from the sale; that’s life and destiny for most of the ship brokers and fulfillment of many dreams. The degree of competence and success increases exponentially with access to market information in general, and information about the vessels themselves, their owners, the circumstances of the transaction, their skill and dedication to negotiate great price for their client (above-market-level price for a seller, below-market-level price for a buyer), and can follow up the documentation and closing of the transaction in a professional and competent level.

Ship brokerage, is a great and value-added service to the maritime industry. Selecting a ship broker to do business with is more complicated, but often, one of the most rewarding professional relationships that can be built!  A great deal of shipowners started out as shipbrokers. And another great deal of shipowners make fortunes based on the dedicate work and advise of their brokers…

© 2013 Basil M Karatzas & Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co.

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.