ShareJunction - Member Posts

x 0

Bro, i am always negative all NOL development which you may don' t want to listen.

All new container vessels are delivered on time because it is from Korea Daewood shipyard which are famous in on time delivery of standardised vessels.

You can checked back the news announced by NOL how they handled the renewal programme. For those old vessels belong to shipowners, they stopped to renew the chartered contract. For those vessels belong to NOL, they sold their old vessels to shipowners and registered impairment loss but chartered these vessels with very high chartered rate till the new vessel arrival.

Of course you can think due to this transition period and poor arrangement between old and new vessels, the volume is dropped.

However, due to my lack of confidence in NOL management, I will think this way, NOL has same container volume capacity but the no of vessels are lesser. no of vessels is lesser mean the available slop of shipping schedule is lesser. In the past, let say NOL has 2 x 5000 TEU vessels for a route mean they can have 2 shipment in 1 month. However, they change to a new vessel to 10000 TEU, the shipment is reduce to once per month. Now, all shipping running in low stream(reduced speed to reduced total fuel consumption per trip), the shipment duration is longer. Lower volume may imply that NOL is unable to 100% fill their new container vessels in 1 shipments.

3 to 4 years ago, Maersk renewed some of the route with new giant container vessels also facing the same problems, their customers have to adapt the change in schedule and patiently wait for the next shipment if they missed the previous one. However, the impact to Maersk is relatively small because, they are holding 15% of market share but NOL merely about 3%.

This is the main reason why Maersk and MSC want to work together and share the vessels and increase the market share to 30% to make sure their shipment schedule is more and all vessels can be filled 100% before leaving from the port to achieve the efficiency and effective of fully utilitise all the giant container vessels.

I know the overoptimistic person here will say this is not going to affect the shipment of NOL since NOL main business is in US shipping due to panama canal dimension and US relatively small and shallow port. However, i would like to say don' t stupid. 14000TEU will be operated for Europe to Asia route. all those 8000TEU which was normally operating in Europe will be transfered to US and ship over there. The impact of Maersk and MSC plan is a very huge blow to all player. Even without the plan, Maersk current 15% and MSC 13% Market share, just working alone within their own company, other small container vessels cannot complete at all.

I won' t say order new giant vessels is mistake. NOL have to do it. However, at the sametime NOL must understand what is the impact behind to have all these giant vessels, less schedule, how to handle it? either increase the fleet or work with others to increase the schedule.

After understanding it, do you still think NOL has high chance to turn over in next 2 to 3 years. My answer to you is always no. So far, there are no solution for NOL unless the whole shipping market boom like 2005 to 2008 period. But this is not possible at all because another 20% of new container capacity are going to fill the market in next 2 years.

So why put money in NOL since so far no a valid reason for NOL to do well in next 2 years but 1.2 billon debt is unsecured. As you said, I should not advise anybody on their trading. I can say, i didn' t, i just provide the information that i know the research they i did my understanding on this industry.

counter ( Date: 08-Aug-2014 09:21) Posted:

Btw, bro earlybird, could you share your view on the following post. Somehow, I think it is a crucial factor. Thank you very much

counter ( Date: 08-Aug-2014 08:13) Posted:

If I had to guess the meaning as a layperson, I would say that in the process of replacing the old vessels with the new ones in the effort to improve the capacity, it was unable to take or fulfil some orders resulting in a fall in the volume. I know this may sound simplistic but it is my best guess as a layperson.

Would bros sgng123, luck03, earlybird like to clarify on this?

x 0

It is personnel decision.

But just point again your past investment. None of them are making even 1 year loss may be quarter loss. Their profit drop affect the price and some even below their NAV value like Ezra. Their situation all are much better than NOL, therefore swing up fast. NOL price is at NAV value but with huge loss for 3 years and their NAV is overvalued based on present container vessel price.

All the best to you since you have made your decision.

counter ( Date: 08-Aug-2014 08:58) Posted:

Am I taking risk? Yes, I am. I take calculated risk.

Is the risk high in my investment. No, it is not. Different people have different stomach for risk.

Did I get into NOL thinking that it would turn profitable in Q2. No, I didn' t. I hold a long term view.

I still believe that NOL is a good investment given the price. I will accumulate more shares if the price falls substantially.

Different people have different investment philosophy. You cannot presume that you know what suits and works an every investor.

earlybird14 ( Date: 08-Aug-2014 08:43) Posted:

In my opinion, you should look at Korea and japan operators who break even in this quarter. I believe they didn't order as much as new giant vessels as nol but they manage to break even.

Year ago, I was convinced that APL is a high cost company running in nol. We singapore are willing to change and adapt new structure to be profitable and as competitive as possible. However samething may not be happen in US. The management and staff there may still enjoy beer and their high bonus and not willing to change. So problem is not nol is APL.

Very less volume are traded in nol, BB may play up and down which still give chance to earn small profit. However, putting the money in it mean taking the huge risk that tomorrow NOL may go default payment on loan or right issue, no matter which happen, with weak foundation of nol, price surely will be punished.

Why taking so high risk in your investment. There may a lot of share in sgx, us hk and erg worth to invest

x 0

U r right. Positive development in the industry. But again, the freight rate still not breaking the sin curve trend. Debt is higher too

Lucky03 ( Date: 08-Aug-2014 08:25) Posted:

I'm disappointed that NOL still turn in a loss but I believe I'm among the minority that expect NOL to turn profitable. There will always be a price for everything and perceived values and anticipation of what may be possible developments will have impact. As earlybird pointed out, many of my recent positive postings from reputable sources such as JOC, Seatrade Global, Seaship News, SeaNews Turkey, Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide, etc will not have impact to NOL's Q2 result. They are what may come. Maybe the Q2 result will hasten actions that' are overdue. Whatever, there may be knee jerk reaction and some here may short NOL. Good luck to all.

x 0

In my opinion, you should look at Korea and japan operators who break even in this quarter. I believe they didn't order as much as new giant vessels as nol but they manage to break even.

Year ago, I was convinced that APL is a high cost company running in nol. We singapore are willing to change and adapt new structure to be profitable and as competitive as possible. However samething may not be happen in US. The management and staff there may still enjoy beer and their high bonus and not willing to change. So problem is not nol is APL.

Very less volume are traded in nol, BB may play up and down which still give chance to earn small profit. However, putting the money in it mean taking the huge risk that tomorrow NOL may go default payment on loan or right issue, no matter which happen, with weak foundation of nol, price surely will be punished.

Why taking so high risk in your investment. There may a lot of share in sgx, us hk and erg worth to invest!

counter ( Date: 08-Aug-2014 08:13) Posted:

If I had to guess the meaning as a layperson, I would say that in the process of replacing the old vessels with the new ones in the effort to improve the capacity, it was unable to take or fulfil some orders resulting in a fall in the volume. I know this may sound simplistic but it is my best guess as a layperson.

Would bros sgng123, luck03, earlybird like to clarify on this?

counter ( Date: 08-Aug-2014 07:56) Posted:

If the new ships have not been deployed in Q2 for the big cut in slot cut, does it mean that the effects of the cost savings measures have not been fully realised.

By the way, what exactly does it mean by a fall in volume due to strict capacity management and capacity management efforts.

quote APL reported second quarter 2014 revenue of almost US$1.7 billion, a slight 2% year-on-year drop in spite of a 6% decline in volume due to strict capacity management.

APL&rsquo s Intra-Asia trade shed 9% in volume against a 2% dip in freight rates amidst APL&rsquo s capacity management efforts. unquote

x 0

http://www.nol.com.sg/wps/wcm/connect/e0d6b88043fe4af8bfa2ff388d151215/NOL-Group-Unaudited-Quarterly-Financial-Information-for-the-1st-Quarter-ended-4-April-2014.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=e0d6b88043fe4af8bfa2ff388d151215

http://www.nol.com.sg/wps/wcm/connect/8fcae680450333e3b104f39a8997ae3c/NOL-Group-Unaudited-Quarterly-Financial-Information-for-the-2nd-Quarter-ended-27-June-2014.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=8fcae680450333e3b104f39a8997ae3c

I am not putting salt on holders but I just think as a holder you shall look at the critical info on last 2 report.

1) borrowing - page 4. 2016 repayment of unsecured loan increase from 600 to 800mil just in 3 month time only. The worst is 2017 repayment of unsecured loan increase from 168 to 447 mil. What this tell us? It tell us nol borrow more short term loan for cash and result their unsecured loan jump from 768million to 1.2 billion in 3 month time only.

2) cash flow - nol increase cash flow by borrowing more short term unsecured bank loan. Although no disclosing the interest but we know short term loan interest is high. The new loan minus repayment is 307mil but only 213mil cash added. Cash burnt 100million dollar.

3) some one posted Japan and Korea competitors break even or turn positive. Nol made loss again. This is exactly same as 2012 when freight rate was 1.7 times compared to now, majority break even or make profit, nol made loss. Do you really trust nol cost cutting plan compared to other cost cutting plan?

Based on top 3 judge yourselves. Nol borrowing is snowball bigger and bigger. They need cash and a lot of cash in next 2 years. Nol is borrowing more and more money to survive. If continue like that, nobody can save nol including temasek. Ho Ching has lose 4billion for temasek. I don't really believe she will pump another 1.2 billion to nol. Furthermore, don't pump money in, nol really need to file bankruptcy protection by 2015. The container industry is changed, top 3 make profit and has million teu capacity to fill, price war will continue and more vessel will be ordered by top 3 with their profit to squeeze more competitors out from market. Those cannot operate efficiently and effectively will be squeezed out.

x 0

Again. No point to post these over optimistic post. 3 years is enough. Don't give wrong info to people. I mentioned before go and take a look how nol handle the new vessels. The last few new vessels are chartered too MOL. It mean that started from 2Q no more new vessel joining nol. Cost cutting plan plus new vessels cannot work what else you want say again.

sgng123 ( Date: 07-Aug-2014 20:54) Posted:

I had also noticed that NOL management had planned 14 more charters to be returned in 2015, 14 charters returned in 1H2014 with 6 more to go in 2H14. Sad thing is the new ships never deployed in 2Q for the big cut in slot cost. Anyway more charters returned = more cost saving in 2015 by then the demand and supply situation would be stabilised seeing the recovery in global demand and better capacity ultilisation by the mega alliances. The port congestion earlier in June really hurt ship bottom line, that why noone go into container shipping business except government , unexpected losses always on the horizon and need to subsidised exporters else they lose out to competitors from other countries. Going into 3Q, off to a good start with transpacific spot rate surging 30% and EC rate hitting all time record high in SCFI, hope strong demand continue well into Aug and Sep then would see better days for ship in 2H14. would be interesting to see how market respond to ship result tomorrow though it is a friday boring trading session.

x 0

i really hope their management do their job. My comparison among the competitors in Europe and Asia, NOL was one of the worst which majority breakeven in 2012 but NOL still made loss.

Result may release today after hours, good luck.

counter ( Date: 07-Aug-2014 09:15) Posted:

I am comparing the Q2 result and the management guidance quarter-on-quarter.

earlybird14 ( Date: 07-Aug-2014 08:46) Posted:

2012 freight rate average was 1.7times higher compared to now. May be you can think situation is changed due to new container vessels and restructure plan.

x 0

2012 freight rate average was 1.7times higher compared to now. May be you can think situation is changed due to new container vessels and restructure plan.

counter ( Date: 07-Aug-2014 08:33) Posted:

Anyway, given the recent encouraging economic and shipping data, I would be surprised if there is no improvement in the mangement guidance, taking into account that it was negative in the previous quarter.

x 0

Agreed, present price is quite bottom which short will not be interested.

However, as mentioned before, if NOL has intention to issue right or new share in next few months, this can explain why the short sell volume increaseing in past few month. Banker are instructed to short sell now and cover with new share given by NOL in the future to cover those existing shareholders who don' t want to exercise the right.

THis is the main reason for KIV. NOL need cash. Where to find? no ideal yet!

counter ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 17:24) Posted:

this is a valid point every firm, regardless of its profitability, has a value at this price, even earlybird who is one of the most pessimistic investors about nol, does not have a short position

Trespasserx ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 17:13) Posted:

Micro and macro..macro micro.. To me I only see one thing, the market is now so erratic, yet NOL price has been relative stable.. If NOL is really so shit.. It will be shortist heaven.. Yet company who are earning money are being short down (banks, airline) in the past week. Simply because their share prices are too high. And it also imply that NOL price currently is way too low to even contemplating to short despite many feeling that the company is shit...

x 0

So what should NOL holder worry? dilution!

Trespasserx ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 17:13) Posted:

Micro and macro..macro micro.. To me I only see one thing, the market is now so erratic, yet NOL price has been relative stable.. If NOL is really so shit.. It will be shortist heaven.. Yet company who are earning money are being short down (banks, airline) in the past week. Simply because their share prices are too high. And it also imply that NOL price currently is way too low to even contemplating to short despite many feeling that the company is shit...

x 0

G6- NOL(Singapore or US), NYK(Japan), Hapag-Lloyd(Germany), MOL(Japan), OOIL(HongKong), Hyundai(Korea)

CKYHE - COSCON(China), K Line(Japan), Yang Ming(Taiwan), Hanjin(Korea), Evergreen(Taiwan)

P3 - Maersk(Denmark), MSC(Switzerland), CMA (France)

Independent - China ship(China), UASC(UAE), Wan Hai(Taiwan), Hamburg Sud(Germany), PIL(Singapore)

above are 3 container alliances and major independent operator. Do you think feel something is not right? Japan got 3, Taiwan got 3, Korea got 2, China got 3, Germany got 2, Singapore got 2.

Obviously, internal country competition within the company resources giving the chance for Maersk, MSC and CMA a chance to grow big. It is time for Asia government to step forward and consolidate their own country container shipping company. The formation of G6 and CKYHE is more like against each other instead of fighting with P3.

Painful consolidation in this industry is coming soon. Let' s see which name will be disappear in next 10 years! will it be you all favourite company NOL????

x 0

Who knows, may be last time they forget to bribe the officers. this time they learn the mistake and know how to go through the lobang.

Since both of them try it again, it imply they have certain confidence to push it through.

14 years ago, when Malaysia built a port at Tanjung Pelepas, Maserk was no.1, Evergreen was no.2. Now evergreen is no.4 which only hold about 4% market share. which is 2 times behind CMA, 3 times behind MSC and 4 times behind Maersk.

Asian container shipping company really did a bad job in this industry!

Lucky03 ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 16:35) Posted:

Then why need approval from China ? The original alliance was killed and they have to discard all works done earlier. If they don't get the approval then their vessel sharing will be illegal at China ports.

earlybird14 ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 16:33) Posted:

US and Europe have approved. Again turn to china, never exclude the possibility that China approve it.

US and Europe imposed aiti dumping tariff on products from China. China is doing the same to protect their own thing. If Maersk and MSC want to go ahead with strategy merging of their container shipping business as one, China can' t stop them at all.

x 0

The motive of the agreement is very simple, instead of fighting for the new delivered container vessel capacity, they are working together to fill up their new container capacity together. both of them owned the highest new order of container vessels. The 2M capacity can be increased to 3 or even 4M in next 10 years so long as 55 and 45% shares are agreed. 2 of them own 30% market share, due to this high market share, they can negotiate with container shipowner to obtain even cheaper chartered rate and improve their margin even higher.

This is absolutely a monopoly. But what other can do, as a end users, who can offer cheaper container freight rate, where you will go, especially, the offer is from top 2 players!

x 0

US and Europe have approved. Again turn to china, never exclude the possibility that China approve it.

US and Europe imposed aiti dumping tariff on products from China. China is doing the same to protect their own thing. If Maersk and MSC want to go ahead with strategy merging of their container shipping business as one, China can' t stop them at all.

Lucky03 ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 16:25) Posted:

Indeed old news. Chinese official news media are already slamming the 2M alliance and high probability that it will be killed too.

earlybird14 ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 16:14) Posted:

Old news. But was a bad news. Holders intend to close their eye on bad news.

http://www.recyclingtoday.com/maersk-msc-shipping-agreement.aspx

Container shipping lines Maersk Line and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) have signed a 10-year vessel sharing agreement (VSA) called 2M. They say the new VSA will provide more efficient service on the Asia-Europe, trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes.

Both companies say the new agreement will replace all existing VSAs and slot purchase agreements that Maersk Line and MSC have on the three trade routes.

Earlier in 2014, the two shipping lines had tried to form a three-way agreement called the P3 Network with Marseille, France-based CMA CMG. Approval for that network to operate in China was rejected in mid-June by the Chinese government, however, based on concerns that the P3 Network would control nearly 50 percent of container vessel capacity on the Europe-to-China route.

The Maersk-MSC VSA will include 185 vessels with an estimated capacity of 2.1 million TEU (20-foot equivalent unit containers). The purpose of the cooperation is to share infrastructure (network) on the various trade routes, the two companies say. Maersk will contribute about 55 percent of the vessel space.

&ldquo I am very pleased with our agreement with MSC," says Sø ren Skou, CEO of Denmark-based Maersk Line. " We share the same ambition to have as efficient and effective operations as possible. We will continue to provide our customers with competitive and reliable container shipping in the East-West trades at attractive prices. To do so we have to be innovative and take out cost while keeping a product that is best in class for our customers in terms of coverage, frequency and reliability."

&ldquo MSC is pleased to have reached this agreement with Maersk Line,&rdquo says Diego Aponte, vice president of Geneva, Switzerland-based MSC. &ldquo It represents another positive step in our continual drive to enhance our operational network in terms of scope, scale, efficiency and reliability.&rdquo

Aponte adds, &ldquo The 2M Vessel Sharing Agreement will enable us to achieve significant reductions in fuel consumption, driving down the carbon footprint of our shipping operations. With sustainability a key area of focus for MSC, we&rsquo re delighted that this vessel sharing agreement will mean major cuts in emissions while simultaneously enhancing our service to customers.&rdquo

Maersk and MSC say the 2M VSA differs from the earlier proposed P3 alliance in that the combined market share of the two companies is smaller and the new agreement represents &ldquo a pure VSA without any jointly owned independent entity with executional powers.&rdquo

Vessels deployed in the 10-year VSA will continue to be owned (or chartered) and operated by the two individual lines, say Maersk and MSC.

The VSA is expected to start in early 2015 with the starting date conditional upon approvals by relevant authorities.

x 0

The agreement will be last for 10 years. Almost all the 14000TEU above container vessels will be deployed on Asia-Europe Route. Those 8000 to 10000 TEU will change to trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes. Their efficiency route plan will be the nightmare for the rest of competitors.

http://theloadstar.co.uk/mediterranean-shipping-company-maersk-container-shipping/

With the usual aversion to publicity relating to its fleet, Mediterranean Shipping Company, the world&rsquo s second-biggest ocean carrier, quietly took delivery of. the MSC London, the first of a series of six 15,908teu ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs), on long-term charter last week.

Alphaliner reports that after a bunkering trip to Vladivostok the 399-metre MSC London will be deployed on the carrier&rsquo s Asia-Eastern Mediterranean &ldquo Tiger&rsquo service, where its arrival will break capacity records at the ports of Istanbul and Piraeus.

No doubt these ports will make good use of the PR opportunities, confirming their &ldquo big ship ready&rdquo pledges, but in the longer term, the ship and its sisters look set to join one of MSC&rsquo s Asia-North Europe services.

The MSC London represents a significant upgrade on the carrier&rsquo s largest ships to date in the 14,000teu MSC Daniela class. The carrier also has 18,400teu vessels included in its aggressive 40-ship/450,000teu orderbook.

Elsewhere, Maersk Line took delivery of the 18,270teu Mayview Maersk, the tenth in its series of 20 Triple-E ships ordered from the DSME shipyard, South Korea.

According to Alphaliner, the Mayview Maersk will join Maersk&rsquo s AE10 Asia-North Europe loop, replacing the 15,550teu Elly Maersk, which will be re-deployed on the AE2 string that is being gradually upgraded.

The rationale for the P3 alliance, which would also have included French carrier CMA CGM&rsquo s 16,000teu CMA CGM Marco Polo class ships on the Asia-North Europe tradelane, was to combine volumes to fill these behemoths.

And after the knock back from the Chinese regulators for the P3, the watered down 2M co-operation between Maersk and MSC has the same aim.

With the delivery of more ULCVs, both carriers will have achieved the economy of scale needed to make the troubled Asia-Europe tradelane pay &ndash but only if good utilisation levels are maintained.

Indeed, after the peak season these ships are likely to be scratching around to fill slots, and the laws of supply and demand suggests this will pull down spot rate levels, which ultimately influence new contracts come the start of 2015.

Although there should be no problems with the 2M passing US and European regulators &ndash they had already green-lighted the P3 application &ndash the question remains as to whether the Chinese regulators will play ball in allowing the 2M to go ahead.

Such is the regulatory uncertainty that nothing can be taken for granted, thus Maersk and MSC face anxious times before they can confidently put the final touches to their co-operation and ensure that they get some return on their mega-ship investments.

earlybird14 ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 16:14) Posted:

Old news. But was a bad news. Holders intend to close their eye on bad news.

http://www.recyclingtoday.com/maersk-msc-shipping-agreement.aspx

Container shipping lines Maersk Line and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) have signed a 10-year vessel sharing agreement (VSA) called 2M. They say the new VSA will provide more efficient service on the Asia-Europe, trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes.

Both companies say the new agreement will replace all existing VSAs and slot purchase agreements that Maersk Line and MSC have on the three trade routes.

Earlier in 2014, the two shipping lines had tried to form a three-way agreement called the P3 Network with Marseille, France-based CMA CMG. Approval for that network to operate in China was rejected in mid-June by the Chinese government, however, based on concerns that the P3 Network would control nearly 50 percent of container vessel capacity on the Europe-to-China route.

The Maersk-MSC VSA will include 185 vessels with an estimated capacity of 2.1 million TEU (20-foot equivalent unit containers). The purpose of the cooperation is to share infrastructure (network) on the various trade routes, the two companies say. Maersk will contribute about 55 percent of the vessel space.

&ldquo I am very pleased with our agreement with MSC," says Sø ren Skou, CEO of Denmark-based Maersk Line. " We share the same ambition to have as efficient and effective operations as possible. We will continue to provide our customers with competitive and reliable container shipping in the East-West trades at attractive prices. To do so we have to be innovative and take out cost while keeping a product that is best in class for our customers in terms of coverage, frequency and reliability."

&ldquo MSC is pleased to have reached this agreement with Maersk Line,&rdquo says Diego Aponte, vice president of Geneva, Switzerland-based MSC. &ldquo It represents another positive step in our continual drive to enhance our operational network in terms of scope, scale, efficiency and reliability.&rdquo

Aponte adds, &ldquo The 2M Vessel Sharing Agreement will enable us to achieve significant reductions in fuel consumption, driving down the carbon footprint of our shipping operations. With sustainability a key area of focus for MSC, we&rsquo re delighted that this vessel sharing agreement will mean major cuts in emissions while simultaneously enhancing our service to customers.&rdquo

Maersk and MSC say the 2M VSA differs from the earlier proposed P3 alliance in that the combined market share of the two companies is smaller and the new agreement represents &ldquo a pure VSA without any jointly owned independent entity with executional powers.&rdquo

Vessels deployed in the 10-year VSA will continue to be owned (or chartered) and operated by the two individual lines, say Maersk and MSC.

The VSA is expected to start in early 2015 with the starting date conditional upon approvals by relevant authorities.

x 0

Old news. But was a bad news. Holders intend to close their eye on bad news.

http://www.recyclingtoday.com/maersk-msc-shipping-agreement.aspx

Container shipping lines Maersk Line and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) have signed a 10-year vessel sharing agreement (VSA) called 2M. They say the new VSA will provide more efficient service on the Asia-Europe, trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific routes.

Both companies say the new agreement will replace all existing VSAs and slot purchase agreements that Maersk Line and MSC have on the three trade routes.

Earlier in 2014, the two shipping lines had tried to form a three-way agreement called the P3 Network with Marseille, France-based CMA CMG. Approval for that network to operate in China was rejected in mid-June by the Chinese government, however, based on concerns that the P3 Network would control nearly 50 percent of container vessel capacity on the Europe-to-China route.

The Maersk-MSC VSA will include 185 vessels with an estimated capacity of 2.1 million TEU (20-foot equivalent unit containers). The purpose of the cooperation is to share infrastructure (network) on the various trade routes, the two companies say. Maersk will contribute about 55 percent of the vessel space.

&ldquo I am very pleased with our agreement with MSC," says Sø ren Skou, CEO of Denmark-based Maersk Line. " We share the same ambition to have as efficient and effective operations as possible. We will continue to provide our customers with competitive and reliable container shipping in the East-West trades at attractive prices. To do so we have to be innovative and take out cost while keeping a product that is best in class for our customers in terms of coverage, frequency and reliability."

&ldquo MSC is pleased to have reached this agreement with Maersk Line,&rdquo says Diego Aponte, vice president of Geneva, Switzerland-based MSC. &ldquo It represents another positive step in our continual drive to enhance our operational network in terms of scope, scale, efficiency and reliability.&rdquo

Aponte adds, &ldquo The 2M Vessel Sharing Agreement will enable us to achieve significant reductions in fuel consumption, driving down the carbon footprint of our shipping operations. With sustainability a key area of focus for MSC, we&rsquo re delighted that this vessel sharing agreement will mean major cuts in emissions while simultaneously enhancing our service to customers.&rdquo

Maersk and MSC say the 2M VSA differs from the earlier proposed P3 alliance in that the combined market share of the two companies is smaller and the new agreement represents &ldquo a pure VSA without any jointly owned independent entity with executional powers.&rdquo

Vessels deployed in the 10-year VSA will continue to be owned (or chartered) and operated by the two individual lines, say Maersk and MSC.

The VSA is expected to start in early 2015 with the starting date conditional upon approvals by relevant authorities.

x 0

just checked your good friend posts in the past 3 years in this thread, you will know what i mean. He posted all good news with good prospect, same articles were taken and rewrite the figure and repost on the newspaper or magazine, just to create news for their reporting job. till now, nothing is changed.

May be NOL moved out from headquarter, their luck will be better due to Feng Shui. This new is more positive and related. Just kidding.

All the best.

x 0

Useful or not, hard to say. All are Same news which were posted in past 3 years.

counter ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 12:02) Posted:

agree but i think that his info is very useful for the bros who hold a long-term view

earlybird14 ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 09:52) Posted:

All your flooded info are not really related for last quarter result which is recorded from March to June only.

Anyway, good luck for the result.

x 0

All your flooded info are not really related for last quarter result which is recorded from March to June only.

Anyway, good luck for the result.

Lucky03 ( Date: 06-Aug-2014 07:57) Posted:

2 more days and we will see if NOL benefited from some of these positive developments.

x 0

http://www1.chineseshipping.com.cn/en/indices/scfi.jsp

Very encouraging. Will it be sustainable?

US Freight rate really increase a lot

Lucky03 ( Date: 04-Aug-2014 22:42) Posted:

ASIA-EUROPE spot rates jumped 21 per cent to US$1,455 TEU in the week ending on Friday, according to data from the Shanghai Containerised Freight Index, Reuters reports.
Sunday, 03.Aug.2014, 20:58 (GMT)
Asia-North Europe rate jumps 21pc to US$1,455 TEU in a single week
ASIA-EUROPE spot rates jumped 21 per cent to US$1,455 TEU in the week ending on Friday, according to data from the Shanghai Containerised Freight Index, Reuters reports.

It was the first time rates on the Asia-North Europe route rose since July 4, when they jumped 28 per cent, having only increased in 10 weeks this year and fallen in 21.

Average rates for 2014 on the routes are $1,278 per TEU compared with $1,090 last year. Rates for the US east coast rose 17 per cent last week to $4,187. The comprehensive index rose 13 per cent to $1,195 per TEU.