<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">It has been over two years since the dollar began its long decline from peak levels, yet the long-aw</div>

It has been over two years since the dollar began its long decline from peak levels, yet the long-aw

<div>It has been over two years since the dollar began its long decline from peak levels, yet the long-awaited reduction in America's trade deficit has been disappointingly small. The red ink flowed during the first quarter at an annual rate of about $164 billion compared with $166 billion in 1986. Numerous explanations have been offered for what is either a failure or a delay in the response of the trade balance to currency depreciation: the well-known J curve effect, the high quality of foreign goods, the willingness of foreign producers to accept lower profit margins and the dollar's slight depreciation...

It has been over two years since the dollar began its long decline from peak levels, yet the long-awaited reduction in America's trade deficit has been disappointingly small. The red ink flowed during the first quarter at an annual rate of about $164 billion compared with $166 billion in 1986. Numerous explanations have been offered for what is either a failure or a delay in the response of the trade balance to currency depreciation: the well-known J curve effect, the high quality of foreign goods, the willingness of foreign producers to accept lower profit margins and the dollar's slight depreciation against the currencies of Canada and most developing countries. There is, however, a more fundamental reason why the dollar's fall has done little for the trade balance so far. The period of rapid dollar depreciation, especially since the Plaza Agreement of Sept. 22, 1985, coincided with one of the most rapid expansions of the money supply in the postwar period. (The Plaza Agreement to force the dollar down was made in New York by the United States, France, West Germany, Britian and Japan.) Since the end of 1986, however, the growth of virtually all monetary aggregates has slowed sharply. If this tighter monetary stance is maintained, the trade deficit will fall. But we had better hope it doesn't fall too much. A lower trade deficit would very likely be accompanied by further increases in interest rates and a slowdown in growth. By year-end a recession could either be close at hand or under way.The explanation for this unhappy scenario derives from the monetary approach to the balance of payments. That useful yet often overlooked doctrine was articulated in the 18th century by David Hume, but today's policy-makers would do well to remember it before embarking on a strategy of currency depreciation aimed at a lower trade deficit. Under the monetary approach, currency depreciation operates to improve the trade balance by reducing the purchasing power of a given quantity of money through higher prices of imported goods. As money holders attempt to restore their cash balances to their original levels of purchasing power, they are forced to increase sales of goods to the rest of the world while reducing imports. Trying to increase money balances at the expense of others inside the economy results only in a redistribution of money balances from one to another, and the excess demand for money persists. The only source of a net increase in money to meet the demand is from a decrease in net imports. The picture changes if the Federal Reserve prints more money, which directly relieves the excess demand for money induced by currency depreciation. Printing more money in the wake of a currency depreciation removes the motive to improve the trade balance by restoring money balances directly. The primary message of the monetary approach to the balance of payments is that a currency depreciation must be allowed to create the symptoms of tight money - higher interest rates and less demand - if it is to help relieve the trade balance deficit. After the Plaza Agreement, when the dollar accelerated its sharp descent against other major currencies, one measure of the U.S. money supply, M1, grew at a rate of 16 percent. The rate accelerated to 23 percent during the last quarter of 1986. During the first quarter of this year the growth rate of M1 fell to nearly zero. The pattern for other aggregates, though muted, was similar. As a result of the sharp slowdown in money growth, along with higher commodity prices and trade jitters, most interest rates have risen by a full percent, while mortgage rates have jumped by nearly 2 percent. On the other side of the ledger - if it really is a plus - signs are beginning to emerge that the trade deficit will fall, provided that monetary tightness continues. But the relatively meager growth of U.S. exports - 6 percent higher in the first quarter of 1987 than one year earlier - reflects not only a slow response abroad to lower prices, but also a deceleration in growth abroad brought on by the very slowdown in U.S. imports that we are seeking as a means to cut the trade deficit. Together with the monetary statistics, these figures capture the Fed's policy dilemma. If the Fed turns back to easy money without foreign countries adopting policies to allow faster economic growth, the dollar may weaken further and the trade deficit will not fall by much. The risk of protectionist legislation will remain high. Other economies, however, will do better, the United States will sell more exports, and the chance of recession will be reduced. If the Fed keeps money tight, the trade deficit will fall, other economies and our export flow will slow further, the dollar may stabilize and inflationary pressure will ease. But the risk of recession will be raised. It is true that the Fed's dilemma would be solved and prospects for the world economy much improved by easier monetary or fiscal policies in Japan and Germany. Their strong currencies and weak economies mean that those countries face no dilemma like the Fed's. Easier money would address both their concerns about overappreciation of their currencies and a slowdown in growth. But faced with their refusal to ease, how should the Fed respond? Given the unusually large overhang of debt worldwide, the Fed should keep money moderately easy. The large trade deficit and a weak dollar, symptoms of the Fed's expansionary policy through the end of 1986, cannot be appropriate targets for monetary policy given the restrictive policies in Japan and Germany. The primary goal of monetary policy must remain one of minimizing the risk of a recession. Having made this painful choice, Mr. Volcker and soon Mr. Greenspan must say to Congress, again and again, that large budget deficits make it impossible to avoid recession without more inflation and a large trade deficit. The president, his trade representative and the Commerce secretary might keep these facts in mind as well before allowing trade wars to heat up further. Given a choice between avoiding recession and reducing our trade deficit, we must choose the former. Perhaps our trading partners will realize that since more expansionary policies by their own governments would help cut the U.S. trade deficit and reduce the risk of world recession, they face a far less painful choice.

TRADE DEFICIT VS. RECESSION

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Breakbulk and project cargo industry stakeholders must take note of the far-reaching potential ramifications of the recently reintroduced US SHIPS Act, writes Associate Editor Carly Fields.</div>

Breakbulk and project cargo industry stakeholders must take note of the far-reaching potential ramifications of the recently reintroduced US SHIPS Act, writes Associate Editor Carly Fields.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Tariff battles and port call penalty fees could be the least of the breakbulk and project cargo sector’s worries, if two pieces of more impactful proposed legislation work their way through the legislative process.Amid the scramble to make sense of now-partially relaxed US import tariffs and the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) planned fees on Chinese ships calling US ports, industry stakeholders have overlooked a key detail of the recently reintroduced Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act, according to an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) source who asked not to be identified.The SHIPS Act, reintroduced to Congress April 30 by Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Trent Kelly (R-Miss.), aims to expand the US-flag international fleet by 250 ships in 10 years, enhance US competitiveness and make investments in the maritime workforce. But according to the EPC source, the proposed legislation threatens to restore a provision in the USTR port fees that would punish operators with vessels on order at Chinese shipyards, a provision from which multipurpose vessels (MPVs) were thought to be exempt.The SHIPS Act would create a penalty tax for ships operated by Chinese carriers or built in China, as well as non-Chinese operators that order at foreign shipyards of concern. The tax is set at $5 per ton for ships owned or operated by a “foreign country of concern,” vessels registered there, or vessels registered there three years prior to “the date of the determination of the application.” An owner or operator not based in China would be subject to the tax if 50% or more of its vessel orders were placed with a shipyard of concern at the time the law goes into effect, or if 50% of its newbuild deliveries in the 24 months after enactment are from a designated yard.For a non-Chinese owner or operator with between 25% and 49% of its ships on order at or delivered by a shipyard of concern within 24 months of the effective date, the penalty would be $3.50 per ton. In addition, any owner or operator that had 50% or more of its ships constructed or undergoing repairs at a shipyard of concern “at any time” during the three years preceding the imposition of the law, would be subject to a $1.25 per ton fee.<h3>Industry could take a hit</h3>Given that these penalties would be on top of the previously announced USTR port fees, the bill would “have huge ramifications for the industry” if passed into law as currently written, the EPC source said, noting that it’s generally much more difficult to reverse a law than, for example, an executive order on tariffs or a USTR measure.“After it has passed into law, the chance of it being repealed is pretty remote,” they said. “I can’t remember the last time an Act was repealed in the US.”The 2025 reintroduction of the SHIPS Act has been referred to 12 committees, including the Committee on Armed Services, the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The previous version of the proposed Act did not progress beyond the committee review stage.Also flying under the radar as it maneuvers through the legislative process is the American Cargo for American Ships Act. If enacted, that bill would require all work contracted by the Department of Transportation to be carried out by US-flag vessels, up from a current requirement of 50%, effectively shutting out non-US-flag MPVs from all government-funded energy and defense projects.Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Tariff battles and port call penalty fees could be the least of the breakbulk and project cargo sector’s worries, if two pieces of more impactful proposed legislation work their way through the legislative process. Amid the scramble to make sense of now-partially relaxed US import tariffs and the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) planned fees on Chinese ships calling US ports, industry stakeholders have overlooked a key detail of the recently reintroduced Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security (SHIPS) for America Act, according to an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) source who asked not to be identified. The SHIPS Act, reintroduced to Congress April 30 by Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Trent Kelly (R-Miss.), aims to expand the US-flag international fleet by 250 ships in 10 years, enhance US competitiveness and make investments in the maritime workforce. But according to the EPC source, the proposed legislation threatens to restore a provision in the USTR port fees that would punish operators with vessels on order at Chinese shipyards, a provision from which multipurpose vessels (MPVs) were thought to be exempt. The SHIPS Act would create a penalty tax for ships operated by Chinese carriers or built in China, as well as non-Chinese operators that order at foreign shipyards of concern. The tax is set at $5 per ton for ships owned or operated by a “foreign country of concern,” vessels registered there, or vessels registered there three years prior to “the date of the determination of the application.” An owner or operator not based in China would be subject to the tax if 50% or more of its vessel orders were placed with a shipyard of concern at the time the law goes into effect, or if 50% of its newbuild deliveries in the 24 months after enactment are from a designated yard. For a non-Chinese owner or operator with between 25% and 49% of its ships on order at or delivered by a shipyard of concern within 24 months of the effective date, the penalty would be $3.50 per ton. In addition, any owner or operator that had 50% or more of its ships constructed or undergoing repairs at a shipyard of concern “at any time” during the three years preceding the imposition of the law, would be subject to a $1.25 per ton fee. Industry could take a hit Given that these penalties would be on top of the previously announced USTR port fees, the bill would “have huge ramifications for the industry” if passed into law as currently written, the EPC source said, noting that it’s generally much more difficult to reverse a law than, for example, an executive order on tariffs or a USTR measure. “After it has passed into law, the chance of it being repealed is pretty remote,” they said. “I can’t remember the last time an Act was repealed in the US.” The 2025 reintroduction of the SHIPS Act has been referred to 12 committees, including the Committee on Armed Services, the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The previous version of the proposed Act did not progress beyond the committee review stage. Also flying under the radar as it maneuvers through the legislative process is the American Cargo for American Ships Act. If enacted, that bill would require all work contracted by the Department of Transportation to be carried out by US-flag vessels, up from a current requirement of 50%, effectively shutting out non-US-flag MPVs from all government-funded energy and defense projects. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Potential regulatory bombshells flying under MPV sector’s radar

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Greater interplay between US drayage, truckload markets may appear as imports fluctuate due to shifting tariff deadlines, but little impact seen on pricing. </div>

Greater interplay between US drayage, truckload markets may appear as imports fluctuate due to shifting tariff deadlines, but little impact seen on pricing.

<div class="phx-topic">A sooner-than-anticipated influx of US imports from China is already <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-carriers-announce-massive-june-rate-hikes-6005450">pushing up ocean container spot rates</a>, but those price increases are not expected to reach landbound drayage and truckload markets. A thick layer of excess truck capacity persists and may even be expanding, and that is likely to keep land transportation pricing in check despite US importers frontloading freight during a 90-day pause in the steepest tariffs on Chinese-made goods. “Right now, we don’t see enough capacity exits to lead us to believe that [truckload] rates are going to be higher,” even as more cargo from China arrives over the next 90 days, Sean Dehan, vice president of corporate strategy and mergers and acquisitions at Truckstop, said Friday. Truckstop, a spot market load-matching and trucking technology company, still expects some greater interplay between spot truckload and drayage in coming weeks. “Drayage drivers could effectively go into power-only mode,” meaning they could use their tractors on the spot market to haul trailers, Dehan said. “There may be some marginal drayage carriers who pop into over-the-road even as import volumes stay measured.” <h3>Supply-demand imbalance </h3>Surface freight demand has been in recession since the second quarter of 2022, and even a large increase in imports, which only account for a small portion of overall over-the-road tonnage, likely won’t be enough to resuscitate demand. “There don’t appear to be too many demand catalysts that we can point to right now,” Dehan said. “Tariffs are not going to create demand.” At the same time, truck capacity is readily available, whether at the ports or on highways. There is still about 35% more over-the-road truckload capacity available than in 2019, according to Avery Vise, vice president of trucking for FTR Transportation Intelligence. Most instances where freight activity has increased in the past few months can be attributed to frontloaded US imports. Spot market load board provider DAT Freight &amp; Analytics noted increased activity around major distribution hubs in April. “The big warehouse markets — Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix — have all seen a big influx of loads moved in April, both inbound and outbound,” Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT, told the Journal of Commerce. But that hasn’t moved spot pricing. Average US dry-van spot rates for the week ending May 10 of $1.60 per mile were up just three cents from the same week a year ago, according to DAT, while the average contract replacement rate slipped 0.5% sequentially during the same week. “Overall, we continue to observe a consistent market,” Aaron LaGanke, vice president of freight services at logistics provider AFS Logistics, said Thursday. “Minor month-to-month fluctuations in rates and volumes remain within the bounds of typical variability.” The wild card is going to be the size and extent of the rebound once fresh imports from China and other trading partners hit US ports. Demand “may be a little bit slack for four weeks, and then it will hit in June,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain at drayage brokerage ITS Logistics. “We won’t see COVID-level disruption, but it will be a lift, and it’s on the way.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A sooner-than-anticipated influx of US imports from China is already pushing up ocean container spot rates , but those price increases are not expected to reach landbound drayage and truckload markets. A thick layer of excess truck capacity persists and may even be expanding, and that is likely to keep land transportation pricing in check despite US importers frontloading freight during a 90-day pause in the steepest tariffs on Chinese-made goods. “Right now, we don’t see enough capacity exits to lead us to believe that [truckload] rates are going to be higher,” even as more cargo from China arrives over the next 90 days, Sean Dehan, vice president of corporate strategy and mergers and acquisitions at Truckstop, said Friday. Truckstop, a spot market load-matching and trucking technology company, still expects some greater interplay between spot truckload and drayage in coming weeks. “Drayage drivers could effectively go into power-only mode,” meaning they could use their tractors on the spot market to haul trailers, Dehan said. “There may be some marginal drayage carriers who pop into over-the-road even as import volumes stay measured.” Supply-demand imbalance Surface freight demand has been in recession since the second quarter of 2022, and even a large increase in imports, which only account for a small portion of overall over-the-road tonnage, likely won’t be enough to resuscitate demand. “There don’t appear to be too many demand catalysts that we can point to right now,” Dehan said. “Tariffs are not going to create demand.” At the same time, truck capacity is readily available, whether at the ports or on highways. There is still about 35% more over-the-road truckload capacity available than in 2019, according to Avery Vise, vice president of trucking for FTR Transportation Intelligence. Most instances where freight activity has increased in the past few months can be attributed to frontloaded US imports. Spot market load board provider DAT Freight & Analytics noted increased activity around major distribution hubs in April. “The big warehouse markets — Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix — have all seen a big influx of loads moved in April, both inbound and outbound,” Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT, told the Journal of Commerce. But that hasn’t moved spot pricing. Average US dry-van spot rates for the week ending May 10 of $1.60 per mile were up just three cents from the same week a year ago, according to DAT, while the average contract replacement rate slipped 0.5% sequentially during the same week. “Overall, we continue to observe a consistent market,” Aaron LaGanke, vice president of freight services at logistics provider AFS Logistics, said Thursday. “Minor month-to-month fluctuations in rates and volumes remain within the bounds of typical variability.” The wild card is going to be the size and extent of the rebound once fresh imports from China and other trading partners hit US ports. Demand “may be a little bit slack for four weeks, and then it will hit in June,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain at drayage brokerage ITS Logistics. “We won’t see COVID-level disruption, but it will be a lift, and it’s on the way.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Drayage

Truckload

Surface

Capacity-demand imbalance to shield truck rates from US import surge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">MSC plans to provide all of the tonnage in a US Gulf service, with Zim slated to get a lower share of slot space as weaker demand forces service changes. </div>

MSC plans to provide all of the tonnage in a US Gulf service, with Zim slated to get a lower share of slot space as weaker demand forces service changes.

<div class="phx-topic">Zim Integrated Shipping looks to withdraw capacity from an Asia-US Gulf Coast service it operates with Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) in response to a “drastic drop” in trans-Pacific cargo bookings. The withdrawal and other changes show how the Trump administration’s tariffs against China continue to redraw container services. In a Federal Maritime Commission filing last week, MSC and Zim said they were making interim changes to their <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carrier-alliance-shakeup-offers-varied-service-choices-for-shippers-5735374">vessel sharing agreement</a> (VSA) struck last September for six trans-Pacific services to US East and Gulf coasts. The interim changes, which take effect next week, were made “in light of the drastic drop in demand resulting from current trade conditions.” The interim change will affect Zim’s South Lotus service that MSC jointly operates as its Lone Star Express service. Under the new arrangement, Zim will provide three ships to the 13-ship rotation. Zim originally provided up to six ships under the earlier VSA, which started out as a 12-ship string. MSC will provide all the Lone Star capacity by early fall, although Zim will have the option to contribute up to four ships. Zim’s container slot allocation on other services under the VSA will also be lower under the temporary arrangement. The ports served under the VSA were also changed to include Indonesia and Taiwan, along with the existing Asia port network of China, Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand and Singapore. Last week, MSC and Zim announced that their Emerald-Xpress Boston service would add a call in Taiwan. Evergreen Marine offers Taiwan service into the East Coast, as does the jointly operated Hapag-Lloyd and Wan Hai AA7 service, but carriers have rarely offered direct service from Indonesia. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-to-debut-new-houston-norfolk-trans-pac-service-in-march-5223666">Maersk was the last to try</a> in 2022, but <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-culls-another-trans-pac-service-as-ship-supply-outstrips-demand-5245556">it suspended the service</a> a year later. The most recent changes come after MSC and Zim announced the suspension of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-suspends-two-us-services-rejigs-others-as-tariffs-hit-chinese-imports-6000649">one East Coast and one Gulf Coast service</a> due to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-saw-china-bookings-drop-hard-after-us-enacted-tariffs-5990185">the sharp drop in container bookings</a> from China following the April 9 release of President Trump’s latest tariffs. While the subsequent easing of those tariffs will spur <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-carriers-announce-massive-june-rate-hikes-6005450">a rebound in shipments</a> from China, MSC and Zim’s recent schedules are adding calls to Southeast Asia to account for additional import sourcing shifts. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Zim Integrated Shipping looks to withdraw capacity from an Asia-US Gulf Coast service it operates with Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) in response to a “drastic drop” in trans-Pacific cargo bookings. The withdrawal and other changes show how the Trump administration’s tariffs against China continue to redraw container services. In a Federal Maritime Commission filing last week, MSC and Zim said they were making interim changes to their vessel sharing agreement (VSA) struck last September for six trans-Pacific services to US East and Gulf coasts. The interim changes, which take effect next week, were made “in light of the drastic drop in demand resulting from current trade conditions.” The interim change will affect Zim’s South Lotus service that MSC jointly operates as its Lone Star Express service. Under the new arrangement, Zim will provide three ships to the 13-ship rotation. Zim originally provided up to six ships under the earlier VSA, which started out as a 12-ship string. MSC will provide all the Lone Star capacity by early fall, although Zim will have the option to contribute up to four ships. Zim’s container slot allocation on other services under the VSA will also be lower under the temporary arrangement. The ports served under the VSA were also changed to include Indonesia and Taiwan, along with the existing Asia port network of China, Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand and Singapore. Last week, MSC and Zim announced that their Emerald-Xpress Boston service would add a call in Taiwan. Evergreen Marine offers Taiwan service into the East Coast, as does the jointly operated Hapag-Lloyd and Wan Hai AA7 service, but carriers have rarely offered direct service from Indonesia. Maersk was the last to try in 2022, but it suspended the service a year later. The most recent changes come after MSC and Zim announced the suspension of one East Coast and one Gulf Coast service due to the sharp drop in container bookings from China following the April 9 release of President Trump’s latest tariffs. While the subsequent easing of those tariffs will spur a rebound in shipments from China, MSC and Zim’s recent schedules are adding calls to Southeast Asia to account for additional import sourcing shifts. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Container lines

MSC, Zim plan to rework Asia-US Gulf network as demand drops

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carriers want to raise prices by more than 50% in a bid to stem the slide in rates that began at the end of December and is showing no signs of slowing.</div>

The carriers want to raise prices by more than 50% in a bid to stem the slide in rates that began at the end of December and is showing no signs of slowing.

<div class="phx-topic">Excess capacity and weakening demand continue to exert downward pressure on Asia-North Europe container rates with the various indices showing the spot market has lost more than 60% of its value since the beginning of the year. Several carriers have announced rate increases for more than $3,000 per FEU from June 1 to try to slow the spot market slide but may struggle to find much support in an oversupplied market. CMA CGM will be setting its freight all kinds (FAK) rate from Asia to North Europe at $3,100 per FEU on June 1, while MSC and Hapag-Lloyd will set their rate on that route at $3,200/FEU. MSC and Hapag-Lloyd are also raising their Asia-Mediterranean FAK prices, with MSC rates of about $5,000/FEU and Hapag-Lloyd at $4,500/FEU. The asking prices are significantly higher than current rate levels. Average spot rates from Asia to North Europe on May 15 were $1,994/FEU, down from just over $5,000/FEU on Dec. 31, while Asia-Mediterranean rates of $3,156/FEU were down 42% so far this year, according to the rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global recorded spot rates from Asia to North Europe at $1,600/FEU this week, an almost 70% decline since the beginning of January. Asia-Mediterranean rates this week were at $2,700/FEU, a drop of 50% since the start of the year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="aa85df16-b8fe-4e63-9181-65cba329e464"></dynamic-object></div>The supply chain director for a Germany-based Asia-Europe shipper said he was seeing offers in the market as low as $1,200/FEU, which was putting pressure on carriers to slow the decline. "I can understand the pressure carriers are under, and they are asking for more cargo but many BCOs (beneficial cargo owners) have declining cargo flows, so the market is really imbalanced,” the source said, adding that there was little chance the rate hikes would stick. “Our demand is the same as it was at this time last year, which is a slack period. The rate increases will not be 100% but may stabilize falling prices. Whether there will be another advanced peak season is impossible to gauge, but everything is possible in this market.” <h3>Mismatch between supply and demand </h3>Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, said the mismatch between offered capacity and demand was keeping spot rates under pressure. “While rates and demand are going up on trans-Pacific, spot rates are sliding into Europe,” he told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The container shipping orderbook of 8.6 million TEUs in capacity is about 27% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just under 1 million TEUs in capacity will be delivered this year, most of it large ships that can only be deployed on Asia-Europe, while only 4,000 TEUs are set to be scrapped by the industry this year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b2f271aa-d66e-49e2-9bc8-99469f7fc20e"></dynamic-object></div>Only 6.5% of the available capacity is being blanked in May while carriers are deploying a record 1.12 million TEUs in the month, according to data from ocean visibility provider eeSea. Sand noted that the tariff cuts on the China-US trade following a 90-day deal between Washington and Beijing last weekend has “changed the picture” with some cargo diverted from the trans-Pacific to Asia-Europe. ”One month of ‘frustrated cargo’ that didn’t go from China to the US and is on its way to Europe, the Middle East and South America. The congested northern European ports will be facing a rush in June on the back of this,” Sand added. North Europe’s largest port gateways <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/no-end-to-the-congestion-choking-gateway-ports-in-north-europe-5995853">continue to struggle with persistent congestion</a> that has delayed vessels and hampered container operations at the hubs for months. The reasons include full container yards, port strikes and slowdowns, labor shortages because of several public holidays in May, crane engineering works in some terminals and changing carrier alliance networks. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Excess capacity and weakening demand continue to exert downward pressure on Asia-North Europe container rates with the various indices showing the spot market has lost more than 60% of its value since the beginning of the year. Several carriers have announced rate increases for more than $3,000 per FEU from June 1 to try to slow the spot market slide but may struggle to find much support in an oversupplied market. CMA CGM will be setting its freight all kinds (FAK) rate from Asia to North Europe at $3,100 per FEU on June 1, while MSC and Hapag-Lloyd will set their rate on that route at $3,200/FEU. MSC and Hapag-Lloyd are also raising their Asia-Mediterranean FAK prices, with MSC rates of about $5,000/FEU and Hapag-Lloyd at $4,500/FEU. The asking prices are significantly higher than current rate levels. Average spot rates from Asia to North Europe on May 15 were $1,994/FEU, down from just over $5,000/FEU on Dec. 31, while Asia-Mediterranean rates of $3,156/FEU were down 42% so far this year, according to the rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global recorded spot rates from Asia to North Europe at $1,600/FEU this week, an almost 70% decline since the beginning of January. Asia-Mediterranean rates this week were at $2,700/FEU, a drop of 50% since the start of the year. The supply chain director for a Germany-based Asia-Europe shipper said he was seeing offers in the market as low as $1,200/FEU, which was putting pressure on carriers to slow the decline. "I can understand the pressure carriers are under, and they are asking for more cargo but many BCOs (beneficial cargo owners) have declining cargo flows, so the market is really imbalanced,” the source said, adding that there was little chance the rate hikes would stick. “Our demand is the same as it was at this time last year, which is a slack period. The rate increases will not be 100% but may stabilize falling prices. Whether there will be another advanced peak season is impossible to gauge, but everything is possible in this market.” Mismatch between supply and demand Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, said the mismatch between offered capacity and demand was keeping spot rates under pressure. “While rates and demand are going up on trans-Pacific, spot rates are sliding into Europe,” he told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The container shipping orderbook of 8.6 million TEUs in capacity is about 27% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just under 1 million TEUs in capacity will be delivered this year, most of it large ships that can only be deployed on Asia-Europe, while only 4,000 TEUs are set to be scrapped by the industry this year. Only 6.5% of the available capacity is being blanked in May while carriers are deploying a record 1.12 million TEUs in the month, according to data from ocean visibility provider eeSea. Sand noted that the tariff cuts on the China-US trade following a 90-day deal between Washington and Beijing last weekend has “changed the picture” with some cargo diverted from the trans-Pacific to Asia-Europe. ”One month of ‘frustrated cargo’ that didn’t go from China to the US and is on its way to Europe, the Middle East and South America. The congested northern European ports will be facing a rush in June on the back of this,” Sand added. North Europe’s largest port gateways continue to struggle with persistent congestion that has delayed vessels and hampered container operations at the hubs for months. The reasons include full container yards, port strikes and slowdowns, labor shortages because of several public holidays in May, crane engineering works in some terminals and changing carrier alliance networks. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Asia-Europe

Maritime

Ocean carriers line up hefty rate hikes on oversupplied Asia-Europe trade

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With less than half of CMA CGM’s fleet built in China, CFO Ramon Fernandez believes US services can be structured to avoid the incoming tonnage fees.</div>

With less than half of CMA CGM’s fleet built in China, CFO Ramon Fernandez believes US services can be structured to avoid the incoming tonnage fees.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM will arrange its fleet and Ocean Alliance services to ensure it does not have to pay the recently revised Chinese tonnage tax plan that, for some carriers, could add $1 million per voyage calling at US ports, said CFO Ramon Fernandez. Fernandez told reporters Friday that less than half the CMA CGM fleet of 680 ships were built in China, which enables the carrier to avoid the tonnage tax to be imposed from Oct. 14. “If Chinese-built vessels have to pay a fee, we will make sure that this will not happen to us,” he said in a press conference to announce CMA CGM’s first-quarter results. Asked if CMA CGM would shoulder the load of US services in the Ocean Alliance, Fernandez only said, “We have plenty of vessels which have not been built in China, so we can make sure that these vessels will be reaching US ports.” The US Trade Representative in April <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/revised-china-tonnage-tax-less-disruptive-still-costly-6005402">narrowed the scope of its tariffs against China’s maritime industry</a> to a fee based on the cargo capacity or container volume of Chinese-operated and -built ships entering US ports. The more targeted actions follow industry warnings that earlier proposals would <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">increase costs for US shippers and pose an existential threat to smaller ports</a>. CMA CGM’s Ocean Alliance partners Cosco and OOCL face tariffs more than twice as large as their peers. <h3>Shipping operations drive Q1 results </h3>CMA CGM’s solid first quarter followed the industry trend. Revenue in the first quarter reached $13.3 billion, up 12.1% year over year, and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) increased 29.1% to $3.1 billion. The group’s net profit of $1.1 billion was up 42% compared to the first three months of last year. The earnings were driven by an increase in volume that was up 4.2% in the first quarter at 5.8 million TEUs and supported by average revenue per TEU of $1,498 that was up 7.1% year over year. Consolidated revenue from maritime shipping operations of $8.8 billion in the first quarter increased 11.5%, while the shipping division’s EBITDA of $2.5 billion was 30.0% higher than in the first quarter of 2024. The group's logistics activities under CEVA Logistics continued to grow, boosted by the consolidation of Bolloré Logistics in February last year and good momentum in contract logistics, although the finished vehicle logistics and road haulage segments faced market challenges, mostly in Europe. Revenue from logistics, at $4.3 billion in the first quarter, was up 10% year over year, while EBITDA grew 10.5% to $399 million. CMA CGM Air Cargo is grouped in the “other activities” section along with the group’s port terminals and CMA Media. Revenue in this section rose 31% year over year in the first quarter to $899 million while EBITDA was up 91.5% at $157 million, thanks to strong performances in terminals and air cargo. CMA CGM also announced a €100 million ($112 million) investment in a strategic partnership with Mistral AI, a French AI startup headquartered in Paris. The partnership aims to develop bespoke AI solutions for the maritime, logistics and media sectors by mobilizing Mistral AI teams alongside CMA CGM teams, according to a company statement. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM will arrange its fleet and Ocean Alliance services to ensure it does not have to pay the recently revised Chinese tonnage tax plan that, for some carriers, could add $1 million per voyage calling at US ports, said CFO Ramon Fernandez. Fernandez told reporters Friday that less than half the CMA CGM fleet of 680 ships were built in China, which enables the carrier to avoid the tonnage tax to be imposed from Oct. 14. “If Chinese-built vessels have to pay a fee, we will make sure that this will not happen to us,” he said in a press conference to announce CMA CGM’s first-quarter results. Asked if CMA CGM would shoulder the load of US services in the Ocean Alliance, Fernandez only said, “We have plenty of vessels which have not been built in China, so we can make sure that these vessels will be reaching US ports.” The US Trade Representative in April narrowed the scope of its tariffs against China’s maritime industry to a fee based on the cargo capacity or container volume of Chinese-operated and -built ships entering US ports. The more targeted actions follow industry warnings that earlier proposals would increase costs for US shippers and pose an existential threat to smaller ports . CMA CGM’s Ocean Alliance partners Cosco and OOCL face tariffs more than twice as large as their peers. Shipping operations drive Q1 results CMA CGM’s solid first quarter followed the industry trend. Revenue in the first quarter reached $13.3 billion, up 12.1% year over year, and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) increased 29.1% to $3.1 billion. The group’s net profit of $1.1 billion was up 42% compared to the first three months of last year. The earnings were driven by an increase in volume that was up 4.2% in the first quarter at 5.8 million TEUs and supported by average revenue per TEU of $1,498 that was up 7.1% year over year. Consolidated revenue from maritime shipping operations of $8.8 billion in the first quarter increased 11.5%, while the shipping division’s EBITDA of $2.5 billion was 30.0% higher than in the first quarter of 2024. The group's logistics activities under CEVA Logistics continued to grow, boosted by the consolidation of Bolloré Logistics in February last year and good momentum in contract logistics, although the finished vehicle logistics and road haulage segments faced market challenges, mostly in Europe. Revenue from logistics, at $4.3 billion in the first quarter, was up 10% year over year, while EBITDA grew 10.5% to $399 million. CMA CGM Air Cargo is grouped in the “other activities” section along with the group’s port terminals and CMA Media. Revenue in this section rose 31% year over year in the first quarter to $899 million while EBITDA was up 91.5% at $157 million, thanks to strong performances in terminals and air cargo. CMA CGM also announced a €100 million ($112 million) investment in a strategic partnership with Mistral AI, a French AI startup headquartered in Paris. The partnership aims to develop bespoke AI solutions for the maritime, logistics and media sectors by mobilizing Mistral AI teams alongside CMA CGM teams, according to a company statement. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

CMA CGM fleet will not need to pay Chinese tonnage tax: CFO

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code MDRW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code MDW25 at checkout to save 25% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

Use code MDW25 at checkout and save 25% on any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW25 at checkout to save 25% on first year of any annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW25 at checkout and save 25% on any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDRW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Potential regulatory bombshells flying under MPV sector’s radar

Capacity-demand imbalance to shield truck rates from US import surge

MSC, Zim plan to rework Asia-US Gulf network as demand drops