Dry-Bulk Voyage-Economics Control Director

The mandate

Fixture proposals use time-charter equivalent as a common answer, but realised voyages diverge because cargo tolerances, draft, weather, waiting, speed instructions, bunkers, port restrictions, claims exposure and emissions costs enter through different spreadsheets. The defined problem is not forecasting freight markets; it is establishing one controlled decision model that preserves contractual and operational uncertainty before a fixture becomes binding and learns from realised voyages afterward.

The deliverable is a voyage-economics control book comprising a ledger-reconciled cost baseline, charter-clause library, vessel-performance envelopes, port and weather risk ranges, emissions treatment, decision thresholds and a controlled model. Twenty historic and eight prospective voyages will form the case library. The work excludes freight-market prediction, broker selection, charter-party legal opinion, bunker contracting and live fixture negotiation.

The fee is earned through four voyage-control milestones. Week three must close source reconciliation and the variance bridge across all 20 historic voyages. At week seven, owners accept the clause, vessel and port drivers together with their approved ranges. Eight prospective fixtures are tested, and prior decisions back-tested, for the week-twelve gate. Month four is reserved for acceptance of the controlled model, decision book, owner training and 90-day implementation backlog.

Acceptance requires Chartering, Operations and Finance to reproduce all 28 cases from retained sources and reach returns within the agreed tolerance. The model must show downside ranges, identify assumptions whose expiry changes the recommendation, and reconcile realised bunker, time, claims and emissions effects. The investment committee will accept when three desk teams use it unaided, Internal Audit can reperform two cases and management assigns permanent model ownership.

The client will provide charter-party extracts, fixture notes, noon and performance data, bunker invoices, port statements, weather-routing evidence, claims files, emissions records, ledgers and broker estimates. It will nominate commercial and finance sponsors, a vessel-performance engineer, a claims liaison and six-person working team. Management retains freight view, fixture, charter, routing, speed, bunker and legal decisions throughout.

Why this is external work

Chartering owns the commercial opportunity, Operations owns voyage execution and Finance sees results after contractual and operational causes have blended. Each current model answers its function’s question but cannot be independently reproduced. An external shipping economist can connect the evidence without selling freight forecasts, brokerage, fuel or claims services.

What you will own

• Reconcile 20 historic voyages from fixture premise through contractual terms, executed operation, ledger cost and realised contribution.
• Build a clause library covering quantity, laytime, speed, consumption, draft, deviation, cargo handling and emissions allocation.
• Establish vessel-performance and port-time ranges grounded in recent evidence without overriding a master’s safe-operation judgement.
• Quantify bunker, weather, waiting, claims and emissions downside transparently instead of hiding risk inside one expected return.
• Work eight prospective fixture cases through expiry-controlled assumptions, sensitivities, decision thresholds and later back-test.
• Design model controls, source retention, approval rights and monthly variance learning suitable for independent reperformance.
• Deliver the accepted control book, case library, calculation model, training and funded 90-day adoption backlog.

Candidate qualifications

• Built voyage economics for dry-bulk fleets spanning more than one vessel class, commodity route and charter form.
• Can reconcile charter terms, vessel performance, bunker, port time, weather, claims and emissions to realised contribution.
• Has changed or declined a fixture after operational downside contradicted an attractive headline time-charter equivalent.
• Understands where commercial modelling must defer to charter-party counsel, technical evidence and master’s safety authority.
• Delivered controlled models used by chartering desks and independently reperformed by Finance or Internal Audit.
• Remains independent of brokers, charterers, bunker suppliers, weather-routing vendors and emissions intermediaries.

Non-negotiables

• Can observe all four designated voyage and chartering desks during the four-month engagement.
• Will not provide freight forecasts, brokerage, bunker sales, legal opinions or live fixture negotiation.
• Accepts that chartering, routing, speed, safety, bunker and contract decisions remain with the client.
• Brings voyage-to-ledger evidence; market commentary or generic profitability modelling alone is insufficient.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a fixture you declined after operational evidence overturned its headline return.
2. 49 words maximum. How would you reconcile noon data and bunker invoices when their voyage boundaries differ?
3. 49 words maximum. Which charter clause most often creates hidden downside in your bulk-trade experience?