LLC vs. Sole Proprietorship: A Critical Decision for Traders

LLC vs. Sole Proprietorship: A Critical Decision for Traders

October 9th, 2023 Amanda E. Clark Leave a comment

Trading can be a risky business by its very nature. Thankfully, there are plenty of practical ways in which traders can mitigate and control their risk. One of the most impactful steps of all is to choose the right legal bulwark.

For most traders, this boils down to a simple choice between two options: Establishing your business as a Sole Proprietorship or establishing it as a Limited Liability Company (or LLC).

While both options have their pros and cons, most traders find the LLC format to be more advantageous on the whole. Here’s a quick explanation as to why.

LLCs and Sole Proprietorships: Defining the Terms

Both of these options represent legal structures that are widely available to business owners, including traders. Here’s a quick rundown of each.

Sole Proprietorships, Explained

A Sole Proprietorship is generally considered to be the simplest option for business owners. It’s basically an unincorporated business structure that involves a single owner. In fact, if you’re running your own business without any additional personnel or staff, you’re considered by default to be a Sole Proprietor.

The main characteristic of the Sole Proprietorship is that there is no legal demarcation between the business and the owner. In other words, you’re not creating a new legal entity; you are the business, and vice versa. This is why most Sole Proprietorships simply operate under the owner’s name, though operating under a brand name can be an option.

When you trade via a Sole Proprietorship, then, all of your business assets are yours… but business losses and liabilities are yours, too.

LLCs, Explained

By contrast, consider the LLC. Though this format is slightly more complicated and expensive than the Sole Proprietorship, it is actually the most popular small business structure in the country. Entrepreneurs love LLCs because there is a ton of flexibility, not just in terms of how you manage the business but also how you report to the IRS. And, there are some important personal liability protections, which is what distinguishes this structure from the Sole Proprietorship.

To that end, when you launch an LLC, you’re creating a whole new entity, thus making a clean break between you and your company. As such, an LLC allows you to keep your business assets/liabilities separate from your personal assets/liabilities.

The upshot of this is that, when you have an LLC, your personal assets (for example, your family’s bank account) can be kept completely shielded from lawsuits and from creditors. This is just the kind of peace of mind that many traders crave.

LLCs and Sole Proprietorships: Comparing the Two Options

While it’s important to do your due diligence, exploring the relative merits of both business structures, most traders will find the LLC path to be the best bet. There are a number of reasons for this. To understand them better, consider a few critical points of comparison.

Formation

When it comes to forming your business, the Sole Proprietorship is certainly the easier option. All you need to do is get a business permit (if your state requires one), and to register any trade names you want to use.

Forming an LLC is a little bit tougher, yet it’s still pretty minimal in its administrative burden. Generally speaking, the steps required include choosing a business name, registering your Articles of Organization with the state, paying a nominal LLC fee, obtaining an EIN from the Internal Revenue Service, and starting a business bank account. While the fees can vary, in many states you can launch an LLC for under $100 total.

Be aware that the steps for forming an LLC can fluctuate a little bit from state to state, and it’s always important to review state-specific guidelines. For instance, here is a guide to forming an LLC in Wyoming.

Operation and Management

By definition, a Sole Proprietorship has one owner who makes all the decisions.

LLCs, on the other hand, provide a lot of built-in flexibility with regard to how you run the company. When you launch an LLC, you have the chance to draft your own Operating Agreement, which outlines how managerial duties will be allocated. You can run the business yourself, bring in partners, or even outsource day-to-day administration to an external management company.

Taxes

Taxation is another area where the LLC structure offers traders just a bit more wiggle room.

Sole Proprietorships are always taxed on a pass-through basis. While this is the default option for LLCs, as well, the LLC owner can elect to be taxed on a corporate basis, if that proves to be more advantageous.

Legal Protections

Here’s where we really get into the main advantages of the LLC. When you’re a Sole Proprietor, you assume all business profits, but also all business liabilities and debts. In other words, you’re personally on the hook for creditors and lawsuits. But with an LLC, you can keep your personal assets out of the business altogether, ensuring that the courts cannot seize, say, your family’s house, or your retirement account.

Reporting

Finally, note that the paperwork and compliance element is pretty simple for both types of business structures. Sole Proprietors just need to pay their taxes and keep their business permits current. LLCs may have some minimal reporting requirements, which can vary by state, and must also pay a small LLC renewal fee each year, but these obligations are minor.

For Traders, the LLC is the Best Option

The bottom line: Traders incur a healthy amount of risk. For most traders, the single best way to mediate this risk is by structuring your business as an LLC, taking full advantage of the personal liability protections that it offers.

Author Bio

Amanda E. Clark is a contributing writer to LLC University. She has appeared as a subject matter expert on panels about digital and social media marketing. Drawing from a robust background in journalism and copywriting, she frequently writes about topics related to business ownership and LLC formation.

Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily

Trade Compliance Management 101:Here’s How Global Traders Can Increase Speed and Lower Spend

July 10th, 2023 Thomas Cook Leave a comment

There are more than 28 government agencies involved directly or indirectly with regulating goods and services that pass through our borders each day. It is a daunting task to keep track of these agencies. While many companies are impacted by multiple agencies, it is not always clear where they overlap.

Companies actively engaged in trade compliance management may have to deal with various agencies that regulate their goods and services in international trade. Trade compliance management is a moving target, affected by economic, political, and commercial factors–and these factors change frequently.

The successful trade compliance professional has multiple inputs coming into them every day containing changes, modifications, and updates. They must know how to comprehensively apply updates and changes to their companies’ supply chain and business model. This is not an easy task to begin with, and many trade compliance managers may encounter disbelievers and naysayers within their companies who block the path to proactive trade compliance culture and activity.

Negotiating these challenges is a daily activity for most trade compliance professionals. Rules involved in import and export trade have always been in place but were significantly moved to the forefront of global supply chain management when 9/11 occurred.

We were involved in management training on the 55th floor of the World Trade Center, so we were directly impacted by the events that happened that day. Our hearts and prayers go out every September, to all the families, as the day is continually memorialized.

Here we are in 2023, and there are still regulations that continue to evolve and new regulations being implemented including export controls, forced labor initiatives and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT), a voluntary supply-chain security program led by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) focused on improving the security of private companies’ supply chains with respect to terrorism.

The functionality of global trade incorporates trade compliance in every aspect of how goods and services move in international business. Almost every company, service provider and carrier engaged in global supply chain operations has at least one person dedicated to trade compliance, or it is one of the many “hats” one wears in purchasing, supply chain, logistics and transportation management.

Many supply chain professionals view trade compliance as an intrusion of government regulation and oversight. Others see it is a necessary evil related to managing the impact of terrorism and keeping our country secure and safe. Irrespective of one’s individual view, trade compliance is a reality–composed of expense, time, and resources that we all must manage in our global supply chain operations, purchasing and export global reach.

Many corporations have embraced trade compliance as a standalone function in the organization that, when managed successfully, can reduce risk and cost, as well as improve effective operations and performance.

FOCUS ON FORCED LABOR

In the past two years, CBP has adapted social compliance as part of its governance, and forced labor is now a focused area of their oversight into inbound global supply chains. Definitions can be categorized as:

Work or service refers to all types of work occurring in any activity, industry or sector including in the informal economy.
Menace of any penalty refers to a wide range of penalties used to compel someone to work.
The term “offered voluntarily” refers to the free and informed consent of a worker to take a job and his or her freedom to leave at any time. This is not the case, for example, when an employer or recruiter makes false promises so that a worker takes a job he or she would not otherwise have accepted.

Importers now need to vet suppliers on whether they are utilizing forced labor in their manufacturing, along with their supplier base.

In December of 2021, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was announced. It is a federal law that changed American policy on China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, with the goal of ensuring that U.S. entities are not funding forced labor among ethnic minorities there.

Trade compliance management includes staying up to date on any import and export regulations that could impact one’s supply lines. In many instances this is a full-time responsibility and should be taken seriously.

FOUR PILLARS OF TRADE COMPLIANCE

Key edicts of trade compliance are due diligence, reasonable care, supervision and control and proactive engagement.

Due diligence and reasonable care refer to the development of knowledge of regulations that will be applied within the operation of a company’s global supply chain structure.

Supervision and control ties in the reality that most companies with an international presence will use third-party resources to help manage various supply chain responsibilities, such as trade compliance consultants, attorneys, freight forwarders, customhouse brokers, carriers, 3PLs and sourcing or buying agents.

However, the principal importer and exporter must supervise and control any outsourced activities. So, while it is OK to outsource, know that you will be held accountable and therefore must have the knowledge and skill set to manage the third parties.

Government agencies, including CBP, the Bureau of Industry and Security and the departments of State and Treasury are all proactively engaged in regulations, operating guidelines, and legal controls on how companies manage their import and export operations. These agencies require companies (the principal importers and exporters along with the companies providing forwarding, brokerage, and related transportation services) to follow the four edicts outlined above as general guidelines, followed by a vast amount of regulatory minutia.

All of this needs to be incorporated into one’s global business operations.

TRADE COMPLIANCE: A COMPETITIVE EDGE?

Of the 50,000-plus U.S. companies involved in global trade, a small number have embraced trade compliance as a tool to gain competitive advantage. This is a shame because compliance can: speed deliveries, lower insurance costs; reduce opportunities for fines, penalties, seizure, and delays; and provide access to technology, lower duties, and drawback refunds.

This is especially true if the movement of goods is covered under free trade agreements, foreign trade zones, bonded warehouses, Buy America/Buy American programs, government programs such as CTPAT and Free and Secure Trade (FAST), and correctly utilized Harmonized Tariff Codes.

There are numerous methods for how companies can change their mindset about trade compliance and utilize it both as a necessary point of control and, more importantly, method to reduce risk and spend.

Trade compliance, supply chain and logistics professionals need to maintain a regular flow of information, intelligence, and regulatory updates to be in the best position to maintain operational excellence in their global supply chains.

Successful trade compliance managers can contribute to profitability by accessing government programs that can reduce supply chain risks and costs; keeping companies out of regulatory costs and entanglements; and providing competitive options in how goods and services move internationally.

All of this can impact the bottom line on profits and margins.

TRADE COMPLIANCE RESOURCES

Successful trade compliance managers need to be up to date with the information flow necessary to maintain the challenges they face in handling the multitude of compliance and regulatory concerns not only here in the U.S. but in all the countries they import from or export to.

Periodicals and information sources such as Global Trade magazine offer a very reliable and contemporary flow of data that can be very useful in leveraging trade compliance opportunities. (www.globaltrademag.com)

Accessing key important government websites is another option. (www.cbp.gov, www.bis.doc.gov)

Continuing education and training are also critical elements of any trade compliance program and the process of learning contemporary options in importing and exporting. Two examples, the American Management Association (www.amanet.org) and the National Institute for World Trade (www.niwt.org), are excellent options for certificated public and in-house instruction, coaching and educational capabilities specializing in international business and supply chain.

The professional organization International Compliance Professionals Association (icpainc.org) is a great resource for trade compliance operatives to join to gain tremendous resources and insight.

Conferences and seminars offer excellent intense information flows that can be of immediate and of long-term value along with the networking and professional colleague interface. Affiliation with professional organizations in your field always proves beneficial.

BOTTOM LINE: TRADE COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT IS GROWING IN IMPORTANCE

As the complications of geopolitical events continue to occur in the world, the importance of assuring a trade compliant global supply chain will be as relevant as who the COO, CFO, CSO and CIO are in any business model.

Thomas A. Cook is a seasoned global supply chain professional, author of more than 20 books on global trade and managing director of Blue Tiger International. He can be reached at tomcook@bluetigerintl.com or (516) 359-6232.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Turkey Constitutes the Biggest Market for Imported Acetone in the Middle East

May 1st, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Middle East – Acetone – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Exports in the Middle East

In 2018, acetone exports stood at $125M (IndexBox estimates). Overall, acetone exports continue to indicate a prominent expansion. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 when exports more than doubled against the previous year. The level of exports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the near future.

Exports by Country

Saudi Arabia ($124M) represented roughly 99% of total exports of acetone in 2018.

Saudi Arabia was also the fastest-growing in terms of the acetone exports, with a CAGR of +16.6%% from 2013 to 2018. This country significantly strengthened its position in terms of the total exports, while the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

Imports in the Middle East

In value terms, acetone imports stood at $37M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, acetone imports, however, continue to indicate a deep decrease. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2017 with an increase of 39% against the previous year. The level of imports peaked at $66M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

Turkey ($22M) constitutes the largest market for imported acetone in the Middle East, comprising 58% of total acetone imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Iran ($4.3M), with a 12% share of total imports. It was followed by Israel, with a 11% share.

Import Prices by Country

The acetone import price in the Middle East stood at $737 per tonne in 2018.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Iran ($972 per tonne), while the United Arab Emirates ($561 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Iran, while the other leaders experienced a decline in the import price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

The Netherlands and China Are the Main Suppliers of Ginger into Russia

April 10th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

Demand and prices for ginger have skyrocketed in recent weeks, driven by the faith of Russian citizens in its miraculous properties to fight coronavirus.

According to the IndexBox’s report ‘Russian Federation – Ginger – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’, the revenue of the ginger market in Russia was estimated at $26M in 2018. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). Since ginger is not grown in Russia, demand in the local market was fully covered by import supplies.

Imports into the Russian Federation

In 2018, the ginger imports into Russia amounted to 11K tonnes, going up by 2.5% against the previous year. Overall, ginger imports continue to indicate skyrocketing growth. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2009 when imports increased by 91% against the previous year. Over the period under review, ginger imports reached their peak figure in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, ginger imports amounted to $26M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

The Netherlands (3.9K tonnes), China (2.5K tonnes) and Brazil (1.1K tonnes) were the main suppliers of ginger imports to Russia, together comprising 70% of total imports. Belgium, Belarus, Nigeria and Thailand lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 22%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by Belarus (+127.0% per year), while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest ginger suppliers to Russia were China ($9.4M), the Netherlands ($8.5M) and Brazil ($2.9M), together comprising 80% of total imports. Belgium, Thailand, Nigeria and Belarus lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 13%.

Belarus (+105.5% per year) recorded the highest growth rate of the value of imports, in terms of the main suppliers over the period under review, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average ginger import price amounted to $2,444 per tonne, falling by -7% against the previous year. In general, the import price indicated a remarkable increase from 2007 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +6.8% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 an increase of 79% year-to-year. The import price peaked at $3,359 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was China ($3,842 per tonne), while the price for Belarus ($449 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Latest and Greatest Global Traders on the Move

March 20th, 2020 GT Staff Leave a comment

Per our usual update, below is a list of the latest global trade movers and shakers impacting operations and creating higher standards in leadership. This is a comprehensive list for now, but we will continue to track ongoing recognitions for the next “Global Traders” spotlight. For now, let’s dive into major players across multiple sectors…

James I. Newsome III, the president and CEO of South Carolina Ports Authority, is among five global shipping leaders to be inducted into the 2020 International Maritime Hall of Fame, the Maritime Association of the Port of New York and New Jersey announced.

Joining Newsome in being honored May 13 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City are: Lisa Lutoff-Perlo, president and CEO, Celebrity Cruises Inc., Miami, Florida; James R. Mara, president emeritus, Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors’ Association, Rutherford, New Jersey; Dr. Nikolas P. Tsakos, president and CEO, Tsakos Energy Navigation Corp., Athens, Greece; and Lois K. Zabrocky, president and CEO, International Seaways Inc., New York.

Sergio Sabatini was recently named president and Gord Anutooshkin was promoted to chief operating officer (COO) at Denver, Colorado-based OmniTRAX, the fastest-growing railroad in North America. Sabatini reports to OmniTRAX CEO Kevin Shuba. Anutooshkin, who had been senior vice president of Operations, reports to Sabatini, who had been COO.

Rob Russell, previously of Progressive Rail and Union Pacific Railroad, recently joined OmniTRAX as SVP of Marketing and Commercial Strategy.

Atlanta, Georgia-based Nolan Transportation Group, one of the largest and fastest-growing non-asset truckload freight brokerages and 3PLs in North America, recently named Geoff Kelley as its president. Kelley had most recently served as chief operating officer at Coyote Logistics, a subsidiary of UPS.

Consolidated Chassis Management (CCM) promoted Michael Mitchell to senior vice president and chief operating officer. Mitchell, who has been with CCM since its 2005 launch, had been serving as interim COO. Speaking of CCM, a leading cooperative chassis pool manager in intermodal freight transport, its CEO Michael Wilson was recently elected to a three-year term on the Containerization & Intermodal Institute’s Board of Directors. So have Dr. Noel Hacegaba, deputy executive director of Administration and Operations at the Port of Long Beach, and Gregory Tuthill, chief commercial officer at SeaCube Container Leasing.

Katherine Harper has been named chief financial officer (CFO) at BDP International. Harper comes to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based global logistics and transportation solutions company from AgroFresh, a produce freshness solutions company.

Jeffrey M. Barlow was appointed CFO at Paxxal Inc., shipping platforms provider based in Noblesville, Indiana.

Rich Kurtz is the new director of National Accounts for BOLT Systems. He comes to the Nashville, Tennessee-based fleet management and freight tracking software company from Trimble Transportation.

The Oxnard Harbor District Board of Commissioners, which oversees California’s Port of Hueneme, recently voted unanimously for Jess Ramirez to serve as its president. First elected to the board in 1992, Ramirez has served as president five times before, and he worked as a longshoreman at the port for 51 years, prior to retiring last year.

Meanwhile, Celina Zacarias has been appointed to the commission. The senior director of Community and Government Relations for the California State University, Channel Islands and chairwoman of the Oxnard Chamber of Commerce was appointed to fill the vacancy that came with Oxnard Harbor District Commissioner Dr. Manuel Lopez’s passing.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Paper Sack and Bag Market in Asia-Pacific Undergoes Robust Expansion

February 27th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Asia-Pacific – paper sacks and bags – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the paper sack and bag market in Asia-Pacific amounted to $22.6B in 2018. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +2.8% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The level of paper sack and bag consumption peaked in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Consumption by Country

The country with the largest volume of paper sack and bag consumption was China (4.5M tonnes), accounting for 50% of total volume. Moreover, paper sack and bag consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, India (1.7M tonnes), threefold. Indonesia (768K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 8.5% share.

In China, paper sack and bag consumption increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: India (+5.1% per year) and Indonesia (+3.3% per year).

In value terms, China ($11.2B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($4.2B). It was followed by Indonesia.

The countries with the highest levels of paper sack and bag per capita consumption in 2018 were South Korea (4,002 kg per 1000 persons), China (3,086 kg per 1000 persons) and Indonesia (2,873 kg per 1000 persons).

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for paper sack and bag in Asia-Pacific, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.4% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 11M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in Asia-Pacific

In 2018, the amount of paper sacks and bags produced in Asia-Pacific stood at 9.3M tonnes, growing by 3.9% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.9% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed over the period under review. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2016 when production volume increased by 4.3% y-o-y.

Production by Country

China (4.9M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of paper sack and bag production, comprising approx. 52% of total volume. Moreover, paper sack and bag production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, India (1.7M tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Indonesia (769K tonnes), with a 8.3% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume in China amounted to +2.7%. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: India (+5.0% per year) and Indonesia (+3.0% per year).

Exports in Asia-Pacific

In 2018, the amount of paper sacks and bags exported in Asia-Pacific totaled 543K tonnes, picking up by 3% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.4% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. In value terms, paper sack and bag exports amounted to $1.7B (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

China prevails in paper sack and bag exports structure, accounting for 390K tonnes, which was near 72% of total exports in 2018. Viet Nam (28K tonnes) occupied the second position in the ranking, followed by Malaysia (26K tonnes). All these countries together occupied approx. 9.9% share of total exports. Indonesia (23K tonnes), China, Hong Kong SAR (13K tonnes), Taiwan, Chinese (11K tonnes), South Korea (9.1K tonnes) and Sri Lanka (9K tonnes) occupied a little share of total exports.

Exports from China increased at an average annual rate of +2.6% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Viet Nam (+42.2%), Sri Lanka (+16.7%), Taiwan, Chinese (+13.8%), South Korea (+3.4%) and Malaysia (+1.4%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Viet Nam emerged as the fastest-growing exporter exported in Asia-Pacific, with a CAGR of +42.2% from 2007-2018. Indonesia experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, China, Hong Kong SAR (-11.2%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. China (+18 p.p.) and Viet Nam (+5 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the total exports, while China, Hong Kong SAR saw its share reduced by -6.3% from 2007 to 2018, respectively. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, China ($1.3B) remains the largest paper sack and bag supplier in Asia-Pacific, comprising 76% of total paper sack and bag exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Viet Nam ($90M), with a 5.1% share of total exports. It was followed by China, Hong Kong SAR, with a 3.8% share.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the paper sack and bag export price in Asia-Pacific amounted to $3,223 per tonne, rising by 2.3% against the previous year. Over the last eleven-year period, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.0%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 an increase of 14% year-to-year. The level of export price peaked at $3,468 per tonne in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was China, Hong Kong SAR ($5,150 per tonne), while Sri Lanka ($1,514 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Hong Kong, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in Asia-Pacific

In 2018, the amount of paper sacks and bags imported in Asia-Pacific stood at 260K tonnes, jumping by 5.4% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +3.4% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. In value terms, paper sack and bag imports amounted to $721M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Japan (44K tonnes), Australia (36K tonnes), China, Hong Kong SAR (26K tonnes), India (23K tonnes), Indonesia (22K tonnes), Singapore (17K tonnes), Malaysia (16K tonnes), South Korea (12K tonnes), New Zealand (11K tonnes), the Philippines (11K tonnes), Thailand (10K tonnes) and Taiwan, Chinese (9K tonnes) was the largest importer of paper sacks and bags imported in Asia-Pacific, mixing up 92% of total import.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Indonesia, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest paper sack and bag importing markets in Asia-Pacific were Japan ($166M), Australia ($109M) and China, Hong Kong SAR ($75M), together accounting for 49% of total imports. These countries were followed by Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea, New Zealand, Malaysia, India, the Philippines, Taiwan, Chinese and Thailand, which together accounted for a further 43%.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the paper sack and bag import price in Asia-Pacific amounted to $2,778 per tonne, surging by 4.6% against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2018, it increased at an average annual rate of +2.5%. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 an increase of 10% against the previous year. The level of import price peaked at $2,868 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Japan ($3,754 per tonne), while India ($1,382 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Hong Kong while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

The Apple Market in the Middle East Reached $3.3B

February 11th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Middle East – Apple – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the apple market in the Middle East amounted to $3.3B in 2018, picking up by 9% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). Over the period under review, apple consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. Over the period under review, the apple market attained its peak figure level at $3.9B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.

Consumption By Country in the Middle East

The countries with the highest volumes of apple consumption in 2018 were Turkey (2.9M tonnes), Iran (1.9M tonnes) and Syria (364K tonnes), together accounting for 86% of total consumption.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of apple consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Syria, while apple consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest apple markets in the Middle East were Turkey ($1.1B), Iran ($1B) and Syria ($384M), with a combined 77% share of the total market.

The countries with the highest levels of apple per capita consumption in 2018 were Turkey (35 kg per person), Iran (23 kg per person) and Syria (20 kg per person).

Production in the Middle East

In 2018, the amount of apples produced in the Middle East stood at 5.8M tonnes, approximately equating the previous year. Overall, apple production, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2016 when production volume increased by 6.9% against the previous year. The general negative trend in terms of apple output was largely conditioned by a relatively flat trend pattern of the harvested area and a mild drop in yield figures.

Production By Country in the Middle East

The countries with the highest volumes of apple production in 2018 were Turkey (3.1M tonnes), Iran (2M tonnes) and Syria (362K tonnes), together accounting for 94% of total production.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of apple production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Syria, while apple production for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Harvested Area in the Middle East

In 2018, the total area harvested in terms of apples production in the Middle East totaled 426K ha, rising by 2.1% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the apple harvested area continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. Over the period under review, the harvested area dedicated to apple production attained its maximum at 544K ha in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, harvested area failed to regain its momentum.

Yield in the Middle East

In 2018, the average apple yield in the Middle East amounted to 14 tonne per ha. Over the period under review, the apple yield continues to indicate a mild curtailment. Over the period under review, the apple yield attained its maximum level at 16 tonne per ha in 2009; however, from 2010 to 2018, yield stood at lower figures.