Trading income

How many oceanic freighters are being financed by the independent owner/operator these days? (Corporate financing - particularly by entities with the resources to buy the vessel outright, which use the financing route for other purposes - uses a different financial model.)
 
Galadrion said:
How many oceanic freighters are being financed by the independent owner/operator these days? (Corporate financing - particularly by entities with the resources to buy the vessel outright, which use the financing route for other purposes - uses a different financial model.)
Probably very few, but what is your point? Characters should not be able to finance a ship?

I guess my reply would be how many 18 wheelers are financed by the independent owner/operator these days?
 
Galadrion does have a point; oceanic cargo hauling isn't really done by independents - the way (say) Maersk or White Star finances a ship is probably what Tukera or Ling Standard would use, rather than Jameson Factors. There are certainly still a few 'tramp steamers' out there, but I suspect that they're not financed at all.

However, the big-rig model probably isn't quite right, either, since it's actually a lot harder for a truck to 'skip', and - at least in the US - road piracy isn't usually viewed as a risk factor.
 
FreeTrav said:
Galadrion does have a point; oceanic cargo hauling isn't really done by independents - the way (say) Maersk or White Star finances a ship is probably what Tukera or Ling Standard would use, rather than Jameson Factors. There are certainly still a few 'tramp steamers' out there, but I suspect that they're not financed at all.

However, the big-rig model probably isn't quite right, either, since it's actually a lot harder for a truck to 'skip', and - at least in the US - road piracy isn't usually viewed as a risk factor.

Actually it isn't that hard for a truck to 'skip', at least here in the USA it isn't. All the trucker has to do is head south and cross into Mexico. I work in the towing industry and have impounded trucks that have been missing and yet still working for months, sometimes years, before they are finally 'found' again by the rightful owners.
 
Truck hijackings have dropped over the last several years. This is most likely due to security measures such as GPS tracking that have recently become available for trucking firms. My friends business operates several trucks for delivering their merchandise and he can monitor the location of all his trucks. He can even receive alerts if a truck leaves a defined area or stops for too long.

People always talk about how the transponder on ships can be easily tampered with whenever I mention how a transponder helps limit piracy and skipping, so I won't mention it again here. :P
 
CosmicGamer said:
Truck hijackings have dropped over the last several years. This is most likely due to security measures such as GPS tracking that have recently become available for trucking firms. My friends business operates several trucks for delivering their merchandise and he can monitor the location of all his trucks. He can even receive alerts if a truck leaves a defined area or stops for too long.

People always talk about how the transponder on ships can be easily tampered with whenever I mention how a transponder helps limit piracy and skipping, so I won't mention it again here. :P

I wasn't talking about hijacking a truck, I was talking about an owner/operator skipping out on his payments and continuing to work with the truck.
 
FreeTrav said:
Galadrion does have a point; oceanic cargo hauling isn't really done by independents - the way (say) Maersk or White Star finances a ship is probably what Tukera or Ling Standard would use, rather than Jameson Factors. There are certainly still a few 'tramp steamers' out there, but I suspect that they're not financed at all.

However, the big-rig model probably isn't quite right, either, since it's actually a lot harder for a truck to 'skip', and - at least in the US - road piracy isn't usually viewed as a risk factor.

Those increased risks would (somewhat) increase the interest rate on the loan, to help compensate the lender for the greater chance that they might lose their investment. How much of an increase would be determined by the increase in the risk. Piracy shouldn't be a large factor - if pirates are operating in a region heavily enough to significantly impact business in general, the Navy is going to take an interest, and probably sooner rather than later. (I would say that probably less than one jump in a thousand should be troubled by piracy, except in a very isolated backwater.) Skipping is rather more of an issue, but evaluating the creditor's odds of doing so is a considerable part of what a loan officer does. I would also note that the possibility of skipping is why mobile assets such as ships carry a higher interest rate - it's notably harder to take a house and run than to do so with a ship.
 
Duroon said:
CosmicGamer said:
Truck hijackings have dropped over the last several years. This is most likely due to security measures such as GPS tracking that have recently become available for trucking firms. My friends business operates several trucks for delivering their merchandise and he can monitor the location of all his trucks. He can even receive alerts if a truck leaves a defined area or stops for too long.

People always talk about how the transponder on ships can be easily tampered with whenever I mention how a transponder helps limit piracy and skipping, so I won't mention it again here. :P

I wasn't talking about hijacking a truck, I was talking about an owner/operator skipping out on his payments and continuing to work with the truck.
I know that. While your post may have precipitated mine, I was not responding directly to yours.

A more direct comment would be that if finance companies required GPS devices to be installed in independent trucks, the frequency of people skipping would most likely drop, and it would probably make recovery quicker and easier.
 
Normally any loan on a mobile assett will include some comprehensive insurance (including theft and w/o) as a condition, I've also seen default and employment insurance being required to make the deal less risky for the bank.
I always thought that Traveller included an "Under the Table" governement subsidy for shp finance to allow for the rates to be similar to home finance levels
 
Back
Top