Factories that rely on American markets are already feeling the cold hand of recession as shippers cancel orders and US shippers assess their options in an effort to minimise the worst effects of tariffs.

SeatradeMaritime New Nick Savvides, Europe correspondent April 23, 2025

According to analyst Jon Monroe, currently in Shanghai, the feeling is that the trade dispute will “blow over” in a couple of months and normal business will resume, however, what happens if this optimistic view does not come to pass, asks Monroe?

“Some factories, particularly those reliant on US orders, have shuttered their operations entirely. Many more are grappling with abrupt order cancellations and an atmosphere of uncertainty that makes future planning nearly impossible,” said Monroe.

According to Monroe, the tariffs on imports and the additional Section 301 costs from the fees that will be imposed in less than six months could mean that America is, “staring down the barrel of a full-scale trade freeze”.

The analyst further asks if the US public is, “truly prepared for empty shelves at major retailers? Because if the current trajectory continues unchecked, that could very well be our new reality.”

As time passes and the trade dispute remains unresolved there is an increasing air of uncertainty in the US and in US businesses.

The trade war has thrown business leaders and their forecasts into disarray: “Companies across multiple sectors, from consumer electronics to automotive and retail, are now struggling to plan for inventory, pricing, and supply chain logistics amid an unpredictable policy environment,” claimed Monroe.

If shippers are scratching their heads, their service providers are, for once, in sync with the carriers also reassessing how they should serve the US market, according to MDS Transmodal analyst Antonella Teodoro.

“While the proposed fees on Chinese-built vessels won’t be enforced until later in 2025, several shipping lines ought to start exploring potential workarounds to limit their exposure. Among the most plausible responses are supply chain diversification strategies, with operators seeking to preserve market access while avoiding or delaying the cost burden associated with the new US port fee regime,” said Teodoro.

Several options could be available to the lines, said Teodoro, including a hub and spoke reconfiguration of services, with Chinese-built vessels calling at regional ports and their cargo shipped to the US via a feeder or shuttle service.

Another possibility is to use slot agreements with alliance partners, a system that might benefit COSCO, whose fleet is particularly exposed to the Section 301 rules.

Other options could be to ship freight to Mexican and/or Canadian ports and to use road and rail to deliver cargo to US destinations, thereby avoiding the port call fees, but Teodoro points out that this adds to the costs and complexity of supply chains.

“While the full administrative framework around the new fees is still emerging, carriers are clearly exploring various ways to soften the potential commercial impact. Whether these adaptations lead to long-term structural shifts or remain temporary measures will depend on how aggressively the policy is implemented – and how the market responds,” concluded Teodoro.

Splash247.com Sam Chambers April 23, 2025

Non-Chinese shipowners can breathe a sigh of relief that they can still order most ship types risk-free in China, according to HSBC, following last week’s decision by the US Trade Representative to water down penalties on Chinese-linked tonnage. 

The competitiveness of Chinese yards remains intact, according to the global bank. 

“The diluted port fees will reduce the uncertainty on newbuild decisions for non-Chinese carriers which should be positive for Chinese shipyards,” HSBC suggested, with Splash reporting yesterday that Mediterranean Shipping Co (MSC), the world’s largest containerline, has been one of the first companies to head back to China for orders, signing for six 22,000 teu newbuilds at Hengli Heavy Industry. 

The USTR decided to ease the most punitive measures against Chinese-linked tonnage following a public hearing last month, which attracted huge criticism. 

The less severe financial penalties – for non-Chinese owners – have reduced any potential competitive advantage that had emerged for Korean yards under the initial USTR proposal, HSBC pointed out. 

“We continue to expect Chinese yards to maintain their leading position in most vessel segments,” HSBC maintained in a shipbuilding update, arguing that pending new orders for Chinese yards will resume especially with the price gap emerging versus their Korean and Japanese peers lately. 

“While the [USTR] announcement is thorough, its vague language creates uncertainty, making it difficult to assess the full scope and implementation of the proposed fees,” analysis from Greece’s Xclusiv Shipbrokers suggested. 

Subject to a scheduled public hearing on May 19 and a subsequent final ruling, the proposed US port fees are scheduled to come into effect on October 14, with a gradual three-year phase-in period. 

Splash247.com Sam Chambers April 21, 2025

Shipping spent the weekend digesting the news from the US where watered down plans to charge China-linked ships extra for American port calls have created considerable outrage in Beijing and Hong Kong, while causing consternation for members of the Ocean Alliance, one of the big groupings in container shipping. 

The 42-page document released by the US Trade Representative (USTR) has been pored over by world shipping and has attracted criticism for its lack of clarity.

“The USTR announcement is detailed but poorly worded, leaving certain aspects open to interpretation,” noted broker Arrow. 

Under the new rules announced late last Thursday by the USTR, non-Chinese shipowners will be charged the higher of two calculated fees: a tonnage -based fee, starting at $18 per net ton as of October 14, 2025, and gradually increasing to $33 per net ton by April 17, 2028, or a container-based fee, starting at $120 per container discharged on October 14, 2025, that will increase to $250 per container by April 17, 2028. Non-US-built ships carrying cars will be charged $150 per vehicle.

The fees will be applied once each voyage on affected ships, a maximum of six times a year.

Temporary suspension of the fee—up to a maximum of three years—may be granted if the vessel owner orders and takes delivery of a US-built ship of equal or greater net tonnage.

Exemptions apply to smaller vessels, ships on domestic voyages as well as to the Caribbean and in the Great Lakes, and certain specialised vessel types. Also exempt are empty bulk carriers arriving at US ports to load up with exports such as wheat and soybeans. The measures do not apply to container vessels smaller than 4,000 teu. They also do not apply to voyages shorter than 2,000 nautical miles.

Chinese shipowners and operators do look to be hit with far higher bills. They will initially be charged $50 per net ton, rising by $30 a ton each year for the next three years.

According to Clarksons, in terms of 2024 port calls, only 7% of containerships would be subject to the new fees as compared to 83% under the initial USTR proposal published in February, which came in for heavy criticism at a public hearing in March. Across all shipping, only 9% of 2024 port calls would be subject to these new fees versus 43% under the prior proposal. 

“Under this policy US crude oil, refined products, LNG, LPG, chemicals, coal and grains exports should see little impact; containers will see some disruption but not as previously feared; car carriers however will see an impact given all foreign ships will be subject to port fees of $150 per ceu,” shipping analysts at Jefferies, an American investment bank, summed up. 

The way the fees have targeted Chinese operators could see big shifts on the transpacific liner trades in particular. 

China’s COSCO and OOCL are part of the Ocean Alliance along with France’s CMA CGM and Taiwan’s Evergreen. Hede Shipping is another niche independent Chinese operator on the transpacific. 

Calculations by Sea-Intelligence, a Danish liner consultancy, suggest these three Chinese liners could be hit with US port fees of as high as $10m when the USTR fees are fully phased in, something that could see the Ocean Alliance shuffle operations, whereby CMA CGM and Evergreen handle the US-bound services and relegate COSCO and OOCL to Asia-Europe.

The World Shipping Council (WSC), a liner lobby group, has hit out at the new fees, especially on the car-carrying ones. 

“Unfortunately, the fee regime announced by USTR is a step in the wrong direction as it will raise prices for consumers, weaken US trade and do little to revitalise the US maritime industry,” said Joe Kramek, president and CEO of the WSC.

Structuring fees based on ship size — net tonnage — disproportionately penalises larger, more efficient vessels, the WSC argued while the fees on car carriers, including a new and previously unannounced fee based on car equivalent unit (ceu) capacity, will, according to the WSC, slow US economic growth and raise car prices for American consumers.

WSC also flagged significant legal concerns, noting that the proposed fees appear to extend beyond the authority granted under US trade law.

The Chinese government, shipbuilding and shipping associations, along with COSCO, have all condemned Trump’s port fees.

China’s national shipbuilding association called on the international maritime industry to “jointly resist this short-sighted US behaviour, and jointly maintain a fair market environment”.

The China Shipowners Association said the US move is “significantly discriminatory,” and the association “firmly opposes the US’ accusations based on false facts and prejudice”.

COSCO, meanwhile, said: “The move is not conducive to fair competition and normal business operation order in the global shipping industry.” 

“Such measures not only distort fair competition and impede the normal functioning of the global shipping industry, but also threaten its stable and sustainable development. Ultimately, these actions risk undermining the security, resilience, and orderly operation of global industrial and supply chains,” COSCO said. 

The Ministry of Commerce in Beijing vowed to “resolutely take necessary measures to safeguard our own interests”, saying the fees “fully reveal the essence of its unilateralist and protectionist policies, and are typical, non-market practices”.

In Hong Kong, home to the world’s fourth-largest shipping register, shipowners are assessing whether to reflag. 

The Hong Kong government said that despite the US’s “bullying,” it will continue to work with global maritime partners to safeguard free trade principles and promote the healthy development of the international shipping industry.

Reading into the minutiae of the USTR report, Andrew Craig-Bennett, Splash’s lead columnist, advised: “Shipping companies incorporated in Hong Kong, Shanghai, or anywhere else in China will have to take another approach and I see much to commend the use of the time charter agreement or, where appropriate, the cross slot charter agreement, duly amended.”

On LinkedIn, Dr Martin Kröger, the CEO of the German Shipowners’ Association, wrote: “The German shipping sector, like many others, will pay a steep price. More costs. More friction. More political games where merchants and consumers become collateral damage.

Splash247.com  Sam Chambers April 21, 2025

With trade between the world’s two largest economies effectively coming to a halt thanks to US president Donald Trump’s tariff war with China, containerlines are blanking sailings on a greater scale than was witnessed at the onset of the covid pandemic five years ago. The global trade outlook – as witnessed by planned blank sailings on the transpacific in the weeks ahead – is dire. 

China responded 10 days ago to Trump’s cumulative 145% tariffs, placing 125% tariffs on US products, effectively foregoing business between the two countries.

Blank sailings occur when ocean carriers skip scheduled port calls due to low freight demand or equipment shortages, disrupting supply chains. In April 2025, over 80 blank sailings were reported, surpassing the 51 from May 2020, signalling a severe collapse in global shipping activity.

Looking at the carriers’ decisions to blank sailings is a good proxy, with which to assess how booking uptake unfolds, as a consequence of the trade war.

The Sea-Intelligence Blank Sailings Tracker measures, on a weekly basis, the number of planned sailings which are blanked for the coming 12 weeks, as well as the capacity taking out due to this blanking.

The latest data from Sea-Intelligence, described as “staggering” in a weekly report published yesterday, shows that carriers anticipate container demand for week 18, next week, on the Asia to US west coast trade lane will be 28% lower than expected, while for week 19, carriers are expecting shippers to move as much as 42% less cargo than anticipated on the Asia to US east coast trade lane. 

“It is evident that the impact of the trade war has caused many shippers to pause, or outright cancel, shipments. In turn, this reduces demand for capacity on container vessels and carriers respond by cancelling bookings,” Sea-Intelligence noted. 

Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, a box booking platform, commented: “The near term need to blank sailings out of China and possibly increase services from other origins may prove challenging for ocean carriers and cause delays for shippers, with empty containers concentrated in China likely to pose a challenge too.”

“For the smaller niche carriers, the trade war is particularly destructive,” Sea-Intelligence warned in an earlier report. “Most of them rely on large volumes from China on their services and are not well equipped to suddenly switch to alternate non-Chinese origin cargo. For some of these we can potentially expect full-service closures, for the duration of the trade war.”

ID 157458243 © Mikesimon25 | Dreamstime.com

By Gavin van Marle, The Loadstar,  01/11/2024

Container shipping lines on the main east-west trades this week managed to reverse 15 weeks of consecutive declines in spot freight rates by managing to push through a general rate increase on ex-Asia loadings.

This week’s Drewry World Container Index (WCI) saw the spot rate on the Shanghai-Rotterdam leg rise 8% week on week, to $3,396 per 40ft, while the Shanghai-Genoa leg grew 11%, to $3,648 per 40ft.

One European forwarder told The Loadstar the hike was largely due to a 1 November general rate increase that was applied last week for bookings on shipments due to be loaded in Asia from today – for example, MSC notified customers in October that its new FAK rate from 1 November was $5,000 per 40ft from Asia to North Europe.

“The GRIs we saw applied last week are already being reduced, and we do not expect these rates to maintain beyond November. It seems more an attempt to slow the decline in rates after Golden week,” he said.

“Feedback from customers who move cargo on these lanes is that they have enough stock now and demand will be low for the next three months – so we can’t see any reason why rate levels will maintain elevated levels, longer-term.

“Bookings have been a little tight, but this was due to the blank sailings not extra demand from customers,” he explained.

An analysis of the eeSea liner database shows that, of 168 liner services scheduled to operate Asia-North Europe and Asia-Mediterranean services in October, only 147 actually set sail, the remaining 21 sailings being blanked.

This had the effect of reducing capacity on the trades by around 300,000 teu, the scheduled 1.88m teu reduced to 1.57m teu.

A further attempt at hiking Asia-Europe rate levels is scheduled for 15 November, although the quantum varies considerably among carriers: MSC has notified a new FAK rate of 5,500 per 40ft for Asia-North Europe shipments; Hapag-Lloyd has announced $3,500 per 40ft for North Europe and $3,700 to west Mediterranean; and CMA CGM is aiming for $5,700 per 40ft on Asia-West Mediterranean shipments.

However, Xeneta chief analyst Peter Sand described the spot rate hikes as “desperate”, and said they were part of carriers’ negotiating strategy as shippers and lines begin to discuss 2025 contracts, which typically run January-December on Asia-Europe.

“Tender season for new long-term contracts is already under way for many European shippers, so it is no coincidence these are the trades where carriers are fighting so hard to keep the spot market elevated in the hope it strengthens their hand at the negotiating table.

“European shippers may be spooked by the uptick in average spot rates on these trades at the beginning of November, but it is clear the fundamental direction of the market is downward.

“That is why it is vitally important that European shippers pay close attention to market developments during November, because these desperate efforts by carriers to push up spot rates are unlikely to succeed for too long, and it could have a significant bearing on the long-term rates they secure for new contracts coming into force in January,” he said.

Elsewhere, spot rates on the transpacific and transatlantic trades were unchanged, week on week.

ID 341071298 © Mariusz Bugno | Dreamstime.com

By Gavin van Marle, The Loadstar, 25/10/2024

Container spot freight rates on the main export routes out of China continued to fall this week, with declines seen on both the transpacific and Asia-Europe trades.

The trend of declining spot freight rates was bucked, however, on the transatlantic, where Drewry’s World Container Index (WCI) recorded a 28% week-on-week increase, to $2,663 per 40ft, on its Rotterdam-New York leg.

And the backhaul New York-Rotterdam leg price rose 4%, to $761 per 40ft, as forwarders claimed pre-US east coast strike surcharges have had an inflationary effect on pricing this month.

“In a nutshell, carriers successfully implemented a PSS in September, due to strong demand and less capacity,” one vastly experienced UK-based transatlantic forwarder told The Loadstar.

“They then introduced ‘workforce disruption surcharges’ in anticipation of the strike’s impact on the USEC and Gulf – but in the end they were waived or only applied for a very short period before being removed, as the strike ended quickly.

“Some spot rates have gone up, and we still see strong demand and capacity constraints as the congestion caused from the short strike flushes through,” the forwarder added.

Meanwhile, Xeneta data also shows a jump in rates in early September and October on the transatlantic headhaul leg, and lead analyst Peter Sand told The Loadstar “we expect sideways development for the beginning of November”, adding that reduced capacity had also played a part.

He explained: “In September and October, carriers deployed 6%-7% less capacity than in previous months, and this seems to continue in November, if the same level of blanked sailings comes about.

“Demand is steady on this trade, but was probably a little elevated in September due to front-loading, and spot rates reacted to this by going higher.

“As the strike threat is gone for now, we expect uncertainty to keep the rate above the level seen in August into the new year,” he added.

The WCI’s Shanghai-Rotterdam leg shed 7% during the week, to finish at $3,123 per 40ft, while its Shanghai-Genoa leg declined 4%, to finish at $3,296 per 40ft.

Xeneta’s XSI Far East-Europe short term rate this week stood at $3,253 per 40ft.

It was similar picture on the transpacific, where the WCI’s Shanghai-Los Angeles leg dropped 3% week on week, to $4,814 per 40ft, while the Shanghai-New York leg lost 6% week on week, to $5,266 per 40ft.

Mr Sand said the continued Asia-North America rate declines were due to growing overcapacity on the trade, as they have occurred against a background of near-record demand.

“Container imports into the US west coast in August were the second-highest on record, and beaten only by May 2021 during the peak of Covid-19.

“Volumes fell 3.4% in September from August as the market moved past its import peak, but it was still an all-time high for September, and the sixth-highest of any month on record.

However, according to Sea-Intelligence data, in the third quarter, carriers deployed 19% more capacity than in Q2, and 17% more compared with the same period last year.

“But have they overshot?” asked Mr Sand. “The spot market would suggest so, with average freight rates falling 10.4% in September and a further 6.4% in October. Looking ahead to November, there appears to be little change in the capacity offered to shippers and freight forwarders on this trade, even when allowing for some announced blank sailings.

“Unless carriers act more decisively to match offered container shipping capacity to demand, through more blank sailings or outright cancelling of peak season services, then short-term market rates are likely to erode at an even faster pace than seen in October,” he concluded.

By Martina Li in Taiwan, The Loadstar, 04/11/2024

China International Marine Containers (CIMC), the world’s largest container manufacturer, said its output in the first nine months of the year rose five-fold after the Red Sea crisis sparked resurgent demand.

From output of 2,490,000 boxes, (including 93,400 reefers, up 17%) revenue rose 36% year on year, to CNY128.97bn ($18.37bn), while net profit nearly doubled, to CNY2.73bn ($388.35m).

CIMC said: “In the first three quarters, global container trade demand rebounded. Clarksons recently forecast that global container trade will increase significantly, from 0.7% in 2023 to 5.2% in 2024, and it is expected that such trade will continue grow, by 2.8%, in 2025.

“To manage the risk of container shortages caused by the prolonged Red Sea crisis, port strikes and other uncertain events, customers are more willing to order new containers.

“Although there are still risks and challenges, the trend of continued growth in trade volume is expected to remain unchanged. At the same time, international inflation has cooled down, and the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate cut has led many central banks worldwide to follow suit, stimulating a recovery in consumer spending.”

Drewry expects 2024 to be the second-highest year on record for dry freight container manufacturing, driven by record production in Q2 24, while in July alone, more than 850,000 teu was delivered from Chinese manufacturers, which have reported being busy until this month.

The provision for getting containers in numbers at locations where they are required has become a challenge, because of the strong exports from Asia, congestion at transhipment ports and declining container turnover, due to the extended sailing times caused by the Red Sea crisis that has seen ships detour round the Cape of Good Hope.

In particular, the availability of 40ft containers, the workhorses of the industry, has become increasingly tight, with more needed to move the same volume of cargo. In the first seven months of the year, 1.4m were delivered, compared with just 125,000 in the same period of 2023, indicating a tenfold surge.

© Mr.siwabud Veerapaisarn

By Charlie Bartlett technology editor, The Loadstar 17/10/2024

Some three million teu of new tonnage arriving next year will most likely be “more than offset” by further market disruption, ensuring no respite for embattled shippers, according to Drewry.

As the prospect of more US east coast port strikes remains uncertain, the maritime consultancy drew up scenarios with a strike in January and without one, and found that in both models, freight rates would continue to rise.

Port strikes “will have significant inflationary impact on spot rates, not just on the US connected trade, but also by contagion on the other trades”, said Drewry’s Philip Damas.

“If there is no port strike, some spot rates will decline, but overall we believe there will be sufficient other factors, such as the increased emission trading system carbon taxes, which will increase by 75% from January.”

He added: “So it’s a bit of a return to increases in rates at a slow rate. Now, I should stress that global freight rates increased by 87% between pre-pandemic 2019 and this year, up 87% on average.

“Even if the Suez Canal reopens, we do not expect container freight rates will go back to pre-pandemic levels.”

Mr Damas acknowledged that a reopened Red Sea would increase shipping capacity by about 25%. But Drewry does not expect this to happen, rather that the disruption and Cape of Good Hope routing will continue until at least 2026.

“We have extended the timeline for a resumption of full-scale Suez Canal transits to 2026,” confirmed Mr Damas.

“We anticipated previously that it would be resolved by the first half of 2025… we’re seeing escalating tensions in the Middle East and we don’t see any reason to be optimistic on this front.”

On top of the strain from the Red Sea and possible strikes across the US east coast, next year’s reconfiguration of shipping alliances is expected to cause an additional setback, with Mr Damas describing MSC as “a sort of quasi single-carrier network alliance”.

“Watch for the schedule integrity of Gemini, which will be consumer-dependent,” he advised. “We have said in the past based on our experience, that container transshipment operations can quickly get caught up with delays and missed connections.”

By Charlotte Goldstone, The Loadstar 10/10/2024

Maersk has warned of an “operational meltdown” when carriers are able to use the Suez Canal again.

The Danish liner, along with Hapag-Lloyd, announced their hub-and-spoke Gemini Cooperation services would go round the Cape of Good Hope instead of the still-volatile Red Sea. 

Maersk told customers yesterday: “After thorough consideration, and given the continued safety concerns in the Red Sea, Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk confirm they expect to phase-in their Cape of Good Hope network for the commencement of the Gemini Cooperation on 1 February 2025.” 

Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl told reporters at the UK port of Felixstowe yesterday the reason for the decision, some four months before Gemini launches, “is to enable customers to do their operational planning”.  

He explained: “They need to know what their lead times are, when they’re planning when they can have their things in the store… We want to give them as much opportunity [as possible] to plan their operations.” 

Hapag-Lloyd told The Loadstar it would plan for “an orderly transition [to Suez Canal transits] to be executed as fast as circumstances allow”, but added that “many currently unknown factors” made it impossible to predict exactly when.  

Mr Kildahl said: “You cannot just flip-flop. What we’ve seen in the past is that it looked safe, people tried to go through, but it wasn’t safe and you undo it.  

“One of the things our customers keep telling us is that they need stability and predictability of their flows to be able to plan their business. It’s not in their interest to suddenly have their cargo arrive,” he said.  

And Mr Karsten added: “The moment the canal opens, the havoc is going to start, because you will have [many] vessels coming in at the same time. 

“Vessels that left Asia two weeks earlier will clash with vessels that leave Asia. So, if you think it was a nightmare operation when the canal closed, it’s nothing compared to what it’s going to look like when it opens again. 

“At that point, we will have several weeks, I would even say a couple of months, when you have something that will look like an operational meltdown. And we don’t take this lightly,” he added. 

The Gemini carriers are targeting a schedule reliability of above 90%, once fully phased-in, and Hapag-Lloyd told The Loadstar that “remains unchanged”.  

“Our Cape of Good Hope network follows the same design principles as our Suez network and will not compromise the reliability or efficiency of our services. We’ve ensured that our services will remain flexible, efficient and resilient, despite the disruptions in the Red Sea region,” a spokesperson said. 

Its Cape network will include 29 mainliner services, supported by 28 intra-regional shuttle services, operated by a fleet of around 340 vessels with a total capacity of 3.7m teu. 

If the services had been able to use the Suez Canal, the network would comprise 27 ocean mainliner services with 300 vessels.  

However, last month Maersk told customers mainline services would be supported by 30 intra-regional shuttle services – two more than was announced yesterday. A spokesperson told The Loadstar the change was in the European shuttle network.

“Two shuttles in the Nordics were merged into one and another was extended to Italy, therefore making another one obsolete.” 

Photo: Maersk

By Charlotte Goldstone, The Loadstar 22/10/2024

AP Møller-Maersk has raised its full-year earnings guidance amid “strong container market demand”.  

The Danish carrier said “on the back of strong third-quarter results combined with strong container market demand and the continuation of the Red Sea situation” it has upped its full-year ebitda forecast to between $11bn and $11.5bn.  

This is up from its previous estimate of between $9bn and $11bn.  

Maersk also raised its predicted ebit to sit between $5.2bn-$5.7bn from $3bn-$5bn. 

Its free cash flow is expected to be “at least” $3bn in 2024, an increase on the $2bn prediction it made in early August.  

This earnings update paints a significantly rosier picture for the carrier than from the start of this year, with expected ebitda now up by some $5bn since its first forecast in May.  

At that point, Maersk’s 2024 outlook for ebitda was between $4bn-$6bn, with ebit between $-2bn to $0bn and free cash flow of at least $-2bn.  

Its new outlook has been based on preliminary unaudited figures for Q3 24. During this period, Maersk reported revenue of $15.8bn, underlying ebitda of $4.8bn and underlying ebit of $3.3bn. 

Further, the outlook for the global container market volume growth for the full year has been revised to “around 6%” from the previous 4%-6%. 

While Maersk has been upping its full-year earnings guidance each quarter, it noted that this was due to the continued effect of the Red Sea crisis.  

It said in May that “oversupply remains a challenge and will eventually prevail, but the impact is delayed”.  

Maersk will publish its full Q3 interim results on 31 October.