the corporate geography of global terminal operators paper no 2 03 01 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal Operators Paper no. 2.03.01 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal Operators Paper no. 2.03.01

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal Operators Paper no. 2.03.01 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 311 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal Operators Paper no. 2.03.01. Theo Notteboom ITMMA - University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy, Belgium Jean-Paul Rodrigue Department of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal Operators Paper no. 2.03.01' - omer


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
the corporate geography of global terminal operators paper no 2 03 01

The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal OperatorsPaper no. 2.03.01

Theo NotteboomITMMA - University of Antwerp and Antwerp Maritime Academy, Belgium

Jean-Paul RodrigueDepartment of Global Studies & Geography, Hofstra University, New York, USA

the corporate geography of global terminal operators
The Corporate Geography of Global Terminal Operators

1) An Overview of Global Terminal Operators

2) Typology and Market Strategies

3) Consolidation and Scale Increase

4) The Spatial Expansion of Terminal Operators

5) How “Global” are Global Terminal Operators?

6) Vertical Integration Strategies in the Hinterland

Container yard, Port of Yantian (HPH), China

changing role and function of transport terminals
Changing Role and Function of Transport Terminals

Labor Intensiveness

Capital and managerial intensiveness

consolidation and scale increases major port terminal acquisitions since 2005
Consolidation and Scale Increases: Major Port Terminal Acquisitions since 2005

EBITDA = Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization

inter firm relationships in the three main container ports of the rhine scheldt delta 2010
Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of the Rhine-Scheldt Delta, 2010

Partnerships of multiple stakeholders

HUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS

PSA

20%

Majority

shareholding

100%

ANTWERP

Minority

Shareholding

ECT

MSC

MSC Home terminal

50%

North Sea Terminal

50%

NYK

PSA

(Antwerp/

Zeebrugge)

Europe Terminal

100%

Delta Terminal

100%

CYKH Alliance

Deurganck Terminal

50%

Waal- and Eemhaven

50%

100%

Antwerp International Terminal (AIT)

Shipping Line

New World Alliance

50%

Euromax

phase 1

DP World Delwaidedock

50%

(Global) Terminal Operator

100%

60%

DP World

42.5%

Antwerp Gateway

30%

Rotterdam World Gateway

(Maasvlakte 2)

Operational by 2013

ZIM Line

10%

Terminal

Cosco Pacific

20%

10%

PORT

CMA-CGM

APM Terminal Maasvlakte

10%

  • Financial Holding

CHZ

65%

35%

100%

Terminal 1

(Maasvlakte 2)

Operational by 2014

APM Terminals

(AP MollerGroup)

Albert II-dock north (under construction)

100%

100%

ROTTERDAM

75%

APM Terminal

Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG)

25%

ZEEBRUGGE

inter firm relationships in the three main container ports of north america 2010
Inter-firm Relationships in the Three Main Container Ports of North America, 2010

Japanese, Taiwanese & Korean(Export-oriented strategy)

“Financialized” Stevedores

  • Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan

APL

  • Global Gateway South

100%

NYK

  • YusenTerminals

100%

100%

  • TraPac Los AngelesBerth 136

Global Container Terminals

  • Mitsui OSK

100%

APM Terminals

(AP Moller Group)

100%

  • APM Terminals Pier 400

100%

Evergreen

  • Evergreen Terminal

50%

50%

  • New York Container Terminal
  • West Basin Container Terminal

Yangming

40%

60%

100%

  • Global Terminal and Container Services

LOS ANGELES

  • Deutsche Bank RREEF

LONG BEACH

  • APM Terminals Port Elizabeth

100%

  • Terminal C60

Maher Terminals

MSC

  • Maher Terminal
  • Terminal A

50%

100%

50%

  • Long Beach Container Terminal

OOIL

  • Port Newark Container Terminal

100%

Ports America

100%

K-Lines

  • Pier G Berth

100%

NEW YORK

100%

Hyundai

  • Stevedoring Services of America
  • California United Terminals

100%

  • AIG Highstar Capital

Cosco Pacific

  • Pacific Container Terminal

49%

51%

  • Macquarie Infrastructure

Hanjin

  • Total Terminals International

60%

40%

Shipping Line

Terminal Operator

Terminal

PORT

  • Financial Holding
inter firm relationships in the main container ports of the pearl river delta 2010
Inter-firm Relationships in the Main Container Ports of the Pearl River Delta, 2010

Joint Ventures (TO / Local Government)

GUANGZHOU

Cosco Pacific

  • Guangzhou South China Oceangate Container Terminal

39%

APM Terminals

(AP Moller Group)

20%

41%

  • Guangzhou Port Group
  • China Shipping Group

60%

  • Nansha Container Terminal

40%

  • Nanhai International Container Terminals

50%

ZHUHAI

  • Guangzhou Huangpu Xingang Terminal

49%

  • Zhuhai International Container Terminals

PSA

50%

  • Guangzhou Huangpu Xinsha Terminal

49%

10%

50%

  • Moderns Terminals
  • Shenzhen Yantian Port Group
  • Dongguan Container Terminal
  • COSCO-HIT Terminal

10%

30%

33%

HUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS

  • Hong Kong International Terminals
  • Yantian International Container Terminals

70%

67%

20%

100%

  • Shenzhen Municipal Government
  • Asia Port Services
  • Da Chan Bay Terminal One

35%

65%

ModernTerminals

  • DP World Hong Kong

66%

33%

  • Shekou Container Terminals

20%

80%

DP World

  • China Merchants Holdings International

55%

  • Asia Container Terminals

25%

75%

  • Chiwan Container Terminal

HONG KONG

SHENZHEN

Shipping Line

Terminal Operator

Terminal

PORT

  • Financial Holding
container terminals of the world s four major port holdings 2009
Container Terminals of the World's Four Major Port Holdings, 2009

Importance of ‘home port’ (2009)

PSA: Singapore = 44.2% of global non-equity based throughput.

DP World: Dubai = 25.3% of global non-equity based throughput.

HPH: Hong Kong = 16.5% of global non-equity based throughput.

regional share in the terminal portfolio of the four main global terminal operators hectares 2009
Regional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Four Main Global Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2009)
vertical and horizontal integration in port development
Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development

Vertical

Integration

Horizontal

Integration

Maritime Services

Port Holding

Inland

Port

Port Services

Port

Inland Services

Intermediate hub

Terminal

Port

Rail / Barge

Distribution Center

Maritime Shipping

Port Terminal Operations

Inland Modes and Terminals

Distribution Centers

Commodity Chain

conclusion
Conclusion
  • The “four sisters” (HPH, APM, PSA and DPW)
    • Analogies with the oil industry (oligopoly).
    • Strong multinational portfolio; each market is regional.
    • Standardization of management practices.
    • Multiplying effects to the functional and operational benefits brought by containerization.
  • Two major and complementary roles
    • Gateways:
      • Linking global and regional freight distribution systems.
      • Complex stake holding at the port and in the hinterland.
    • Intermediary hubs:
      • Connecting different systems of maritime circulation.
      • Single GTOs played a preponderant role.
    • Both account for terminal growth and profitability.
conclusion1
Conclusion
  • Vertical integration, horizontal integration and portfolio diversification
    • Maritime shipping companies:
      • Secure traffic for their networks.
      • Profitability of both seaside and landside operations.
    • Stevedore companies:
      • Expanded from their base port or region.
      • Diversify and replicate their business model.
    • Financial holdings:
      • Valuation and revenue generation.
    • Organic growth (new terminals) and M&A of existing facilities (and operators):
      • Common strategies.
      • GTO differ little from their manufacturing and retail counterparts in view of globalization.
conclusion2
Conclusion
  • Future expectations
    • Part of business cycles.
    • Diminishing returns.
    • Fast growth, mergers and acquisitions:
      • Underlines that the industry may be close to achieve a level of maturity.
      • Convergence towards a common business model?
    • Shift in the corporate geography of GTOs:
      • Then: Dynamics oriented towards expansion.
      • Now: Rationalization, performance improvements and the search for niche markets (segmentation).