Author Topic: SSW - Seaspan  (Read 95909 times)

DooDiligence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Hero due to post count (No superpowers as of 2017)
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #480 on: December 26, 2016, 09:28:47 PM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_tonnage
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnage

I think you cracked my case. The GT figure is the carrying capacity (a weight), determined by the internal volume of the vessel (including the crew's quarters). That's not exactly the same as the ship's mass. Howver, i found a PowerPoint from an industry conference that stated an average of 0.46 as the ratio of GT to LDT (for avg container) but didn't think it made sense at first if GT was volume based. I didn't realize there were multiple GT definitions. Also, I know SSW just scrapped a 4600 TEU vessel for $6.4m, which is why I think GT is too high to be the mass/displacement. The 0.46 coefficient helps me get close to the actual data point so I think I'm in good shape.

Hopefully I can get a hold of SSW on Tuesday and confirm. Good to know the industry lingo for when I do. Also, thanks for the heads up on other metals. I was assuming any non-steel mass would be trivial. I might be pm'ing you next week to confirm some stuff.

What guy decided to name all mass and volume definitions, "tonnage"?

I think long ton, but LDT is in mefric tons and they are close enough for an estimate

The tonnage & metric thing can get confusing.

Here in the GOM all the rigs talk standard "how many gallons/barrels of fuel/water/mud you got for me?"

Overseas instead of pumping 25,000 gallons of fuel, it's 95 cubes.

Personally I prefer metric (1000 gallons of fresh water = 1 cubic meter = 1 MT & for other liquids you multiple volume by specific gravity for weight) gotta know actual cargo weights for stability calcs.

I've never thought of salvage before...
abev | aapl | bbh | cri | ew | esrx | nsrgy | nvo | rgr | trow | vde

Uccmal

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3423
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #481 on: December 27, 2016, 06:32:14 AM »
Not to sidetrack your discussion guys but SSW jist bought 4 or 5 recent vintage ships of the 4500-5000 size.  They bought them at scrap prices and plan on putting them to work.  I lost the link - when I find it again I will post.  It was in one of the trade magazines.  SSW didn''t post it on their site or news release it.  It is non-material I guess.  Management is a little schizophrenic, but there may be some rationale in scrapping a ship and taking the tax loss on it, and then buying others on the cheap.

I have picked up a few shares on the cheap, well after my tax wash, and expect at least a 50% cut when they next announce the divdend (my smallest position in my portfolio)  I would like to see them turn EPS profitable, if it is possible. 
Saving 75 -100 mil. on the dividend would help.  I also expect alot more writedowns on their smaller, older fleet, still. 

GARP tending toward value

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 997
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #482 on: December 27, 2016, 06:58:01 AM »
Not to sidetrack your discussion guys but SSW jist bought 4 or 5 recent vintage ships of the 4500-5000 size.  They bought them at scrap prices and plan on putting them to work.  I lost the link - when I find it again I will post.  It was in one of the trade magazines.  SSW didn''t post it on their site or news release it.  It is non-material I guess.  Management is a little schizophrenic, but there may be some rationale in scrapping a ship and taking the tax loss on it, and then buying others on the cheap.

I have picked up a few shares on the cheap, well after my tax wash, and expect at least a 50% cut when they next announce the divdend (my smallest position in my portfolio)  I would like to see them turn EPS profitable, if it is possible. 
Saving 75 -100 mil. on the dividend would help.  I also expect alot more writedowns on their smaller, older fleet, still.

Was it the MSC vessels (Carole, Veronique, Manu, and Leanne)? Looks like they bought them for $5m/vessel coming off bareboat charters. I know they had purchased 2 and were expected to purchase the other 2 in Nov or Dec. It was a pre-arranged deal but it's perfect timing. Seaspan Efficiency was just scrapped for $6.4m at slightly lower scrap rates so these vessels probably have excess value.

DooDiligence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Hero due to post count (No superpowers as of 2017)
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #483 on: December 27, 2016, 07:53:03 AM »
I just noticed that the C Japan is only 6 years old.

Why would they scrap a practically new boat? Operational or maintenance issues?
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 07:56:45 AM by DooDiligence »
abev | aapl | bbh | cri | ew | esrx | nsrgy | nvo | rgr | trow | vde

Uccmal

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3423
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #484 on: December 27, 2016, 01:39:12 PM »
Not to sidetrack your discussion guys but SSW jist bought 4 or 5 recent vintage ships of the 4500-5000 size.  They bought them at scrap prices and plan on putting them to work.  I lost the link - when I find it again I will post.  It was in one of the trade magazines.  SSW didn''t post it on their site or news release it.  It is non-material I guess.  Management is a little schizophrenic, but there may be some rationale in scrapping a ship and taking the tax loss on it, and then buying others on the cheap.

I have picked up a few shares on the cheap, well after my tax wash, and expect at least a 50% cut when they next announce the divdend (my smallest position in my portfolio)  I would like to see them turn EPS profitable, if it is possible. 
Saving 75 -100 mil. on the dividend would help.  I also expect alot more writedowns on their smaller, older fleet, still.

Was it the MSC vessels (Carole, Veronique, Manu, and Leanne)? Looks like they bought them for $5m/vessel coming off bareboat charters. I know they had purchased 2 and were expected to purchase the other 2 in Nov or Dec. It was a pre-arranged deal but it's perfect timing. Seaspan Efficiency was just scrapped for $6.4m at slightly lower scrap rates so these vessels probably have excess value.

Yes, that would be it.  tx..
GARP tending toward value

Uccmal

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3423
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #485 on: December 27, 2016, 01:45:29 PM »
I just noticed that the C Japan is only 6 years old.

Why would they scrap a practically new boat? Operational or maintenance issues?

They never said the reason.  I read that entire section of the Q filing, and went away thinking it was because they couldn't recharter it.  I could be confused. 

Your the ship driver. :-).   Would a company scrap a newish ship because it was defective?  Wouldn't it be warrantied? 
GARP tending toward value

DooDiligence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Hero due to post count (No superpowers as of 2017)
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #486 on: December 27, 2016, 09:01:54 PM »
I just noticed that the C Japan is only 6 years old.

Why would they scrap a practically new boat? Operational or maintenance issues?

They never said the reason.  I read that entire section of the Q filing, and went away thinking it was because they couldn't recharter it.  I could be confused. 

Your the ship driver. :-).   Would a company scrap a newish ship because it was defective?  Wouldn't it be warrantied?

Throughout the oil slump; as vessels came off contract, they get warm stacked (docked here in Fourchon with minimum manning) & if they don't get chartered within a few months, they get cold stacked at our shipyard facilities in either Houma, La Rose, Gulfport or Tampa.

HOS has cold stacked a lot of their vessels right here in Fourchon at their HOSPort facility.

The much larger vessels that Seaspan operates probably can't be stacked at just any old shoreside facility but could be anchord out somewhere (they'd need some minimum manning depending on the flag state requirements & those of the port state controlling authority for the anchorage.)

Could be they had operational performance issues (major upgrades or repairs) or they'd rather take quick cash from scrapping (sounds like a value destructive move but I'm not privy to how much cash the vessel returned above & beyond outflow...)
abev | aapl | bbh | cri | ew | esrx | nsrgy | nvo | rgr | trow | vde

Uccmal

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3423
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #487 on: January 11, 2017, 06:45:48 AM »
Dividend unchanged.  I am wrong so far.  They didn't hesitate to cut it in 2009. 

Holding 7500 shares.  May just make my money back. 
GARP tending toward value

watsa_is_a_randian_hero

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #488 on: January 11, 2017, 07:22:53 AM »
Dividend unchanged.  I am wrong so far.  They didn't hesitate to cut it in 2009. 

Holding 7500 shares.  May just make my money back.

Is this indicative of the next 4 quarters?  Dont they re-evaluate annually? 

doc75

  • Lifetime Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 294
Re: SSW - Seaspan
« Reply #489 on: January 11, 2017, 07:43:51 AM »
When asked about the dividend on the last CC, I though they said that they would re-evaluate in February... so I'm not sure one should read too much into no drop as-of-yet.