全球集装箱运输及港口：兴风作浪

1、By: Deepak Maurya, Sean and April 2019 HYPERLINK / & Making wavesM&A, HHLA, & report be part Why read this report?A comprehensive report on global marine, analysing the impact of the structural changes, such as slower trade growthandIMO 2020We take a detailed look at the IMO 2020 preparedness of con

2、tainer shipping lines and how it affects competitive positioning; similarly, we assess how port operators are positioned amid slowing growth in their organicportfolioWe also attempt to lay out the business models that can separate the winners from the losers within our coverage over the longtermCont

3、ents HYPERLINK l _bookmark0 In between IMO and TEU HYPERLINK l _bookmark0 4 HYPERLINK l _bookmark25 Container shipping alliances HYPERLINK l _bookmark25 161 HYPERLINK l _bookmark1 Summary of estimates HYPERLINK l _bookmark1 17 HYPERLINK l _bookmark26 Top container shipping lines HYPERLINK l _bookmar

4、k26 162 HYPERLINK l _bookmark2 IMO 2020 a disruptive HYPERLINK l _bookmark2 opportunity HYPERLINK l _bookmark2 21 HYPERLINK l _bookmark27 Container shipping HYPERLINK l _bookmark27 demand model HYPERLINK l _bookmark27 163 HYPERLINK l _bookmark3 HYPERLINK l _bookmark3 HYPERLINK l _bookmark3 31 HYPERL

5、INK l _bookmark28 Container shipping HYPERLINK l _bookmark28 supply model HYPERLINK l _bookmark28 164 HYPERLINK l _bookmark4 Environmental regulations HYPERLINK l _bookmark29 Disclosure appendix HYPERLINK l _bookmark29 165 HYPERLINK l _bookmark4 beyond IMO 2020 HYPERLINK l _bookmark4 45 HYPERLINK l

6、_bookmark30 Disclaimer HYPERLINK l _bookmark30 168 HYPERLINK l _bookmark5 Ports playing the HYPERLINK l _bookmark5 softening trade cycle HYPERLINK l _bookmark5 50 HYPERLINK l _bookmark6 IFRS 16 is now effective HYPERLINK l _bookmark6 we assess the impact HYPERLINK l _bookmark6 58 HYPERLINK l _bookma

7、rk7 Company sections HYPERLINK l _bookmark7 61 HYPERLINK l _bookmark8 AP Moller Maersk (MAERSKB DC) HYPERLINK l _bookmark8 62 HYPERLINK l _bookmark9 COSCO Shipping Holdings HYPERLINK l _bookmark9 (1919 HK/601919 CH) HYPERLINK l _bookmark9 69 HYPERLINK l _bookmark10 Evergreen Marine (2603 TT) HYPERLI

8、NK l _bookmark10 75 HYPERLINK l _bookmark11 Hapag-Lloyd (HLAG GR) HYPERLINK l _bookmark11 80 HYPERLINK l _bookmark12 Orient Overseas (316 HK) HYPERLINK l _bookmark12 86 HYPERLINK l _bookmark13 SITC (1308 HK) HYPERLINK l _bookmark13 91 HYPERLINK l _bookmark14 Yang Ming Marine (2609 TT) HYPERLINK l _b

9、ookmark14 97 HYPERLINK l _bookmark15 Adani Ports and SEZ (ADSEZ IN) HYPERLINK l _bookmark15 102 HYPERLINK l _bookmark16 China Merchants Port (144 HK) HYPERLINK l _bookmark16 108 HYPERLINK l _bookmark17 Cosco Shipping Ports (1199 HK) HYPERLINK l _bookmark17 114 HYPERLINK l _bookmark18 DP World (DPW D

10、U) HYPERLINK l _bookmark18 120 HYPERLINK l _bookmark19 Gujarat Pipavav Ports (GPPV IN) HYPERLINK l _bookmark19 125 HYPERLINK l _bookmark20 HHLA (HHFA GR) HYPERLINK l _bookmark20 132 HYPERLINK l _bookmark21 Hutchison Port Holding (HPHT SP) HYPERLINK l _bookmark21 138 HYPERLINK l _bookmark22 ICTSI (IC

11、T PM) HYPERLINK l _bookmark22 144 HYPERLINK l _bookmark23 Westports Holdings Berhad ( HYPERLINK l _bookmark23 WPRTS MK) HYPERLINK l _bookmark23 150 HYPERLINK l _bookmark24 Wrtsil HYPERLINK l _bookmark24 156Exhibit 1. Top 10 reasons and ideasMost and least exposurePositioningRemarksUS-China tradeHPHT

12、Most: HPHT operates only in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) and stands exposed to the US-China trade tensions and the shift of supplyTensionsEvergreenchains from China to other parts of Asia due to rising labour costs in the PRD.Evergreen derived about 43% of its revenues from the transpacific trade in

13、2018.ICTSILeast: ICTSI has little direct exposure in this trade lane. All but one port are located outside the US-China trade lane.IMO 2020EvergreenFor scrubbers: Evergreen will install scrubbers on 90 vessels, which we think will be sufficient to cover its entire capacity in Asia- Europe and transp

14、acific trade.WrtsilWrtsil stands to benefit as demand for scrubbers is set to extend beyond 2019.COSCOShippingAgainst scrubbers: COSCO Shipping is the most vulnerable as it will rely on clean but expensive fuel, while peers gain cost advantages with scrubbers.IFRS 16 lease capitalisationYangMingICTS

15、ISITCMost: Yang Ming is the most vulnerable as it has about 71% of its capacity on charters and its new vessels in recent years were all driven by long-term charters.Some of ICTSIs certain port concessions are structured as long-term leases. In 2019, the company expects a net decline of about USD10-

16、11m, 4-5% of our 2019e recurring profit estimate.Least: SITC is the least vulnerable with just 26% of capacity on charter. Most of these are on a short-term basis (less than 12 months) and, as such, not within the scope of IFRS 16.Long-term ideasSITCADSEZICTSIThese companies have generated an averag

17、e ROIC of 9-19% in the past eight years.SITC has strong competitive advantages vs peers in the highly fragmented intra-Asia trade; it also benefits from supply chain shifts and IMO 2020.Both ADSEZ and ICTSI are port operators with a presence in emerging markets with strong organic growth, low capaci

18、ty utilisation, limited exposure to US-China trade tensions, and multiple projects in a ramp-up phase.Value Buy/ laggard playsEvergreenDPWHHLAEvergreen is trading at a 0.79x 12-month forward PB, the lowest among peers and at the low end of its historical trading range; we expect it will improve its

19、competitiveness with new vessels and scrubbers.Investor concerns on DPWs acquisitions are overstated; valuations of such acquisitions are reasonable and well-funded with cUSD2bn of operating cash flows p.a.HHLA, while throughput growth will likely remain muted in 2019, structural long-term issues ar

20、e subsiding with the river dredging finally receiving green light in 2018.Small cap ideasSITCSITC is a niche container shipping and logistics player in intra-Asia trade. It has a market cap of USD2.7bn.EvergreenEvergreen has the second biggest orders for scrubbers among container shipping lines. It

21、has a market cap of USD1.8bn.HHLAHHLA has a market cap of USD1.6bn.Yield playsSITCHPHTHHLAFor a shipping company, SITC scores rather high on dividend yield: 6.3% on our 2019 estimates is driven by the highest margins in the sector and positive free cash flows.At current a vs and and on and of divide

22、nd is a concern to a weak HHLA offers an average 5% yield in 2019-21eHSBC vsDPWWe have the highest respective target price for DPW and ICTSI as we are confident about the turnaround of the recent investmentsconsensus on TPICTSIYangMingand expect strong organic growth in their respective portfolio.Fo

23、r Yang Ming, our target price is 17% below the consensus average target price.Special situationsMaerskCMPortMaersk: With the imminent listing of Maersk Drilling and the likelihood of a cash return later in the year from the majority of the proceeds of the sale of the equity stake in Total SA (FP FP,

24、 EUR49.59, Buy), we expect Maersk to return around 23-30% of the current market capitalisation to shareholders.CM Port: Recording of a non-cash gain on Qianhai land. The company expects a disposal gain of HKD3.1bn to be recorded in 2019 and we think this could result in some special dividends.Value

25、trapGPPVHPHTGPPV trades at an 8.74x consensus 12-month forward EV/EBITDA, close to its all-time trough but the stock lacks catalysts for growth and is limited by its single location presence. Our study of the market in the Philippines suggests the same.HPHT trades at just a 0.6x 2019e PB but for a r

26、eason as its 2019e ROE is just 2% and we do not see it improve materially in the near to medium term.Source: HSBC estimatesIn between IMO and TEUas of the of in US a we in the be the We the be by the of look We or of we a on Searching for safe anchorageIMO 2020: a multi-billion dollar question for t

27、he industry: scrubber to be or not to beWe believe 2019 and 2020 are likely to be challenging years to say the least, as the pace of growth continues to slow, while IMO 2020 poses a multi-billion dollar question for the industry whether to opt for scrubbers or to burn expensive clean fuel. Various i

28、ndicators provide support to our argument: freight rates have declined sharply since the Chinese New Year (mid- February). In this report:We assess the impact of structural changes in the landscape for global ports (bottom-up approach) and containing shipping (top-down approach), and revise our rati

29、ngs, target prices, and earnings estimates accordingly.For container shipping, we also analyse the impact of the new environmental regulation IMO 2020 and discuss how well prepared the sector is to meet its commitment to cut CO2 emissions by “at least half” by 2050. We rank the port operators using

30、our proprietary scorecard, which is based on 10 key success factors to understand their competitivepositioning.Wealsoattempttoidentifythebusinessmodelsthatcanseparatethewinnersfromthelosers within our coverage universe over the longterm.Container shipping: burning expensive clean fuel or installing

31、scrubbers a USD10-15bn pa opex vs USD25-30bn capex questionIn 2018, active supply grew 6.4% vs 4.3% demand growthFreight rates were flat, even though bunker prices rose 31%2018 profitability spoiled by high fuel prices and oversupplyGlobal container trade grew 4.3% in 2018, down from 5.8% in 2017 an

32、d marginally below our previous estimate of 4.4%. Trade on the main lane routes grew ahead of our estimate, driven by the cargo rush in transpacific and a recovery in Asia-Europe in 2H18. However, this was offset by the rise in active capacity as vessel scrappings and idle capacity were lower than e

33、xpected.As in the back in a rate at 6.4% than for at led to rates were both flat lack of even starker, that the price in 2018 2) the of the lines we in the (Maersk, OOIL Yang a loss of vs a of in Exhibit 2. In 2018, the average freight rate was flat vs a 31% rise in bunker prices35.7%31.4%35.7%31.4%

34、27.4%15.2%0.4% -0.4%35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%-5%Exhibit 3. PMI new export orders of key countries (February 2019)5654525048464442 ChinaCaixin China 20172018SCFICCFIBunkerPresent6mSource: Markit, NBS, Institute for Supply Management, Bloomberg,HSBCTrade tensions and a cyclical global slowdown could weig

35、h on 2019 demand2019 outlook fares a tad better with the demand-supply gap narrowing sharplyDue to better-than-expected demand growth in 2H18, courtesy of the front-loading of cargo particularlyintheUSandasharpfallinfuelprices,wehaveseensomerecoveryinthesectorlately. Indeed, Hapag-Lloyds management

36、said during the 4Q18 results briefing that annual contractsforExhibit 4. Container shipping: we expect more pain in the coming years before a IMO-led supply rebalancing sets inFaster fleet growthFaster fleet growthTrade tensionsIMO 2020 - fuel cost surge/pricing disruptionSofter demand but better ba

37、lanceIMO 2020 led supply rebalancingSource: HSBC20182019e2020e2021e2022e+2019 recently concluded on the Asia-Europe route were at a higher level than those for last year. However, recent data on leading indicators, including PMI new export orders, Canton fair turnover and DHL Global trade barometer,

38、 all point to a global and cyclical slowdown in the trade outlook. Indeed, FedEx (FDX US, Not Rated) also lowered its 2019 profit forecast for a second consecutive quarter on economic growth concerns.Global economic growth continues to moderate as major economies ease toward trend growth The potenti

39、al of a hard Brexit and escalating trade wars represent downside risks to the economic outlook.Global economic growth continues to moderate as major economies ease toward trend growth The potential of a hard Brexit and escalating trade wars represent downside risks to the economic outlook.FedEx, 3Q1

40、8 results announcementWe forecast container trade growth of 3.3% in 2019e vs active fleet growth of 3.3%More shipping lines have now boarded the scrubber bandwagonWe now expect the global container trade in TEUs to soften to 3.3% in 2019e vs our previous forecast of 3.9% and compared to 4.3% growth

41、in 2018. On the supply side, overall new vessel deliveries in 2019e are likely to be lower vs 2018, while scrapping could rise in the run-up to IMO 2020, in our view. However, note that scheduled vessel deliveries for 2019e have increased by over 0.5m TEUs since the beginning of 2018 mainly due to s

42、lippages from 2018 deliveries. We expect nominal fleet growth of 2.4% measured in TEUs (vs 3.1% earlier) and active fleet growth of 3.3% (down from our earlier 3.8% forecast) adjusting for increased idling due to the installation of scrubbers for compliance with IMO 2020. While we expect the demand-

43、supply gap to narrow and be largely balanced in 2019e, we argue that vessel deliveries will likely be lumpy skewed to 1H19e and coincide with the weakening demandoutlook.In 2020e, we forecast demand growth to improve to 3.6% (down from 4.2% earlier), while the active fleet should grow by 3.6% (previ

44、ously 3.7%), again largely balanced.Exhibit 5. Container shipping: demand, supply, freight rates, and bunker fuel20152016201720182019e2020e2021eGlobal container port throughput (% y-o-y)1.1%3.0%6.3%4.9%4.0%4.2%4.4%Old4.2%4.5%4.5%NAGlobal container trade (% y-o-y)2.1%4.3%5.8%4.3%3.3%3.6%3.8%Old4.4%3.

45、9%4.2%NAFleet - nominal capacity growth (% y-o-y)7.9%1.3%3.8%5.6%2.4%3.8%3.2%Old5.5%3.1%4.3%NAFleet - Avg active capacity growth (% y-o-y)6.6%0.7%5.8%6.4%3.3%3.6%3.5%Old6.2%3.8%3.7%NACCFI Index (% y-o-y)-20%-18.4%15.2%-3.1%2.0%10.0%0.0%Old-1.0%2.0%2.0%NAAvg 3.5% S HSFO bunker price (USD/t)2902333164

46、16354286314Old416370400NA0.5% S VLSFO price (USD/t)431543527OldNANANANote: Active capacity is nominal capacity less idle fleet; when idle fleet rises, active capacity growth is lower than nominal capacity. NA Not applicable. Source: Clarksons Research Services, Alphaliner, Refinitiv Datastream, Bloo

47、mberg, HSBC estimateswhile cost headwinds intensify with IMO 2020With less than eight months to go before the new lower sulphur emission cap of 0.5% (down from 3.5%) takes effect, the adoption of scrubbers among ship-owners is rising, although off a low base. According to Alphaliner, the total numbe

48、r of scrubber orders for containerships has risen to over 540 units with Hyundai Merchant Marine being the latest one to announce the installation of scrubbers on 50 of its containerships (including newbuilds). Now seven of the top 10 players have opted for scrubbers, with Maersk (USD263m investment

49、, implying about 50 vessels at USD5m per vessel) and Hapag-Lloyd (15 vessels, including 10 x 13,169 TEU-sized vessels), which are strong proponents ofwhich could make passing on the higher fuel costs to customers more difficultusing clean fuel, now installing scrubbers in at least a part of their re

50、spective fleet. Overall the top seven players will only install scrubbers in just about 440 vessels. Yet we estimate over a third of the capacity by TEU on the Asia-North Europe route and a quarter of the transpacific capacity could use scrubbers, making it difficult for shipping lines using expensi

51、ve, clean fuel to pass on higher costs.lines, have to the to on to fuel costs to with the With to both have said that they would insist on than all-in rates 7 March In their that it able to fuel costs, OOIL for a as we seen in the past, lines have to quickly or fully pass on fuel costs to Exhibit 6.

52、 Scrubber payback ranges from c1.5-3 years at a USD150-250/t price premium of VLSFO over HSFO3.5Payback period in years3.0Payback period in years2.52.01.5Exhibit 7. Adoption of scrubbers andLNG (number of vessels) 20 2015155050409018050MSCEvergreenMaerskHMMCMA CGMHapagLloydMSCEvergreenMaerskHMMCMA C

53、GMHapagLloydYang 70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%1.0150200Spread of VLSFO vs HSFO (USD/tonne)Scrubberspowered% of totalfleetSource: Company dataNote: For Maersk, we estimate total vessels installed with scrubbers to be 50, assuming roughly USD5m as cost per scrubber installation and total capex of USD263m as

54、 guided by the company.Source: Company data, AlphalinerWe a in USD10-15bn pa opex or USD25- 30bn capex; 1.5-3 years payback for scrubber investmentsWe price on HSFO crack of VLSFO to We a price of in 2019e (from to in We a price of VLSFO vs of in to in we it to to inExhibit 8. Bunker fuel price assu

55、mptions20182019e2020e2021eBrent Crude (USD/b)71.264.070.070.0% y-o-y31%-10%9%0%Dubai Crude (USD/b)69.261.964.165.1% y-o-y30%-11%4%2%Avg 3.5% S HSFO bunker price (USD/t)416354286314% y-o-y31%-15%-19%10%Scrubber spread: 3.5% HSFO vs 0.5% VLSO price (USD/t)257213% y-o-y236%-17%0.5% S VLSFO price (USD/t

56、)543527% y-o-ySource: Refinitiv Datastream, Bloomberg, HSBC estimates26%-3%In Exhibit 34-35 later in this report, we illustrate that the sector is facing a decision between a USD10- 15bn operating expense per annum (pa) and a one-off expense of USD27bn in capex. Our USD10- 15bn pa opex estimate is b

57、ased on the assumption of a USD150-250/t premium of VLSFO fuel price over HSFO fuel. Our capex estimate is based on a scrubber equipment cost of USD2.5m per vessel, withthetotalrising toaboutUSD5mtoincludetheinstallationandtheopportunitycostsoflostvesselRecord low order book coincides with an uptick

58、 in scrapping due to IMO 2020days during the retrofit and loss of the container space to accommodate the equipment. Overall this implies that the payback period could be anywhere between 1.5 years and 3 years. We note that the payback could be sooner for bigger vessels, which consume more fuel than

59、smaller vessels.but IMO 2020 may also help to rein in supply over the next few yearsHowever, as argued earlier, while demand growth is stabilising in the 3-4% range and remains exposed to macro risks, we expect the sectors recovery over the next few years to be led by supply rationalisation. Indeed,

60、 the order book is now close to a record low level and equivalent to about 2-3 years of demand growth compared to over five years of demand growth at the peak of the ordering cycle in 2007. Also this record low order book coincides with a potential uptick in scrapping, courtesy of the upcoming imple