international association of maritime economists (iame) 2010 conference, lisbon, portugal the...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) 2010 Conference, Lisbon, Portugal
The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal Operators
Paper no. 2.03.01
Theo NotteboomITMMA - University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy, Belgium
Jean-Paul RodrigueDepartment of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA
The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal Operators
1) An Overview of Global Terminal Operators2) Typology and Market Strategies3) Consolidation and Scale Increase4) The Spatial Expansion of Terminal Operators5) How “Global” are Global Terminal Operators?6) Vertical Integration Strategies in the Hinterland
Container yard, Port of Yantian (HPH), China
Changing Role and Function of Transport Terminals
Conventional ContainerSmall terminal surface Large terminal surface
Direct transshipment possible Indirect transshipment (modal separation in time and space)
Limited mechanization and automation Advanced mechanization and automation
Improvisation in terminal operations Organization and planning
Capital and managerial intensiveness
Labor Intensiveness
Top 12 Global Port Operators in Equity-Based Throughput, 2007
PSA
Hutchison Port Holdings
APM Terminals
DPW
COSCO
Evergreen
Eurogate
MSC
HHLA
APL
SSA Marine
Dragados
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Million TEUs
Container Terminal Surface of the World's Major Port Holdings, 2009
N = 405
Number of Terminals and Total Hectares Controlled by the Ten Largest Port Holdings, 2009
HPH
PSA
DPW
APM
PAM
SSA
COS
SIPG
ERG
HAN
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
47
36
51
43
16
16
14
7
10
12Number of Terminals
Total Hectares
Hectares
Terminals
Depth and Surface Characteristics
NA Less than 8
8 to 10 10 to 12
12 to 14
14 to 16
16 to 18
18 to 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FrequencyCumulative %
Depth Range (Meters)
Freq
uenc
y
NA 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
110
120
More th
an 12
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%FrequencyCumulative %
Hectares
Typology of Global Port Operators
Stevedores Maritime Shipping Companies
Financial Holdings
Horizontal integration Vertical integration Portfolio diversification
Port operations is the core business; Investment in container terminals for expansion and diversification.
Maritime shipping is the main business; Investment in container terminals as a support function.
Financial assets management is the main business; Investment in container terminals for valuation and revenue generation.
Expansion through direct investment.
Expansion through direct investment or through parent companies.
Expansion through acquisitions, mergers and reorganization of assets.
PSA (Public), HHLA (Public), Eurogate (Private), HPH (Private), ICTSI (Private), SSA (Private).
COSCO (Public), MSC (Private), APL (Private), Hanjin (Private), Evergreen (Private).
DPW (Sovereign Wealth Fund), Ports America (AIG; Fund), RREEF (Deutsche Bank; Fund), Macquarie Infrastructure (Fund), Morgan Stanley Infrastructure (Fund).
APM T (Private)
Factors behind the Interest of Equity Firms in Transport Terminals
Asset (Intrinsic value)
Globalization made terminal assets more valuable.Terminals occupy premium locations (waterfront) that cannot be substituted.Traffic growth linked with valuation.Same amount of land generates a higher income.Terminals as fairly liquid assets.
Source of income (Operational value)
Income (rent) linked with traffic volume.Constant revenue stream with limited, or predictable, seasonality.Traffic growth expectations result in income growth expectations.
Diversification (Risk mitigation value)
Sectorial and geographical asset diversification.Terminals at different locations help mitigate risks linked with a specific regional or national market.
Consolidation and Scale Increases: Major Port Terminal Acquisitions since 2005
Date Transaction Price compared to EBITDA
2005 DP World takes over CSX World Terminals
14 times
Early 2006 PSA acquires a 20% stake in HPH 17 timesMid 2006 DP World acquires P&O Ports 19 timesMid 2006 Goldman Sachs Consortium acquires
ABP14.5 times
End 2006 AIG acquires P&O Ports North America 24 times
Early 2007 Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund acquires OOIL Terminals
23.5 times
Mid 2007 RREEF acquires Maher Terminals 25 times
EBITDA = Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization
The Strategies of Port Operators
Financial Assets Large financial assets and the capacity to tap global financial markets. Terminals as equity generating returns.
Managerial Expertise Experience in the management of containerized operations.IT and compliance with a variety of procedures.
Gateway Access Establishing hinterland access.Creation of a “stronghold”.Provides a stable flow of containerized shipments.Development of related inland logistics activities.
Leverage Negotiate with maritime shippers and inland freight transport companies favorable conditions.Some are subsidiaries of maritime shipping companies.
Traffic Capture Capture and maintain traffic for their terminals.
Global Perspective Comprehensive view of the state of the industry.Anticipate developments and opportunities.
Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of the Rhine-Scheldt Delta, 2010
DP World
PSAHUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS
APM Terminals(AP Moller Group)
ANTWERP
Antwerp Gateway
PSA (Antwerp/
Zeebrugge)
MSC Home terminal
CHZ
APM Terminal
ZEEBRUGGE
ROTTERDAM
Rotterdam World Gateway(Maasvlakte 2)
Operational by 2013
ECT
APM Terminal Maasvlakte CMA-CGM
MSC
NYK
Terminal 1(Maasvlakte 2)
Operational by 2014
Minority Shareholding
Waal- and Eemhaven
Delta Terminal
Euromax phase 1
Majorityshareholding
ZIM Line
DP World Delwaidedock
North Sea Terminal
Europe Terminal
Deurganck Terminal
New World Alliance
CYKH Alliance
Antwerp International Terminal (AIT) Shipping Line
(Global) Terminal Operator
Terminal
Shanghai International Port
Group (SIPG)
Albert II-dock north (under construction)
Cosco Pacific
100%
20%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
50%
60%
30%
10%
100%
100%
100%
50%50%
100%
42.5%10%
20%
10%
35%
100%
65%
75%
25%
PORT
Financial Holding
Partnerships of multiple stakeholders
Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of North America, 2010
LONG BEACH
LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK
APM Terminals Port Elizabeth
Port Newark Container Terminal
Maher Terminal
Global Terminal and Container Services
New York Container Terminal
APM Terminals(AP Moller Group)
Maher Terminals
Ports America
100%
100%
Global Container Terminals
100%
Pacific Container Terminal
Total Terminals International
California United Terminals
Pier G Berth
Long Beach Container Terminal
Terminal A
Terminal C60
Global Gateway South
APM Terminals Pier 400
Evergreen Terminal
TraPac Los Angeles Berth 136
Yusen Terminals
West Basin Container Terminal
Stevedoring Services of America
Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan
100%
Cosco Pacific 51% 49%
100%
Hanjin
AIG Highstar Capital
Deutsche Bank RREEF
Macquarie Infrastructure
60% 40%
50%
Hyundai
100%
100%
K-Lines 100%
OOIL 100%
MSC 50%
APL
Evergreen 50% 50%
Yangming
100%
40% 60%
Mitsui OSK 100%
NYK 100%
100%
Shipping Line Terminal Operator Terminal PORT Financial Holding
100%
Japanese, Taiwanese & Korean(Export-oriented strategy) “Financialized” Stevedores
ZHUHAI
Inter-firm Relationships in the Main Container Ports of the Pearl River Delta, 2010
HONG KONG
Asia Container Terminals
DP World Hong Kong
Hong Kong International Terminals
COSCO-HIT Terminal
Moderns Terminals
Asia Port Services
SHENZHEN
Chiwan Container Terminal
Shekou Container Terminals
Da Chan Bay Terminal One
Yantian International Container Terminals
Zhuhai International Container Terminals
GUANGZHOU
Dongguan Container Terminal
Guangzhou South China Oceangate Container
Terminal
Nansha Container Terminal
Guangzhou Huangpu Xingang Terminal
Guangzhou Huangpu Xinsha Terminal
Nanhai International Container Terminals
HUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS
PSA
DP World
Cosco Pacific39%APM Terminals(AP Moller Group)
20%
China Shipping Group
40%
50%
50%
50%
ModernTerminals China Merchants
Holdings International
49%
70%
49%
55%
66% 33%
67% 20%
100%
33%10%
10%
80%20%
Shipping Line Terminal Operator Terminal PORT Financial Holding
75%25%
65%
Guangzhou Port Group
Shenzhen Municipal Government
41%
60%
35%
Shenzhen Yantian Port Group
30%
Joint Ventures (TO / Local Government)
Container Terminals of the World's Four Major Port Holdings, 2009
Importance of ‘home port’ (2009)PSA: Singapore = 44.2% of global non-equity based throughput. DP World: Dubai = 25.3% of global non-equity based throughput. HPH: Hong Kong = 16.5% of global non-equity based throughput.
Regional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Four Main Global Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2009)
APM
DPW
PSA
HPH
0% 10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AfricaAustraliaNorth AmericaSouth America / Car-ibbeanPacific AsiaSouth Asia / Middle EastMediterraneanEurope Atlantic
Container Terminals of the World's Regional Port Holdings, 2009
Regional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of Some Regional Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2009)
ERG
EVG
HAN
ICTSI
SSA
PAM
Cosco
0% 10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AfricaAustraliaNorth AmericaSouth America / Car-ibbeanPacific AsiaSouth Asia / Middle EastMediterraneanEurope Atlantic
Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development
Commodity Chain
Port Holding
HorizontalIntegration
Intermediate hub
InlandPortPort
PortRail / BargeDistribution Center
Inland Modes and Terminals
Distribution Centers
Maritime Shipping
Port Terminal Operations
Terminal
Maritime Services
Inland Services
Port Services
VerticalIntegration
World’s Main Intermediate Hubs, 2008
17.2%62.0%
18.6%
2.2%
Liner Shipping Port Calls, 2009
DirectOne TransshipmentTwo TransshipmentsThree Transshipments
Conclusion
■ The “four sisters” (HPH, APM, PSA and DPW)• Analogies with the oil industry (oligopoly).• Strong multinational portfolio; each market is regional.• Standardization of management practices.• Multiplying effects to the functional and operational benefits
brought by containerization.■ Two major and complementary roles• Gateways:
• Linking global and regional freight distribution systems.• Complex stake holding at the port and in the hinterland.
• Intermediary hubs:• Connecting different systems of maritime circulation.• Single GTOs played a preponderant role.
• Both account for terminal growth and profitability.
Conclusion
■ Vertical integration, horizontal integration and portfolio diversification• Maritime shipping companies:
• Secure traffic for their networks.• Profitability of both seaside and landside operations.
• Stevedore companies:• Expanded from their base port or region.• Diversify and replicate their business model.
• Financial holdings:• Valuation and revenue generation.
• Organic growth (new terminals) and M&A of existing facilities (and operators):• Common strategies.• GTO differ little from their manufacturing and retail counterparts in
view of globalization.
Conclusion
■ Future expectations• Part of business cycles.• Diminishing returns.• Fast growth, mergers and acquisitions:
• Underlines that the industry may be close to achieve a level of maturity.
• Convergence towards a common business model?• Shift in the corporate geography of GTOs:
• Then: Dynamics oriented towards expansion.• Now: Rationalization, performance improvements and the search for
niche markets (segmentation).
top related