The Nemean lion of debt in offshore supply…

The slaying Nemean lion was the first of the twelve labours of Heracles. The lion had an indestructible skin and it’s claws were sharper than mortals swords. I sometimes feel that the first task in getting some normality into the offshore supply market is to find a Heracles who can begin to slay the debt mountain built up in good times…

In Singapore Otto Marine and Pacific Radiance appear all but certain to enter some sort of administrative process as their debt burden divorces from the economic reality of their asset base. The best guide to what they need to achieve, and the enormity of the task, come from the recent MMA Australia capital raising. I think MMA is a company that understood the scale of this downturn, and reacted accordingly, but they still have a tough path to follow, but at least they have an achievable plan.

The MMA plan involved raising AUD 97m new equity (AUD $92 cash after AUD$ 5m in fees, which is steep for a secondary issue and shows that this wasn’t easy) compared to bank borrowings of AUD $ 295m i.e. 33% of the debt of the company, or over 100% of the equity value (at AUD 88m) was raised in new capital in one transaction in November 17. In order to do this the lending banks involved had to agree to make no significant dent in the debt profile before 2021, reduce the interest rate, and extend the repayments. “Extend and pretend” as it is known in the jargon. All this for a company that in the six months ending 31 Dec 2017 saw a revenue decline of 22% over the same time last year (AUD $119m to AUD $92m) and generated an EBITDA of only $7.6m (which excluding newly raised cash would give a Debt/EBITDA of 14.3x when 7x is considered high).  I’d also argue the institutions agreed to put the money in when the consensus view (not mine) was that 2018 would be a better year, raising money now looks harder. (Investment bankers can sometimes come in for some stick but this, in my opinion,  was a really good deal for the company and the banks earned their money here).

The fact that MMA’s Australian banks have far less exposure to offshore supply than the Singaporean banks made them more pragmatic (while still unrealistic), but this shows what needs to be achieved to bring in new, institutional quantities, of money to back a plan. As a portfolio move from large investors, making a small bet on a recovery in oil prices leading to linear increase in offshore demand, I guess that is sensible. I don’t think it will work for the reason this slide that Tidewater recently presented shows:


There is too much latent capacity in an industry where the assets, particularly the MMA ones, are international in operational scope. By the time the banks need to start being repaid these 20-25 years assets will be 3 years older, 7 since the downturn, yet expected to bear an unmarked down principal repayment schedule. It’s just not realistic and requires everyone else but you to scrap their assets. It maybe worth a punt as an institutional shareholder… but I doubt that few really understand the economics of aging supply vessels.

This contrasts with Pacific Radiance where this week the bondholders refused to agree to accept a management driven voluntary debt restructuring and management seem to be relying on the industry reaching an “inflection point”. As soon as you hear that you know there is a terrible plan in offing that relies on the mythical demand fairy (friends with the Nemean lion I understand) to save them.

I would have voted against the resolutions this week as well had I been a bondholder, but mainly because of the absurdity of agreeing to a plan without the banks being involved or new money lined up. The bond was for SGD 100m… have a look at the debt below on the latest Pacific Radiance balance sheet (Q3 2017)… can anyone see a problem?

PR Balance Sheet Q3.png

Pacific Radiance has USD 630m in debts. Even writing off the bond would mean you are in a discussion with the banks here. I have no wish to take people through the math involved in what the bonds are worth becasue in reality all anyone owns here is an option on some future value, and if you are not the bank you don’t even have that. In order to bring the plan into line with MMA, Pacific Radiance would be looking at presenting an agreed plan with the banks, and ~USD 220m capital raise, an amount that is real money for a company that is still losing money at an operating level.

No one believes the vessels and the company are worth USD 710m. If the banks really thought they could get even .80c in the dollar here by selling to a hedge fund they would be out tomorrow. A large number of the Pacific Radiance vessels are well below the quality of the Mermaid vessels and in the real world it would seem reasonable for the banks to have to write down their debt significantly to attract new money. If vessels are sold independently of a company transaction, like MMA, then they go for .10c – .20c of book value, so it would make sense for the banks to be sensible here. However, I fear that so many have told shareholders they are over the oil and gas exposure that major losses here will be resisted despite economic reality. I suspect the write-off number here would need to be at ~50-60% of book value to make Pacific Radiance viable and get such a large quantity of new money, an amount that will have risk officers at some Singaporean banks terrified.

As I keep saying here the real problem is that if everyone keeps raising new money for operational expenditure, on ever lower capital value numbers, then the whole industry suffers as E&P companies continue to enjoy massive overcapacity on the supply side. Eventually without a major increase in demand a large number of vessels are going to have to leave the industry and this will happen when the  banks have no other options, and we are starting to get close to that point.

In reality the Pacific Radiance stakeholders need to sit around the table, have a nice cup of tea, and accept the scale of their losses. Then all the stakeholders can come up with a sensible business plan and the new money for operational expenditure can be found. But the banks here will be desperate to be like the MMA banks and get the new money in without suffering a serious writedown while trying and push the principal repayments out until a later date. I don’t see that happening here and the bondholders may as well sit around with all parties rather than be picked off indepdently. A major restructuring would appear the only realistic outcome here and if Pacific Radiance is to continue in anything like it’s present form there will be some very unhappy bankers.

Investment banking analysts, groupthink, and the space shuttle disaster….

“a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”

Janis, Victims of Groupthink, 1972

The quotes in the graphic above come from an MMA Australia equity placing last year. As a follow on to an earlier post I made regarding equity analysts at investment banks I read this article in the Financial Times Alphaville blog this week which makes essentially the same point:

The problem is that equity research has a famous bias towards positivity. Investment banks seek to do business with companies, which tend to dislike sell ratings. Stock markets spend most of their time rising. Fund managers don’t love to be told their decisions to invest in something is wrong…

So, it is very rare to see more than a quarter of analysts recommend their clients sell a stock

The distribution of ratings bears this out. Goldman Sachs aims to have 10 per cent to 15 per cents of stocks it covers rated as a sell. Morgan Stanley discloses 18 per cent of 3,200 stocks covered are rated underweight/sell. For UBS the global figure is 16 per cent. Investec has just 9 per cent of European and Hong Kong stocks on a sell rating.

How could the offshore analysts of some of the major maritime banks have been so positive when managers in the industry are saying things are very different? And in fact MMA’s latest financial results offer no hope of a market recovery?

Part of the answer I think lies in the psychology of groupthink (a classic article on it is here which applies this logic to the Challenger disaster). Another part of the answer lies in behavioural economics where analysts exhibit a positive confirmation bias, in which they look, and notice, information that accords with their preconceived ideas. This bias comes about understandably because analysts are employed by firms seeking to do business with companies they write reports about (and to be clear analysts who a nicer to managers get preferential treatment). People who want unbiased advice should probably pay for it from someone who owes them a duty of care is my takeaway… but hey I’m biased…

The oil market…

I am not an oil forecaster, if merely use of the word isn’t a misnomer, but I am interested in the psychological effects the market has on the physical and pricing of offshore services. Only last week Goldman called $80 oil, coincidentally when they called oil going to $20 in 2016 (when it was $36), it marked the low point in the market, now it seems this maybe the high as the price dropped yesterday.

To put these daily fluctuations into perspective there is a good article here on the swings in the oil price since 1973 until 2014. The story of shale gets a passing mention but remains to be written.

I have also noticed a lot of commentary mocking the market analysts from investment banks for their inability to predict accurately the turns in the market. I would note firstly if you think analysts at an investment bank have a job to do beyond helping the firm sell securities then you are wrong. IB analysts fall under the remit of marketing and that is their job, not to provide independent, and free, research to the community at large.

And even if they are trying to be accurate, say a firm with a limited corporate finance arm, one should remember Alfred Cowles. Cowles was the inheritor, and investment advisor, to a large Chicago newspaper fortune, as well as being a statistician and economist. In 1929 he was long on stocks and lost a great deal of money and set out to find the answer to a question made famous when asked by the Queen to LSE academics in 2008, namely “Why did nobody notice it?” (as in the Global Financial Crisis). Specifically, Cowles wondered why the big Wall Street brokerages didn’t see the crash of 1929 coming? Did they know any more than their customers? (I mean The Great Vampire Squid was keen on Ceona when anyone with a modicum of pipelay knowledge knew the Amazon lay system was a busted flush?)

In a famous paper “Can Stock Market Forecasters Forecast?”, published in Econometrica in 1944,  Cowles proved that they can’t. I urge you to read the whole article (aside from anything the language is beautiful), for example Cowles found:


The answer would be exactly the same for the oil market today if replicated I would wager. This comes up time again in mututal fund research and other areas of finance, where essentially the outcome is random and cannot be predicted with accuracy (a statistical theory known as “Random Walk“). In case you think technology has improved things this paper was published recently “Do Banks Have an Edge” … and the answer is no… you would be better off buying a portfolio of treasuries than going to all the effort of taking a complex mix of loans and securities that banks do. And that is when the bank is acting as a principal not even trying to sell the stuff!

So when you read that someone is calling the oil market, or whatever, you need to treat it with the scepticism it deserves, and not be surprised when it is wrong.

Zombie offshore companies… “Kill the zombie…”

“I’ve long said that capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without Hell. But it’s hard to see any good news in this.”

Frank Borman

“In a business selling a commodity-type product, it’s impossible to be a lot smarter than your dumbest competitor”.

Warren Buffet

The Bank for International Settlements defines a Zombie Company as a “firm whose interest bill exceeds earnings before interest and taxes”. The reason is obvious: a firm who is making less in profits than it is paying in interest is likely to be able to eke out an existence, but not generate sufficient profits to invest and grow and adapt to industry changes. A firm in such a position will create no economic value and merely exist while destroying profit margins for those also remaining in the industry.

The BIS make clear that zombie companies are an important part of the economic make-up of many economies. I am sure sector level data in Europe would show offshore comfortably represented in the data.

Zombie Firms.png

Conversable Economist has an excellent post (from where I got the majority of my links for this post) on Zombie Companies and their economic effects, which timed with a post I have been  meaning to right about 2018 which I was going to call “year of the zombie”. Zombie companies have been shown to exist in a number of different contexts: in the US Savings and Loans Crisis zombie firms paid too much in interest and backed projects that were too risky, raising the overall costs for all market players. Another example is Japan, where post the 1990 meltdown Hoshi and Kashyap found (in a directly analogous situation to offshore currently):

that subsidies have not only kept many money-losing “zombie” firms in business, but also have depressed the creation of new businesses in the sectors where the subsidized firms are most prevalent. For instance, they show that in the construction industry, job creation has dropped sharply, while job destruction has remained relatively low. Thus, because of a lack of restructuring, the mix of firms in the economy has been distorted with inefficient firms crowding out new, more productive firms.

In China zombie firms have been linked to State Owned Enterprises, and have been shown to have an outsize share of corporate debt despite weak fundamental factors (sound familiar?). The solution is clear:

The empirical results in this paper would support the arguments that accelerating that progress requires a more holistic and coordinated strategy, which should include debt restructuring to recognize losses, fostering operational restructuring, reducing implicit support, and liquidating zombies.”

The subsidies in offshore at the moment keeping zombie firms alive don’t come from central banks but from private banks, and sometimes poorly timed investments from hedge funds. Private banks are unwilling to treat the current offshore market as anything more than a market cycle change, as opposed to a secular change, and are therefore allowing a host of companies to delay principal payments on loans, and in most cases dramatically reduce interest payments as well, until a point when they hope the market has recovered and these companies can start making payments that would keep the banks from having to make material writedowns in their offshore portfolios.

Now to be clear the banks are (arguably) being economically rational here. Given the scale of their exposure a reasonable position is to try and hold on as the delta on liquidating now, versus assuming even a mild recovery, is massive because of the quantity of leverage in most of the offshore companies.

But for the industry as a whole this is a disaster. The biggest zombie company in offshore in Europe is SolstadFarstad, it’s ambition to be a world leading OSV company is so far from reality it may as well be a line from Game of Thrones, and a company effectively controlled by the banks who are unwilling to face the obvious.

A little context on the financial position of SolstadFarstad makes clear how serious things are:

  • Current interest bearing debt is NOK 28bn/$3.6bn. A large amount of this debt is US$ denominated and the NOK has depreciated significantly since 2014, as have vessel values. SolstadFarstad also takes in less absolute dollar revenues to hedge against this;
  • Market value equity: ~NOK 1.73bn/$ 220m;
  • As part of the merger agreement payments to reduce bank loans were reduced significanlty from Q2 (Farstad)/Q3 (Solstad) 2017. YTD 2017 SOFF spent NOK ~1.5bn on interest and bank repayments which amounted to more than 3 x the net cash flow from actually operating all those vessels. While these payments should reduce going forward it highlights how unsustainable the current capital structure is.

The market capitalisation is significantly less than the cash SOF had on the balance sheet at the end of Q3 2017 (NOK 2.1bn). Supporting that enormous debt load are a huge number of vessels of dubious value in lay up: 28 AHTS, many built in Asia and likely to be worth significantly less than book value if sold now, 22 PSVs of the same hertiage and value and 6 ageing subsea vessels. The two vessels on charter to OI cannot be generating any real value and sooner or later their shareholders will have had as much fun as they can handle with a loss making contracting business.

But change is coming because at some point this year SolstadFarstad management are in for an awkward conversation with the banks about handing back DeepSea Supply (the banks worst nightmare), or forcing the shareholders to dilute their interest in the high-end CSV fleet in order to save the banks exposure to the DeepSea fleet (the shareholders worst nightmare and involves a degree of cognitive dissonance from their PSV exposure). Theoretically DeepSea is a separate “non-recourse” subsidiary, whether the banks who control the rest of the debt SolstadFarstad have see it quite that way is another question? It would also represent an enormous loss of face to management now to admit a failure of this magnitude having not prepared the market in advance for this?

Not that the market seems fooled:

SOFF 0202

(I don’t want to say I told you so).

SolstadFarstad is in a poor position anyway, the company was created because no one had a better idea than doing nothing, which is always poor strategic logic for a major merger. What logic there was involved putting together a mind numbingly complex financial merger and hoping it might lead to a positive industrial solution, which was always a little strained. But it suited all parties to pretend that they could delay things a little longer by creating a monstrous zombie: Aker got to pretend they hadn’t jumped too early and therefore got a bad deal, Hemen/Fredrikson got to put in less than they would have had to had DeepSea remained independent, the banks got to pretend their assets were worth more than they were (and that they weren’t going to have to kill the PSVs to save the Solstad), and the Solstad family got to pretend they still had a company that was a viable economic entity. A year later and the folly has been shown.

Clearly internally it is recongised this has become a disaster as well. In late December HugeStadSea announced they had doubled merger savings to 800mn NOK. The cynic in  me says this was done because financial markets capitalise these and management wanted to make some good news from nothing; it doesn’t speak volumes they were that badly miscalculated at that start given these were all vessel types and geographic regions Solstad management understood. But I think what it actually reflects is that utilisation has been signifcantly weaker than the base case they were working too. Now Sverre Farstad has resigned from the Solstad board apparently unhappy with merger progress. I am guessing he is still less unhappy though than having seen Farstad go bankrupt which was the only other alternative? I guess this reveals massive internal Board conflict and I also imagine the auditors are going to be get extremely uncomfortable signing vessel values off here, a 10% reduction in vessel value would be fatal in an accounting sense for the company.

The market is moving as well. In Asia companies like EMAS, Pacific Radiance, Mermaid, and a host of others have all come to a deal with the banks that they can delay interest and principal payments. Miclyn Express is in discussions to do the same. This is the very definition of zombie companies, existing precariously on operating cash flows but at a level that is not even close to economic profitability, while keeping supply in the market to ensure no one else can make money either. Individually logical in each situation but collectively ruinuous (a collective action problem). These companies have assets that directly compete with the SolstadFarstad supply fleet, with significantly deeper local infratsructure in Asia (not Brazil), and in some cases better assets; there is no chance of SolstadFarstad creating meaningful “world class OSV company” in their midst with the low grade PSV and AHTS fleet.

Even more worrying is the American situation where the Chapter 11 process (and psyche) recognises explicitly the danger of zombie companies. Gulfmark and others have led the way to have clean, debt free, balance sheets to cope in an era of reduced demand. These companies look certain to have a look at the high-end non-Norwegian market.

SolstadFarstad says it wants to be a world leading OSV company that takes part in industry consolidation but: a) it cannot afford to buy anyone because it shares are worthless and would therefore have to pay cash, and b) it has no cash and cannot raise equity while it owes the banks NOK 28bn, and c) no one is going to buy a company where they have to pay the banks back arguably more than the assets are worth. SOF is stuck in complete limbo at best. Not only that as part of the merger it agreed to start repaying the banks very quickly after 2021. 36 months doesn’t seem very far away now and without some sort of magic increase in day rates, out of all proportion to the amount of likely subsea work (see above), then all the accelerated payment terms from 2022 will do is force the event. But still is can continue its zombie like existence until then…

In contrast if you want to look at those doing smart deals look no further than Secor/COSCO deal. 8 new PSVs for under $3m per vessel and those don’t start delivering for at least another 18 months. Not only that they are only $20m new… start working out what your  10 year old PSV is really worth on a comparative basis. There is positivity in the market… just not if you are effectively owned by the bank.

One of my themes here, highlighted by the graph at the top, is that there has been a structural change in the market and not a temporary price driven change in demand. Sooner or later, and it looks likely to be later, the banks are going to have to kill off some of these companies for the industry as a whole to flourish, or even just to start to undertake a normal capital replacement cycle. Banks, stuffed full with offshore don’t want to back any replacement deals for all but the biggest players, and banks that don’t have any exposure don’t want to lend to the sector. In an economy driven by credit this is a major issue.

I don’t believe recent price rises in oil will do anything for this. E&P budgets are set once a year, the project cycle takes a long time to wind up, company managers are being bonused on dividends not production, short cycle production is being prioritised etc. So while price rises are good, and will lead to an increase in work, the scale of the oversupply will ensure the market will take an even longer time to remove the zombie companies. At the moment a large number of banks are pretending that if you make no payments on an asset with a working life of 20-25 years, for 5 years (i.e. 20-25% of the assets economic life), they will not lose a substantial amount of money on the loan or need to write the asset down more than a token level. It is just not real and one day auditors might even start asking questions…

I don’t have a magic solution here, just groundhog day for vessel owners for a lot longer to come. What will be interesting this year is watching to see the scale of the charges some of the banks will have to make, a sign of the vessel market at the bottom will be when they start to get rid of these loans or assets on a reasonable scale.

Kill the zombies for the good of the industry, however painful that may be.

A market recovery? Not in the data…

Danish Ship Finance have just published their latest report. As usual it is thorough and measured, and frankly not uplifting if you are long on vessels or rigs. The graph above really covers a lot of things I have blogged about here, it’s all well and good coming up with graphs showing how offshore MUST get more investment, as if it were a divine economic law, but that isn’t what companies are ACTUALLY planning on spending.

Another great graph is this one:

DSV Charter Rates DSF.png

What the commentary in the report omits, and I think is very important, is the fact that the divers costs, which are c. £50k for a 15 man team, have not dropped. So for the vessel owner the rate hasn’t dropped 50% it has actually dropped 67% because the labour cost of the dive crew is fixed (again I have blogged about the Baumol effect here). This is probably more pronounced on DSVs than any other asset class but it is a real problem for offshore because the industry isn’t getting more productive (just cheaper which is different). Removing 67% of the revenue for any business is bad, in an industry that had binged on debt, as can be seen, it is beyond a disaster.

DSF also note that while spending on Subsea Production Systems is rising this because smaller step out developments are being done, which require less vessel days, than larger greenfield developments. Again I have discussed this before here.


Finally, it highlights again the scale of the pullback in offshore and why any recovery will not be a repeat of the past. The speed at which contractors are working through backlog is a real concern. Subsea 7 won work recently on the Johan Castberg field that was valued at c. USD 2.0 – 5.0m per well, a 75% decline from the peak. So even an increase in the volume of work awarded will not help the industry recover to previous levels.

Big Three Backlog.png

Subsea Contract Awards.png

This matters because offshore used so much leverage to purchase assets in the past. Now the companies revenues and profits are materially smaller and they are struggling to pay the banks back leading to a credit crisis in the industry. Debt is a fixed obligation that must be paid back for firms to have value and that is much harder to do when the industry is in a deflationary cycle. This is no different to a banking crisis without a central bank.  It is this credit crisis that when combined with the demand crisis makes this so serious. DVB Bank, a specialist lender to the sector, went bankrupt! Indeed I have discussed this many times and it is one my one recurring theme.

Last year probably was the low point in terms of demand. But as the first graph makes clear there is not a wave of investment coming here, just a long slow increase in spending.

Read the whole thing. Many business plans simply don’t reflect this reality yet. Not everyone will survive. 2018 promises to be another tough year for asset heavy companies.

Leverage… banking is a risky business… DVB edition

First, “equity” is an accounting construct. In Vickers’s phrasing, a bank’s equity is “the difference between the estimated value of its loan assets and other exposures on the one hand, and its contractual obligations to depositors and bondholders on the other. In short, it is a residual, the difference between two typically big numbers.” A small difference between two large numbers is highly sensitive to even small changes in those big numbers — assets and liabilities — and so it is in the nature of equity to be poorly measured and unstable.

“Banking Systems Remain Unsafe”

Martin Sandbu, FT Free Lunch

News that DZ Bank has had a final sense of humour failure with DVB doesn’t do justice to the scale of the problem:

after DVB posted a return on equity of minus 73 percent in the first half of the year, or a net loss of 547 million euros after breaking even a year earlier, plans to sell off its loan portfolios have gained traction…

[S]ources said DZ Bank was working with Boston Consulting Group to evaluate options for DVB, while the transport division has hired separate advisors to assess the value of its $12.5 billion ship loan portfolio.

I have talked about DVB before and the fact is the results that were released in August were probably worse than DZ Bank had wanted, but the scale of the problem in the shipping and offshore portfolio are that they have in effect bankrupted the bank and forced in into run down mode.  Here are the losses broken out:

DVB Losses by sector

Half a billion here, half a billion there, and pretty soon you are losing real money… It is also worth noting that the loss in offshore was 25% higher despite the loan book to shipping being 5x the size. Looking at the offshore portfolio I still don’t see this being the final write-down:

DVB lending by sector Aug 2017

Now the portfolio was marked down from €2.4bn to €2.1bn so maybe €50m has been disposed of. But there is no one involved in offshore, looking at the asset mix, who really believes that it could possibly be worth €2.1bn in aggregate. I don’t really want to get into a big discussion about whether banks should account for loans at fair value (i.e. what you would get if you disposed of the portfolio at the moment) or held-to-maturity (i.e. what you get if the customer honours the loan contract): You can make sensible arguments for both. Clearly in the short term if the customer is solvent it makes no sense, in an economic perspective, to hold the loan as an asset for a value less than you will receive, and it adds a huge degree of volatility to the earnings of banks if you do this, the reverse though it as it allows a huge degree of discretion for management that simply isn’t warranted by the facts.

You can see the scale of the DVB problem by looking at the tier 1 capital:

DVB Bank tier 1 aug 2017

For the uninitiated to get the number you basically take the book equity (less goodwill) and divide by risk weighted assets, and this gets to c.9%. But it’s a meaningless number in reality as the quote from John Vickers in my opening makes clear. A far more instructive number is the leverage ratio which divides the amount of equity in the business by the asset base (i.e. loans) and that is 2.9%, which in considered far below what a bank should have. In essence this number shows a 3% decline in the value of DVBs assets (loan contracts) would wipe out the equity: with $12.5bn in shipping and and €2.4bn in offshore loans you can be sure that in reality this has happened.

Which is why DZ Bank are pumping another €500m into DVB Bank.

There is a bigger economic question that I think cuts to the heart of what DVB is as a bank and why diversified bank lending works better than narrow bank lending: active versus passive management. For years researchers have known that active fund managers underperform passive fund managers when fees are taken into account. The entire DVB business model relied on them picking four industries and producing returns in those industries consistently, regardless of underlying market movements, despite the fact this is known to be statistically unlikely.

The problem everyone in offshore and shipping has is this: Who do you sell to when other big banks in the sector are making a virtue of closing their loan books to your industry? DNB is typical off all the big banks in the sector (as I have discussed before):

DNB rebalance

Offshore as an industry has an asset finance issue and not just a demand side issue. The road to recovery, however you define it, looks someway off.

Offshore and shipping recovery cycles…

Clarksons reported results yesterday and offered the view that that shipping cycles seem to be turning. The interesting thing is the scale of the retrenchment in the traditional shipping sector that has been required to being the market back to equilibrium (if they are right). Traditonal shipping had a boom driven mainly by Chinese raw material imports (and to a lesser extent exports which were less bulky):

Clarksea Index.png

Chinese import and export growth:

Which looks somewhat similar to the oil price and investment boom:

It is worth noting that if Clarksons are right it has taken 8 years since the slump for normality and equilibrium to start to emerge. The scale of the pullback is severe with tonnage delivered down from 2047 vessels in 2013 to 217 in 2016 (a 90% reduction) and only 266 orders for 2017. Shipyards are down from 305 to 50 (an 83% reduction). It shouldn’t be a surprise because the assets are built for a 20-25 year economic life, the offshore subsea fleet is smaller (~600 vessels), but each one had a high build cost, whereas offshore supply with its larger fleet and more commodity like structure looks set to suffer a similar pull back.

The other really interesting data point Clarksons highlight is the decreasing loan exposure banks have to the sector (which I am assuming covers offshore as well):

Global ship finance lending volumes

Source: Clarksons, 2017

Lending volumes from the top 25 banks, surely more than a representative sample and clearly the most important by size with DNB Nor having 5x greater exposure than KDB, is down 25%, over $100bn,  over a six year period. More than any other factor this is surely helping the sector rebalance but it will keep a check on asset prices for years, especially as getting a loan for a ship older than 8-10 years is nigh on impossible.

The historical reasons for the shipping boom are analogous to the oil price boom that drive offshore: As China boomed so did commodity shipping, this quote should be well understood by anyone in  offshore this quote should be well understood by anyone in  offshore:

Less than a decade ago, just before the global financial crisis, the largest of the commodities-carrying bulk ships cost some $150 million and commanded as much as $200,000 a day on charter markets. Today, a similarly modern capesize class ship is worth $30 million and a vessel owner can expect to earn just $9,000 a day in a business where the prices for iron ore, coal and other industrial goods have deteriorated.

Ships that were increasing in value (as day rates rose) were used as collateral to borrow more money from banks to buy more ships in a self referencing cycle. Which is exactly what happened in offshore, and when even the banks got nervous the high yield bond market was tapped. What could possibly go wrong?

Banks hold the key to the restoration of normality. Like normal shipping offshore will require dramatically more equity and lower leverage levels going forward. Capital will be significantly more expensive. Banks, especially those in the graph above, that continue to take large losses on their portfolios, will be very reluctant to materially increase exposure and will continue to wind the loan books down with concommitment reduction in asset prices. This will go on for years as the above graph makes clear. Yes some smaller newer banks (e.g. Merchant and Maritime) and specialist lenders will fill the void, but rationally they will charge much higher rates (as they will have a higher funding cost to reflect the risk) and will require more equity. As retained earnings are lower this will take longer to build up.

Many of the new shipping projects at the moment are 100% equity financed and until asset values stabilise even newer players are likely to avoid offshore. Slowly, over years when combined with scrapping, the offshore fleet will rebalance, but it will be a long way off. Offshore would appear to be closer to the start of its journey than the end (a point Clarkson appear to agree with in their research). Nearly all distress investors who moved in 2016 looks to have moved too early (e.g. Standard Drilling, Nor Offshore) and faces a capital loss on the positions taken as opposed to industrial companies buying one-off assets (e.g. McDermott), With high running costs and demand stagnant its hard to see 2017 being any different. 

As the author of the above quote notes:

A sizable part of the portfolio of nonperforming shipping loans cannot be expected to bring market pricing much higher than the scrap price of the ships collateralized, however. In this case, shipping banks can take a deep breath and mark them to scrap value, and then make certain those ships are dismantled and removed from the market. Under this scenario, the immediate accounting losses would be mitigated over time by a more balanced market which theoretically will push freight rates and the value of the remaining ships higher.

Whatever path they take, European banks will be shaken by the unfolding of their shipping loan portfolios. Their capital structures will be affected, and given the freight market and banking regulatory headwinds, their appetite for ship finance will be diminished. The shipping industry likely will never be the same.

The same can be said for offshore I suspect.