With current uncertainty around global trade given the U.S. administration’s policy disruptions, now seems like an odd time for a shipping company to pursue a public listing in New York. 

There’s growing concern over America’s shrinking footprint in global shipping—but one strategic edge remains: Wall Street.

Activist investors largely overlook the shipping industry, but that could begin to change as companies aggressively repay their loans while trading at steep discounts to their net asset value (NAV).

As the U.S. looks to rebuild its maritime industrial base, there’s a lot of talk about needing an Elon Musk-type wealthy entrepreneur figure to swoop in from the tech sector and save American shipping.

By exempting U.S.-flagged ships from carbon levies and bolstering domestic subsidies, Washington is sending a clear one: the U.S. fleet is open for business again.

While the panel acknowledged the rough seas ahead, there was consensus that the increased attention the shipping industry is receiving today is a positive indicator for attracting long-term investor interest and capital into the sector.

In shipping, volatility isn’t noise—it’s opportunity. And in flat markets, even the sharpest traders can struggle to make the math work in their favor.

Is the role of a public shipping company to compound value over time, or to simply serve as a trading vehicle for investors looking to opportunistically play the industry’s infamous cycles?

What should a public tanker company do with its excess cash in today’s market? The answer for two prominent tanker companies: invest in other publicly listed tanker companies.

Leaked messages from the recent “Signalgate” controversy underscore an uncomfortable truth: senior US policymakers continue to misunderstand—or disregard—the structural realities of global shipping.

These USTR fines, designed to target China’s shipbuilding dominance, inadvertently places Caribbean economies and smaller carriers at significant economic risk. The Bahamas and neighboring island nations, having minimal influence over vessel sourcing, face unintended but severe economic consequences.

Following the oil price crash from 2014-2016, many PSVs became redundant in their original roles. Fortunately, several have found new purpose in serving the unique maritime logistics needs of the Bahamas. 

CMA CGM's $20 billion pledge may be strategically timed to mitigate potential financial damage from a proposed policy targeting shipping operators with significant numbers of Chinese-built vessels, or who have ordered vessels from Chinese shipyards. 

With two fewer public shipping companies under Fredriksen’s control in a matter of months, speculation is growing. At 80 years old, is JF—the man known simply by his initials—strategically unwinding one of the most remarkable single-generation shipping empires ever built?

Just as inflation in everyday goods can persist when consumers have more disposable income, ship prices can remain elevated when their natural buyers—shipowners—are flush with cash.

As U.S. government spending scrutiny intensifies under the Trump Administration, the Navy’s shipbuilding budget may be up next for examination at Elon Musk’s Department of Governmental Efficiency.

Polarizing legislation like the Jones Act can make for unlikely allies.

Unlike most publicly-listed dry bulk shipping companies, the Breakwave Advisors Dry Bulk Shipping ETF (BDRY) trades at a slight premium. Public dry bulk shipping companies on average trade at a 25% discount to their net asset value (NAV) yet BDRY stays close to its NAV. How can this be?

Public shipping companies’ end valuations are far more variable than private shipping companies’, since the latter group doesn’t have the constant mark-to-market pricing mechanism of public markets–P/NAV–as a factor. 

Is a 2% premium enough for investors to restrict their ability to quickly exit their bets in order to take profit (or minimize losses)?