Ardmore Shipping - Q3 2019
November 5, 2019
Transcript
Operator (participant)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Ardmore Shipping's Third Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded, and an audio webcast and presentation are available in the Investor Relations section of the company's website, ardmoreshipping.com. We will conduct a question and answer session after the opening remarks, and instructions will follow at that time. A replay of the conference call will be accessible anytime during the next two weeks by dialing 1-877-344-7529 or 1-412-317-0088, and entering passcode number 10136638. At this time, I will turn the call over to Anthony Gurnee, Chief Executive Officer of Ardmore Shipping. Please go ahead.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Good morning, and welcome everyone to Ardmore Shipping's Third Quarter 2019 Earnings Call. First, let me ask our CFO, Paul Tivnan, to describe the format for the call and discuss forward-looking statements.
Paul Tivnan (CFO)
Thanks, Tony, and welcome everyone. Before we begin our conference call, I would like to direct all participants to our website at ardmoreshipping.com, where you'll find the link to this morning's Third Quarter 2019 Earnings Release and Presentation. Tony and I will take about 15 minutes to go through the presentation and then open up the call to questions. Turning to slide two, please allow me to remind you that our discussion today contains forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from the results projected from those forward-looking statements, and additional information concerning factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements is contained in the Third Quarter 2019 Earnings Release, which is available on our website. Now I will turn the call back over to Tony.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Thank you, Paul. Let me first outline the format of today's call. To begin with, I'll discuss the quarterly highlights and then key market developments. After which, Paul will provide a summary of our performance, an update on tanker market activity, and details, and a detailed financial update. And then I will conclude the presentation and open up the call for questions. Turning first to slide four. After three difficult years, we believe the tanker market is in the early stages of a sustained upcycle, characterized by repetitive spikes with settling periods in between, but at levels well above the recent past. Sentiment has fundamentally changed over the past month, with rates now pushing up against what we would describe as a demand ceiling rather than bouncing along a supply floor.
Rates for our MRs fixed since October 5th have been a bit over $20,000 a day, compared to an average for the third quarter of $13,800. The immediate driver is IMO 2020. Preparations are well underway and adding an additional layer of demand for product tankers, with more to come. On the back of these positive developments, and with a fleet of 25 modern, fuel-efficient ships, which are 100% employed in the spot market, Ardmore is well positioned to deliver strong results, where every $1,000 a day increase in rates translates into $0.27 in EPS. Based on these new rate levels, we expect to be profitable in the fourth quarter, and as a consequence, we will recommence our dividends, dividend payout, as per our policy of 60% of net income from continuing operations.
One non-market item to highlight is that we've agreed refinancing terms with our existing banks on two credit facilities totaling $202 million on substantially improved terms, which Paul will describe later. Turning next to slide five on key market developments. Many factors which we've been discussing and anticipating are now coming fully into play, most notably tightening product tanker fundamental supply and demand, as well as the impact of IMO 2020. Other positive factors are now emerging, which we will also address. Regarding IMO 2020, preparations are accelerating. While the third quarter stockpiling was lower than we anticipated, as a consequence, we expect there will be particularly heightened disruption and trading activity to cover demand in the fourth quarter and into 2020.
The demand for gas oil is likely to be higher than it's been forecast as a consequence of far fewer scrubber installations, the strong tanker market resulting in higher voyage speeds and thus consumption, and anecdotal evidence of companies' risk aversion about VLSFO, at least initially. Also, keep in mind that the new VLSFO blends will be heavily middle distillate in the beginning. Overall, this means more gas oil demand, more refinery throughput, more oil transport, and more trading activity. Meanwhile, Middle East tensions persist. Recently, sanctioned tanker fleets are not expected to return to worldwide trading anytime soon, and of course, other disruptions are possible. The winter market is coming, but as of yet, has had no impact, which usually starts in late November. Oil consumption growth for 2020 is predicted to rise substantially from 2019 levels, according to the IEA.
Recession fears seem to be dissipating. Global GDP growth through 2020 may, in fact, be better than the consensus view, which would logically result in a further demand lift for product tankers. An important final point, which is worth dwelling on. On a longer-term basis, we see constraints in tanker supply arising from regulatory uncertainty around the shipping industry's targets for greenhouse gas emissions, as well as an emerging preference among charterers for green transport. While we don't believe ordering activity will exactly grind to a halt, we do think it will put a meaningful damper on activity until this next set of IMO legislation becomes clear and new ship designs emerge to meet these rules. On that note, I'll hand the call back over to Paul.
Paul Tivnan (CFO)
... Thanks, Tony. Moving to slide seven for a summary of our quarterly performance. Both the GAAP net loss and the net loss from continuing operations was $5.7 million, or $0.17 per share for the third quarter, compared to a net loss from continuing operations of $3.4 million, or $0.10 per share for the second quarter. Ardmore's fleet average TCE in the third quarter was $13,029 per day, made up of $13,784 per day on the MRs and $11,013 per day on the chemicals. As Tony mentioned, charter rates have rebounded significantly in October.
As we look ahead, the fourth quarter will be a tale of two markets, with fixtures at lower levels coming through from the third quarter and fixings since the market rise in early October at above $20,000 a day. As of today, for the fourth quarter, we have 45% of our days booked on the MRs at $17,000 per day, and expect rates for the remaining 55% of the quarter to be approximately $20,000 a day, in line with current market levels. The fleet continues to perform very well operationally, and dockings are coming in under budget for the year, with 1 remaining dry dock scheduled for the fourth quarter. Turning to slide eight for an update on the tanker market activity.
In terms of activity in the third quarter, the charter market was more subdued, particularly in the Atlantic, due to increased refinery maintenance and downtime in the U.S. and Europe. The market East of Suez was firmer, in particular, strong Chinese exports, with Chinese refinery throughput up 700,000 and 730,000 barrels a day, YoY. There was surprisingly low stockpiling in preparation for IMO 2020, with many bunker suppliers delaying full preparations of VLSFO until VLSFO liftings commenced in earnest. Industry estimates that 10%-15% of the barge infrastructure was prepared for VLSFO as of the end of September. Most recently, Middle East tensions exposed tightness in the tanker market, and as you can see from the chart on the upper right, rates increased across all tanker sectors at the same time as IMO 2020 preparations started to intensify.
In terms of market outlook, the product tanker market looks set for a sustained market upturn. IMO 2020 is now delivering as expected. As can be seen on the chart on the bottom right of the slide, marine gas oil demand is expected to jump over the next few quarters, both for blending and consumption, as the industry transitions to VLSFO. Many shipping companies, including Ardmore, are expected to significantly increase liftings of VLSFO in early November, in advance of the year-end, causing expected delays and potentially increased wait times. Meanwhile, continued strong crude tanker market, driven by the Middle East tensions, HSFO movement and storage, U.S. crude exports, and no buyer for scrubber installations, is expected to further support product tanker demand, with approximately 10 LR2s switching from clean to dirty over the last few weeks.
Finally, the winter market is expected to provide a typical seasonal uptick, with increased cargo volumes of refined products and weather-related delays. On slide nine, we take a closer look at the underlying product tanker supply-demand fundamentals. The product tanker demand fundamentals continue to be positive. Oil consumption growth is increasing, with estimated growth in 2020 of 1.2 million barrels, up from 1 million in 2019. As you can see on the chart on the upper right, refinery capacity growth is to average 2.2 million barrels a day annually between 2020 and 2023, with additions centered within export-oriented locations. IMO 2020 should result in a new layer of demand for product tankers. The impact on refined products demand, in particular gas oil, is expected to be significant. Looking at the supply side, overall product tanker fleet growth, comprising LRs and MR tankers, remains exceptionally low.
The order book today stands at 170 product tankers, or 5.8% of the fleet, delivering between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2023. We are forecasting 120 product tankers to deliver for the full year of 2019, of which 114 have delivered to date. We expect scrapping to be in the range of 35-40 product tankers per year. 61 tankers were scrapped last year. Taken together, product tanker fleet growth, net of scrapping, is expected to be approximately 3.2% in 2019 and falling to 2% in 2020. The MR fleet alone is expected to grow by 2.8% in 2019.
The chemical tanker market outlook is also positive, with an historically low order book of 4.6% and fleet growth net of scrapping expected to be between 2% and 2.7% in 2019. As Tony mentioned, we think the market is changing. Regulatory uncertainty around IMO targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions and charter preference for green transport should put a damper on newbuilding activity until the regulations become clear and the new ship designs emerge. Overall, we believe the strong fundamentals will provide a solid foundation for a sustained upturn in product and chemical tanker rates. Moving to slide 11, we take a quick look at fleet days. Revenue days are estimated at 9,103 in 2019.
We completed one dry docking with ballast water system installed at the end of July, which accounted for 22 dry docking days in the third quarter, and we will complete our seventh and final dry dock of the year in the fourth quarter, with 15 dry dock days budgeted, including repositioning. Turning to slide 12, we will take a look at our financials. As you will see on the second line, we're reporting a net loss from continuing operations of $5.7 million, or $0.17 per share for the quarter. Total overhead costs were in line with expectations at $4.7 million for the quarter, comprising corporate expenses of $3.9 million, and commercial and chartering expenses of $800,000. As mentioned before, in many companies, the commercial and chartering costs are incorporated into voyage expenses, which means that the corporate costs are comparable overhead.
For the fourth quarter of 2019, we expect total overhead, including corporate and commercial, to be $4.4 million, including cash and non-cash items. Depreciation and amortization was $9.2 million for the third quarter, and we expect depreciation and amortization for the fourth quarter to come in at $9.3 million. Interest and finance costs were $6.1 million for the third quarter, comprising cash interest of $5.6 million and amortized deferred finance fees of $500,000. We expect interest and finance costs for the fourth quarter to be approximately $6 million, including amortized deferred finance fees of $500,000. In addition, we expect to write off deferred finance fees as a consequence of the new refinancing of approximately $2 million in the fourth quarter.
Moving to the bottom of the slide, operating costs are well under budget at $14.9 million for the quarter. Standard OpEx for the Eco-design MRs was $6,262 per day. The Eco-mod MRs came in at $5,982 per day, and the chemical tankers came in at $6,264 per day. Looking ahead, we expect operating expenses for the fourth quarter to be approximately $16.2 million. Turning to slide 13, we take a look at charter rates. On the left-hand side, you can see a dramatic rebound in MR rates. The market rallied in early October, and our MR fixings since October 5th are averaging $20,085 per day.
Spot MRs reported a TC of $13,784 per day for the quarter, while the fleet average came in at $13,029 per day for the third quarter basis discharge. Looking ahead, as I mentioned, the fourth quarter will be a tale of two markets, with fixtures at lower levels coming through from the third quarter, and fixtures since the market rise in early October at above $20,000 a day. As of today, for the fourth quarter, we have 45% of the days booked on the MRs at $17,000 a day and expect the remaining days, 55%, to be approximately $20,000 in line with current market levels.
On slide 14, we have our summary balance sheet, which shows at the end of September, our total debt and leases was $442.5 million, while leverage on a net debt basis was 52.3%. Turning to slide 15, we remain focused on maintaining a strong liquidity position and continuing to pay down debt. Our cash balance at the end of September was $46.2 million, and we've got $19.8 million in net working capital. As Tony mentioned, we recently agreed terms on two new credit facilities for $201.5 million in the aggregate to refinance 12 ships on attractive terms. First facility is for $140 million to refinance eight ships and includes a $40 million dollar revolver component.
The second facility is a $61.5 million term loan to refinance four ships. Both facilities reduced the margin by 10 basis points to LIBOR + 2.4% and extends the maturity to 2024. It also provides a cash release after fees of close to $16 million and is expected to contribute an additional $1.7 million in cash flow annually. We're continuing to maintain low leverage and pay down debt. All our debt and leases are amortizing at approximately $40 million per year. And finally, LIBOR has been reducing, with 90% of our debt and leases being LIBOR-based, every 25 basis points reduction in interest is expected to contribute to an additional $1 million in earnings, or $0.03 in EPS annually. And with that, I would like to turn the call back over to Tony.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Thanks, Paul. So to sum up then, after three difficult years, we believe the tanker market is now in the early stages of a sustained upcycle. IMO 2020 is playing out as expected. Gas oil demand arising from IMO 2020 is anticipated to be higher than forecast. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East are resulting in tanker tonnage out of service for extended periods, with more disruptions possible. The winter market is coming, but is not yet here. Global recession fears seem to be dissipating. This could result in an unexpected layer of product tanker demand next year. Oil consumption growth is projected to recover to 1.2 million barrels a day in 2020 and could rise higher if the global economy is stronger than expected.
The order book for product tankers remains at historical lows, and the new consideration is that regulatory uncertainty should put a damper on new building activity until regulations become clear and new ship designs emerge. In the midst of these positive market developments, we remain focused on operating performance and effective capital allocation to maximize returns. With a modern, fuel-efficient fleet, trading 100% spot, we believe we're well-positioned to take full advantage of improved conditions and to generate strong returns for our shareholders, where $1,000 per day, each $1,000 per day increase in rates translates into $0.27 in EPS. And in addition, as we expect to be profitable in the fourth quarter, we believe our dividend will recommence as per our policy of paying out 60% of net income from continuing operations.
With that, we're happy to open up the call for questions.
Operator (participant)
We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys.
... To withdraw your question, please press star then two. At this time, we'll pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question comes from John Chappell with Evercore. Please go ahead.
John Chappell (Managing Director)
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Tony, maybe Paul, I think for the first time ever, you've given a little bit of forward guidance on, the rest of the quarter by saying that the last 55% of the MRs would be, at about $20,000 a day. So I'm just trying to match that up with, you've done a little over $20,000 a day since October fifth, but then you lay out all the positives that are still coming up, like winter, the full impact of IMO 2020, you know, disruptions to the trade, which is somewhat seasonal as well. So are you just being conservative with using that similar number to what you've done in October?
Or do you have a little bit more visibility on what's kind of already lined up, and you think that some of those forward-looking catalysts will be more of a first quarter impact as opposed to 4Q?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Well, hey, John, you know, the 45% that we quoted captures everything that we've done up until last Friday. Maybe we're being conservative, but it feels like rates have settled in at that level, and maybe we should have been more complete in our statement. You know, we can talk about risk to the upside being much more than downside at the moment.
John Chappell (Managing Director)
Okay. I wanted to ask a couple questions on the, the chemicals. You know, you guys call them product/chemical tankers. They don't seem to have as much upside as the pure MRs, but are you seeing any kind of filter down into those ships from what's been happening in the core MR or even just the broader product tanker business?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Yeah, that's a good question, John. When we think of our chemical tankers, we've got the four 25s and the two 37s. The 37s are performing at around the same level currently as the MRs. The 25s are more kind of core chemical tanker units, and they are lagging a little bit. But, you know, we only have to go back to last year to go through a period when those ships were actually outperforming the MRs. So they do have their moments. They are... I wouldn't call them core to our strategy, but they strategically give us insights and capability into trading the MRs into some chemical-type business. And we think that, that's one of the, you know, the things that's that underlies our performance in the MR sector.
John Chappell (Managing Director)
Yeah, I mean, we can certainly recall periods where they've done just as good, if not better, but the lag makes sense. Just one last thing on that. There's been a lot of kind of media coverage in the last couple of days on this EU ban on palm-based biodiesel and how that's going to, you know, hurt the chemical tanker business. Are your, are your 25s exposed to that, and are you worried that that could cause maybe a bigger disconnect between the historical relationship on the MRs and the 25s?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
No, because actually, that's more of an MR trade and a Handysize trade. So in fact, the 25s typically don't do that kind of trade all the way into Northern Europe.
John Chappell (Managing Director)
Okay. Final thing on the, on the chems, and then I'll leave it alone and move on. You've given kind of an outlook on what the rest of the quarter can be for the MRs. Obviously, what you've booked quarter to date on the chems has been a little bit lighter. Should we expect a kind of similar gap up to what you've done since October, or, you know, kind of in line with what you've done to date so far on the chems?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Yeah, I think, you know, unfortunately, with the chemical tankers, we're dealing with a fairly small data set, and so voyage specifics can have a big impact on the performance. But like I said, the 37s are trading very well at the moment, and the 25s we do expect will improve through the quarter.
John Chappell (Managing Director)
Okay. Thanks a lot, Tony.
Operator (participant)
The next question comes from Ben Nolan with Stifel. Please go ahead.
Ben Nolan (Managing Director of Research)
Hey, good morning, guys. So I've, I was gonna ask John's question on the chems there. He beat me to it. But just curious, sort of strategically, obviously, the market's better, you're earning more than 20. Time charter rates have come up. Any thinking about locking in some of these, some of these higher rates here or hold out for a better, a better market?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
We think the market has a long run ahead of it, and so we wouldn't be interested in locking in. Time charter rates have gone up a lot. They're probably, for an eco-design, $18,000 a day for a year. That's nice, but we think it needs to be a lot higher before we consider locking in.
Ben Nolan (Managing Director of Research)
Okay. To that point, as time charter rates have moved up, so have secondhand asset values. As you look forward and kind of strategically, how you would expect to develop the fleet and that sort of thing, first of all, is there an appetite to buy secondhand equipment? Sort of with that, new building prices haven't gone up as much. Is there any interest at all if you were to expand in placing new building orders, or is that completely off the table?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Yeah, I think to answer the first part of the question, it's definitely, you know, we always look at it as just part of a larger capital allocation decision. And so it's a question, do we pay, you know, pay dividends? Do we, you know, pay down debt? Do we, you know, invest in additional assets? And, you know, we always approach it that way and try to figure out what's the, you know, the best step to create the most value for our shareholders.
I think it's interesting when you—it's a little bit different when you talk about new buildings, because, you know, as I alluded to in the comments about the IMO regulations that are coming up, there's just, you know, for all the reasons we've been talking about, you know, there's another one that's really emerging now in terms of really nobody wanting to order, you know, the last model... or you know, the last unit of an old model. The amount of uncertainty around the future for propulsion technology, green fuels, et cetera, is so significant at the moment that, you know, I think most senior executives in the industry would probably join me in saying that, you know, new builds, it just doesn't feel like the right thing to do right now.
We just don't know what to build. And I wanna add also that even if you were to order today's model, it's actually not as good as yesterday's model because the Tier III engine is less fuel efficient, and you incur more OpEx, and that's what you'd have to order today. So there's a whole bunch of reasons, including the new regulatory issues and some technical issues, why it just doesn't feel like the right thing to do.
Ben Nolan (Managing Director of Research)
Gotcha. No, that's very clear. Appreciate it. And then lastly, just sort of more from a macro level or trying to understand the business. I think Paul mentioned that something like 10 LR2s had switched from clean to trading crude. From an MR perspective, how long does it take that to sort of trickle through? You know, you probably don't see as many MRs switching, but as the LR market tightens, what's the time period before that can sort of drag up the MR market ordinarily?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
I wouldn't say it's immediate, but it happens reasonably quickly because once those ships leave the clean market, there's less competition, means that LR2 rates improve, and then charters, you know, on the margin, are more interested then in chartering MRs instead. I mean, the real damage to the MR sector is when LR2 rates get so low that charters and traders can, they can double up cargoes, and-
Ben Nolan (Managing Director of Research)
Mm-hmm.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
incur the higher cost, but enjoy the lower freight. So I think we're certainly back in an environment where that's not happening very much, and as the ships leave, you know, it's a very easy switch to go to dirty. It's very hard to get back. But I would say it probably is having an impact already, and the number of 10 is maybe somewhat different from what you might hear from others, and the number we're using is validated by an analytical source as having made the switch. Others have probably switched over already, but aren't being recorded as such, and others are intending to do so. So the actual number of ships that have switched over in the process of switching over might be more like 20. And then you're starting...
And then similar on the LR1 size, similar on the LR1 size, and if you add it all up, it's probably a couple% less, you know, addressable supply for cargoes in our business. And that, and that, that's not a game changer, but it's, it's quite meaningful.
Ben Nolan (Managing Director of Research)
No, yeah, absolutely. All right, well, I appreciate it. That was very, very detailed and helpful call. I appreciate it. Thanks, Tony.
Operator (participant)
The next question comes from Randy Giveans with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Randy Giveans (Senior VP of Equity Research for Energy Maritime)
Howdy, gentlemen. How's it going?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Good. Thanks, Randy.
Randy Giveans (Senior VP of Equity Research for Energy Maritime)
Good. Yeah, I'll be sure to ask two questions, so don't worry. Speaking of switching, kind of although Ben's question was regarding cargo switching, what's your strategy and likely timing for bunker fuel switching from HSFO to VLSFO or MGO? Is that happening across your fleet this month, next month?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Good question. So, you know, to make the point, our ships are spot trading, generally on relatively short voyages, so we'll be switching over later than others that have bigger ships or kind of MR type vessels. We think the switching is now underway. We expect to be switching later this month. I think we were considering doing one stem as early as right around now. Not sure that's happened, but it's from what we're hearing, the bulk of the switchover is gonna happen very end of November or early December, so that by probably December tenth, the switchover is more or less complete. And on that basis, it's gonna be extremely abrupt and quite impactful, we think, on the oil trading market.
Randy Giveans (Senior VP of Equity Research for Energy Maritime)
Sure. All right, that's helpful. To my second and final question, spot rates certainly, you know, been volatile in recent weeks. Time charter rates, as you said, ticked up a little bit, but relatively stable over the past month. I know you mentioned a few minutes ago, you're not interested in time chartering out your vessels based on your current kind of bullish outlook. What are your thoughts around time chartering in ships to give a little more operational exposure without having to acquire vessels over the next year?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Yeah, you know, it's always a possibility, and it's, it's something, honestly, that we've done, we've done in the past, not, not recently, but we've done in the past, and we would consider an appropriate moment. But it, it's certainly something that's, it's in the toolkit, and for a variety of reasons, we haven't acted on it yet.
Randy Giveans (Senior VP of Equity Research for Energy Maritime)
All right, fair. Well, that's it for me. Thank you.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Thanks, Randy.
Operator (participant)
The next question comes from Omar Nokta with Clarksons Platou Securities. Please go ahead.
Omar Nokta (Head of US Securities)
Thank you. Hi, Tony and Paul. Just, you know, nice to see the carbon emissions table. And, you know, as a public company, there's a lot of metrics that we focus on. You've got TCE and OpEx, you know, utilization. You know, now you've got carbon emissions, which is clearly a good thing. Just before I ask, like, the actual question, I'm looking at the nine months so far for the year. CO2 emissions are 324,000 tons. Is that, am I doing the math correct, and that basically means 47-48 tons a day per ship?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Sorry, is it what the math leads to what, again?
Omar Nokta (Head of US Securities)
About 47 tons or 48 tons per day.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Yeah, that would be about right, because if the ratio between fuel oil and tons per CO2 is about 3.1.
Omar Nokta (Head of US Securities)
... Okay, and so the-
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Multiply, yeah, so or divide that by 3.1, and you're probably getting what our consumption would be on a calendar day basis, remembering that the ships are idle in port about 40% of the time.
Omar Nokta (Head of US Securities)
Right. Okay. And then, and those CO2 emissions, is that basically, is that primarily coming from just the, the bunker fuel?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Yeah. So it would be. It's all the total fuel consumed. We don't emit methane, and we don't. Nothing else that I'm aware of going out from the ships into the atmosphere, so it's largely fuel oil, but some gas oil.
Omar Nokta (Head of US Securities)
Yeah. Okay. And then, so I guess just kind of thinking about that, say, that 47-48 tons a day, I know it's early and, you know, this is your first time publishing it. You know, how should we be reading that figure going forward? You know, obviously, you know, we want that, or you want that to be lower. You know, how does that happen? Is that something, that does it require different vessels as part of the fleet going forward, or are there things you can do with the existing fleet to, to reduce it?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Well, I think the number that we're probably more gonna target is the two numbers further down, the AER and the EEOI, because that's more of a specific, you know, work-based calculation. We're learning. We're staring at this for the first time, along with everyone else. We do know that we have a fairly modern, fuel-efficient fleet, so our numbers are probably pretty good to begin with. We do know that every time we burn less fuel and improve our TCE, we're also emitting less carbon, so there's a full alignment of interest in terms of focusing on that, and we do focus on various technical and operational measures to improve performance, and thereby also reduce CO2 emissions.
Beyond that, you know, I think we're really waiting for the IMO to take a leadership role in laying out legislation that tells us what the future holds and over what period, so that we can begin to comply with that through operational measures such as speed limits, finding ways to increase efficiency in port, as well as new designs and new fuel technologies that will enable us to dramatically reduce that.
Omar Nokta (Head of US Securities)
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks, Tony. You know, maybe just to that, you know, regarding the IMO, is there any. You know, you're obviously part of the different boards that are involved in a cleaner environment within shipping. You know, any sense on timing of when we'll get some information from IMO, you know, regarding mandates and how things need to look to get to those targets in 2030 and 2050?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Yeah, I can. If you like, maybe for the next call, I'll get a bit more specifics from Mark Cameron, who's very closely engaged. We also have a new board member, Kirsi Tikka, who's closely involved in the process as well. Last week, I was in Singapore, and I spent time at the Global Maritime Forum, which is a kind of a CEO-level forum that focuses on key issues and looking ahead. The big theme, obviously, was decarbonization for shipping. What was emerging from those discussions was really two things. One is that nobody has any sense of how those targets are going to be met. The technology is theoretically there, but it's not really being developed yet because there's no incentive.
The process within the IMO is going to focus on, initially, very heavily on operational improvements, like speed limits or engine load limits, and secondly, on technology improvements. And the deliberation within the IMO, we think could take a couple of years. The legislation coming out of that could take longer. And then the phase-in could take many, many years. So we're talking about a fairly long-term process, but one which has to start very soon and where the decisions that shipping companies are going to make will be heavily impacted by in terms of what to build and when. So we think it's real. The, you know, the public pressure and investor pressure is only increasing.
Certainly, the big companies in the industry are facing that full force, as are their large clients. And, you know, we think that it's really incumbent now on the IMO to kind of step up and, you know, listen to the industry in terms of what we think is workable, but to arrive at legislation that's going to make all this happen. But it's definitely multiyear. It's definitely going to be phased in, and it's going to have a profound impact.
Omar Nokta (Head of US Securities)
Yeah. Tony, thank you so much for that discussion. I appreciate it.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Yep.
Operator (participant)
Again, if you have a question, please press star then one. Our next question comes from Michael Webber with Webber Research. Please go ahead.
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Hey, good morning, guys. How are you?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Hey, Mike.
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Hey, yeah, thanks for squeezing me in. I wanted to loop back, Tony, to what you were just talking more about, and actually your comments and your prepared remarks around, you know, the impact that those deliberations are having on the order book and new build pricing, and some time to kind of screw around with this. But you've seen the same thing in crude right now, but you're seeing a product where you've got you've actually got new build prices and prompt prices moving in opposite directions, which has only happened four times since, or four months, I guess, since 2007.
So about 2% of the time this ever happens, where you actually get new build prices inching down because no one wants to put in a bid where the cash flows that dictate that prompt prices are ramping. So I guess, considering how rare that is, and then what you just went through with Omar in terms of the idea that the solution to enticing owners to come in and order new ships is a legislative issue effectively, which, you know, I think you framed in terms of a timeframe measured in years.
Where do you think that is, if the spread right now between prompt and new build tonnage is $4 million, do you think that the time lag associated with the IMO getting, you know, something clear out to ship owners is long enough that we see new build prices get discounted down to the mid thirties again to entice a bid, and that spread widens out to, you know, 15%-20%, kind of at the peak levels? I'm just curious how you see the dynamics between prompt and new build tonnage working in the scenario you just laid out for clarity around technology and obsolescence risk.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Mm-hmm. That's a good question, Mike. Let me think how to answer it. I think up until now, there have been a whole bunch of reasons not to want to order ships. Lack of access to capital, you know, uncertainty around the market outlook, et cetera. Now, you know, in addition, this has been there for a while, but now that the other excuses may be going away a little bit, we do think there's gonna be ordering activity, but we think that more than just on the margin, we think there's gonna be a real dampening effect from what we just talked about. And...
But I think there's another factor that I want to introduce to that discussion, because I think more than anything, just at the moment, I think it's recency bias, which is limiting ordering activity and driving up that prompt delivery price. I mean, who, based on what we've been through in the last literally 10 years, who wants to order a ship delivering in 2.5 years, right?
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Mm-hmm.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
You know, where will the market be? And on top of that, people are thinking, "Okay, well, in 2.5 years, the future probably will be clear, and there's a very high probability that I've just taken delivery of an obsolete ship." Not obsolete immediately, but with a shorter life. And this, this actually, there's an interesting precedent to this. If you go back to the early to mid-1990s, after the double hull legislation came in, there were some shipping companies that were still building single hulls because they were safer and more efficient, and the new designs were really unclear, and they were quite conservative.
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Hmm.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Those ships, in particular, were the ones that got hurt. They were heavily discounted, you know, at an earlier point in their life-
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Sure.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
-than they otherwise, you know, than the others were. So I think that's the fear. It's not that something's gonna be immediately obsolete, but that the life expectancy of it will be much shorter. So.
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Gotcha. So I guess, do you think you need to see that new build value get teased down significantly more to entice people to come in and take that kind of risk if they're the last owner to buy obsolescent tech?
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Maybe, but I think the differential right now is more, you know, wanting to grab the upside now rather than-
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Sure
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
taking a bet, you know, and, and on top of that, there's the regulatory uncertainty.
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Gotcha. Okay, that's helpful. And then one more for Paul, actually, along those lines. If you think about the, you know, the cash flows, you know, the windfall that looks like you guys are gonna step into for the next couple of years from a rate perspective. Forgive me, Paul, if you mentioned this before, but your target leverage level, I know you're kind of down in the low fifties now at a pretty healthy spot, and even with the variable, with a relatively flexible dividend policy, you're gonna have an opportunity to delever. Are you... Where are you gonna be comfortable kind of taking your leverage over the next couple of years? And do you have a kind of a bull case target level, if you will?
Paul Tivnan (CFO)
Thanks, Mike. No, we don't, we don't have specific leverage target levels. You know, we've all our debt is amortizing, so we continue to pay it off. I mean, this business largely is about, you know, being countercyclical and having the capacity to buy and take advantage of ships, you know, when the market is low. So, you know, for the foreseeable future, if we do generate superior earnings, I think we would look to continue debt reduction and pay it down and take it down well below 50%.
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Mm-hmm.
Paul Tivnan (CFO)
And then give it, you know, give good, strong muscle to take advantage of opportunities at that, potentially the next downturn. So there's nothing, no targets in mind, but over the next while, we'll certainly continue to pay down debt and potentially and aggressively pay down debt, as the market, as we get to enjoy a stronger market.
Michael Webber (Managing Partner)
Gotcha. Okay. Thanks for the time, guys. Appreciate it.
Anthony Gurnee (CEO)
Thanks, Mike.
Paul Tivnan (CFO)
Thanks, Mike.
Operator (participant)
This concludes the question and answer session, and the conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.