Top Ocean Cargo Carriers May Reshape Supply Chain: Part I

Pending mergers and sales can shake things up

By Patrick Burnson, Executive Editor

October 14, 2015

Despite their best efforts last year to address the over-capacity conumdrum, vessel operators have yet to manage their space excess adequately and are still struggling to capture revenue and restore shareholder value.

When we examined this issue last year it appeared that carrier consortiums had put into place innovative pricing strategies to bring some order to the situation, with shippers making some concessions in exchange for sustainable service cycles and schedule integrity.

Today, all bets are off. Given the disruption taking place in the ranks of today’s major players, a new layer of complexity has been added, say industry analysts.

“Some U.S. retailers are paying less to transport their merchandise this year, thanks to the use of more large-capacity ships by ocean carriers,” says Ben Hackett founding president of the shipping consultancy, Hackett Associates. “The increased capacity has driven down rates, but the relief could be short-lived because some lines have already canceled voyages to counteract the trend.”

Hackett adds that shippers are seeing “complete chaos” on the high seas in terms of the amount of capacity available and the level of spot freight rates.

“One has to wonder why carriers cannot match supply to demand. The end result will likely be a highly volatile situation of freight rates moving up and down,” he says.

To fill the new generation of mega-vessels, ocean carriers honor agreements to share vessels and pool cargo to save money. Sixteen shipping companies operating in four major corporate alliances now control about 80 percent of the world’s container shipping fleet, according to Alphaliner.

Another trend worth noting, say analysts, is that most of those 30 carriers today are global operators, with scores of them comprising at least one of the four major alliances that dominate the east-west container trade.

For the time being, this has been a good thing for U.S. logistics managers, who see rates softening on the robust, but over-tonnaged Asia-to-Europe trade.

Alliance shakeup

In the wake of one government-backed carrier being put up for sale (Singapore’s NOL), China is preparing to merge two of its state-owned shipping entities, China Ocean Shipping Group Company (Cosco) and China Shipping Container Lines (CSCL).

Cosco and CSCL currently sit in sixth and seventh place respectively in the rankings of carriers delivering twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs).

Based on today’s fleet the combined entity would comfortably move into fourth place with a total fleet in excess of 1.5 million TEUs, giving a world share of around 8 percent.

Economists contend that the rationale for a merger is entirely sound from a financial viewpoint and calls into question why China has persisted with the two-carrier strategy for so long. Between them the two carriers have lost approximately $900 million in operating losses from container operations in the previous five years.

Analysts agree. Drewry Maritime Research in London, for example, say it makes little sense to have two national (i.e. state-controlled) carriers competing fiercely against one another and against non-Chinese carriers in the same markets.

“It was Chinese competition regulators that blocked the proposed P3 alliance between the world’s three largest carriers Maersk Line, MSC and CMA CGM last year,” observes Drewry researcher Simon Heaney. “After blocking P3 on competition grounds, it seems now that China is happy for the number of major carriers to shrink by one. There is certainly a hint of ‘double standards’ about this story.”

Shippers should also be wary that if the merger goes ahead it has the potential to cause a domino effect on existing carrier alliances and inspire further carrier mergers in Asia that will be damaging to industry competition.

The first question to ask is: what will happen to the carrier alliances the two lines participate on the East-West trades? COSCO is a long-standing member of the CKYHE Alliance alongside K Line, Yang Ming, Hanjin and Evergreen; while CSCL is a part of the Ocean Three consortium alongside CMA CGM and UASC that was set-up at the start of this year.

A merger of the Ocean Three and CKHYE alliances would mean a combined market share above 40 percent unlikely to be approved by regulators. Instead, both will be faced with a major void to fill were they to lose either Cosco or CSCL to the other carrier group as each carrier provides around one-quarter of their respective alliance’s fleet. Depending on which alliance wins or loses its Chinese member, Ocean Three and CKYHE will decline to a market share of just 13 percent or rise to a market share of 28 percent, based on today’s vessel deployment.

Drewry maintains that any sale of NOL – part of the G6 Alliance – would also adjust the market shares, depending on who buys it.

Heaney says the next question to consider is: if and when the merger occurs, will other countries be forced to consider similar consolidation of their shipping lines?

“While none can match the operating losses of the two Chinese carriers, vessel operators from other Asia countries have struggled more than their European counterparts in recent years. A merger between COSCO and CSCL makes sense for China, but the ramifications for the container shipping industry could be far-reaching,” concludes Heaney.