⚓ Gosships Intelligence
Gosships Intelligence Is Published At Gosships.com
For Sponsorship And Partnership Inquiries Contact intelligence@gosships.com
|⚓ About Us | 🛢️ Exclusive Report | 📋 SwiftAction Training |
🏅Black Gold Membership (*53 Slots Left)
Nobody disputes what a very large crude carrier earns. What one is worth is the number the whole asset class is settled on, and in the fortnight to September 11 nine brokers put nine numbers on the same hull. Xclusiv Shipbrokers says $157.0 million. Allied Shipbroking says $157.00 million. Intermodal says $157.0 million. Advanced Shipping and Trading says $156.5 million. Fearnleys says $152.0 million. Signal Ocean says $151.1 million. The Baltic Exchange assessment says $149.4 million. Compass Maritime says $149 million. Star Asia says $141 million. Sixteen million dollars between the top and the bottom, more than a tenth of the asset measured from either end. Star Asia and Allied are the full $16 million apart on the same data date, September 4, both describing a 310,000 tonne vessel. And across the five weeks of reported sales those same weeklies carried, no five year old very large crude carrier changed hands at all. Nine houses priced a vessel nobody bought. Now look at the line above it. On the newbuilding contract the seven of them that publish one run from $129 million to $131 million, about one and a half percent, and the reflex reading is that the market is simply surer about a vessel that does not exist yet. It is not. Korean yards are listed companies that must disclose large contract values to their exchange, which is how a Hanwha Ocean filing in July put two very large crude carriers at 394.3 billion won, roughly $132 million a vessel. Every house that states a newbuilding basis pins it to a single country. And 139 very large crude carriers were contracted in the first half of this year against 83 secondhand sales in the first seven months, so the vessel that does not exist trades more often than the one that does. The tight line is tight because the price is filed, the specification is fixed and everyone is reading the same handful of yards. The wide line is wide because no sale is public and, of the nine tables, exactly one says where the vessel was built. None of that would matter if the numbers stayed in the newsletters. A facility filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission this March lets the borrower pick which of 12 named brokers values the vessel, once a year.
📋 In This Issue:
⚖️ The Story:
What nine houses published and on what basis, the fortnight in which the vessel they were pricing did not trade, why the tight line is tight for reasons that have nothing to do with skill and the two houses in the set that are effectively one
📊 By The Numbers:
The $16 million spread, the vessel that did not sell, the resale that traded above every published line, the one table that names a build country and the 12 approved valuers
🌍 Why It Matters:
What it changes for the owner refinancing, the lender writing the covenant, the marine underwriter setting agreed value and the analyst modelling net asset value
👀 What To Watch:
Whether a five year old actually sells, whether the outlier holds, the frozen newbuilding row, the Baltic panel and the falsifier that would break this brief
🚨 Gosships Signal:
The market standardised the line that did not need it and left the one a covenant runs on undefined
