Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Competitiveness of Protected US Shipyards Continues to Erode

by January 15, 2025
January 15, 2025
Competitiveness of Protected US Shipyards Continues to Erode

Colin Grabow

While it’s no secret that vessels built in US shipyards to comply with the protectionist Jones Act are far costlier than those constructed overseas, some recent numbers provided by an industry insider are nonetheless stunning. Last fall, the CEO of Overseas Shipholding Group, a company that operates Jones Act-compliant tankers, estimated that the price of a US-built product tanker currently approaches $250 million. A few weeks later, he amended that figure to $200-$250 million. 

Either way, it’s extraordinary.

To understand why, consider that the price of such vessels built overseas is somewhere between $45 million and $52 million. Further consider that the $200 million figure for a US-built tanker was only first floated in late 2022, and as recently as mid-2020 the cost of such a vessel was placed at approximately $150 million (estimates are due to the lack of tankers being ordered or delivered since 2017). That’s a $50 million-$100 million increase in less than five years. 

But what about the longer-term price trajectory of US-built tankers? And how does this trend compare to equivalent vessels constructed abroad? To answer these questions, Cato intern Kristen Xiao and I used data from open sources to produce a chart showing the prices of US and internationally built medium-range tankers over the last two decades.

As the chart shows, US-built tanker prices have trended steadily and significantly upward. At the same time, tankers built abroad are only slightly more expensive than twenty years ago (and about $20 million higher starting from 2014). Over the last decade, the relative price of US-built tankers has only marginally increased (from about 4.3x the foreign price to 4.5x). Still, the absolute price delta has grown from approximately $110 million to $175 million. 

Notably, product tankers offer a fairly apples-to-apples comparison given their similar sizes and capacities (indeed, many of the US-built tankers were based on the designs of foreign tankers). That foreign-built prices are mostly based on vessels built in South Korean shipyards—the same country that US shipyards turn to for many of the parts and components used in their own tankers—further bolsters the price comparability. 

But tankers aren’t the only vessel type where we see this sharp and increasing divergence in shipbuilding prices. Kristen and I also put together a chart examining the price trend for containerships. The result? Virtually the same dynamic, with a longer-term upward trend and a sharper, more recent price increase for US-built vessels versus a much more modest increase for those constructed overseas. 

Notably, the recent run-up in the price of US-built containerships comes on top of already inflated prices. In 2004, for example, one industry publication called the $140 million asking price for a 2,600 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) containership constructed at the Philly Shipyard “astonishing.” In 2022, meanwhile, the same shipyard received an order for three 3,600 TEU containerships at $333 million each. On a per TEU basis, that’s approximately a 72 percent increase in 18 years.

Overall, US-built containerships have increased in price by approximately $56,000 per TEU since 2002, while foreign-built prices have increased by less than $7,000 over a similar span. 

Such price hikes inevitably mean higher shipping rates that harm US businesses and consumers.

There’s also another notable consequence. As Sam Norton, the CEO who says product tanker prices may be in the neighborhood of $250 million, has pointed out, inflated ship prices deter the purchase of new ships. That, in turn, means fewer vessels and that existing ones are used far beyond their normal life cycle.

While the US Maritime Administration has pegged the nominal service life of a tanker at 20 years, for example, Norton has placed the life of a Jones Act tanker at 40 years. A smaller, aging fleet that requires more repairs and maintenance (needs often met by state-owned Chinese shipyards) serves neither US economic nor national security interests—the ostensible reason for the Jones Act’s existence.

When the United States began imposing protectionist restrictions on the use of foreign shipping in domestic trade, US shipbuilding was some of the world’s most competitive. That’s plainly no longer the case and hasn’t been for a long, long time. US law should be changed to reflect this reality.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Office Furniture 2025 – Designing a Modern Office with a 3D Configurator
next post
Is It Time for You to Do Business in Cyprus? Cyprus Accountants Take a Look at Tax Benefits

You may also like

House Budget Committee Advances Fiscal Commission to Address...

January 23, 2024

“Housing First” Homeless Policy Gets a Critical Look

June 30, 2023

Trump Will Likely Cut Legal Entries More Than...

January 21, 2025

Government Efficiency Starts with Rejuvenating FOIA

December 11, 2024

House GOP Pushes Back Against OECD

May 26, 2023

What Senator Rubio Gets Wrong about Manufacturing and...

April 10, 2024

SCOTUS Stumbles: EPA’s Power Plant Rule Is Inflicting...

October 24, 2024

Friday Feature: Bridges to Science

September 22, 2023

Why Is the Electoral College Such a Durable...

September 10, 2024

White House Extends Ukraine’s Steel Tariff Exemption; Sad...

June 5, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • UK economy posts strongest growth in a year, driven by exports and business investment

      May 15, 2025
    • EIS investments fall sharply despite tax breaks, raising concerns over regional imbalance and complexity

      May 15, 2025
    • University of Hull launches Railwhere to drive innovation in rail freight efficiency

      May 15, 2025
    • Bank of London under investigation by PRA amid financial uncertainty and governance overhaul

      May 15, 2025
    • Living Wage employers rise 19% as more businesses commit to higher pay

      May 15, 2025
    • Trump warns Iran faces ‘violence like people haven’t seen before’ if nuclear deal fails

      May 15, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (7,964)
    • Investing (1,959)
    • Politics (15,225)
    • Stocks (3,084)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved