Topical Insight and Current Developments in the Maritime Industry

Basil M Karatzas and Karatzas Marine Advisors Quoted in the News

We are delighted that Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co. and its founder Basil M. Karatzas have been the trusted and insightful source of market knowledge and intelligence for all things maritime; with prompt and accurate access to market information, a vast network of resources and paramount access to senior executives worldwide, in the shipping and complimentary industries, the company and its founding partner have had a front row seat to today’s developments in the maritime industry.

We always thought that we have had a strong advantage over the competition and nothing gives us higher pleasure than seeing our expertise appreciated beyond a constant deal-flow and boardroom discussions with our clients, and in the pages and the trust of the international business press.

Recent media quotations for Basil M Karatzas & Karatzas Marine Advisors:

Need help to buy a ship or jet? Credit Suisse looks to lure super-rich            (Reuters, November 6th, 2017)
This Reuters article explores Credit Suisse’s unique approach to shipping whereby only the top and wealthiest names in shipping that are worth of the bank’s prestigious private wealth management service can still obtain loans for commercial ships or a yacht or a jet… Smaller shipping clients of the bank, whether performing or not with their loans, are “encouraged” to take their business elsewhere.

Investment opportunities in shipping could perhaps be the best in over 30 years’ (Splash 24/7, October 17th, 2017)
“The prospects for dry-bulk have not looked so promising in some time now,” Basil Karatzas, a Splash columnist, said. However, Basil Karatzas qualified the statement by adding that “Hopefully the improved prospects for the market will not be another excuse to kill the market in the bud.”

How protectionism sank America’s entire merchant fleet                                            (The Economist, October 5th, 2017)
This year’s hurricane season and Puerto Rico’s predicament brought to the surface the politics and economics of the Jones Act market. Without necessarily taking a position on the matter, Basil Karatzas is quoted in the ever insightful and prestigious The Economist.

Shipping may gain from Mexico grain pain                                                                    (Lloyd’s List, September 22nd, 2017)
Anti-globalization talk is not always bad for shipping; counter-intuitive, but true. Just look at Mexico’s grain imports.

Shipowners Rejoice Over Rising Demand for Commodities                                      (The Wall Street Journal, September 22nd, 2017)
2017 has been good for the dry-bulk shipping industry. Not an exceptional year and actually the threshold was too low given the abysmal market in 2016. However, on the strength of commodities trading and importation, dry-bulk vessels, especially capesize vessels, have seen the market to quintuple.

Global Shipping Trends: China Cosco Buys Orient Overseas                                      (The Diplomat, August 16th, 2017).
An interview with Dr Mercy A Kuo and the esteemed publication The Diplomat, an international affairs magazine for the Asia Pacific.

China underlines shipping ambitions with $6.3bn takeover of HK group                (Financial Times, July 9th, 2017)
Commenting in the Financial Times on state-owned Cosco acquisition of Orient Overseas International (OOIL) in Hong Kong

China’s Cosco to Buy Shipping Rival Orient Overseas for $6.3 Billion                        (The Wall Street Journal, July 9th, 2017)
Commenting in The Wall Street Journal on state-owned Cosco acquisition of Orient Overseas International (OOIL) in Hong Kong

Trying to see through the fog…even from the shore, the sea can look overwhelming… but always a charmer and a generous giver to those who dare… Cape Cod, MA, 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 here within 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

The abysmally low dry bulk market has a silver lining

Following article was originally posted on the Maritime Executive website under the heading ‘Silver Linings in a Cloudy Shipping Landscape’.


The precipitous decline of the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) and the multiple readings of all-time lows earlier this year have brought the state of the abysmally low freight market to the front pages of the international business press. Effectively, earlier in 2016, all dry bulk vessels afloat, irrespective of age, size and trade, were making $3,000 pd, if and when they could manage to find a cargo. $3,000 pd is below operating breakeven for all types of dry bulk vessels, well before taking into consideration the financial cost and drydocking provisions. For any business covering only variable cost, the future cannot be too effulgent.

While indeed low freight rates will prove too painful for many shipowners owners and shipping lenders, regrettably, we are of the opinion that the miserable state of the market is actually its greatest hope as well. Indeed.

The market collapse in 2008 was too fast and condensed to leave any survival agony; and, coming after the good years of the super-boom cycle with many owners were still in a very very good mood and with piles of cash in the bank, the impact and the lessons the collapse in 2008 were fast ignored. Shipowners and institutional investors alike, failing at sourcing cheap ships from the banks, went to the shipyards and ordered massive numbers of vessels in almost every segment. While the world fleet was fairly young in 2010 (slightly over ten years of age, on average), buyers of new orders were aiming at building fleets with a lower cost basis (lower shipbuilding prices than boom years, often also subsidized with export credit) and better fuel consumption (think ‘eco design’). As a result, at the end of 2013, the outstanding dry bulk orderbook ballooned to 22% of the world fleet, with certain asset classes (35,000+ dwt handies, 80,000 dwt panamaxes and Newcastlemax / capes topping 50% of the outstanding orderbook of same asset class). Given the required couple of years lead-time for the delivery of a vessel, the present implosion of the BDI is partially the result of the newbuilding wave in 2012-2014. However, in the present crisis, new orders for dry bulk vessels placed in 2015 dropped to appr. 18 mil deadweight from apprx. 67 mil in 2014, an almost a 75% decline. We see this as a silver lining in the world of the dry bulk market.

Covering only variable cost entails hard management and trading decisions, and none is costlier than dry-docking a vessel and having soon to see them on a beaching yard. The low dry freight environment saw a largely expanded demolition schedule in 2015, with close to 31 mil deadweight tons scrapped vs appr. 16 mil scrapped in 2014, an almost doubling of demolitions, courtesy of the continuously weak freight market. Checking the flip side of the coin, appr. 49 mil deadweight was delivered in 2015 vs. appr. 48 mil deliveries in 2014, a miniscule increase; again, courtesy of the weak freight market, cancellations, slippage and other market retardants.   Taking a combined look for deliveries and scrapping, in 2015 actually the rate of increase of the world dry bulk fleet decreased actually in 2015, an always encouraging sign when supply declines. Just another silver line in a cloudy sky.

Taking a longer look on the tonnage supply picture, there has been a shipyard consolidation in China in the last year, with many yards, admittedly many greenfield yards, going out of business. Accurate data out of China are always precious to find, but we estimate that the dry bulk shipbuilding capacity in China has shrunk by a third in 2015; there is always the danger that these simplistic shipbuilders can easily come back to the market, but we are encouraged in the silver lining of decreasing shipbuilding capacity.

A great deal of the outstanding orderbook has been fueled by China’s credit boom of the last years, including subsidies and export credit for newbuildings orders placed in China. Again, news about China has to be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems that easy credit and/or export credit will not be available any time soon for those ordering more newbuilding vessels; besides, it’s difficult to extend credit in a cash flow negative market. Just another welcome silver lining on the horizon!

The collapse of the market in 2008 attracted for the first time many institutional investors to shipping, who invested in second hand vessels, shipping equities and bonds, but mostly ordered vessels for all their heart could content. Opportunistic money bear partially the blame for the present state of the market, but such blame has been very expensive too: in general, most investments by institutional investors in shipping are under water at present, figuratively speaking; it’s hard to quantify the losses for the overall market, but for publicly listed companies, calculations can me made with certain degree of accuracy: Lloyd’s List recently published that Scorpio Bulk, backed by institutional investors, realized a $400 mil loss from the ordering and disposal of 28 capesize vessels, an approximate 30% value destruction on the original investment. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 30% is the present losses across the industry, realized or not by institutional investors in shipping. Based on the estimate that $30 billion were invested in shipping post-2008, $10 billion are now in the bottom of the ocean. One can be sure that after such losses, no many institutional investors want to hear about newbuildings, which in our opinion is the silver-est of linings in this bad market: keeping opportunistic investors away from expanding market capacity.

The present cycle is really painful and it’s unavoidable that many shipowners will file for projection or bankruptcy; many investors and lenders stand to realize more losses in shipping in the coming year. It’s a pity, really, but that’s life. We are of the opinion that a protracted and extremely bad market is actually a good thing for the market in the long term; owners will default, banks will get aggressive with owners, ships will be forced to be scrapped sooner or later, and hopefully sooner than later, investments will start taking place on fundamentals and not on gut feelings and investment themes (‘eco design’ has to be one for the ages). Fewer people will be around in shipping when the bloodbath is over, but they will be bigger, better capitalized, better organized and managed, and better positioned for a changing future.

We want to view the present pain in the market as growing pains that needed to make one strong. BDI is bad, but no despair is needed. There is good to come out of this ugly mess.

Hamburg_Cranes Panoramic_Silver Lining_BMK_9721_FEB2016 @

Actually, there is a silver lining despite the lack of ships at the dock… Image Credit: Karatzas Maritime 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 here within 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.

Current Media Mentions for Basil M. Karatzas

Blue & Red ship reflection with pale yellow cranes_LR 2We are taking pride to always be up-to-date with our business , and, if possible, a little ahead, as once a highly successful executive of a top notch company presciently said. At the shipping finance advisory and ship broking firm Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co., we measure our success not only by the number and size of the transactions we work on and successfully conclude, and the caliber of the shipowners and clients we work with, but also by the times we were honored to provide current market information, insight, opinion and counsel to maritime, finance and trade topics to highly respected publications.

A few articles of recent where Basil M. Karatzas and Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co. were in the press:

Weathering the ‘sentiment storm’ in IHS Maritime Fairplay, March 2015.                         While in 2013 capital markets and institutional investors had shown strong for shipping, since late 2014, the ‘sentiment’ has turn diametrically, as Greg Miller of Fairplay explains.

Shipowners anchor themselves in debt markets, in The Financial Times, April 1st, 2015. With traditional shipping banks sailing away from the shipping industry, this capital intensive industry is looking for new sources of capital, including the public debt markets.

Ελκυστικα για τραπεζικα κεφαλαια τα πλοια μεταφορας υγραεριου, in ΝΑΥΤΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΙ (in Greek), March 31st.                                                                                                        The well-respected daily Greek business newspaper Ναυτεμπορικἠ, reports that shipping banks and capital markets show preference for gas tankers (LNG, LPG, ethane, etc) in a changing seascape for the industry. Information and data were partially based on reporting by Lloyds List and the Ethane & LPG Trading and Shipping Conference held in early March in London where Basil Karatzas was a presenter.

U.S. Crude Exports and the Tanker Market, in Tanker Operator, March 2015.                  The article, co-authored with Winston & Strawn partner Mr. Charlie Papavizas, briefly examines the requirements, viability and impact on the tanker market from potentially lifting the crude oil export ban in the US.

We are thankful for the trust placed in our firm’s expertise, knowledge and judgement in so many aspects of the shipping industry and by such well-respected publications and journalists. We are grateful indeed.

Rudder, Propeller, Red Hull_reflection LR


 

© 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 here within 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.

2015 03MAR TO US Crude exports and the tanker market

2015 03MAR12 FAIRPLAY Weathering the ‘sentiment storm’_HL

2015 03MAR31 ΝΑΥΤΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΙ Ελκυστικα για τραπεζικα κεφαλαια τα πλοια μεταφορας υγραεριου

2015 04APR01 FT Shipowners anchor themselves in debt markets_HL

Shipping, Private Equity and the Theory of Agency

The involvement of the private equity in the shipping industry has consumed plenty of ink and has rekindled not too little of a hope for an industry in distress; since the collapse of shipping market in 2008, private equity investors (and by extension, institutional investors wholesale-ly) have been accorded a portrait ranging from guardian angels and saviors of the industry to the “locusts” purveying industries in distress. A lot second-guessing can be excused when markets are dislocated and survival takes precedence over form or order. However, seven years after the instigation of the crisis and more than $30 billion in investments in shipping, people have been trying to take stock of what they had, what happened and what they should had. The fact that seven years after the instigation of the shipping market’s collapse still major shipping industry indices are flirting with all time lows does not make attempted assessments about the industry any easier.

MV PRINCE JOE 10

MV ‘Prince Joe’ in Piraeus – Your typical princely ‘Joe’, today in Piraeus, tomorrow on Wall Street… Image credit: Karatzas Photographie Maritime

As a matter of fact, the precipitous drop of the market and the establishment of thirty-year lows for indices like the Dry Baltic Index (BDI) have brought the concern of industry stock-taking to the pages of the mainstream business press. Most prominently, recently the Financial Times run an opinion article on shipping and the involvement of the private equity in shipping, and what it may have gone so awry; after all, the best and the brightest of the industry have poured their greyest of their gray power into alleviating the troubles of the industry. So far, the foray of institutional investors into shipping has not gone as modeled (at least up until now), and the aftershocks of such involvement are widely expected to make waves in an industry used to be dealing with physical waves.

Blame has been laid on the shortcomings of the agency theory as managers may try to put their own interests ahead of those of their principals and investors. The agency theory has been offered as a management or administration class in business schools, but actually applies nicely in the shipping industry, and actually twice. Corporate officers and corporate managers are running the shipping company on behalf of the investors – who are not involved with day-to-day operations, and in their absence, corporate managers may make decisions that have the managers’ best interests at heart instead of the shareholders. The potential conflict is clear.

In a model often adopted in shipping, the vessel management of the company’s fleet is often outsourced to a vessel management company often affiliated with the corporate officers or at least the ‘sponsor’ of the company when the shipping company was IPO-ed. Many shipowners – both operating and financial shipowners – outsource their vessel management to third parties, for many reasons – including benefitting from economies of scale, etc, and there is nothing inherent wrong with outsourcing; however, when the vessel management company is affiliated with the company’s management, and the earnings of the steady, market-neutral cash flows of the vessel management are unilaterally benefiting private the corporate management, then there may be a concern. It’s apparent that the potential for conflict arises twice when the agency theory is applied to shipping.

Now that several publicly listed shipping companies have become ‘penny stocks’, not mentioning several restructurings and bankruptcies and many investments by institutional investors gone sour, the conflicts of interest get front and center attention. It took a shipping cycle of a lifetime to burst in 2008 and a dip to 30-year low for the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) for concerns to be raised, as such in the article in the Financial Times.

The truth of the matter is that it’s unfortunate that conflicts of interest let the managers on occasion get the better end of the deal; it’s part of the human nature that such things happen, and the managerial science has been at work on how best to optimize corporate governance, motivate sufficiently the managers but not at the undue expense of the shareholders. However, this is not the first time that managerial abuse may have taken place, and shipping is not the only industry having such ‘privilege’. Just recently in the news, former CEO of Tyco International Dennis Kozlowski was looking for absolution for the managerial excesses of ice sculptures decorating corporate events in Sardinia of an era past (hopefully).

Lighthouse Point Judith 6

Lighthouse ‘Point Judith’ in Rhode Island; image credit: Karatzas Photographie Maritime

The truth of the matter also is that in reference to managerial excesses in shipping – and mostly when it comes to vessel management – the news about the abuses are often pre-announced and occasionally never exaggerated at all. One only has to peruse the filings and the prospectuses of shipping companies – mandatory information for publicly listed companies – to see that in many cases, there have been a garden variety of excesses and conflicts, including exorbitant vessel management fees. There is no digging, begging, suing, etc to get access to such information; it’s in black and white, publicly filed, and available on any computer with internet access. It only takes a few phone calls to market experts and other vessel management companies to get a sense of the going market rate for vessel management fees, which coincidentally is less than $500 per diem; however, on average for most publicly listed shipping companies, the shareholders are paying more than twice as much to affiliated companies to have their vessels managed; There are actually publicly listed companies that they have proposed as high as $1,800 per diem vessel management fees. Why? Why anyone would accept such without qualifying the service or attempt to negotiate better pricing or shop the market? And of course, vessel management fees is only one form of conflicts and managerial abuse; there are commissions for the sale & purchase of vessels managed, for the chartering and the commercial management of the vessels, for ordering the vessels at the shipbuilders, for supervising the construction, for … for… Back-of-the-envelope calculations for last year’s darling of shipping companies on Wall Street is that the management of the company has earned close to $100 million in fees alone, risk free and captive proceeds effectively for doing their job; and this is before executive compensation and other benefits. And a few years ago, executive compensation for another certain shipping company amounted to $75 million out of $125 million operating profit in the course of a few years. Again, such information has been filed publicly and it is not news, or it should not be news.

We can talk about the excesses of the shipping markets, but as in many things in life, there is the overarching principle of caveat emptor, buyer be aware; pertinent information is made publicly available, and let the investors make their own decision, and let them be prepared to take certain risks, let them benefit or suffer from the consequences. And, shipping is a very volatile industry with lots of inherent risk and meaningful chance of one losing their investment. Heightened management fees and other conflicts have exacerbated the results of the crisis but cannot be blamed for the crisis. And, placing the blame solely on the management teams doesn’t advance the debate about better corporate governance. After all, these prospectuses are primarily filed and intended for institutional investors who are well educated and experienced and compensated to invest money professionally; they should have done their due diligence, they should have checked the market, they should have ‘kicked the tires’ as they say, or in shipping, possibly they should have boarded a vessel or two. The truth of the matter is that sometimes investors are blinded, motivated by deal pressure and the need to deploy their money under management and start earning their own fees, they sometimes think monolithically and chase the same story, and unfortunately, very often, minimizing their due diligence to a box to be checked, and not a real in-depth search of the real events, causes and relationships. Unfortunately, we have seen it too many times in our business life, including most memorably once getting a call from Sydney, Australia from a firm where a US-institutional investor had outsourced their due diligence ‘box’ – the heavily Aussie-accented gent was calling to ask about a Greek shipowner; when the reply was ‘Well, they are not exactly Angelicoussis’, the follow-up question was ‘What’s Angelicoussis?’

Putting the blame solely on managerial abuses and conflicts of interest on the management and sponsors of shipping companies reminds of the joke where a prostitute, failing to collect the earnings after rendering certain services, yells ‘Rape!’ When professional fund and asset managers depend solely on screens and models to make their decisions and fail or turn a blind eye to conflicts in pursue of a quick return to be booked in this quarter, and follow a trend because everybody else is doing it (‘eco design’ newbuildings come to mind), it’s a disingenuous service to the shipping industry and a disingenuous service to the shareholders on behalf of whom institutional investors are acting. When short-termism and herd mentality guides investment decision-making, when due diligence is a box to be ticked, one has to wonder whether shipping will get to see better days soon… or more respectable days…


 

© 2012-2015 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 here within 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.