TRADE disruptions are extremely profitable for shipowners, but there is a limit. Theoretically, disruptions can become so extreme that demand destruction from economic fallout offsets rate upside from lower effective vessel supply.

In the 2020s, a series of disruptions — Covid, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Panama drought, the Red Sea crisis, Liberation Day tariffs, and now the Hormuz crisis — has coincided with stubbornly resilient economic growth.

The combination of supply inefficiency and strong demand was a common theme at the 18^th Annual Capital Link New York Maritime Forum on Wednesday.

It’s the perfect combination for shipping rates, particularly for tankers, which have blown past all historical benchmarks.

Demand remains resilient — for now

The rising occurrence of geopolitical disruptions may not be a coincidence. One theory on the 2020s is that the world is shifting from an American-led unipolar order to a multipolar order, making disruptions structurally more frequent.

“Longer term, I think we’re looking at a much longer disruption, because Pax Americana, which we all have had the fortune to grow up in, and enjoy since at least the 1950s, is under threat,” said Hing Chao, chairman of Wah Kwong Maritime Transport.

“Black swan events don’t really seem to be black swan events; they almost seem to be the new normal,” said Stuart Sandlin, president of Hapag-Lloyd America.

“There’s chaos in the world,” said Hamish Norton, president of Star Bulk. “It’s a combination of a whole series of inefficiencies relative to what the market was like in 2019. The inefficiencies have grown, and that has been good for rates, and until the world economy collapses due to these inefficiencies, it will be good for shipping.”

There has been economic fallout from disruptions, but the cargo demand negatives have been outweighed by the positives, at least so far.

“I am shocked that demand is still very, very high, but we see it,” said Sandlin.

According to Jorgen Lian, shipping analyst at DNB Carnegie, “All of these disruptions disturb the order of things, and you would imagine that typically they would impair the prospects for economic growth. But since 2020, shipping has done incredibly well, despite what might be negative shocks to the overall global economy.”

Lian pointed to one aspect that is pivotal to shipping demand: the Chinese economy. “China’s production has just powered on,” he said.

China pivoted its economy from real estate and infrastructure to more finished goods exports, supporting demand for containerships and car carriers.

Amid geopolitical tensions, China developed “new and evolving markets for its exports” and focused on “building inventory and being self-sufficient”, supporting import demand above and beyond the raw materials China uses to manufacture its goods exports.

“We are at a unique moment in history, with an unusual mix of structural forces reshaping our market,” said Angeliki Frangou, chief executive of Navios Partners.

Frangou cited two new demand drivers for shipping. “AI is extraordinarily capital-intensive and is creating massive new demand for physical materials. Defence spending has entered a prolonged expansion cycle.

“If you put together AI infrastructure and defence spending, these are powerful sources of demand for energy, industrial materials, manufacturing and resilient supply chains.”

Spending tied to the AI datacentre ecosystem has propped up container shipping demand in the US market and offset pressure from tariffs. Defence spending has grown globally in response to the Russia-Ukraine war and policy changes under US President Donald Trump.

“None of this means today’s growth market will last forever,” Frangou cautioned.

“Continued geopolitical disruption may eventually damage global economic growth. Nor should we assume that this extraordinary infrastructure spending associated with AI and defence will continue forever.”

Geopolitical disruptions and shipping supply

On the vessel supply front, disruptions are changing views on how much capacity is needed in the future. Newbuild yards are maxxed out for years ahead, sale-and-purchase and charter markets are buoyant, and scrapping has been minimal.

“You’re planning for disruption, whereas before you were planning for optimisation,” said Joe Kramek, president of the World Shipping Council. “You see more planning for resilience and thus the orderbook is larger. That’s a risk but if you don’t have the assets when the disruption that you can’t predict occurs, you might not have the resilience.”

Geopolitical disruptions are also leading to more nationalistic interests in vessel capacity.

“On the nationalistic security issue, on the container side, it’s almost coming down to a country and a carrier,” said Sandlin. “You’ve got a German carrier, a French carrier, a Swiss carrier, Taiwanese carriers, and the Japanese all coming together as one. I think there’s a goal for people to try to protect their national waterborne sovereignty by having ships.”

The Hormuz crisis is accelerating the trend.

“There is a trend of nationalisation in transportation in certain countries, particularly in the Middle East, where they feel ownership of these assets is critical to making sure their energy goods can flow,” said Chao.

The linkage between vessel capacity and nationality makes markets more difficult to navigate during wars or trade disputes.

Case in point: US port fees on Chinese ships, which led to Chinese retaliation against US-linked ships. The fees were suspended in November 2025 but could be reinstated. The US recently extended its trade truce with China, but only by two months, until February 10, 2027.

“That hasn’t been put to bed completely,” warned Norton. “And if we do get port taxes on Chinese ships in America, and American ships in China, the inefficiencies that would generate would be mind-boggling compared to what we’ve seen so far.”

Executives of Star Bulk and Safe Bulkers confirmed at the Capital Link forum that port-fee risks were one driver of their recent listings in Athens, complementing their primary US listings.

“We wanted to somehow address the increasing political risks,” said Thanasis Antonakis, co-chief financial officer of Safe Bulkers. He said that the US-China trade truce “continues to be fragile”.

According to Christos Begleris, co-chief financial officer of Star Bulk, “In October 2025, you had the China retaliation fees on the tariffs that Mr. Trump threatened against China. That was a big awakening call for us.

“What if the situation escalated to basically a level that we could not foresee? At one point, all US-listed companies were being branded as US companies, and would pay fees amounting to $1m-$3m per port call in China.

“Star Bulk has 500 port calls per year in China,” said Begleris. “China is really important to us. Therefore, it was an awakening call for us that maybe a stronger European footing is something we should further explore as an insurance policy against the US-China [conflict] further escalating.”

Commenting on Star Bulk’s Athens listing, Norton said: “The reason we did it was to basically be less American. We think looking American might be dangerous in the future, and we want to have a Plan B.”