Archives for posts with tag: Price

British cycling star Chris Froome has taken on one long cycle after another, currently tackling the Tour Of Spain following his fourth Tour De France victory back in July. Two long cycles are ongoing in the shipbuilding sector too, and this week’s Analysis takes a look at the progress of the delivery cycles in the merchant vessel and mobile offshore sectors, through a challenging period for the industry.

For the full version of this article, please go to Shipping Intelligence Network.

Advertisements

Many of shipping’s asset markets appear to offer a fairly reasonable level of liquidity most of the time, but just like the “Karma Chameleon” in the 1983 No.1 song, sometimes this can “come and go” due to a variety of factors. Recently, it appears that S&P market liquidity has been coming on strong in the main volume sectors, and once again there appear to be a number of different drivers behind the changes…

You Come And Go…

As in all economic asset markets, liquidity can change its hue according to the market environment, depending on the appetite of potential buyers and sellers to transact at a given level against a backdrop of a range of factors, including the availability of finance. From much lower or dropping levels of liquidity just a year or so ago, it seems that today S&P market liquidity has been on the up, with things looking increasingly active recently. The graph indicates, for the three main volume sectors, the monthly level of liquidity in terms of the volume of reported sales (in vessel numbers) on an annualised basis, as a percentage of the existing fleet at the start of each month. A 6-month moving average (6mma) is then taken to remove some of the month-to-month volatility and illustrate the general trend.

By George! A New High…

The lines on the graph (unlike in the song lyrics they’re not “red, gold and green”…) show how quickly the liquidity has risen in the main sectors. For bulkcarriers the 6mma has jumped from 4.1% in Feb-16 to 7.2% in Apr-17. In the tanker sector, it increased from 3.3% in Apr-16 to 4.6% in Mar-17, and in the containership sector it has leapt from 2.3% in Feb-16 to 5.5% last month. On a combined basis across the three sectors, the 6mma has increased from 3.5% in Feb-16 to 6.0% in Apr-17, and the monthly figure for Feb-17 reached 9.7%. The 6.0% figure represents the highest 6mma level of liquidity since the onset of the financial crisis in late 2008 (the low point being 2.5% and the average across the period 4.3%).

S&P’s Big Hits…

However, on inspection the drivers look a little different. In the bulkcarrier sector, as has been widely reported, with some improvements in freight market conditions buyer appetite appears to be back, and has driven pricing upwards. Reported sales volumes in the first four months of 2017 stood at 277 units, up more than 50% y-o-y. In the tanker sector, liquidity appears to be coming back after a period in which, against easing markets, prices may have been too high for buyers’ tastes. Again, volumes in the first four month are up by more than 50% y-o-y. In the boxship sector, meanwhile, it’s different once again, with distressed sales to the fore after the cumulative impact of markets which have until now been in the doldrums for some time. Mar-17 saw an all-time record monthly level of containership sales (44) and the year to date figure is closing in on the full year 2016 total.

In The Culture Club?

So, S&P liquidity can come and go, and recently it has clearly been on the way up. For those trying to transact to access tonnage, or exit the market, that’s a big help, and it’s good news too for asset players, an enduring part of the shipping market’s culture. Have a nice day!

SIW1270

There have been plenty of record breaking facts and figures to report across 2016, unfortunately mostly of a gloomy nature! From a record low for the Baltic Dry Index in February to a post-1990 low for the ClarkSea Index in August, there have certainly been plenty of challenges. That hasn’t stopped investors however (S&P not newbuilds) so let’s hope for less record breakers (except demolition!?) in 2017.SIW1254

Unwelcome Records….

Our first record to report came in August when the ClarkSea Index hit a post-1990 low of $7,073/day. Its average for the year was $9,441/day, down 35% y-o-y and also beating the previous cyclical lows in 2010 and 1999. With OPEX for the same basket of ships at $6,394/day, margins were thin or non-existent.

Challenges Abound….

Across sectors, average tanker earnings for the year were “OK” but still wound down by 40%, albeit from an excellent 2015. Despite a good start and end to the year, the wet markets were hit hard by a weak summer when production outages impacted. The early part of the year also brought us another unwelcome milestone: the Baltic Dry Index falling to an all time low of 291. Heavy demolition in the first half and better than expected Chinese trade helped later in the year – fundamentals may be starting to turn but perhaps taking time to play out with bumps on the way. The container market (see next week) had another tough year, including its first major corporate casualty for 30 years in Hanjin. LPG had a “hard” landing after a stellar 2015, LNG showed small improvements and specialised products started to ease back. As reported in our mid-year review, every “dog has its day” and in 2016, this was Ro-Ro and Ferry, with earnings 50% above the trend since 2009. Also spare a thought for the offshore sector, arguably facing an even more extreme scenario than shipping.

Buy, Buy, Buy….

In our review of 2015, we speculated that buyers might be “eyeing up a bottoming out dry cycle” in 2016 and a 24% increase in bulker tonnage bought and sold suggests a lot of owners agreed. Indeed, 44m dwt represents another all time record for bulker S&P, with prices increasing marginally after the first quarter and brokers regularly reporting numerous parties willing to inspect vessels coming for sale. Tanker investors were much more circumspect and volumes and prices both fell by a third. Greeks again topped the buyer charts, followed by the Chinese. Demo eased in 2H but (incl. containers) total volumes were up 14% (44m dwt).

Order Drought….

Depending on your perspective, an overall 71% drop in ordering (total orders also hit a 35 year record low) is either cause for optimism or for further gloom! In fact, only 113 yards took orders (for vessels 1,000+ GT) in the year, compared to 345 in 2013, with tanker orders down 83% and bulkers down 46%. There was little ordering in any sector, except Cruise (a record 2.5m GT and $15.6bn), Ferry and Ro-Ro (all niche business however and of little help to volume yards).

Final Record….

Finally a couple more records – global fleet growth of 3% to 1.8bn dwt (up 50% since the financial crisis with tankers at 555m dwt and bulkers at 794m dwt) and trade growth of 2.6% to 11.1bn tonnes (up 3bn tonnes since the financial crisis) mean we still finish with the largest fleet and trade volumes of all time! Plenty of challenges again in 2017 but let’s hope we aren’t reporting as many gloomy records next year.
Have a nice New Year!

One of the major drivers behind the challenges currently facing many of the shipping markets has been slower demand growth. World seaborne trade grew by less than 2% in 2015, the slowest pace since 2009, with trends in China pivotal. After the emergence of plenty of disappointing demand-side data last year, what do the indicators of Chinese trade so far in 2016 reveal?

A Surprising Start?

It’s a vital question. Chinese seaborne imports reached a massive 2.1 billion tonnes last year, accounting for 20% of global imports. But in 2015, growth in Chinese imports eased to just 1%, from an average of 9% p.a. in 2011-14. However, data for the first quarter of 2016 provides some pleasant surprises. After slowing for four consecutive years, growth in Chinese seaborne imports in tonnes appears to have picked up pace in Q1 2016, increasing by 6% y-o-y.

Picking Up Speed

Iron ore trade, which last year accounted for 45% of total Chinese imports, has driven much of this growth. Iron ore imports had a strong Q1 2016, rising by 7% y-o-y to 239mt. This was supported by restocking of iron ore inventories in line with improved steel demand and prices in recent months, following government support for infrastructure projects. This has been despite total steel production continuing to contract y-o-y, by 4% in Q1. Meanwhile, Chinese coal imports appear to have stabilised recently, following a sharp fall in 1H 2015, and the pace of decline in imports in Q1 2016 eased to 6% y-o-y. Growth in China’s minor bulk imports also improved marginally in Q1.

Some improvements have also been apparent outside of the dry bulk sector. Expansion in China’s crude oil imports has accelerated, with imports up 14% y-o-y in Q1 to 84mt, following robust growth of 9% in 2015. Imports have been boosted further this year by the liberalisation of the crude oil import market, opening up imports to independent refiners. And although Chinese gas demand came under pressure in 2015 from weaker industrial use, recent cuts to domestic gas prices have supported demand and LNG imports grew 17% y-o-y in Q1 2016 to 6mt.

Mixed Results

Meanwhile, indicators of Chinese exports remain mixed. Container trade on the key Far East-Europe route grew slightly in Q1, after falling 4% in 2015; the impact of adjustments to European inventories and falling Russian demand is likely to moderate this year. However, growth in China’s steel products exports has slowed, partly reflecting greater domestic steel demand.

A Question Of Endurance?

Overall, it would still be fair to say that the seaborne demand environment is still highly challenging, and that volatility clouds the picture in China and elsewhere. Moreover, questions remain over the sustainability of recent developments in some of China’s industrial sectors, and major obstacles to trade volume growth clearly remain. Nevertheless, there are some areas where improved Chinese volume growth has provided a nice surprise so far this year. Against a troubled background, shipping market players will hope these trends at least have a little mileage. Have a nice day.

SIW1221

Vietnam has the third largest proven oil reserves in the Asia Pacific region – but much of its existing offshore production is from declining shallow water fields. So the country’s first deepwater discovery, made in October, is a potentially exciting development. Could deepwater E&P activity in Vietnam be set to take off, or will weak oil prices and disputes over territorial waters prove problematic?

Shallow Beginnings

Most of Vietnam’s 0.28m bpd of offshore oil and 0.99bn cfd of offshore gas production is derived from fields in the Nam Con Son and Cuu Long basins, all of which are in less than 200m of water. The Cuu Long basin is perhaps the most successful area off Vietnam as it is home to many large fields, including Bach Ho, Su Tu Vang and Rang Dong. The dominance of shallow fields has skewed development towards fixed platforms. 88% of all active Vietnamese fields are exploited as such. Of these fields, the Bach Ho field accounts for 34 cor 37% of the total found on active fields.

Operators in Vietnam mainly consist of local and regional NOCs as well as IOCs (most commonly via joint operating companies in partnership with Petrovietnam). While significant market reforms have increased foreign investment in Vietnam’s offshore sector, further improvements to its transaction and tax systems could quicken the pace of foreign participation in the future.

Wading Into Deeper Waters

No significant shallow discoveries have been made recently, meaning that there is little to offset Vietnam’s depleting shallow water reserves. This highlights the need to break into deepwater frontiers, which could hold substantial levels of undiscovered hydrocarbons. The VGP-131-TB well, Vietnam’s first discovery in water depths >500m, was drilled in October 2015 by the Vietgazprom JOC, at depths of 1,600m in the Saigon basin. The ultra-deep find could provide momentum for Vietnam’s push into deepwater exploration. However, unlike China, which is able to independently bring deepwater fields like the Lingshui 17-2 online, Vietnam could still need to rely on foreign cooperation to jointly develop such finds in the short term.

Shaky Prospects

Vietnam’s hydrocarbon resources mainly lie in the South China Sea, with the most recent discovery at the southern end. The sea is an area of multiple disputed territorial claims by many countries, including China. This could impede any deep developments, if international partners were to view overlapping sovereignty claims to be an excessive business risk. Perhaps more importantly though, the post-downturn attitude of IOCs is one of cost-consciousness given lacklustre economic conditions. This could skew near-term interest towards safer EOR projects instead of unproven deeper water development in the South China Sea.

Since Vietnam’s historical track record is in shallow waters, even if further deepwater discoveries are forthcoming, then the chance of rapid deepwater developments in the South China Sea is probably going to take time. It is likely to need outside expertise, and the current energy markets may well not be conducive to this. That said, the discovery of Vietnam’s first deepwater field marks a new chapter in the country’s oil and gas story.

OIMT201512

It’s now more than a year since the tanker market took off. In mid-2014 tanker earnings picked up and since then have been in the $30-$40,000/day range. But the market remains nervous. This tanker pick-up coincided with a slump in dry bulk earnings, which is interesting because on paper bulkers and tankers both seem to have surplus capacity. So why are tankers doing so much better than bulkers?

Long-Term Premium

On an “all sizes average” basis tanker earnings generally exceed bulker earnings (the tanker “basket” contains a greater share of larger ships). For example, between 1990 and 2015 to date tanker earnings averaged $24,996/day, whilst bulkers earned $13,933/day. That gives tankers a 79% premium over bulkers. During the seven years since the Credit Crisis, the premium has remained. Tankers have earned $18,281/day, compared to bulkers’ $12,427/day, a 47% premium. So the “premium” relationship held, even during a period of deep recession.

Earnings Distribution

However, during the period of recession tanker earnings have swung from below to above “average premium levels”. To illustrate this point we have estimated what tanker earnings “should have been” over the last seven years if they had followed the “average premium” relationship with bulker earnings over the full period back to 1990. This relationship was estimated using a regression equation as a “rule of thumb”, using monthly data for the period 1990 to 2015, and then used to estimate tanker earnings since 2009 from bulker earnings, shown by the red line on the graph.

For the first five years tankers underperformed compared to the long-term “average premium” versus bulkers, with the blue line, showing actual earnings, below the red line. But in 2014 they started to exceed the expected premium as bulker earnings dropped and tanker earnings increased. Currently tanker earnings offer a significant “bonus” above the estimated “norm”, at levels about six times higher than bulker earnings.

More Than One Answer

So what’s going on? The first answer is that tankers are playing “catch up” for the bad run early in the recession. But there are other answers to the question. One is that in 2015 oil trade has grown much faster than expected, increasing by 4% compared with only 2% expected earlier in the year. Another is the oil price collapse from over $100/bbl to close to $40/bbl, creating an opportunity for arbitrage by holding oil in ships, in anticipation of a price increase. Additionally, of course, bulkers have suffered from an absence of demand growth this year.

The Usual Suspects?

So there you have it. The tanker boom has gone on longer than many might have anticipated and tanker earnings are outperforming their long-run relationship with bulker earnings. But a “fundamental” surplus remains and investors might be right to be cautious. Scrapping has almost stopped, ordering has picked up and supply growth is set to increase. So, enjoy it while you can, and remember that it’s partly a game of catch up. Have a nice day.

SIW201511

Readers of the Shipping Intelligence Weekly are invited each year to predict the value of the ClarkSea Index one year ahead in the first week of November. The predictions are always interesting, giving a good idea of how market watchers see the market developing. Furthermore, in many years the range of estimates has provided an insight into the optimistic nature of the participants.

Looking On The Bright Side?

The 2015 ClarkSea Index competition generated what initially appears to be a fairly bullish set of predictions compared to the actual value of $13,070/day on 6th November 2015. The average of the forecasts stood at $15,429/day, 18% above the actual index on the date in question, and around 80% of the entries exceeded the actual value. This suggests that participants were willing to look on the bright side, thinking that the markets might improve from the 2014 average of $11,743/day. But given the highly disappointing outcome in some sectors this year, were the predictions in reality way too positive?

A Mixed Bag Or Worse?

Well, the uptick in the ClarkSea Index in the third quarter of 2015 might help put this in perspective. The index exceeded $18,000/day in July, bolstered by ongoing strong earnings in the tanker and LPG sectors, and a slight increase in earnings in the bulkcarrier sector compared to the preceding months (although average bulker earnings were still at relatively low levels). If the index had remained at around the $18,000/day level recorded in July, just 18% of the competition entries would have ‘overestimated’ compared to the 80% based on the actual outcome.

The reality is that few might have guessed how the index developed as the year progressed. As the graph shows, the index recorded a notable increase in Q4 2014. In 2015, there was a similar rise in the third quarter, but the index has come off significantly since the peak of $18,383/day recorded in mid-July. The fall has largely been driven by weaker tanker earnings, as well as a return to lower bulker earnings and declining gas and, in particular, containership earnings.

Timing Can Be Everything

Moreover, the year to date average of the ClarkSea Index is up 29% y-o-y, possibly further justification for some of the optimism amongst the forecasters. In the first 45 weeks of the year, the ClarkSea Index averaged $14,610/day, just 5% below the average of the predictions received; 44% of guesses were in the $13,000-15,999/day range. So perhaps this optimism was not as misplaced as it appears at first glance. But timing is everything, and the participants who envisaged an improvement in the market failed to predict that the upside wouldn’t last.

We Still Have A Winner!

So, the progress of the ClarkSea Index has meant that the vast majority of predictions were below the actual value on 6th November. So maybe it doesn’t pay to be optimistic? Whether the case, every competition has a winner, and this year the winner was just $18 away from the actual outcome. Congratulations to Mr Jeffry Permana of PT Andhika Lines with a forecast of $13,052/day. Have a nice day Jeffry, your champagne is on its way.

SIW1197