Container Shipping

A Sea Change in Risk

Consolidation and related coverage issues have marine risk managers and underwriters scrambling.
By: | March 3, 2017 • 6 min read

It all seemed to happen in a heartbeat: A struggling industry went from bad to worse as one of its largest members filed for bankruptcy. Panic set in among Hanjin Shipping Co.’s customers over goods stranded at sea and litigation lawyers began lining global ports to pick up the pieces.

Suddenly, the risks posed to container shipping by overcapacity, low profitability, and volatile or inadequate pricing crystalized. What, asked other ocean shippers, did this mean for us?

Jim Blaeser pulled no punches when answering that question. In a study in February of last year, his New York employer AlixPartners warned that piecemeal cost-cutting, vessel-idling or slow-steaming in maritime container shipping would do little to curb overcapacity and stem falling profitability and precarious cash flow.

Jim Blaeser, vice president, AlixPartners

In fact, said the company VP, things would likely only get worse unless industry embraced a major alternative: consolidation.

Was AlixPartners’ prediction borne out? Well partly, said Blaeser. “The first three quarters were dismal as we called out; the fourth quarter when results are published in full by the companies should be considerably better. But I think the jury is out on whether carriers will be able to ride that wave into 2017.”

Blaeser said the idea that higher rates sustained into the Chinese New Year will chase the industry’s blues away were “wishful thinking.”

At the same time, Blaeser said, consolidation will place more and different demands on risk managers.

As fewer operators like Maersk and MSC control more capacity, “you’ll need to have a much stronger global reach for corporate control and command to ensure that your risks are understood and that they’re appropriately mitigated.”

By definition, the focus as a risk manager shifts “from your own backyard to a global field of play,” he said.

Consolidate, Communicate … Convert?

Where that field of play looms particularly large is information.

Advertisement




“Ocean freight information is just terrible across the board,” said Blaeser. That stems in part from merger integration of companies with “three, four, five systems handling different pieces of information,” such as for truck, terminal and vessel operations.

“I would argue that, as consolidation takes root and there are fewer carriers, inherently information has to get better,” Blaeser said. That may happen as rates improve and companies spend more on effective software information management tools.

Rick Roberts, director of risk management at Connecticut’s Ensign-Bickford Industries (EBI), is sufficiently alarmed by this and other news to have begun reviewing his policies and risk management strategies.

But it’s not just the risk posed by overcapacity, it’s the risk of consolidation itself.

EBI transports hazardous military goods to Europe and pet food to South America. Insufficient information and possible changes in global routes as companies merge their respective customer bases, for example, give him pause.

“I see we’re going to have some issues where routes are changing and how long it could take for our products to get places. Maybe it used to take 10 days to two weeks and now maybe it takes a month.”

For his part, Ali Rizvi, senior vice president at Marsh in Houston, said the three biggest challenges shippers face are fuel, crew and ship management. Consolidation obviously allows merged companies to use crew more efficiently and renegotiate bunker fuels, while economies of scale present opportunities for more efficient operations overall.

Ali Rizvi, senior vice president, Marsh

“But does it solve the problem of overcapacity? We don’t think so,” said Rizvi.

What may help is for the number of relatively newer ships that are scrapped each year to continue or even increase. Another crucial step will be to effectively manage both the skill sets and “culture capital” among combined crew and ship management that can be disturbed or disappear outright when companies merge.

“If you’re merging two shipping companies you want to make sure that their respective HR groups have a synergy and understand each other, put together one team that understands the needs of each of their vessels, their routes, their customers and the ports they call in,” he said.

Rizvi said some companies might consider another option: conversion from cargo to other lines of business. Shipyards, for example, said Rizvi, can’t build cruise ships quickly enough to meet demand. Very different from cargo, of course, but if it makes economic sense, why not?

Another opportunity is conversion to LNG, which is expected to thrive over the next several years with rising demand in clean energy resources.

Bigger Ships, More Complex Cargo

But the issue for Joe Sheridan is what happens if more companies like Hanjin go under, specifically claims being filed for warehouse forwarding charges to pay for discharge of cargo at dockside, temporary warehousing and a replacement vessel to get cargo to its original destination.

“That’s where the claims are really going to come into play,” said the marine specialist at Lockton cargo and logistics. How insurance policies are written will be critical to how well container shippers fare going forward, he said.

Some underwriters, for example, attach sublimits to liabilities for a single occurrence. A bigger issue, said Rizvi and Sheridan, is the stipulation in some policies that each bill of lading be insured separately, in which case multiple deductibles would apply in exigent circumstances.

Continued reliance on megaships with their massive cargo loads and numerous clients poses an obvious challenge here, said Sheridan.

“If you go out and put a $10 million limit on one cargo account and a $20 million limit on another, you don’t know how many cargo accounts you have exposure to on one vessel because these ships are so big. There’s no way they can determine that.”

Bottom line, there’s an array of marine cargo insurance policies out there written along a broad spectrum of terms and conditions and it will be up to individual underwriters to determine how  language changes or stays the same going forward.

Some underwriters and clients weren’t really hit very hard after Hanjin went under while others were, said Sheridan. But changes are definitely afoot.

“They’re asking, ‘Is this something that could happen again?’ I’ve been in this business for over 20 years and I’ve never seen anything happen of this scale and magnitude. Our argument is that shippers should take a hard look at these policies before these things happen.”

Still at Sea Over Low Demand

Blaeser was happy to see consolidation continue apace since his company’s report a year ago, notably the joint announcement that Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Nippon Yusen and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha are merging their container shipping businesses this July to begin operations in April 2018.

Advertisement




Overall, the industry will enjoy stable business from higher, compensatory freight rates as fewer hands control the capacity side, said Blaeser, while “the benefits to the manufacturers and retailers that rely on their services will be decreased volatility and more reliability in terms of services.”

“But with consolidation we’re still not out of the woods,” Blaeser added. “If fewer hands don’t manage the global fleet in a tighter manner, then those benefits won’t happen.”

Non-market forces, too, “have weighed on the market to the detriment of the ocean carrier business,” said Blaeser. Governments, in particular Asian governments, have backed companies unable to make it on their own — neglecting one crucial economic factor: global demand.

“If governments, be they American or European or wherever, reverse track on their trading policies then that will inevitably hit demand ferociously,” Blaeser said. “Where demand might be threatened, the industry absolutely has to take it seriously.” &

David Godkin is a freelance magazine writer based in Toronto. He can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Exclusive | Hank Greenberg on China Trade, Starr’s Rapid Growth and 100th, Spitzer, Schneiderman and More

In a robust and frank conversation, the insurance legend provides unique insights into global trade, his past battles and what the future holds for the industry and his company.
By: | October 12, 2018 • 12 min read

In 1960, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg was hired as a vice president of C.V. Starr & Co. At age 35, he had already accomplished a great deal.

He served his country as part of the Allied Forces that stormed the beaches at Normandy and liberated the Nazi death camps. He fought again during the Korean War, earning a Bronze Star. He held a law degree from New York Law School.

Advertisement




Now he was ready to make his mark on the business world.

Even C.V. Starr himself — who hired Mr. Greenberg and later hand-picked him as the successor to the company he founded in Shanghai in 1919 — could not have imagined what a mark it would be.

Mr. Greenberg began to build AIG as a Starr subsidiary, then in 1969, he took it public. The company would, at its peak, achieve a market cap of some $180 billion and cement its place as the largest insurance and financial services company in history.

This month, Mr. Greenberg travels to China to celebrate the 100th anniversary of C.V. Starr & Co. That visit occurs at a prickly time in U.S.-Sino relations, as the Trump administration levies tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods and China retaliates.

In September, Risk & Insurance® sat down with Mr. Greenberg in his Park Avenue office to hear his thoughts on the centennial of C.V. Starr, the dynamics of U.S. trade relationships with China and the future of the U.S. insurance industry as it faces the challenges of technology development and talent recruitment and retention, among many others. What follows is an edited transcript of that discussion.


R&I: One hundred years is quite an impressive milestone for any company. Celebrating the anniversary in China signifies the importance and longevity of that relationship. Can you tell us more about C.V. Starr’s history with China?

Hank Greenberg: We have a long history in China. I first went there in 1975. There was little there, but I had business throughout Asia, and I stopped there all the time. I’d stop there a couple of times a year and build relationships.

When I first started visiting China, there was only one state-owned insurance company there, PICC (the People’s Insurance Company of China); it was tiny at the time. We helped them to grow.

I also received the first foreign life insurance license in China, for AIA (The American International Assurance Co.). To date, there has been no other foreign life insurance company in China. It took me 20 years of hard work to get that license.

We also introduced an agency system in China. They had none. Their life company employees would get a salary whether they sold something or not. With the agency system of course you get paid a commission if you sell something. Once that agency system was installed, it went on to create more than a million jobs.

R&I: So Starr’s success has meant success for the Chinese insurance industry as well.

Hank Greenberg: That’s partly why we’re going to be celebrating that anniversary there next month. That celebration will occur alongside that of IBLAC (International Business Leaders’ Advisory Council), an international business advisory group that was put together when Zhu Rongji was the mayor of Shanghai [Zhu is since retired from public life]. He asked me to start that to attract foreign companies to invest in Shanghai.

“It turns out that it is harder [for China] to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

Shanghai and China in general were just coming out of the doldrums then; there was a lack of foreign investment. Zhu asked me to chair IBLAC and to help get it started, which I did. I served as chairman of that group for a couple of terms. I am still a part of that board, and it will be celebrating its 30th anniversary along with our 100th anniversary.

Advertisement




We have a good relationship with China, and we’re candid as you can tell from the op-ed I published in the Wall Street Journal. I’m told that my op-ed was received quite well in China, by both Chinese companies and foreign companies doing business there.

On August 29, Mr. Greenberg published an opinion piece in the WSJ reminding Chinese leaders of the productive history of U.S.-Sino relations and suggesting that Chinese leaders take pragmatic steps to ease trade tensions with the U.S.

R&I: What’s your outlook on current trade relations between the U.S. and China?

Hank Greenberg: As to the current environment, when you are in negotiations, every leader negotiates differently.

President Trump is negotiating based on his well-known approach. What’s different now is that President Xi (Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China) made himself the emperor. All the past presidents in China before the revolution had two terms. He’s there for life, which makes things much more difficult.

R&I: Sure does. You’ve got a one- or two-term president talking to somebody who can wait it out. It’s definitely unique.

Hank Greenberg: So, clearly a lot of change is going on in China. Some of it is good. But as I said in the op-ed, China needs to be treated like the second largest economy in the world, which it is. And it will be the number one economy in the world in not too many years. That means that you can’t use the same terms of trade that you did 25 or 30 years ago.

They want to have access to our market and other markets. Fine, but you have to have reciprocity, and they have not been very good at that.

R&I: What stands in the way of that happening?

Hank Greenberg: I think there are several substantial challenges. One, their structure makes it very difficult. They have a senior official, a regulator, who runs a division within the government for insurance. He keeps that job as long as he does what leadership wants him to do. He may not be sure what they want him to do.

For example, the president made a speech many months ago saying they are going to open up banking, insurance and a couple of additional sectors to foreign investment; nothing happened.

The reason was that the head of that division got changed. A new administrator came in who was not sure what the president wanted so he did nothing. Time went on and the international community said, “Wait a minute, you promised that you were going to do that and you didn’t do that.”

So the structure is such that it is very difficult. China can’t react as fast as it should. That will change, but it is going to take time.

R&I: That’s interesting, because during the financial crisis in 2008 there was talk that China, given their more centralized authority, could react more quickly, not less quickly.

Hank Greenberg: It turns out that it is harder to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.

R&I: Obviously, you have a very unique perspective and experience in China. For American companies coming to China, what are some of the current challenges?

Advertisement




Hank Greenberg: Well, they very much want to do business in China. That’s due to the sheer size of the country, at 1.4 billion people. It’s a very big market and not just for insurance companies. It’s a whole range of companies that would like to have access to China as easily as Chinese companies have access to the United States. As I said previously, that has to be resolved.

It’s not going to be easy, because China has a history of not being treated well by other countries. The U.S. has been pretty good in that way. We haven’t taken advantage of China.

R&I: Your op-ed was very enlightening on that topic.

Hank Greenberg: President Xi wants to rebuild the “middle kingdom,” to what China was, a great country. Part of that was his takeover of the South China Sea rock islands during the Obama Administration; we did nothing. It’s a little late now to try and do something. They promised they would never militarize those islands. Then they did. That’s a real problem in Southern Asia. The other countries in that region are not happy about that.

R&I: One thing that has differentiated your company is that it is not a public company, and it is not a mutual company. We think you’re the only large insurance company with that structure at that scale. What advantages does that give you?

Hank Greenberg: Two things. First of all, we’re more than an insurance company. We have the traditional investment unit with the insurance company. Then we have a separate investment unit that we started, which is very successful. So we have a source of income that is diverse. We don’t have to underwrite business that is going to lose a lot of money. Not knowingly anyway.

R&I: And that’s because you are a private company?

Hank Greenberg: Yes. We attract a different type of person in a private company.

R&I: Do you think that enables you to react more quickly?

Hank Greenberg: Absolutely. When we left AIG there were three of us. Myself, Howie Smith and Ed Matthews. Howie used to run the internal financials and Ed Matthews was the investment guy coming out of Morgan Stanley when I was putting AIG together. We started with three people and now we have 3,500 and growing.

“I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

R&I:  You being forced to leave AIG in 2005 really was an injustice, by the way. AIG wouldn’t have been in the position it was in 2008 if you had still been there.

Advertisement




Hank Greenberg: Absolutely not. We had all the right things in place. We met with the financial services division once a day every day to make sure they stuck to what they were supposed to do. Even Hank Paulson, the Secretary of Treasury, sat on the stand during my trial and said that if I’d been at the company, it would not have imploded the way it did.

R&I: And that fateful decision the AIG board made really affected the course of the country.

Hank Greenberg: So many people lost all of their net worth. The new management was taking on billions of dollars’ worth of risk with no collateral. They had decimated the internal risk management controls. And the government takeover of the company when the financial crisis blew up was grossly unfair.

From the time it went public, AIG’s value had increased from $300 million to $180 billion. Thanks to Eliot Spitzer, it’s now worth a fraction of that. His was a gross misuse of the Martin Act. It gives the Attorney General the power to investigate without probable cause and bring fraud charges without having to prove intent. Only in New York does the law grant the AG that much power.

R&I: It’s especially frustrating when you consider the quality of his own character, and the scandal he was involved in.

In early 2008, Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap arranging a meeting with a prostitute at a Washington Hotel and resigned shortly thereafter.

Hank Greenberg: Yes. And it’s been successive. Look at Eric Schneiderman. He resigned earlier this year when it came out that he had abused several women. And this was after he came out so strongly against other men accused of the same thing. To me it demonstrates hypocrisy and abuse of power.

Schneiderman followed in Spitzer’s footsteps in leveraging the Martin Act against numerous corporations to generate multi-billion dollar settlements.

R&I: Starr, however, continues to thrive. You said you’re at 3,500 people and still growing. As you continue to expand, how do you deal with the challenge of attracting talent?

Hank Greenberg: We did something last week.

On September 16th, St. John’s University announced the largest gift in its 148-year history. The Starr Foundation donated $15 million to the school, establishing the Maurice R. Greenberg Leadership Initiative at St. John’s School of Risk Management, Insurance and Actuarial Science.

Hank Greenberg: We have recruited from St. John’s for many, many years. These are young people who want to be in the insurance industry. They don’t get into it by accident. They study to become proficient in this and we have recruited some very qualified individuals from that school. But we also recruit from many other universities. On the investment side, outside of the insurance industry, we also recruit from Wall Street.

R&I: We’re very interested in how you and other leaders in this industry view technology and how they’re going to use it.

Hank Greenberg: I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.

R&I: So as the pre-eminent leader of the insurance industry, what do you see in terms of where insurance is now and where it’s going?

Hank Greenberg: The country and the world will always need insurance. That doesn’t mean that what we have today is what we’re going to have 25 years from now.

How quickly the change comes and how far it will go will depend on individual companies and individual countries. Some will be more brave than others. But change will take place, there is no doubt about it.

Advertisement




More will go on in space, there is no question about that. We’re involved in it right now as an insurance company, and it will get broader.

One of the things you have to worry about is it’s now a nuclear world. It’s a more dangerous world. And again, we have to find some way to deal with that.

So, change is inevitable. You need people who can deal with change.

R&I:  Is there anything else, Mr. Greenberg, you want to comment on?

Hank Greenberg: I think I’ve covered it. &

The R&I Editorial Team can be reached at [email protected]