the charthouse group the next box wave: can containerization reinvent itself? the next box wave: can...

The Charthouse Group

The Next Box Wave: Can Containerization Reinvent Itself?

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

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

Terminal Operators Conference EuropeEXECUTIVE SESSION 4: ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE, Antwerp, June 7-9 2011


Do you really know me?

Innovation

Diffusion


SITUATION REPORT EUROPE: REASONS TO SMILE?

Just a partial (topless) recovery.Not a “full frontal” recovery…


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Roro Conventional general cargo

Liquid Bulk Dry Bulk Containers

Mill

ion

tons

of m

ariti

me

traffi

c

Cargo segment

200820092010

340 ports

266 ports-19.8% -14.0% +10.3%+13.6%

+1.4%

+9.5%+9.5%

316 ports

352 ports 135 ports

-12.0%-19.6%

-3.9%

European port traffic2008-2010 = -5.2%

Total European port throughput

2008: 4.26 billion tons2009: 3.76 billion tons (-11.7%)2010: 4.04 billion tons (+7.4%)


Container volumes are bouncing back

-5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 1

98

5

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Co

nta

ine

r th

rou

gh

pu

t in

mill

ion

TE

Us

(78

po

rts

)

European port system

Hamburg-Le Havre range

Mediterranean range

UK range

Atlantic range

Baltic

Black Sea

Exponential trendline total traffic

2009: - 14.4% compared to

2008

2010: + 10.4% compared to

2009

Non-anticipated traffic gap of 15 million TEU


Market shares in the European container port system

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%1

98

5

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Sh

are

in to

tal c

on

tain

er t

hro

ug

hp

ut

Hamburg-Le Havre range

Mediterranean range

UK range

Atlantic range

Baltic

Black SeaMed ports are losing market share, mainly due to weaker position transshipment hubs

Rising market share Hamburg-Le Havre range

mainly due to Benelux ports.

Black Sea port system loses ground due to declining volumes at Constantza

The Charthouse GroupMiddle East – Far East

Main shipping route

Americas

Americas

Transhipment/interlining port (transhipment incidence >75%)

Multi-port gateway region

Main shipping route

Gateway port

Gateway port also handlingsubstantial transhipment flows

Market shares in total European container traffic

© 2011 T. Notteboom – ITMMA, University of Antwerp

UK

Germany

France

Belg.

NL

Ireland

Romania

Sweden

Spain

Croatia

Hungary

Czech RepublicSlovakia

SerbiaBosnia& Herz.

Alb.

Greece

Bulgaria

Turkey

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Norway

Finland

Ukraine

Belarus

Russia

Portugal

Mace.

Den.

Austria

Switz.

Italy

Poland

MoroccoAlgeria Tunisia

Cyprus

Malta

‘09: 25.5% ‘10: 26.1%

‘09: 14.9%‘10: 14.9%

‘09: 0.8%‘10: 1.2%

‘09: 3.0%‘10: 2.9%

‘09: 7.3%‘10: 7.4%

‘09: 1.5%‘10: 1.6%

‘09: 4.3%‘10: 4.5%

‘09: 1.5%‘10: 1.6%

‘09: 0.9%‘10: 0.8%

‘09: 1.2%‘10: 1.3%

‘09: 1.9%‘10: 1.9%

‘09: 7.2%‘10: 7.1%

Other ports‘09: 29.8%‘10: 28.6%


Trade volumes per route to/from Europe: Mixed results

Source: based on data EELA and Container Trade Statistics

Year on year change in trade volumes (basis = TEU)

Q1-2009 Q2-2009 Q3-2009 Q4-2009 Q1-2010 Q2-2010 Q1-2011 Q1-2011 vs. Q1-2008Europe-SSA Northbound -4.2% -4.3% -7.1% 3.5% 7.8% 2.5% 10.9% 30.7%Europe-SSA Southbound -1.3% -3.1% -1.8% 2.6% 5.7% 7.3% 27.5% 43.3%

Europe-Asia Westbound -22.1% -22.2% -13.2% -0.2% 21.2% 24.1% 6.3% 0.2%Europe-Asia Eastbound -15.6% -1.6% 9.2% 29.1% 23.0% 0.6% 4.3% 8.6%

Europe-North America WB -16.9% -21.6% -15.0% -6.5% 13.4% 22.2% 5.3% -1.1%Europe-North America EB -29.0% -35.0% -25.6% -6.6% 12.3% 16.0% 8.1% -13.3%

Europe-India/Middle East WB -12.1% -7.4% -0.5% 4.7% 18.1% 20.1% 15.4% 24.9%Europe-India/Middle East EB -4.1% -0.6% 1.7% 6.4% 14.4% 6.8% 6.0% 18.2%

Europe-South/Latin America NB -12.9% -12.3% -18.6% 2.7% 4.7% -5.1% 13.7% 0.9%Europe-South/Latin America SB -27.4% -26.4% -22.5% -0.8% 47.5% 57.7% 20.1% 28.7%

Europe-Oceania NB -6.8% -9.1% -14.0% -12.9% -11.1% -2.3% 2.4% -15.3%Europe-Oceania SB -14.7% -26.4% -8.5% -6.0% 19.6% 32.8% 2.6% 4.1%


Trade volumes per route to/from Europe: geographical shifts

Asia54,1%North

America19,2%

India/Middle East

11,7%

South and Latin America

8,2%

Sub Saharan Africa5,0%

Oceania1,8%

Geographical distribution of extra-European container trade (dry and reefer) - year 2008 (based on data ELAA)

2008 2010

Asia54,4%North

America16,9%

India/Middle East

13,1%

South and Latin America

8,1%

Sub Saharan Africa5,7%

Oceania1,8%

Geographical distribution of extra-European container trade (dry and reefer) - year 2010 (based on data ELAA)


LOOKING AT THE FUNDAMENTALS

Far from being a no-brainer…


Major Steps in Intermodal Integration

Pallets (1930s)TOFC (1950s)

Containerization (1956)Standardization (size and latching) (1965)Transatlantic (1966); Containerships (1968)

Deregulation (1980s)

Doublestacking; IBCs (1985)

COFC (1967)

Time

Inte

rmod

al In

tegr

atio

n Advanced TerminalsRegionalization

Advanced Containers

Intermodal rail crane (1985)

An enduring innovative process.Multiplying effect on an existing technique.An exercise in unintended consequences?From revolution to evolution?


Some Key Issues in Liner Shipping: Towards a Revolution?

Renewed risk for overcapacity.

18,000 TEU vessels and its

ramifications on ports.

Slow steaming: using a green

argument to hide a green ($) bottom

line?

Overcapacity absorbing potential is weakening

Impact of bunker price evolution and

low-sulphur fuel

Herd behavior or segmentation?


Containerization as a Diffusion Cycles:World Container Traffic (1980-2010) and Possible

Scenarios to 2015

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20150

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Milli

on T

EU Divergence

Adoption Acceleration Peak Growth Maturity

1966-1992 1992-2002 2002-2008 2008 -

Reference

Depression

To what extent the growth in 2010 is attributed to transshipment and emerging markets?

New (niche) servicesProductivity gains

Network developmentProductivity multipliers

Massive diffusionNetwork complexities

Niche markets


Container Usage during its Life-Span

16%

16%

6%

6%

56%

Ocean TransitTerminalInland UseRepairIdle or Empty Reposi-tioning

A lot of waste to improve upon.Challenges for asset management.


Weighting Out versus Cubing Out: What is a Proper Distribution of Containerized Assets?

27%24%

33%6% 4%

6%

Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers, 2008 (26.2 million TEU)

20 Foot

40 Foot

40 Foot High Cube

Reefer

Regional

Other

Balance between retail, intermediate goods and commodities

Regions follow standards; they do not set them.


The Main Driving Forces of Containerization

Derived

Economic and income growth

Globalization (outsourcing)

Fragmentation of production and consumption

Substitution

Functional and geographical

diffusion

New niches (commodities and

cold chain)Capture of bulk and break-bulk

markets

Incidental

Trade imbalancesRepositioning of

empty containers

Induced

Transshipment (hub, relay and

interlining)


DERIVED: ORGANIC GROWTH IN THE PIPELINE?


Monthly Value of Exports or Imports, Selected Traders, 2006-2011 (Jan 2006=100)

Jan-

06

Apr-0

6

Jul-0

6

Oct-0

6

Jan-

07

Apr-0

7

Jul-0

7

Oct-0

7

Jan-

08

Apr-0

8

Jul-0

8

Oct-0

8

Jan-

09

Apr-0

9

Jul-0

9

Oct-0

9

Jan-

10

Apr-1

0

Jul-1

0

Oct-1

0

Jan-

1150

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250China (Exports)

Japan (Exports)

Korea (Exports)

Germany (Exports)

USA (Imports)

Brazil (Exports)

Trade has bounced back.America’s consumption engine sputtering.

Yes, but at what cost?


CRB Index (CCI), Monthly Close, 1970-201119

7019

7019

7119

7219

7319

7419

7519

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1020

11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Paradigm shift in input costs…Reaping the consequences of monetary policy.Could be positive for containerization…


Business Cycles and Misallocations

Expansion Recession

Peak

Trough

Expansion

Credit-DrivenBoom

Credit-DrivenBust

Depression

Normal Cycle

Credit-Driven Cycle

When “organic growth” is using a lot of chemicals…Second phase of the credit-driven bust.


SUBSTITUTION: STUFFING THE BOX WITH SOMETHING DELICIOUS


Looking Inside the Box: Accept all Substitutes…

Retail and intermediate

goods

Commodities (balancing)

Cold chain (revenue)


The Usual Suspect: China’s Share of the World Commodity Consumption, c2009

CementIron Ore

CoalPigs

SteelLeadZinc

AluminiumCopper

EggsNickel

RiceSoybeans

PopulationWheat

ChickensGDP (PPP)

OilCattle

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

53.247.7

46.946.4

45.444.6

41.340.6

38.937.2

36.328.1

24.619.4

16.615.6

13.610.3

9.5


Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains: An Emerging Complementarity

Bulk Commodity Chain

Containerized Commodity Chain

Consolidationcenter

PortSupplier Customer

Intermodalterminal

Containerport

PendulumServices

Point-to-Point

Complementarity

Cost / volume driverLow frequencyDedicated terminalsOne way flows

Time / flexibility driverHigh frequencyGeneral terminalsMore balanced flows


Continuous Commodity Index and Baltic Dry Index, 2000-2011 (2000=100)

Jan-0

0Ju

n-00

Nov-00Apr-

01

Sep-01

Feb-02

Jul-0

2

Dec-02

May-03

Oct-03

Mar-04

Aug-04

Jan-0

5Ju

n-05

Nov-05Apr-

06

Sep-06

Feb-07

Jul-0

7

Dec-07

May-08

Oct-08

Mar-09

Aug-09

Jan-1

0Ju

n-10

Nov-10Apr-

110

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900Continuous Commodity IndexBaltic Dry Index


Continuous Commodity Index and Average Container Shipping Rates, 1994-2011 (1994=100)

Jan-9

4

Sep-94

Apr-95

Nov-95Ju

n-96Ja

n-97

Aug-97

Mar-98Oct-

98

May-99

Dec-99Ju

l-00

Feb-01

Sep-01

Apr-02

Nov-02Ju

n-03Ja

n-04

Aug-04

Mar-05Oct-

05

May-06

Dec-06Ju

l-07

Feb-08

Sep-08

Apr-09

Nov-09Ju

n-10Ja

n-11

50

100

150

200

250

300Continuous Commodity IndexContainer Shipping Rates


From Bulk to Containers: Breaking Economies of Scale

• Container as an independent load unit.• Minimal load unit; one TEU container.

Entry Barriers

• Limited differences in scale economies for a producer.

• Incremental / linear cost-volume function.

Required Volumes

• New producers (smaller).• Product differentiation (larger variety).

Market Potential


The Cold Chain: A Highly Constrained Niche

Conditional demand• Each product has a specific perishability.• Shelf life and revenue.• Demand conditional to qualitative attributes.

Load integrity• Reefers as the common load unit.• Packing, packaging and preparation.• Empty backhauls.

Transport integrity• Uninterrupted integrity of the transport chain (modes, terminals

and DC).• Specialized modes (speed) and terminals?


Equal but Separate… The Reefer Ghetto (Away from Containers of Color…)


INDUCED: TRANSSHIPMENT (THE GREAT SHUFFLE)


The Global Transshipment Market


How the Main Actors in Global Freight Distribution Influence Routing?

Top ten terminal operators: 65% of the world’s total container handlings

Container Terminal Portfolio of the Four Main Global Terminal Operators, 2010


Sea-sea transshipment plays a role, particularly in Med and in relation to UK and Baltic…

Algeciras

Sines Cagliari

Gioia Tauro

Malta

Taranto

Piraeus

Le Havre

Rotterdam

Antwerp

Zeebrugge

Bremerhaven

Hamburg

Valencia

Barcelona

Influences on North Europe(1) Maasvlakte 2 effect +

JadeWeserPort, capacity in UK(2) Direct deepsea calls in Baltic

(cf. Gdansk)

Influences on South Europe(1) Direct calls in gateway ports (cf.

NAPA, Spain, etc..)(2) Competition Tanger Med Transhipment incidence:

North Europe = 24.2%Eastern Europe = 16.2%South Europe = 44.6%


Pure transhipment hubs in West Med lose market share

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Sh

are

in T

EU

th

rou

gh

pu

t We

st-

Me

d

West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance > 250 nm

West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance 100-250 nm

West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance < 100 nm


Major ports and future terminal developments in non-EU Med ports: impact of a changing political landscape?

Container throughput in million TEU, capacity extensions in million TEU

Ambarli (Turkey)Traffic: 2.26 (2008)

Mersin (Turkey)

Haifa (Israel)Traffic: 1.39 (2008)

Beirut (Lebanon)Traffic: 0.95 (2008)

Port Said (Egypt)Traffic: 3.2 (2008)Capacity: +2.5 (2011)

Damietta (Egypt)Capacity: +4 (2012)

Misurata (Libya)Initial plans cancelled?

Enfidha (Tunisia)Capacity: +1 (2011)+2.5 (period 2011-2015)+2 (period 2015-2030)

Rades (Tunisia)Traffic: 0.3 (2007)

Djendjen (Algeria)Capacity: +2 (DP World)

Bejaia (Algeria)Traffic: 0.15 (2008)

Capacity: +2.5 (>2010)

Algiers (Algeria)Traffic: 0.5 (2007)

Capacity: +0.8 (2010)

Tanger Med IIAPMT/Akwa: + 3 mln TEU (2012)PSA: +2 mln TEU (2012)

Tanger MedAPMT: + 1.5 mln TEUEurogate: +1.5 mln TEU


Pushing Atomization in the Hinterland and Massification in the Foreland

PORT FORELAND

PORT HINTERLAND Different momentums

Economies of scaleFunctional Integration

Hinterland-Based Regionalization

Foreland-Based Regionalization

Atomization

Massification

Capacity Frequency

CapacityGap

Economies of scale

FrequencyMitigation


INCIDENTAL: LIVING IN AN ASYMMETRIC WORLD…


Containerized Cargo Flows along Major Trade Routes, 1995-2009 (in millions of TEUs)

1995

1998

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

4.0

5.2

5.6

7.2

8.8

10.2

12.4

12.4

15.0

15.2

14.5

11.5

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.9

3.9

4.1

4.2

4.4

4.7

5.0

5.6

6.9

2.8

3.5

4.5

5.9

6.1

7.3

8.9

10.8

15.3

17.2

16.7

11.5

2.3

2.7

3.6

4.0

4.2

4.9

5.2

5.5

9.1

10.1

10.5

5.5

1.2

1.3

2.2

2.7

1.5

1.7

1.7

2.1

2.5

2.7

2.9

2.5

1.4

1.7

2.9

3.6

2.6

2.9

3.2

3.8

4.4

4.5

4.3

5.3

Asia-USAUSA-AsiaAsia-EuropeEurope-AsiaUSA-EuropeEurope-USA

Empties; a breath of fresh air…


Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning

Hinterland

Foreland

Inter-Regional Repositioning

(inland)

Global Repositioning

Inter-RegionalRepositioning

(coastal / fluvial)RegionalRepositioning

Port

Depot / Inland terminal

Freight Distribution Center

Cargo Rotation


Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based Containerized Logistics

Many Customers• Function of population density.• Geographical spread.• Product customization.• Incites transloading.• High priority (value, timeliness).

Few Suppliers• Function of resource density.• Geographical concentration.• Lower priority.• Depends on repositioning

opportunities.

Gateway

Inland Terminal

DistributionCenter

Customer

Supplier

Repositioning

Import-Based

Export-Based


Slow Steaming: What Hath You Brought Us?

More containerized inventory tied in transit.

More containers for the same flow capacity (10-30%?).

Externalization of costs (50% of the market concerns leased containers).

Challenging hinterland strategies (container rotation).

Are maritime shipping companies likely to own more or less containers in such a context?


TERMINAL OPERATOR STRATEGY:IN SEARCH OF UNIQUE FEATURES?


Going Green: Hypocrisy?

Low emission

vessel

Carbon neutral

Greensupply chain


Going globalRegional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Twelve Largest Global

Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2010)

Hutchison Port Holdings

Port of Singapore Authority

Dubai Ports World

APM Terminals

Eurogate

Ports America

SSA Marine

Shanghai International Port Group

Cosco Pacific

Hanjin

ICTSI

CMA-CGM

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AfricaAustraliaNorth AmericaSouth America / CaribbeanPacific AsiaSouth Asia / Middle EastMediterraneanEurope Atlantic

Changes in regional orientation?


Building partnershipsComplexity in terminal ownership structures

Example for the Rhine-Scheldt Delta - 2010

DP World

PSAHUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS

APM Terminals(AP Moller Group)

ANTWERP

Antwerp Gateway

PSA (Antwerp/

Zeebrugge)

MSC Home terminal

CHZ

APM Terminal

ZEEBRUGGE

ROTTERDAM

Rotterdam World Gateway(Maasvlakte 2)

Operational by 2013

ECT

APM Terminal Maasvlakte CMA-CGM

MSC

NYK

Terminal 1(Maasvlakte 2)

Operational by 2014

Minority Shareholding

Waal- and Eemhaven

Delta Terminal

Euromax phase 1

Majorityshareholding

ZIM Line

DP World Delwaidedock

North Sea Terminal

Europe Terminal

Deurganck Terminal

New World Alliance

CYKH Alliance

Antwerp International Terminal (AIT) Shipping Line

(Global) Terminal Operator

Terminal

Shanghai International Port

Group (SIPG)

Albert II-dock north (under construction)

Cosco Pacific

100%

20%

50%

100%

100%

50%

50%

50%

60%

30%

10%

100%

100%

100%

50%50%

100%

42.5%10%

20%

10%

35%

100%

65%

75%

25%

PORT

Financial Holding

Source: Notteboom & Rodrigue (2010)


Filling the “gap”?

Intermodal

Performance (Speed, Reliability, Flexibility)

Liner shipping

Truckload

Air

LTLFreight rateto shipper

(gate-to-gate)

Impact slow steaming &transshipment

Polar routesDirect servicesFast shipsTrans-Siberian rail


Filling the “gap”?Fast end-to-end services?

Multi-container platform for fast roro handling

Bron: Kvaerner Masa-Yards Technology


• ‘Extended Gate’ concept of ECT (Hutchison Port Holdings)• ‘Terminal Operator Haulage’ concept of DP World

• Impact- Optimize capacity use at deepsea terminals- Lower environmental footprint and road congestion in/around port- Create a streamlined logistics solution for customers

Going inland Active involvement of terminal operators

vessel vessel

= direct truck = barge/rail shuttle= endhaul truck

Seaportterminal

Inland terminal

Inland terminal

Inland terminal

Seaportterminal


Going inlandActive involvement of shipping lines: ‘Push strategy’

x B/L seaport X

y

x B/L seaport X

Second move by rail, barge or truck

B/L inland port

z Rail, barge (or truck)

x

y


CONTAINER PUSH STRATEGY

Source: Notteboom (2011)

The Charthouse GroupMiddle East – Far East

Main shipping route

Americas

Americas

Transhipment/interlining port (transhipment incidence >75%)


Main shipping route

Gateway port

Gateway port also handlingsubstantial transhipment flows

Gateway traffic (inland traffic excl. sea-sea transhipment) in major multi-port gateway regions

in Europe (TEU – figures 2008)

© 2011 T. Notteboom – ITMMA, University of Antwerp

UK

Germany

France

Belg.

NL

Ireland

Romania

Sweden

Spain

Croatia

Hungar

Czech RepublicSlovakia

SerbiaBosnia& Herz.

Alb.

Greece

Bulgaria

Turkey

Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Norway

Finland

Ukraine

Belarus

Russia

Portugal

Mace.

Den.

Austria

Switz.

Italy

Poland

MoroccoAlgeria Tunisia

Cyprus

Malta

Rhine-Scheldt Delta16.8 mln TEU

North Germany9.2 mln TEU

Gdansk Bay 0.77 mln TEU

Seine Estuary1.9 mln TEU

Spanish Med3.9 mln TEU

Liguria4 mln TEU

North Adriatic:1.3 mln TEU

Black Sea0.54 mln TEU

SE East Coast UK6.3 million TEU

Marseille0.85 mln TEU

Portugal1.1 mln TEU

Core of “Blue Banana” + EDC effect

Immediate hinterlands remain the backbone of ports’ gateway

traffic..

.. but gateway regions increasingly vie

for distant contestable hinterlands

Flexibility is key


Hardmodal

splittargets

feasible?

Going intermodalModal split targets of terminals


• Supply chain practices• Pricing and quality of rail and

barge services• Infrastructure policy outside

port area (by government)

PrimarilyExogenous

• Dwell time fee system• Investments in on-terminal

barge and rail infrastructure• Pricing of moves to inland

transport modes• Information flow• Extended gate solutions

PrimarilyEndogenous


Rail or barge

pricing

Rail or barge

service level

Port pricing

Port service

level

Going intermodalLinking pricing and non-pricing levers

across transport nodes and modes

Inland port

pricing

Inland port

service level

Non-pricing leversPricing levers

Pricing linkages

Service level linkages

Pricing/service level linkages between modes/nodes

Pricing/service level linkages at same mode/node



THE NEXT BOX WAVE OR THE NEXT BOX CRASH?

Ay caramba!Can I handle the load?


Conclusion: Which Growth for Which Box?

Derived Substitution

Incidental Induced


Thank you for your attention [email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

the charthouse group the next box wave: can containerization reinvent itself? the next box wave: can...

Documents

charthouse group bulk

charthouse group substitution

charthouse group weighting

charthouse group trade

charthouse group market

charthouse group middle

charthouse group major

constantza slide