IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v95y2017icp109-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pre-announcements of price increase intentions in liner shipping spot markets

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Gang
  • Rytter, Niels G.M.
  • Jiang, Liping
  • Nielsen, Peter
  • Jensen, Lars

Abstract

Carriers in liner shipping markets frequently make public announcements of general rate increase (GRI) intentions, based on which EU authorities have concerns as to whether this harms market competition. This paper aims to empirically investigate how well the GRI system works from an industrial competition perspective, which will indirectly indicate whether carriers are able to manipulate spot rates following GRI announcements. Taking the Far East–North Europe trade between 2009 and 2013 as an example, the paper first reveals the gradual increase of GRI frequency and size, which reflects carriers’ attempts to restore profitability against overcapacity. However, out of all the GRI events only 28.6% were observed to be successful. Since these GRI successes must be the results of either price collusion (if any) and/or normal rate change by carriers in response to fundamental market developments, the effective collusion, if it exists, is actually lower than 28.6%. Next, we identify eight factors influencing GRI successes. To further assess their impact, we applied an ordered logit regression analysis, which, based on four of the factors involved, yields good predictability for GRI success. The four factors, in sequence of explanation power, are the total capacity of GRI carriers, the idling fleet size, the spot rate level, and the average ship-loading factor. Clearly the latter three factors are market fundamentals, which are unlikely to be influenced by an individual carrier in the short term. In actual fact, the conclusion reached is that there is little evidence that carriers can manipulate and distort spot rates through GRIs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Gang & Rytter, Niels G.M. & Jiang, Liping & Nielsen, Peter & Jensen, Lars, 2017. "Pre-announcements of price increase intentions in liner shipping spot markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 109-125.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:95:y:2017:i:c:p:109-125
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2016.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416309843
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2016.11.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas Davis & Oleg Korenok & Robert Reilly, 2010. "Cooperation without coordination: signaling, types and tacit collusion in laboratory oligopolies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 45-65, March.
    2. Pierre Cariou & Francois-Charles Wolff, 2006. "An Analysis of Bunker Adjustment Factors and Freight Rates in the Europe/Far East Market (2000–2004)," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 8(2), pages 187-201, June.
    3. Clyde, Paul S & Reitzes, James D, 1998. "Market Power and Collusion in the Ocean Shipping Industry: Is a Bigger Cartel a Better Cartel?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(2), pages 292-304, April.
    4. Harrington, Joseph E. & Hernan Gonzalez, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2016. "The relative efficacy of price announcements and express communication for collusion: Experimental findings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 251-264.
    5. Sys, Christa, 2009. "Is the container liner shipping industry an oligopoly?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 259-270, September.
    6. Mike Fusillo, 2013. "The Stability of Market Shares in Liner Shipping," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(1), pages 85-106, February.
    7. Corona, Carlos & Nan, Lin, 2013. "Preannouncing competitive decisions in oligopoly markets," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 73-90.
    8. Fonseca, Miguel A. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012. "Explicit vs. tacit collusion—The impact of communication in oligopoly experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1759-1772.
    9. Michael Fusillo, 2006. "Some notes on structure and stability in liner shipping," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(5), pages 463-475.
    10. Chung-Yee Lee & Christopher S. Tang & Rui Yin & Jaehyung An, 2015. "Fractional Price Matching Policies Arising from the Ocean Freight Service Industry," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(7), pages 1118-1134, July.
    11. Marshall, Robert C. & Marx, Leslie M. & Raiff, Matthew E., 2008. "Cartel price announcements: The vitamins industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 762-802, May.
    12. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2008:i:53:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Peter Nielsen & Liping Jiang & Niels Gorm Malý Rytter & Gang Chen, 2014. "An investigation of forecast horizon and observation fit's influence on an econometric rate forecast model in the liner shipping industry," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(7), pages 667-682, December.
    14. Meifeng Luo & Lixian Fan & Liming Liu, 2009. "An econometric analysis for container shipping market," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6), pages 507-523, December.
    15. Amy Moore & Michael Taylor, 2008. "Non-binding signals: are they effective or ineffectual?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(53), pages 1-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ziaul Haque Munim & Hans-Joachim Schramm, 0. "Forecasting container freight rates for major trade routes: a comparison of artificial neural networks and conventional models," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    2. Choi, Tsan-Ming & Chung, Sai-Ho & Zhuo, Xiaopo, 2020. "Pricing with risk sensitive competing container shipping lines: Will risk seeking do more good than harm?," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 210-229.
    3. Wang, Kelly Yujie & Wen, Yuan & Yip, Tsz Leung & Fan, Zuojun, 2021. "Carrier-shipper risk management and coordination in the presence of spot freight market," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Svetlana Avdasheva & Svetlana Golovanova & Gyuzel Yusupova, 2019. "Advance freight rate announcements (GRI) in liner shipping: European and Russian regulatory settlements compared," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 21(2), pages 192-206, June.
    5. Zhang, X. & Chen, M.Y. & Wang, M.G. & Ge, Y.E. & Stanley, H.E., 2019. "A novel hybrid approach to Baltic Dry Index forecasting based on a combined dynamic fluctuation network and artificial intelligence method," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 361(C), pages 499-516.
    6. Ziaul Haque Munim & Hans-Joachim Schramm, 2021. "Forecasting container freight rates for major trade routes: a comparison of artificial neural networks and conventional models," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 23(2), pages 310-327, June.
    7. Pierre Cariou & Patrice Guillotreau, 2022. "Capacity management by global shipping alliances: findings from a game experiment," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 24(1), pages 41-66, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Suguru Otani & Takuma Matsuda, 2023. "Unified Merger List in the Container Shipping Industry from 1966: A Structural Estimation of the Transition of Importance of a Firm's Age, Tonnage Capacity, and Geographical Proximity on Merger Decisi," Papers 2310.09938, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    2. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Franck, Jens-Uwe, 2015. "Endogenous price commitment, sticky and leadership pricing: Evidence from the Italian petrol market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 32-48.
    3. Werner Güth & Manfred Stadler & Alexandra Zaby, 2020. "Capacity precommitment, communication, and collusive pricing: theoretical benchmark and experimental evidence," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(2), pages 495-524, June.
    4. Takuma Matsuda & Suguru Otani, 2022. "Unified Container Shipping Industry Data From 1966: Freight Rate, Shipping Quantity, Newbuilding, Secondhand, and Scrap Price," Papers 2211.16292, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    5. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Crede, Carsten J., 2020. "Post-cartel tacit collusion: Determinants, consequences, and prevention," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Zhou, Yusheng & Li, Xue & Yuen, Kum Fai, 2022. "Holistic risk assessment of container shipping service based on Bayesian Network Modelling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    7. Miguel A. Fonseca & Yan Li & Hans‐Theo Normann, 2018. "Why factors facilitating collusion may not predict cartel occurrence — experimental evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(1), pages 255-275, July.
    8. Fonseca, Miguel A. & Gonçalves, Ricardo & Pinho, Joana & Tabacco, Giovanni A., 2022. "How do antitrust regimes impact on cartel formation and managers’ labor market? An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 643-662.
    9. Harrington, Joseph E. & Hernan Gonzalez, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2016. "The relative efficacy of price announcements and express communication for collusion: Experimental findings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 251-264.
    10. Werner, Tobias, 2021. "Algorithmic and human collusion," DICE Discussion Papers 372, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    11. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2013. "Oligopoly Experiments In The Current Millennium," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 439-460, July.
    12. Maximilian Andres & Lisa Bruttel & Jana Friedrichsen, 2019. "The Effect of a Leniency Rule on Cartel Formation and Stability: Experiments with Open Communication," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1835, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Bodnar, Olivia & Fremerey, Melinda & Normann, Hans-Theo & Schad, Jannika Leonie, 2021. "The effects of private damage claims on cartel activity: Experimental evidence," DICE Discussion Papers 315, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), revised 2021.
    14. Darai, D. & Roux, C. & Schneider, F., 2019. "Mergers, Mavericks, and Tacit Collusion," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1984, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    15. Willem Boshoff & Stefan Frübing & Kai Hüschelrath, 2018. "Information exchange through non-binding advance price announcements: an antitrust analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 439-468, June.
    16. Andres, Maximilian & Bruttel, Lisa & Friedrichsen, Jana, 2023. "How communication makes the difference between a cartel and tacit collusion: A machine learning approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    17. Peter Nielsen & Liping Jiang & Niels Gorm Malý Rytter & Gang Chen, 2014. "An investigation of forecast horizon and observation fit's influence on an econometric rate forecast model in the liner shipping industry," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(7), pages 667-682, December.
    18. Michael Fung, 2014. "Ocean Carriers’ Collusion Under Antitrust Immunity: Evidence of Asymmetric Pass-Through," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 45(1), pages 59-77, August.
    19. Timothy Flannery & Siyu Wang, 2023. "Is the “smoke‐filled room” necessary? An experimental study of the effect of communication networks on collusion," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 89(4), pages 1056-1077, April.
    20. Pierre Cariou & Patrice Guillotreau, 2022. "Capacity management by global shipping alliances: findings from a game experiment," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 24(1), pages 41-66, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:95:y:2017:i:c:p:109-125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.