<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The US-China trade war is keeping shippers on edge, and will likely cause further shifts in the JOC.com annual Top 100 US Importers and Exporters rankings in 2019.</div>

The US-China trade war is keeping shippers on edge, and will likely cause further shifts in the JOC.com annual Top 100 US Importers and Exporters rankings in 2019.

3607641_FI.jpg

<div>US importers rode out the choppy waters of trade turmoil to increase collective container volume more than 7 percent in 2018, while the impact of China's rejection of waste goods and retaliatory tariffs drove a flat year for US containerized exports. The latest escalation of trade tensions between China and the United States and moderating economic growth clouds how well the top US importers and exporters will fare this year.While US containerized volume didn’t plunge on the tariffs pressure, the taxes of trade have had an outsized impact on some of the largest US shippers among JOC.com’s 2018 ranking of...

US importers rode out the choppy waters of trade turmoil to increase collective container volume more than 7 percent in 2018, while the impact of China's rejection of waste goods and retaliatory tariffs drove a flat year for US containerized exports. The latest escalation of trade tensions between China and the United States and moderating economic growth clouds how well the top US importers and exporters will fare this year. While US containerized volume didn’t plunge on the tariffs pressure, the taxes of trade have had an outsized impact on some of the largest US shippers among JOC.com’s 2018 ranking of the Top 100 Importers and Exporters. For example, recovered paper shipper America Chung Nam’s volume for the year fell more than 35 percent as it dropped from its longtime perch as the top exporter this year, a sure sign that China's Green Fence policy to restrict imports of all kinds of waste has had an indelible effect on trade flows. On the importer side, Walmart stays atop the list and is nearing the 1 million-TEU mark, moving more than 7.3 times the volume of online retail giant Amazon, which came in at No. 12 on the list. That’s a lot of volume for a company that has often been characterized as more of a plucky underdog than an industry leader in recent years. The big four retail importers — Walmart, Target, The Home Depot, and Lowe’s — collectively imported nearly 2.3 million TEU in 2018, accounting for nearly one out of every 10 US import TEU, according to the rankings compiled using data from PIERS , a sister company of JOC.com within IHS Markit. That overall US import volume rose 7.1 percent in 2018 to 24.7 million TEU belies the threat posed by tariffs, with uncertainty around pricing of goods and sourcing locations dogging supply chains throughout the last year. The running thread between 2017 and 2018 is the continued pressure on US importers and exporters from tariffs, both implemented and threatened. Exports in 2018 were flat at 12.7 million TEU. On May 10, the US increased tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 percent to 25 percent, sending certain categories of shippers of electronics and computer and vehicle parts scrambling for air cargo capacity. That volume accounts for 4 million TEU or 37 percent of US imports from China. President Donald Trump also threatened to apply tariffs to the remaining $325 million in imports from China, which would mostly affect the apparel sector, one of the few sectors yet to be hit by the wide-ranging tariffs. The threat of an increase in tariffs from 10 to 25 percent had an indelible impact on trade volumes in 2018, as the increase was originally set to take effect Jan. 1. It’s clear 2018 import volumes — particularly in the fourth quarter — were bolstered by shippers front-loading volume to beat that presumed deadline. To what extent first-quarter 2019 volumes were impacted by this front-loading, and by the indefinite extension to the tariff increase implementation, is less clear. Despite coming to grips with the administration's tactics on trade and the resulting increases in tariffs on Chinese goods — as well as duties on global imports of steel, aluminum, solar energy cells, and washing machines — shippers say they can't completely shift sourcing locations. “It takes years to establish a global footprint where you can move production around,” said Jeff Kirt, founder and managing partner of Fifth Lake Management, which invests in private equity groups that own industrial manufacturers. “Even if the tariffs last for a year or two, that’s a small time frame given the lifespan of a production facility.” Moderating economic growth Amid the turmoil, Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Markit, said global economic growth is likely to stabilize at 2.8 percent during the next three years, although US growth is projected to slow from 2.3 percent in 2019 to 2.1 percent in 2020 and 1.9 percent in 2021. “Manufacturing growth remained sluggish, and export orders continued to fall,” Behravesh wrote in an April 15 economic outlook. “More accommodative policies in key economies have likely helped to stabilize growth. Nevertheless, a rebound in growth seems unlikely.” Behravesh also said “a troubling manifestation of this high level of [tariff] uncertainty is the virtual halt in global capital expenditures.” But perhaps the bigger issue is how beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) grapple with some larger, more lasting dynamics in the container shipping industry. Those include a mandate for ocean carriers to switch to low-sulfur fuel at the beginning of 2020, a burden that affected the tenor of trans-Pacific rate negotiations this spring. Simply put, both shippers and carriers have enunciated in early 2019 that BCOs will not just be able to wish away the added costs of the cleaner fuel, even if the exact cost and the formula to pass those costs — estimated at $10 billion to $15 billion annually — to shippers is still opaque. Encouragingly, trans-Pacific carriers report success in securing service contracts with shippers that include fuel formulas to account for the higher operating costs. “We don’t know what we don’t know,” a Top 100 importer told JOC.com. “Carriers have rushed to consolidate accessorials for fuel into one line, but we still have not heard from the oil and gas industry whether the production is there to support supply. But there’s no doubt carriers are getting ready to pass that through to the customers.” The age of decarbonization The next big ticket environmental item to consider is broader decarbonization of the shipping industry. The greenhouse gas (GHG) strategy adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in April 2018, in addition to committing the industry to a 50 percent reduction of carbon dioxide levels by 2050 compared with 2008, calls for “early” measures needed to achieve reduction of GHG emissions from international shipping before 2023, when shipping climate change goals will next be revisited. That rapidly approaching deadline, three-and-a-half years away, has given way to the belief that only operational steps can take a meaningful bite out of emissions because no one currently knows which zero- or low-carbon propulsion sources will be technologically and economically viable. Amazon’s expanding reach Another dynamic is consistent growth in e-commerce and shrinking goods delivery windows. Shippers, particularly in the retail arena, must navigate how to keep as much of their volume as possible on the ocean and out of the air, but that means they need to sharpen their demand sensing and forecasting capabilities. Ten of the top 20 US importers are retailers and another six wholly or predominantly make retail goods. In other words, the fortunes of the US economy are integrally tied to retail activity, and that’s reflected in the makeup of the top importers. Behind these growing end-consumer demands, for both business-to-consumer and business-to-business goods, is the ever-present impact of Amazon, which is not only a top 12 US importer, but also a massive facilitator of imported goods through its Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) program. Through a network of freight forwarders, FBA allows international sellers to execute fulfillment of online orders. Amazon’s growing presence as a non-vessel operating common carrier (NVO) and domestic freight broker portends a future where shippers need to weigh the merits of potentially working with a logistics services provider that may also be a competitor. The presumption among watchers of the logistics industry is that Amazon will seek to undercut ocean and trucking rates to aggressively grow market share. An alternative theory is that Amazon will charge competitive freight rates and use the revenue from those customers to subsidize its own freight costs. Trans-Pac rates higher Either way, shippers have told JOC.com categorically that trans-Pacific freight rates rose in spring service contract negotiations. “All rates have gone up 20 percent, and that’s consistent with what the NVO market is advertising,” a food importer said. “We saw this coming, between [ocean carrier] consolidation, the Hanjin bankruptcy, and trade tariffs. It’s all had an impact on capacity availability. Alliances have a lot to do with that; they’ve worked to minimize space on vessels.” The shipper said these dynamics have focused his organization on ensuring capacity, as opposed to chasing the lowest possible price. “We want a great rate, but if it’s a rate that doesn’t get me on a vessel, that doesn’t do me any good.” The effect of the tariffs on vessel capacity should not be underestimated, the shipper said. “What hasn’t been openly discussed is how the ocean carriers are leveraging the tariff fear factor to improve their business. In the previous eight months, we’ve noted carriers opting to skip ports of call in the Asian trade lanes. This creates pent-up demand for capacity. “With the shipper community pushing to get ahead of any additional tariff action by the USTR [US Trade Representative], [carrier alliances] have created a strategy that adds unanticipated capacity strains. These are difficult waters to navigate if you’re managing just-in-time inventory with a close eye on margin pressures.” It’s not just tight capacity, either. Trans-Pacific carriers were assessing BCOs peak-season surcharges of as much as $1,000 per container on time-sensitive shipments last fall because of the front-loading. NVOs anticipate booking more business from BCOs whose containers were shut out of some vessel departures leaving Asia during the 2018 peak season, even when customers had booked slots, because carriers overbooked the vessels. That played havoc with the budgets they had presented to their companies earlier in the year. “We went 8 to 15 percent over budget,” an importer told JOC.com. Top 100 shifts In terms of the exports, US tariffs on Chinese imports have had the indirect effect of compelling China to retaliate in kind, resulting in headwinds for US agricultural exporters. US exporters are also coping with Chinese regulations prohibiting imports of waste goods, so it’s notable that International Forest (No. 5 on the top exporters list) held steady headwinds of agriculture exporters due to China while Chung Nam fell off. One notable entrant in the exporter list this year is the Palo Alto-based carmaker Tesla (at No. 94). On the top importers lists, 99 Cents Store joined the list at No. 92, showing sustained growth in the discount retail sector (with Family Dollar and Dollar General fixtures in the Top 100 list). BASF North America also returned to the importer list at No. 65 (the company is also No. 50 on the exporter list). Meanwhile, on the intermodal side, terminal operators working on behalf of the Class I railroads struggled this winter to keep up with the flow of volume, and when chassis providers ran out of equipment, inflexible and stringent demurrage policies ended up costing BCOs thousands of dollars in penalties. While these demurrage penalties are meant to keep fluidity up, it's a double whammy when gridlock occurs for reasons beyond their control. Pricing and service remain the key issues in domestic intermodal, with questions lingering over the industry. Will precision scheduled railroading deliver on the promise of reliable, consistent service that has eluded the railroads for years? If service can reach a high-water mark, will Class I railroads’ obsession with operating ratios and shareholder value cause them to charge more for intermodal service than a truck? Will shippers accept such a revolutionary approach to pricing, particularly this year when truck capacity is more available and rates are significantly lower than a year ago? Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @LogTechEric .

Maritime

Tariff tremors test top 100 US importers, exporters

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision nullifies Hong Kong-based Hutchison’s ability to operate the Balboa and Christobal ports that bookend the Panama Canal and clouds its attempt to sell its global terminals portfolio.</div>

The decision nullifies Hong Kong-based Hutchison’s ability to operate the Balboa and Christobal ports that bookend the Panama Canal and clouds its attempt to sell its global terminals portfolio.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The Panama Supreme Court late Thursday ruled that the longstanding leases allowing CK Hutchison to operate two marine terminals that bookend the Panama Canal are unconstitutional, further clouding an attempt to sell its global terminals portfolio. The decision nullifies Hong Kong-based Hutchison’s ability to operate the Balboa and Christobal ports and represents a victory for US President Donald Trump, who has pressured Panama to end the leases over what he claims is China’s outsized influence on the canal’s operations via the terminals. Hutchison had already agreed to sell the two terminals to a consortium of BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) subsidiary Terminal Investments Limited (TiL) as part of a $22.8 billion sale of its 43 terminal operations worldwide. But the deal has run into opposition from Beijing over ties between Trump and BlackRock leadership. As a way around that opposition, Hutchison last summer confirmed it was in talks with a “major strategic investor from China.” China’s involvement as part of the buying consortium would likely draw Trump’s attention again. CK Hutchison can try to delay the Panama court decision by seeking a clarification on the ruling. But ultimately, the Panamanian government will seek an interim operator for the two terminals and then decide whether to put their operating the lease out for tender. Hutchison’s concession for the Panama ports began in 1997 and was renewed for another 25-year lease in 2021. Prime location Maersk in October signaled its intent to invest in two terminals the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) hopes to build in Corozal, on the Pacific side of the canal, and near Colon on the Atlantic side. In April, Maersk bought the Panama Canal Railway, the short-line railroad that links the ports of Balboa and Colon. Maersk, which is the railway’s largest customer, also operates a logistics park in the country. Louis Sola, then chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, told US senators during a January 2025 hearing that  US terminal operators did not get a fair shake in Panama due to corruption in the government. US-based SSA Marine, Singapore-based PSA and Taiwan-based Evergreen Terminal also have terminals in Panama. An analysis of transit time data by visibility provider Project44 in February 2025 found “no clear indications” that China-based ocean carriers receive any preferential treatment at the canal. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Panama Supreme Court late Thursday ruled that the longstanding leases allowing CK Hutchison to operate two marine terminals that bookend the Panama Canal are unconstitutional, further clouding an attempt to sell its global terminals portfolio. The decision nullifies Hong Kong-based Hutchison’s ability to operate the Balboa and Christobal ports and represents a victory for US President Donald Trump, who has pressured Panama to end the leases over what he claims is China’s outsized influence on the canal’s operations via the terminals. Hutchison had already agreed to sell the two terminals to a consortium of BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) subsidiary Terminal Investments Limited (TiL) as part of a $22.8 billion sale of its 43 terminal operations worldwide. But the deal has run into opposition from Beijing over ties between Trump and BlackRock leadership. As a way around that opposition, Hutchison last summer confirmed it was in talks with a “major strategic investor from China.” China’s involvement as part of the buying consortium would likely draw Trump’s attention again. CK Hutchison can try to delay the Panama court decision by seeking a clarification on the ruling. But ultimately, the Panamanian government will seek an interim operator for the two terminals and then decide whether to put their operating the lease out for tender. Hutchison’s concession for the Panama ports began in 1997 and was renewed for another 25-year lease in 2021. Prime location Maersk in October signaled its intent to invest in two terminals the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) hopes to build in Corozal, on the Pacific side of the canal, and near Colon on the Atlantic side. In April, Maersk bought the Panama Canal Railway, the short-line railroad that links the ports of Balboa and Colon. Maersk, which is the railway’s largest customer, also operates a logistics park in the country. Louis Sola, then chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, told US senators during a January 2025 hearing that  US terminal operators did not get a fair shake in Panama due to corruption in the government. US-based SSA Marine, Singapore-based PSA and Taiwan-based Evergreen Terminal also have terminals in Panama. An analysis of transit time data by visibility provider Project44 in February 2025 found “no clear indications” that China-based ocean carriers receive any preferential treatment at the canal. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Panama court voids CK Hutchison canal terminal leases

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">DiBella, nominated to be a commissioner last September, said her focus for the agency will be to support Trump’s push to restore the American maritime industry. </div>

DiBella, nominated to be a commissioner last September, said her focus for the agency will be to support Trump’s push to restore the American maritime industry.

<div class="phx-topic">Laura DiBella has been tapped by President Donald Trump as the new chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), the agency said Thursday. DiBella said her focus for the FMC will be to support Trump’s push to restore the American maritime industry. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-taps-two-floridians-to-serve-on-the-fmc-6075573">DiBella was nominated to be a member of the FMC in September</a> to fill the remaining term of previous chairman Louis Sola, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmcs-sola-to-leave-agency-months-after-being-elevated-to-chairmans-slot-6031245">a two-term commissioner who left the agency in June</a>. DiBella was confirmed by the Senate in December and only sworn in three weeks ago to a term that expires in June 2028. DiBella’s experience includes serving as government affairs advisor for a Florida law firm and overseeing business development for Florida’s Department of Commerce. She was also the executive director for the Florida Harbor Pilots Association and the director of the Port of Fernandina. DiBella, in a statement from the FMC, said being tapped as the agency’s next chairman “is nothing short of a privilege” and that she intends to focus the commission on how it can implement Trump’s maritime agenda for the US. The five-member FMC still has one vacant seat, which is expected to be filled by Trump nominee Robert Harvey pending Senate confirmation. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Laura DiBella has been tapped by President Donald Trump as the new chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), the agency said Thursday. DiBella said her focus for the FMC will be to support Trump’s push to restore the American maritime industry. DiBella was nominated to be a member of the FMC in September to fill the remaining term of previous chairman Louis Sola, a two-term commissioner who left the agency in June . DiBella was confirmed by the Senate in December and only sworn in three weeks ago to a term that expires in June 2028. DiBella’s experience includes serving as government affairs advisor for a Florida law firm and overseeing business development for Florida’s Department of Commerce. She was also the executive director for the Florida Harbor Pilots Association and the director of the Port of Fernandina. DiBella, in a statement from the FMC, said being tapped as the agency’s next chairman “is nothing short of a privilege” and that she intends to focus the commission on how it can implement Trump’s maritime agenda for the US. The five-member FMC still has one vacant seat, which is expected to be filled by Trump nominee Robert Harvey pending Senate confirmation. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Trump elevates Laura DiBella to be FMC chairman

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The leading US truck brokerage said a rate spike due to winter weather does not signal a stronger trucking market, while international freight demand remains tepid.</div>

The leading US truck brokerage said a rate spike due to winter weather does not signal a stronger trucking market, while international freight demand remains tepid.

<div class="phx-topic">CH Robinson sees no near-term catalyst for US freight demand, with air and ocean rates likely remaining close to current levels and recent spikes in truck rates largely driven by winter weather. The truck brokerage and global forwarder, though, said its artificial intelligence (AI) initiatives continue to help it serve customers faster and gain market share. CH Robinson said Thursday its forwarding business saw an 8% year-over-year decline in ocean freight volumes for the fourth quarter of 2025, while its air freight tonnage declined 12.5%. Chief Executive David Bozeman said on an earnings conference call that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ch-robinson-cautious-on-second-half-outlook-amid-trade-volatility-6053833">frontloading by shippers throughout 2025</a> led to a “more pronounced decline in demand after the Q3 peak season.” “International freight continues to be impacted by global trade policies,” Bozeman said. “The macro conditions for global transportation companies were difficult in Q4, and we are not impervious to these volume and rate dynamics.” With air and ocean rates also declining, adjusted gross profit for CH Robinson’s forwarding business fell 12.7% in the fourth quarter to $178 million. The company did see a higher profit margin in the forwarding business, which Bozeman said was due to the segment’s revenue management and use of a “cohesive, centralized model with standardized and lean AI-enabled processes.” As for any immediate post-holiday bump, CFO Damon Lee said that declines in ocean freight rates that started in the third quarter “continued into Q4 and we expect that to continue into Q1.” “So, Q1, starting out a little challenging, but Q4 ended a little challenging,” Lee added. <h3>No change in demand </h3>Despite the decline in the forwarding business, CH Robinson’s truck brokerage saw fourth-quarter gross profit increase slightly, helping it beat analysts’ profit estimates. CH Robinson reported a fourth-quarter net profit of $1.23 per share, versus a $1.13 consensus estimate, according to Capital IQ, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The company said that its overall truck volume rose 1% during the fourth quarter, versus a 7.6% drop in volume for the period as measured by the Cass Freight Shipment Index. Bozeman, meanwhile, said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/truckload-brokers-eye-human-technology-balance-as-ai-takes-hold-5876340">AI is automating many broker tasks</a>, adding that AI allowed CH Robinson to manage a recent spike in truckload rates without affecting margins. “Spot market costs for truckload capacity spiked during the last five weeks of the quarter due to a seasonal decline in capacity, three winter storms and incremental pressure from the cumulative [federal] enforcement of various commercial driver regulations,” Bozeman said. While truck spot rates can spike during winter weather, those spikes will abate through the first quarter while more drivers will also return to the road, Michael Castagnetto, president of CH Robinson’s truck brokerage, said on the call. “When you think about an actual market inflection, which we’ve all been trying to predict as an industry for the better part of three and a half years now, there wasn’t a material demand change during the quarter,” Castagnetto said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

CH Robinson sees no near-term catalyst for US freight demand, with air and ocean rates likely remaining close to current levels and recent spikes in truck rates largely driven by winter weather. The truck brokerage and global forwarder, though, said its artificial intelligence (AI) initiatives continue to help it serve customers faster and gain market share. CH Robinson said Thursday its forwarding business saw an 8% year-over-year decline in ocean freight volumes for the fourth quarter of 2025, while its air freight tonnage declined 12.5%. Chief Executive David Bozeman said on an earnings conference call that frontloading by shippers throughout 2025 led to a “more pronounced decline in demand after the Q3 peak season.” “International freight continues to be impacted by global trade policies,” Bozeman said. “The macro conditions for global transportation companies were difficult in Q4, and we are not impervious to these volume and rate dynamics.” With air and ocean rates also declining, adjusted gross profit for CH Robinson’s forwarding business fell 12.7% in the fourth quarter to $178 million. The company did see a higher profit margin in the forwarding business, which Bozeman said was due to the segment’s revenue management and use of a “cohesive, centralized model with standardized and lean AI-enabled processes.” As for any immediate post-holiday bump, CFO Damon Lee said that declines in ocean freight rates that started in the third quarter “continued into Q4 and we expect that to continue into Q1.” “So, Q1, starting out a little challenging, but Q4 ended a little challenging,” Lee added. No change in demand Despite the decline in the forwarding business, CH Robinson’s truck brokerage saw fourth-quarter gross profit increase slightly, helping it beat analysts’ profit estimates. CH Robinson reported a fourth-quarter net profit of $1.23 per share, versus a $1.13 consensus estimate, according to Capital IQ, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The company said that its overall truck volume rose 1% during the fourth quarter, versus a 7.6% drop in volume for the period as measured by the Cass Freight Shipment Index. Bozeman, meanwhile, said AI is automating many broker tasks , adding that AI allowed CH Robinson to manage a recent spike in truckload rates without affecting margins. “Spot market costs for truckload capacity spiked during the last five weeks of the quarter due to a seasonal decline in capacity, three winter storms and incremental pressure from the cumulative [federal] enforcement of various commercial driver regulations,” Bozeman said. While truck spot rates can spike during winter weather, those spikes will abate through the first quarter while more drivers will also return to the road, Michael Castagnetto, president of CH Robinson’s truck brokerage, said on the call. “When you think about an actual market inflection, which we’ve all been trying to predict as an industry for the better part of three and a half years now, there wasn’t a material demand change during the quarter,” Castagnetto said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Truck brokers

CH Robinson seeing muted freight market to start 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Amid new threats from Houthi militants and the arrival of a US carrier strike group in the region, carriers — and their customers — are once again wondering when they will be able to safely transit the Red Sea/Suez route.</div>

Amid new threats from Houthi militants and the arrival of a US carrier strike group in the region, carriers — and their customers — are once again wondering when they will be able to safely transit the Red Sea/Suez route.

<div class="phx-topic">Shippers on the trades linking Asia to Europe and the US East Coast hoping for a resumption of Red Sea and Suez Canal transits remain at the mercy of factors out of their control as the regional security situation deteriorates anew. A US carrier strike group has arrived in the Gulf of Oman to back up another threat by President Donald Trump to take military action against Iran, this time over the lack of progress in a nuclear deal. Tehran has vowed to respond to any attacks, which may spill over into the southern Red Sea controlled by Iran-supported Houthi militants. And that leaves carriers, and their customers, once again wondering when they will be able to safely transit the Red Sea/Suez route, more than two years after the Houthis began their attacks on commercial shipping. “Shippers are faced with the greatest challenges out there right now,” said Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “They’re at the bottom of the operational decision funnel, which leaves them more vulnerable to shocks or setbacks than any other stakeholder in the equation.” Shippers, Ozuygur told the Journal of Commerce, are forced to create a procurement strategy that “rests on their ability to surmise the behavior of carriers, insurers, politicians [and] militias.” “Even with a complex framework of decision-making tools, operational insights and the best data visibility out there, we can’t confidently predict the next six weeks, let alone the next six days in a scenario like this,” she said. The complexity that confounds shipping analysis was illustrated in developments this month. After two years of diversions around southern Africa, expectations that head-haul Suez voyages would likely resume after the Lunar New Year gathered momentum when Maersk on Jan. 15 announced that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-set-to-resume-regular-suez-transits-on-india-usec-mecl-loop-sources-6152441">a Middle East-US East Coast service would be routed through the Red Sea</a>. But the ink was barely dry on that announcement when CMA CGM, one of the main Red Sea users over the past two years, said it would <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-backs-off-plans-to-resume-suez-transits-for-asia-europe-services-6155264">scale back plans to send three Asia-Europe westbound services through the Suez</a>, citing the “complex and uncertain international context.” A week later, the Iran-backed Houthi released two videos warning that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/latest-houthi-threat-renews-questions-about-suez-route-as-us-iran-tensions-rise-6158709">ship attacks could resume “soon,”</a> just days before the US carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln arrived with Trump’s new attack threat on Tehran. <h3>Frustrating turn of events </h3>It has been a frustrating turn of events for shippers eager to return to the shorter Suez route. The Asia-based supply chain director for a European retailer said his company was planning for the resumption of Suez transits after Lunar New Year, which begins Feb. 17, following talks with carriers that were confident head-haul services would gradually increase. That confidence was fueled by the absence of any Houthi attacks since November, following the Israel-Hamas ceasefire the month before. “But the situation has changed again, and we are now not ready to put cargo through the Suez,” the source told the Journal of Commerce, adding that their insurance broker said cargo on ships routed through the Red Sea would not be covered in the event of an attack. Another European importer said his cargo was covered for Red Sea transits, but the high cost of premiums was prohibitive, something that remains a significant hurdle for both carriers and shippers. Marine insurance provider Allianz Commercial told the Journal of Commerce this week that cost increases for ships transiting areas requiring war insurance depended on the assessment of the Joint War Committee in London, comprised of underwriting representatives from Lloyd’s and the International Underwriting Association. “The amount of the additional premiums can be very dynamic and is evaluated by individual underwriters, typically per vessel per voyage, and reflects current developments in individual shipping areas,” a spokesperson for Allianz said. But insurance issues extend beyond costs, according to Andy Gillespie, senior logistics advisor for supply chain management firm WOWL. Shippers sending cargo through the Red Sea would need to alert insurers and obtain specific rider coverage for shipments, but he said carrier alliance networks muddied the waters. “Think of this: The carrier I book and ship with is not transiting Suez but my container with them is on a partner’s vessel that is transiting Suez,” Gillespie said. “It shouldn’t be an issue to get the riders, but shippers better be alert to which shipments will be impacted. Carriers should be communicating the routings to customers.” <h3>Security concerns make visibility difficult </h3>But that kind of visibility from carriers would be difficult to provide under the fluid security situation, believes James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum. “Whether shippers and forwarders will be able to pick a ship that transits the Suez will depend on the lines publishing a schedule of their intended routes, and that might be too much information in the public domain at this time,” he said. Ozuygur also had her doubts that shippers would have the visibility they need over voyages to establish their preferred strategies of shorter transit times/high risk compared with longer transits and lower risks. “Then they must reconcile that against whether they believe the carrier will follow through on that promise, and then finally have a plan B and a plan C in place if things go sideways,” she said. “That means having a close eye on service and voyage-level data across the entire network, access to expert analysis, and visibility into carriers’ track records of transparency, communication and reliability,” Ozuygur added. According to Drewry’s Red Sea Diversion Tracker, the number of container ships sailing via the Suez Canal jumped 69% to 61 in the two-week period ending Jan. 25, from a low base of 36 transits in the previous two-week period, as large carriers and smaller niche liners balanced the changing safety risk and the potential commercial benefit of the shorter route. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Shippers on the trades linking Asia to Europe and the US East Coast hoping for a resumption of Red Sea and Suez Canal transits remain at the mercy of factors out of their control as the regional security situation deteriorates anew. A US carrier strike group has arrived in the Gulf of Oman to back up another threat by President Donald Trump to take military action against Iran, this time over the lack of progress in a nuclear deal. Tehran has vowed to respond to any attacks, which may spill over into the southern Red Sea controlled by Iran-supported Houthi militants. And that leaves carriers, and their customers, once again wondering when they will be able to safely transit the Red Sea/Suez route, more than two years after the Houthis began their attacks on commercial shipping. “Shippers are faced with the greatest challenges out there right now,” said Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “They’re at the bottom of the operational decision funnel, which leaves them more vulnerable to shocks or setbacks than any other stakeholder in the equation.” Shippers, Ozuygur told the Journal of Commerce, are forced to create a procurement strategy that “rests on their ability to surmise the behavior of carriers, insurers, politicians [and] militias.” “Even with a complex framework of decision-making tools, operational insights and the best data visibility out there, we can’t confidently predict the next six weeks, let alone the next six days in a scenario like this,” she said. The complexity that confounds shipping analysis was illustrated in developments this month. After two years of diversions around southern Africa, expectations that head-haul Suez voyages would likely resume after the Lunar New Year gathered momentum when Maersk on Jan. 15 announced that a Middle East-US East Coast service would be routed through the Red Sea . But the ink was barely dry on that announcement when CMA CGM, one of the main Red Sea users over the past two years, said it would scale back plans to send three Asia-Europe westbound services through the Suez , citing the “complex and uncertain international context.” A week later, the Iran-backed Houthi released two videos warning that ship attacks could resume “soon,” just days before the US carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln arrived with Trump’s new attack threat on Tehran. Frustrating turn of events It has been a frustrating turn of events for shippers eager to return to the shorter Suez route. The Asia-based supply chain director for a European retailer said his company was planning for the resumption of Suez transits after Lunar New Year, which begins Feb. 17, following talks with carriers that were confident head-haul services would gradually increase. That confidence was fueled by the absence of any Houthi attacks since November, following the Israel-Hamas ceasefire the month before. “But the situation has changed again, and we are now not ready to put cargo through the Suez,” the source told the Journal of Commerce, adding that their insurance broker said cargo on ships routed through the Red Sea would not be covered in the event of an attack. Another European importer said his cargo was covered for Red Sea transits, but the high cost of premiums was prohibitive, something that remains a significant hurdle for both carriers and shippers. Marine insurance provider Allianz Commercial told the Journal of Commerce this week that cost increases for ships transiting areas requiring war insurance depended on the assessment of the Joint War Committee in London, comprised of underwriting representatives from Lloyd’s and the International Underwriting Association. “The amount of the additional premiums can be very dynamic and is evaluated by individual underwriters, typically per vessel per voyage, and reflects current developments in individual shipping areas,” a spokesperson for Allianz said. But insurance issues extend beyond costs, according to Andy Gillespie, senior logistics advisor for supply chain management firm WOWL. Shippers sending cargo through the Red Sea would need to alert insurers and obtain specific rider coverage for shipments, but he said carrier alliance networks muddied the waters. “Think of this: The carrier I book and ship with is not transiting Suez but my container with them is on a partner’s vessel that is transiting Suez,” Gillespie said. “It shouldn’t be an issue to get the riders, but shippers better be alert to which shipments will be impacted. Carriers should be communicating the routings to customers.” Security concerns make visibility difficult But that kind of visibility from carriers would be difficult to provide under the fluid security situation, believes James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum. “Whether shippers and forwarders will be able to pick a ship that transits the Suez will depend on the lines publishing a schedule of their intended routes, and that might be too much information in the public domain at this time,” he said. Ozuygur also had her doubts that shippers would have the visibility they need over voyages to establish their preferred strategies of shorter transit times/high risk compared with longer transits and lower risks. “Then they must reconcile that against whether they believe the carrier will follow through on that promise, and then finally have a plan B and a plan C in place if things go sideways,” she said. “That means having a close eye on service and voyage-level data across the entire network, access to expert analysis, and visibility into carriers’ track records of transparency, communication and reliability,” Ozuygur added. According to Drewry’s Red Sea Diversion Tracker, the number of container ships sailing via the Suez Canal jumped 69% to 61 in the two-week period ending Jan. 25, from a low base of 36 transits in the previous two-week period, as large carriers and smaller niche liners balanced the changing safety risk and the potential commercial benefit of the shorter route. Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com . 

Asia-Europe

Container Shipping News

Shippers shoulder burden of Red Sea uncertainty as regional tensions rise again

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Stonepeak will pay $2.4 billion to take a 25% stake in the United Ports JV while the French carrier will hold 75% and maintain operational control of the terminals involved. </div>

Stonepeak will pay $2.4 billion to take a 25% stake in the United Ports JV while the French carrier will hold 75% and maintain operational control of the terminals involved.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM and private equity firm Stonepeak on Wednesday said they’ve formed a global marine terminals joint venture that involves 11 of the carrier’s major port assets in the US, South America, Europe, and Asia. Stonepeak will pay $2.4 billion to take a 25% stake in the JV, known as United Ports LLC. CMA CGM will hold 75% and maintain operational control of the terminals. The sale to Stonepeak puts the value of the terminals venture at $9.6 billion.“By joining forces with a partner with strong infrastructure expertise, we strengthen our ability to invest further in our port terminals, secure access to key gateways and enhance service quality for our customers,” CMA CGM Chief Executive Rodolphe Saadé said in a statement. Under the deal, Stonepeak has the option to contribute $3.6 billion in additional funding for future joint terminal projects, while CMA CGM said it will reinvest the initial $2.4 billion from the minority stake sale into its core business. The United Ports JV comes about 11 months after Saadé visited US President Donald Trump at the White House and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-to-invest-20-billion-in-us-shipping-ports-and-logistics-5957748">announced CMA CGM would spend $20 billion</a> over the next four years to significantly bolster its logistics presence in the US, including port assets. <h3>Los Angeles, New York terminals part of JV </h3>In the US, the terminals that will be part of the United Ports joint venture are the Fenix Marine Services (FMS) terminal in Los Angeles, and the Port Liberty Terminals in Bayonne, New Jersey. and Staten Island. United Ports will also include four container terminals in Spain: CSP Valencia, CSP Bilbao, Terminal Maritima de Guadalquivir, and TTI Algeciras. Other terminals in the joint venture include Brazil’s Santos terminal, CMA CGM’s Kaohsiung terminal in Taiwan, Nhava Sheva Freeport in India, and Vietnam’s Gemalink terminal in Cai Mep. Stonepeak is a major investor in container logistics and related infrastructure. It owns chassis provider TRAC Intermodal and has invested in cold-storage operator Lineage, container lessor Textainer and breakbulk terminal operator Logistec. “Container terminals play an essential role in global trade and are among the most difficult to substitute or replicate transportation infrastructure assets,” James Wyper, senior managing director and head of US private equity for Stonepeak, said in the statement. CMA CGM operates 41 terminals globally, according to its website, handling over 17 million TEUs annually. CMA CGM is also the majority owner of Terminal Link, a joint venture with China Merchants Port Holdings, that operates 21 terminals handling 29 million TEUs. Much of the CMA CGM terminals portfolio, as with the terminal assets of its competitors, has been assembled since liners pulled in record profits during the pandemic, providing ocean carriers a homeport in major markets. The pandemic highlighted <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hutchison-deal-shows-thirst-of-big-carriers-to-control-global-terminal-assets-5960717">the need for ocean carriers to have operational control of terminals</a> instead of having ships wait in a queue at third-party terminals. In 2021, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-flexes-financial-might-with-fenix-marine-acquisition-5206339">it purchased the 90% share it did not already own in Fenix Marine</a>, which alone had a $2.3 billion enterprise value, according to CMA CGM. The following year, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-adds-terminal-assets-in-new-yorknew-jersey-5217593">it bought out Global Container Terminals’ leases for the Bayonne and Staten Island terminals</a>. CMA CGM terminals also formed a joint venture in 2022 with India’s JM Baxi Group for a 30-year concession on the Nhava Sheva terminal. Last year, CMA CGM began a public tender offer <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-becomes-majority-shareholder-in-santos-brasil-terminal-operator-5991343">for the remaining stake it did not own in the Santos terminal</a>, a deal worth about $2.3 billion. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

CMA CGM and private equity firm Stonepeak on Wednesday said they’ve formed a global marine terminals joint venture that involves 11 of the carrier’s major port assets in the US, South America, Europe, and Asia. Stonepeak will pay $2.4 billion to take a 25% stake in the JV, known as United Ports LLC. CMA CGM will hold 75% and maintain operational control of the terminals. The sale to Stonepeak puts the value of the terminals venture at $9.6 billion. “By joining forces with a partner with strong infrastructure expertise, we strengthen our ability to invest further in our port terminals, secure access to key gateways and enhance service quality for our customers,” CMA CGM Chief Executive Rodolphe Saadé said in a statement. Under the deal, Stonepeak has the option to contribute $3.6 billion in additional funding for future joint terminal projects, while CMA CGM said it will reinvest the initial $2.4 billion from the minority stake sale into its core business. The United Ports JV comes about 11 months after Saadé visited US President Donald Trump at the White House and announced CMA CGM would spend $20 billion over the next four years to significantly bolster its logistics presence in the US, including port assets. Los Angeles, New York terminals part of JV In the US, the terminals that will be part of the United Ports joint venture are the Fenix Marine Services (FMS) terminal in Los Angeles, and the Port Liberty Terminals in Bayonne, New Jersey. and Staten Island. United Ports will also include four container terminals in Spain: CSP Valencia, CSP Bilbao, Terminal Maritima de Guadalquivir, and TTI Algeciras. Other terminals in the joint venture include Brazil’s Santos terminal, CMA CGM’s Kaohsiung terminal in Taiwan, Nhava Sheva Freeport in India, and Vietnam’s Gemalink terminal in Cai Mep. Stonepeak is a major investor in container logistics and related infrastructure. It owns chassis provider TRAC Intermodal and has invested in cold-storage operator Lineage, container lessor Textainer and breakbulk terminal operator Logistec. “Container terminals play an essential role in global trade and are among the most difficult to substitute or replicate transportation infrastructure assets,” James Wyper, senior managing director and head of US private equity for Stonepeak, said in the statement. CMA CGM operates 41 terminals globally, according to its website, handling over 17 million TEUs annually. CMA CGM is also the majority owner of Terminal Link, a joint venture with China Merchants Port Holdings, that operates 21 terminals handling 29 million TEUs. Much of the CMA CGM terminals portfolio, as with the terminal assets of its competitors, has been assembled since liners pulled in record profits during the pandemic, providing ocean carriers a homeport in major markets. The pandemic highlighted the need for ocean carriers to have operational control of terminals instead of having ships wait in a queue at third-party terminals. In 2021, it purchased the 90% share it did not already own in Fenix Marine , which alone had a $2.3 billion enterprise value, according to CMA CGM. The following year, it bought out Global Container Terminals’ leases for the Bayonne and Staten Island terminals . CMA CGM terminals also formed a joint venture in 2022 with India’s JM Baxi Group for a 30-year concession on the Nhava Sheva terminal. Last year, CMA CGM began a public tender offer for the remaining stake it did not own in the Santos terminal , a deal worth about $2.3 billion. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

North American ports

Marine terminals

International ports

CMA CGM forms global terminals venture with private equity firm

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code NYW26 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

NEW YEAR SALE

Use code NYW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe today using code NYW26 at checkout and save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Use code NYW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code NYW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW26 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

NEW YEAR SALE: Subscribe today using code NYW26 at checkout and save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

NEW YEAR SALE: Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code NYW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Panama court voids CK Hutchison canal terminal leases

Trump elevates Laura DiBella to be FMC chairman

CH Robinson seeing muted freight market to start 2026