Last week it was dry bulk. This week, all the fuss seems to be revolving around the tanker market. A Wall Street Journal “Money & Investing” section cover story on the popularity of shorting tanker stocks drew some attention. As did a bearish report from R.S. Platou, a much-talked-about, products-focused IPO from Aries Maritime, positive reports form Jefferies and Banc of America and tanker stock coverage initiations from First Albany. So what, exactly, are the arguments going around, and of what should tanker market players and their financiers be aware? It’s still impossible to predict the future, but we can tell you what some of the competing arguments are.

R.S. Platou analyst Erik Andersen drew a lot of attention with his bearish report on shipping, particularly tankers. According to Mr. Andersen, the seasonality justification for low spot rates – which brokers say have dropped into the upper teens for VLCCs on some routes – is badly overblown. He notes that from 1997-2004, the average second quarter rate was about 37.5% lower than the average fourth quarter rate, completely out of order with the drop in rates from $147,000 in the fourth quarter of 2004 to $41,000 so far in the second quarter of 2005. However, this is still above the 8-year average second quarter rate of $35,000 – albeit with higher bunker prices – suggesting that perhaps the $147,000 was more of an anomaly than the $41,000 is a sign of a crash. Still, tanker fleet annualized growth figures of 6-7% compared to a comparable rate of 1% annually over the decade from 1993-2003 are somewhat ominous. Citigroup Smith Barney analyst Charles de Trenck noted how the current weak rates are making the tanker market the first among the shipping sectors to experience the pricing pressures derived from growing capacity. But on the bright side, Mr. Andersen did write that he does not believe tanker markets will weaken so much as to create a weak year for owners.

Analysts Magnus Fyhr and Douglas Mavrinac at Jefferies & Company have a much different take on the current market situation. They said in a report issued to reiterate their buy rating on Ship Finance International that they expect tanker demand to be firm on increasing OPEC production. Importantly, the analysts believe that incremental fleet growth of 21 MMdwt scheduled through the end of the year is likely to be absorbed by increased tanker demand.

Evincing similarly positive sentiments, analysts Daniel Barcelo, Philippe Lanier and Pierre Sargeant of Banc of America Securities issued a report on oil tankers optimistically titled “Hold On for the Summer Heat.” They note that a 5% tanker stock pullback over the past two weeks has been related more to Arabian Gulf VLCC market conditions than to the tanker industry as a whole, much of which has remained fairly strong. Additionally, they point out that the 450 vessel global VLCC fleet has grown by only two vessels so far in 2005, implying that softened rates could not be explained by supply buildup, but rather are a product of a reduction in Arabian Gulf export volume and a temporary buildup of available tonnage in the gulf. Analyst Craig Irwin of First Albany appears to agree, having this week initiated coverage on General Maritime, OMI and Arlington Tankers with a Buy rating. And a group of Asian investors that market sources say recently put their money into a very expensive $140 million VLCC newbuilding have put their money where their mouth is when it comes to predicting a strong VLCC market for years to come.

Much of Wall Street, however, seems to have sided with R.S. Platou on the more bearish side of the debate, as a widely disseminated article titled “Shorts Expect Tankers to Take On More Water” strongly suggests. Teekay, OMI, Knightsbridge and General Maritime are all being subjected to this phenomenon, with Frontline leading the pack. Investors are brazenly betting that tanker stocks will keep falling. Whether or not this will happen is hard to tell, though the practice certainly is not encouraging for those hoping to see their tanker investments appreciate.

Aries Maritime Transport and TBS have emerged this week as the next shipping companies likely to head off on IPO roadshows to raise fresh capital. These two deals follow on the heels of the wildly successful IPO of Teekay LNG, and before that Diana’s less-than-spectacular post-offering performance.

We have been watching TBS since it made its initial S-1 filing with the SEC in March, but noticed that the company filed a revised document with the SEC this week that includes much more detailed figures, as highlighted in the Forthcoming IPOs table. Although public transactions are not generally deemed “effective” until shortly before pricing time, we imagine TBS is getting very close to launching. As for Aries, the deal was initially filed using the confidential Form F-1 and was therefore previously unknown to the marketplace.

This is a very good combination of deals to launch so close together in that they are very different and will likely appeal to different categories of investors. As you can see from the accompanying fleet list, Aries’ fleet is comprised of product tankers and container ships, 100% of which are on term charters. In contrast, TBS operates a long-established liner service using a fleet of owned and chartered-in bulk carriers to serve its industrial customers. There are plenty of other differences as well. For example, Aries plans to pay a substantial dividend that appears similar to Arlington Tankers in concept while TBS does not anticipate paying a dividend. As always, we will refrain from engaging in a valuation analysis until the deals conclude, but below are some facts and figures that appear in the public document.

Fortis Bank analyst Dan Barrett, for one, is still interested in tanker equities. He issued a report this week initiating Arlington Tankers with a Buy rating and a $25 price target. He believes that the tanker market will ease from current levels but remain strong throughout 2005, not returning to mid-cycle levels until 2006. As for Arlington in particular, the report is confident in the company’s modern fleet and long-term contracts, while Mr. Barrett is positive on the company’s estimated 2005 yield of 10.8%.

Jefferies analysts Magnus Fyhr and Douglas Mavrinac this week raised their price target on Nordic American Tanker Shipping to $46, but are maintaining a rating of Hold. The analysts believe tanker demand is firming on increasing OPEC production, but are also lowering 2005 EPS estimates for NATS due to 1Q05 results that were below expectations on non-cash G&A expenses.

Jefferies analysts Magnus Fyhr and Douglas Mavrinac continued to expand their comprehensive shipping sector coverage with the initiation of coverage on Diana Shipping with a Buy rating and a $21 price target. The analysts note that Diana operates a modern dry bulk fleet while dry bulk fundamentals remain attractive. The company has a strong balance sheet that is readily available to support future growth, and it has announced a policy to pay out all free cash as dividends, a policy which is supported by Diana’s timecharter strategy.

The analysts also reiterated this week their Buy rating for Arlington Tankers, with a target price of $25.00, though the report also reduces EPS estimates based on lowered charter rate expectations. One thing that both these Buy ratings have in common is a notable dividend yield. Calculating the value of near-term returns, dividend yields mean a lot to analysts, but how much do they mean to equity investors?

General Maritime’s recent inauguration of a considerable dividend policy gives us a rare venue to test the hypothesis that higher dividends translate into higher share prices. The accompanying graph comparing General Maritime’s share price evolution, starting in the beginning of January and going through the period when the company announced its new dividend policy, to that of Frontline.

It’s all about the arbitrage these days.

What we mean by this, of course, is the fact that ships have a higher value on Wall Street than they do in the shipping markets – and not surprisingly there is a steady stream of people looking to capture the difference.

For proof of this, one need only to look at our Cash Flow Multiples by Vessel Type valuation table and compare it to the “Fair Value” table showing the valuation of shipping companies that trade on the stock exchange. It depends on the age of the vessels, of course, but on average a shipowner can buy a middle-aged vessel at about 4x cash flow and sell it to Wall Street investors at about 6x cash flow – much more if the company is valued based on its dividend yield.

Here’s where the rubber meets the road: by valuing shipping companies using a multiple of their cash flow generation, issuers of equity can effectively sell their vessels for 1.5-2.0x their value in the sale and purchase market. It is a truly remarkable moment in the evolution of shipping and the capital markets – and not surprisingly the Delta flight between Athens and New York is once again being seen as a direct journey to wealth and early retirement for shipping dealmakers.

In the early stages of this “multiple expansion” (or “bubble” for cynics) process on Wall Street, issuers of equity were largely financially savvy shipping companies that realized that by selling ships, and leasing them back as Stena did with Arlington Tankers, they could extract the premium value of their ships while at the same time maintain commercial control and chartering “upside.”

However, as we move into year three of the shipping bull market, we are beginning to see private equity funds hire some shipping professionals and form new companies for the purpose of buying ships at 4x cash flow and selling them to Wall Street for 6x cash flow – capturing the arbitrage along the way.

Not surprisingly, most of these private equity investors are focusing on the dry bulk sector where the fundamentals are rosy, and more importantly, the valuations are higher, even in situations with external management companies with older vessels.

There are several deals presently preparing or considering coming to market in which the issuer is a private equity fund, or “sponsor” as they are called, looking to capture the value arbitrage, but the first has finally reached the starting line – a newly-formed entity called Eagle Bulk Shipping owned by a private equity fund in New York called Kelso and comprised of former Credit Suisse investment bankers.

We’d like to take a moment to discuss why this deal has filed. For those readers less familiar with the S.E.C, there are two kinds of registration forms used for equity – the F-1 and the S-1 – the former of which is used by foreign-based filers and the latter by U.S.-based filers. The documents are virtually the same except for one critical difference: foreign filers using form F-1 are permitted to submit their initial prospectus filing confidentially while U.S. filers are not. That is why companies such as TBS Shipping, Horizon Lines and now Eagle Bulk Shipping have documents accessible to the public while foreign filers such as DryShips and Diana do not have their registration statements made public until they have finished with the SEC comment period and are ready to print red herrings and go out on the road. But we digress…

The first financial sponsor deal, Eagle Bulk, is hoping to raise up to $250 million through a listing on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol EGLE. Start-up companies use the NASDAQ because it does not have the same requirements for previous years of existence and profitability that the NYSE imposes. Joint bookrunners on the deal are UBS Investment Bank and Bear, Stearns & Co. – a pair of that seems to have either officially or unofficially teamed up to underwrite shipping deals. Legal advice is being provided by Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett for the underwriter and Seward & Kissel for the issuer.

What is unique about this IPO is that the company did not actually own any vessels at the time it filed its S-1 with the SEC. A quick look at the balance sheet shows that virtually all of the company’s net worth is associated with the deposits paid to secure vessels delivering in April to June 2005. We’re sure that some of the vessels have been delivered by now and there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it is clear that the issuer has been formed for the express purpose of the IPO.

Although we will refrain from getting into valuation issues, Eagle’s fleet will consist of 11 modern handymax dry bulk vessels, nine of which have been acquired and two of which are to be delivered in June 2005, as shown in the accompanying chart. The vessels range in size from 40,000 to 60,000 dwt and have an average age of six years, as compared to the global handymax fleet average age of 15 years. In a small industry where nothing is secret, management did a good job hiding their purchases from the market and industry publications such as Tradewinds. It is still true that if the sellers know you have plans or money, the price goes up.

The management team is lead by 39-year old Sophocles Zoullas, and Alan Ginsberg, a former editor of Marine Money, will serve as CFO. The rest of the directors are drawn from private equity fund Kelso, which is sponsoring the deal, and Norlands Shipping. This team will focus on strategic and commercial management, while technical management will be done by V. Ships.

The company’s pitch is that by focusing on handymax dry bulk vessels, they will have advantages that include reduced volatility in charter rates, a smaller newbuilding orderbook, increased operating flexibility, the ability to access more ports, the ability to carry a more diverse range of cargoes, and a broader customer base.

There’s a whiff of Diana Shipping and Nordic American to the Eagle deal, thanks to the fact that Bear Stearns is involved in all three. The company is planning to use the proceeds of the IPO to paying off existing debt and will enter into a new 10-year $330 million credit facility to refinance other existing debt, acquire additional vessels and fund general corporate purposes. Eagle plans to keep lower than industry average levels of debt. The company has not committed to a specific dividend and will leave the decision to the discretion of the company’s board of directors.