New Articles

China: Fast Growing Inbound Trade

Chinese ports have been seeing more shipments of export cargo and import cargo in international trade.

China: Fast Growing Inbound Trade

Chinese ports are currently encountering a nasty bout of congestion brought on by a number of coalescing factors. Bad weather, the restructuring of alliance networks, ever bigger ships and shippers’ eagerness to move cargo ahead of planned rate increases have all been mentioned in dispatches as the reasons why ships are being kept waiting outside ports and for slower than usual turnarounds.

Another, more mundane, factor is simply that they are struggling under the weight of extra business. China’s top 10 ports collectively experienced a six-percent year-on-year jump in throughput in the first quarter of 2017. (See chart.) It’s unlikely to be a coincidence that the ports facing the worst of the congestion registered the biggest gains: Qingdao (12 percent); Shanghai (10 percent) and Ningbo (nine percent).

 

Container throughput at top 10 China ports in 1Q17 (million teu) Source: Drewry Maritime Research

 

Some of these issues, such as the fog and alliance teething pains, will pass over soon enough. But will that reduce the probability of future congestion in some of the world’s busiest container ports?

In this analysis we will examine each potential choking point. Firstly, let’s see what the alliance restructuring meant to the day-to-day operations at Shanghai, the first Chinese port to be flagged as under strain. On the surface, Shanghai’s workload looks to have been lightened as there are fewer deep-sea services calling at the port in April than in March, or indeed even April 2016. But the important fact is that even with fewer services the average size of ships the port has to turnaround has grown by six percent in the course of the year to 8,600 teu.

In general, the deployment of bigger ships results in lower frequency services and greater volume peaks – when traffic arrives in fewer, larger tranches – that stretch the manpower and yard capacities of ports and terminals. This is a universal trend and not specific to Shanghai, but it will not get any easier as the size of ships continues to grow. As fewer terminals are able to accommodate the bigger ships the operational difficulties faced by ports and terminals gets progressively more localized as more traffic heads to facilities that can do the job.

To some degree ports and terminals are the victims of the choices made by their carrier customers. Despite great efforts, and investment, to meet the new demands placed upon them, they are sometimes overwhelmed by problems not of their making.

Information provided by Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG) for the upcoming 2017 version of Drewry’s Global Container Terminal Operators Annual Review and Forecast indicates that average terminal utilization levels at Shanghai were very high in 2016, so it takes very little to push over the dominoes into full blown congestion. There is simply no wriggle room.

Statements from SIPG and carriers such as Maersk Line have all attributed some of the current situation to the alliance transitioning, but getting specific details has been harder to acquire. What we don’t know is how well orchestrated the alliance transition was and if ships arrived as planned, or whether schedules were adhered to but the sheer number of terminal switches overnight was too much for the system to handle?

Add in some heavy fog at just the wrong time and some degree of congestion in already under strain ports was inevitable. These are transitional problems and will pass, but the fact that congestion has spread to other ports along the Chinese coast suggests that something else is at play.

One theory is that Chinese ports are experiencing a sudden spike in traffic because shippers want to move cargoes ahead of expected spot rate hikes and higher annual contract terms to Europe and North America that will kick-in around May. There might be some validity to that theory, but an examination of recent trade statistics shows that China’s demand resurgence is not an overnight flash in the pan with a significant increase to both exports, and especially imports, seen since August of last year.

The long-discussed efforts of China’s government to rebalance the nation towards a more consumer-driven import economy until very recently haven’t borne much fruit when examining container flows with some of its biggest trading partners.

As per data from Container Trade Statistics, Greater China’s container imports from Europe, the US, Middle East and South Asia, grew by a barely visible 0.1 percent per annum between 2012 and 2016. Over the same period, exports to the same markets registered CAGR of 3.8 percent. Instead of rebalancing, the opposite was happening and container exports to these markets outnumbered imports by 3-to-1 in 2015.

However, we are finally starting to see a shift as for the first time in our data series imports to Greater China outpaced exports in 2016; the inbound trade from our sample of trades growing by 2.3 percent year-on-year versus 0.5 percent for the outbound market, in the process lowering the export-to-import ratio.

Closer inspection of the numbers shows that the transition really gathered pace in the second half of last year. As of February, Greater China’s 12-month moving average for imports has gained around five index points since August, more than twice as fast as seen into either North Asia or Southeast Asia. Greater China exports over the same period increased by around two index points.

Having been such an export driven economy for so long, China’s ports have tended not to be over-taxed by long dwell times in terminal yards as boxes tend to be swiftly loaded onto ships for export. However, the fast growing intake of imports could well be putting hitherto unseen pressure on yards in China that as yet they have not adapted to. This has the hallmarks of a longer-term trend that unless remedied by more capacity (to both terminals and yards) will continue to put pressure on ports that are already close, if not beyond, their realistic maximum utilization levels.

Global ports saw more shipments of export cargo and import cargo in international trade in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Uptick in Container Cargo Growth Seen

Over the last couple of years the global container port industry has generally become used to modest growth rates being the new norm and the third quarter of 2016 was no exception. However, Drewry’s extensive sample port throughput data for the last quarter of 2016 suggests there may be an uptick.

The latest edition of Drewry’s quarterly port sector report Ports and Terminals Insight shows that fourth-quarter port throughput grew by over five percent against the same quarter in 2015. This was a marked increase on the global growth of 2.4 percent seen in the third quarter. All world regions showed positive growth based on the sample ports, with North America and Southeast Asia leading the way, growing on average by around seven percent in the quarter. Major transshipment hubs worldwide also saw the benefit. The lowest regional growth rate was a healthy 3.8 percent in the Med.

Admittedly, full-year growth remained modest in 2016, averaging just over two percent globally due to the slow start to the year, but the fact that the fourth quarter showed a marked uptick almost across the board suggests signs of a recovery.

The change in the quarterly trend is particularly marked in the Americas. North America was the star performer, with strong consumer spending in the US a key factor in the 7.4 percent growth at the sample ports for the fourth quarter of 2016. This was a complete turnaround from the previous quarter, when the region’s two percent decline was the weakest performance in the world, although the Hanjin impact may have skewed the figures to some extent.

The economic indicators in the US are generally positive. GDP growth was 1.9 percent in 4Q16, with consumer spending and investment contributing most, and the Conference Board composite lead indicator increased 0.5 percent in December 2016, pointing to a likely acceleration in growth in 2017. Real wage growth is also up and there are signs of a tightening labor market.

Latin America also moved from negative to positive territory in the final quarter of 2016, a surprise given the continued economies woes of the region. However, the good performance at the end of the year was not enough to outweigh the poor conditions of the rest of the year, and full-year traffic levels were down by almost 2 percent for the region.

The uptick in 4Q16 was also evident in Europe where in both the north and south the final quarter showed a big improvement, although once again the full-year growth was more modest. Overall 2016 growth at the sample ports for North Europe/Scandinavia/Baltic was 2.5 percent and just slightly more for the Mediterranean, boosted by continued good figures for Turkey and also at the Italian ports in the sample.

Europe has been the sore point of global economic performance over the past few years but recent data suggests that the eurozone is joining the recovery cycle. The Services PMI (Purchasing Managers’ Index) for the Eurozone rose to 55.5 in February 2017 from 53.7 in the previous two months, a five-year high. Meanwhile the Manufacturing PMI reached 55.4 in February 2017, a six-year high. France’s PMI recently outpaced Germany for the first time since 2012 and this could signal that growth in the euro region is becoming more broad-based.

Asia remains the powerhouse of global container port activity and growth has been among the most resilient during the slowdown of recent years. The third quarter 2016 growth in China and elsewhere in Asia was generally better than the Americas and Europe and while the fourth quarter showed an improvement, it was less marked as a consequence. However, the performances of Southeast and Northeast Asia were notable. The recovery in global demand led by the G3 advanced economies has fed into export upturns in trade-focused Asian economies.

South Korean exports surged by over 11 percent from the previous year, the most in five years, while Japan’s exports also increased 5.4 percent year-on-year in December 2016, up from a decline of 0.4 percent in November 2016. This was the first expansion in 14 months.

China is still by far the most important driver of global container port activity and the government’s aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus has prevented a further weakening of the economy. In the near term the economy seems to be on growth path with policymakers having successfully engineered a soft landing for the time being.

A note of caution is necessary. Looking at quarterly throughput data can give a misleading impression – the good performance in 4Q16 might be a blip. As a result, we have also examined the rolling average four-quarter growth rate across a sample of over 250 ports worldwide, representing more than 75 percent of global throughput. The deteriorating trend in the growth rate is evident from the beginning of 2015 onwards, slipping into negative territory in early 2016. However, the recovery seen at the end of 2016 is clear and supports the view that there are real positive signs in the market.

There is always a danger that the 4Q16 figures are a false dawn but many of the underlying global economic indicators are encouraging. A cloud on the horizon is the possibility of greater protectionism by countries worldwide, largely dependent upon US President Donald Trump’s actions. However, it remains too early to say if this will materialize into a real threat to the current signs of recovery.

Puzzling choices of ports for transshipments of export cargo and import cargo in international trade.

Illogical Port Choices by Liner Alliances

In a ground-breaking analysis Drewry has examined the correlation between carrier terminal ownership and the choice of port calls by the 2M and upcoming Ocean and THE liner alliances. The results show that the choice of port call is often not in line with carrier terminal ownership interests, according to the recently launched Ports and Terminals Insight report published by global shipping consultancy Drewry.

Drewry analyzed the relationship between the extent of interests in terminals that carriers have in ports in a selection of gateway and transshipment port markets, and the ports of call in these markets, as selected by the three major alliances that will be in place from second-quarter 2017. Gateway markets included Benelux ports, the Pacific South West, and South China/Hong Kong, while transshipment markets covered hubs in Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean, Middle East and Central America/Caribbean.

“Our analysis shows that even when a shipping line has a significant stake in a terminal, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the port is selected for the network schedule,” said Neil Davidson, Drewry’s senior analyst for ports and terminals. “The picture is very varied. In some cases the correlation is tight, in others there is no obvious logic at all. For gateway ports, you can see that carriers have to bear in mind the port preferences of shippers, for example, so the choice of port is influenced by other factors. But what was particularly surprising was that for the choice of transshipment hub, which is entirely within the control of a carrier, the correlation was also weak in a number of cases.”

In the Benelux gateway port market, the port choices made by the Ocean and THE alliances correlate very closely to the member lines’ terminal interests, but for the 2M the opposite is true.

“What this analysis shows is that individual lines are not entirely in control of their own destinies when it comes to port choices, as partner lines in their alliances may have conflicting port choice preferences and particular idiosyncrasies,” said Davidson. “Moreover, even if alliance partners have corresponding port preferences, there is still potential for conflict at the terminal level if more than one line in an alliance has interests in different terminals in the same port, as is the case with the Ocean alliance in Rotterdam for example. The horse-trading between alliance members extends beyond port choices and into the choice of specific terminals within any given port. This illustrates the fact that even if a terminal operator brings in a shipping line as a joint venture partner, this is no absolute guarantee of securing an alliance’s volume.”

US is importing from Brazil more shipments of export cargo and import cargo in international trade.

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee

Measured in tonnage, Brazil moved up a spot last year to become the second biggest exporter of goods transported by container vessel into the United States. Annual container flows from Brazil to the US increased by 4.3 percent to 6.3 million tons, leapfrogging Germany in the process. However, Brazil still accounts for a little over one-tenth of the tonnage exported from China to the US.

It is critical to examine the volume of US container imports rather than value as Brazil slips to the 14th spot when measuring its outbound trade in US dollars. The value of Brazil exports to the US decreased by 4.8 percent in 2016 to a little under $10 billion as shipments of more high-value, lower-volume goods plummeted. For example, Brazilian coffee exports, which account for 11 percent of the bilateral trade by value but only six percent of the tonnage, fell by 20 percent last year to $1.1 billion.

Monthly container flows between the two regions have shown year-on-year growth in 23 of the past 24 months despite the fact the Brazilian real is one of the few currencies around the world to strengthen against the US dollar. Even with the country in recession foreign investors are still attracted to Brazil by its sheer size and high interest rates of six to seven percent. That contributed to the average monthly spot exchange between the two currencies, pushing the real up by around five percent on the dollar in 2016. While demand for Brazilian goods might have withstood a stronger real, Brazilian exporters have still suffered a cost by having to cheapen their goods.

The increased purchasing power of Brazil’s consumers from the stronger real is starting to be seen in the inbound container flows from the US. The depth of the monthly demand deficits trended shallower through 2016 before returning to positive territory for the first time in 18 months in November, the latest data we had available at the time of writing. With ongoing macro-economic difficulties still to overcome, it is clearly too soon to call a recovery in the container market from US to ECSA but the trend does suggest that the market has bottomed out and that repeated double-digit declines will be a thing of the past in 2017.

This relatively small trade has provided consistent volumes to the few operators that serve it. The northbound leg appears to have robust underlying demand that should enable further growth in 2017, while the southbound leg will have fewer headwinds to contend with.