CI Container Leasing 2010

Market Analysis
Container Leasing
Market 2010
Market Analysis
Container Leasing Market 2010
Consulting editor
Andrew Foxcroft
Editorial director
John Fossey
Production editor
Ralph Murray
Published by
Informa House
30-32 Mortimer Street,
London W1W 7RE
Telephone +44 (0) 20 7017 5000
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7017 7860
Sources, uses and disclosures of personal data held by Informa UK

are described in the Official Data Protection Register. Copyright: Informa UK
contents
Contents
4 index
Listing of tables
5 index
References and definitions
6 company review
Strong year for top names
The world’s container leasing industry is being called on to redress a growing container deficit in 2010, after a year of
recession and curtailed production has left shipping companies chronically short of both investment funds and available
equipment, and box manufacturers hard pressed to meet the increase in demand. The majority of top leasing companies have
risen to the challenge, as they know it may yet prove short-lived
17 equipment review
The recent meteoric rise in new container pricing has greatly boosted the replacement cost of the world’s rental fleet in the
year to mid-2010, lifting it slightly above the former high of mid-2008. Growth in TEU terms has been more modest, with
some shrinkage occurring for the calculated CEU size. Once again, the lessors’ standard/reefer high-cube fleets have tended
to expand to the detriment of other sizes/types
24 operating review
The operational outlook for the lease industry vastly improved in 2010, with utilisation, rental rates and cash returns all rising
fast – and overheads falling. This has been a consequence of the strong recovery in demand, and a shipping industry still
short of funds for investment. Equipment prices are at a 20-year high as well, bringing a further plus in the form of strong
residual/secondary values
32 fleet change review

Although the global container leasing industry is certain to purchase the majority (up to 60%) of TEU built in 2010, this will
hardly do much to reverse the long-term erosion in its market share. To influence the latter, the sector would have buy in
this proportion for much of the next decade. Instead, shipping line investment is expected to reassert its dominance once
normal business is resumed
39 reefer market review

The reefer lease sector has so far experienced a smoother ride (than dry freight) since the market downturn of late 2008, with
companies suffering less of a drop in 2009, but then a smaller recovery during 2010. New prices, rental rates and cash returns
have all stayed relatively flat, although investment has held up strongly for lessors during 2009-10, and resulted in sizeable
fleet growth for the latter year
49 tank market review

Lessors of (bulk liquid) tank containers suffered during 2009, as demand plummeted, but the outlook is improving in 2010.
New prices are down significantly on two years earlier, and investment already set to be stronger in 2010. However, the
sector remains highly specialised and operates to a different model, as well as serving different customers, to the dry freight
or reefer lease markets
Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 3

index
Listing of tables
Section 1: Company Review 19 Table 14: Total container fleet on oper- operating lease by rental agreement
ating lease by detailed type, as CEU, for type for 1994-2009
6 Table 1: Global container TEU fleet by 2004-09 and projected 2010
owner category for 2004-09 and pro- 28 Table 26: Total container fleet on oper-
jected 2010 20 Table 15: Total container fleet on operating lease, as CEU, by rental agree-
ating lease by detailed type at mid-2009, ment type for 1994-2009
7 Table 2: Global container TEU fleet by by unit, TEU, CEU and USD cash
operating category and ratio to vessel 29 Table 27: Calculated annual USD
replacement cost
slot for 2004-09 and projected 2010 revenue generated by rental agreement
21 Table 16: Total newbuild container type for 1994-2009
8 Table 3: Top ranking container lease TEU purchase for operating lease by
companies and their operating fleets at 29 Table 28: Calculated annualised USD
detailed type for 2004-09 and projected
mid-2009, by unit, TEU, CEU and revenue yield per CEU by rental agree-
2010
USD cash replacement cost ment type for 1994-2009
22 Table 17: Total newbuild container pur-
9 Table 4: Top ranking container lease 30 Table 29: Calculated USD depreciated
chase for operating lease by detailed
companies and their detailed TEU cost for standard dry freight containers
type, as CEU, for 2004-09 and pro-
operating fleets at mid-2009 at mid-2010 assuming linear 6% per
jected 2010
annum (leaving 10% residual at end of
10 Table 5: Top ranking container lease 23 Table 18: Total newbuild container pur- year 15)
companies and their detailed TEU chase for operating lease by detailed
operating fleets projected at mid-2010 30 Table 30: Averaged USD resale prices
type for 2009, by unit, TEU, CEU and
for used standard dry freight containers
11 Table 6: Top ranking container lease USD cash investment cost
at mid-2010 by original year of build
companies and their total TEU operat- 23 Table 19: Share of global container and % of USD ex-factory price at mid-
ing fleets for 2004-09 and projected TEU fleet on operating lease by 2010
2010 detailed type for 2003-09
31 Table 31: Summary of annualised USD
12 Table 7: Top ranking container lease resale prices for used dry freight con-
companies and their total operating tainers for 1995-2010
fleets, as CEU, for 2004-09 and pro- Section 3: Operating Review
jected 2010 24 Table 20: Averaged USD per diem
13 Table 8: Top ranking container lease rental rates, USD ex-factory prices and Section 4: Fleet Change Review
companies and their total operating percentage rental return for newbuild
32 Table 32: Calculated average age in
fleets, as USD cash replacement cost, dry freight containers placed on long-
years of global container TEU fleet by
for 2004-09 and projected 2010 term lease (LTL) for 1990-2009 and
main owner category for 1994-2009
projected 2010
14 Table 9: Top ranking container lease 32 Table 33: Global container TEU fleet at
companies and their newbuild TEU 25 Table 21: Averaged USD per diem
end-2009 by owner category and origi-
purchases for operating fleets for 2004- rental rates, USD ex-factory prices and
nal year of production
09 and projected first half 2010 percentage rental return for newbuild
dry freight containers placed on master 33 Table 34: Growth and replacement of
15 Table 10: Container fleet mergers and lease agreement (MLA) for 1990-2009 total container TEU fleet on operating
acquisitions concluded between leasing and projected 2010 lease for 1990-2009 and projected
(and shipping) companies for 1985-99 2010-15
25 Table 22: Annualised USD per diem
16 Table 11: Container fleet mergers and rental rate, USD revenue generated 34 Table 35: Growth and replacement of
acquisitions concluded between leasing per CEU and percentage utilisation total container TEU fleet owned by
(and shipping) companies for 2000-10 calculated for leased dry freight fleet for shipping companies for 1990-2009 and
1990-2009 projected 2010-15
Section 2: Equipment Review 26 Table 23: Maritime dry freight and 35 Table 36: Growth and replacement of
reefer container TEU fleets on operat- total global container TEU fleet for
17 Table 12: Global container fleet by ing lease by rental agreement type for 1990-2009 and projected 2010-15
owner category for 2004-09 and pro- 1994-2009
jected 2010, by unit, TEU, CEU and 36 Table 37: Ocean-borne container
USD cash replacement cost 27 Table 24: Tank and regional container deployment for 1990-2009 and pro-
TEU fleets on operating lease by rental jected 2010-15, giving split by owner
18 Table 13: Total container TEU fleet on agreement type for 1994-2009 category and global container/slot oper-
operating lease by detailed type for ating ratio
2004-09 and projected 2010 28 Table 25: Total container TEU fleet on
4 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

index
37 Table 38: Original newbuild container 43 Table 45: Growth and replacement of Section 6: Tank Market Review
TEU purchases by owner category for integral (and insulated) reefer TEU
1990-2009 and projected 2010-15 fleet owned by shipping companies for 49 Table 55: Averaged USD per diem
1990-2009 and projected 2010-15 rental rates, USD ex-factory prices and
38 Table 39: Global container TEU fleet percentage rental return for newbuild
by owner category for 1990-2009 and 44 Table 46: Growth and replacement of maritime 20ft tank container placed on
projected 2010-15 global reefer TEU fleet for 1990-2009 long-term lease (LTL) for 1990-2009
and projected 2010-15 and projected 2010
45 Table 47: Global integral reefer (and 50 Table 56: Calculated USD depreciation
Section 5: Reefer Market Review insulated) TEU container fleet by cost for 20ft tank container, assuming
39 Table 40: Averaged USD per diem owner category for 1990-2009 and pro- linear 5% (leaving zero residual at end
rental rates, USD ex-factory prices and jected 2010-15 of year 20), and USD resale price by
percentage rental return for newbuild original year of build at mid-2010
45 Table 48: Top ranking reefer lease com-
integral reefer containers placed on
panies and their operating TEU fleets 50 Table 57: Top ranking lessors of mar-
long-term lease (LTL) for 1990-2009
for 2007-09 and projected 2010 itime tank and swap-tank containers
and projected 2010
46 Table 49: Integral reefer TEU fleet on and their operating TEU fleets for
40 Table 41: Annualised USD per diem 2007-09 and projected 2010
operating lease by length-height for
rental rate, USD revenue generated
1990-2009 and projected 2010 51 Table 58: Growth and replacement of
per unit and percentage utilisation cal-
culated for leased integral reefer fleet 46 Table 50: Integral reefer TEU fleet maritime tank and swap-tank TEU
for 1994-2009 owned by shipping companies by fleet on operating lease for 1990-2009
length-height for 1990-2009 and pro- and projected 2010-15
40 Table 42: Calculated USD depreciated
jected 2010 52 Table 59: Growth and replacement of
cost for integral reefer containers at
mid-2010 assuming linear 7% per 47 Table 51: Global integral reefer TEU maritime tank and swap-tank TEU
annum (leaving 9% residual at end of fleet by length-height for 1990-2009 and fleet owned by transport operator for
year 13) projected 2010 1990-2009 and projected 2010-15
41 Table 43: Averaged USD resale prices 47 Table 52: Integral reefer TEU fleet at 53 Table 60: Growth and replacement of
for used integral reefer containers at end-2009 by owner category and origi- globalmaritime tank and swap-tank
mid-2010 by original year of build and nal year of production TEU fleet for 1990-2009 and projected
% of factory price at mid-2010 2010-15
48 Table 53: Integral reefer fleet on operat-
42 Table 44: Growth and replacement of ing lease by refrigerant type for 1990-2009 53 Table 61: Global maritime tank and
integral reefer TEU fleet on operat- swap-tank TEU fleet at end-2009 by
48 Table 54: Global integral reefer TEU owner category and original year of
ing lease for 1990-2009 and projected
fleet by owner category and refrigerant production
2010-15
type at end-2009
Summary of terms and definitions MARITIME DRY FREIGHT STANDARD: 20ft = 1.0; 40ft (8ft 6in) = 0.8;
40ft (9ft 6in) = 0.85; 45ft (9ft 6in) = 1.0
The statistical information surveyed has been calculated on the following basis: MARITIME DRY FREIGHT SPECIAL:
TEU-DIMENSIONAL definitions: * OPEN-TOP: 20ft = 1.6; 40ft = 1.3
TEU figures are calculated in terms of length: 20ft=1.00; 24ft=1.20; 30ft=1.50; * COLLAPSIBLE FLATRACK: 20ft = 2.5; 40ft = 1.7
40ft=2.00; 45ft=2.25; 48ft=2.4; 53ft=2.65. Swapbody lengths are 6m (20ft); 7.15-7.82m
(24ft); 9-10m (30ft); 12m (40ft); 13.6m (45ft); and calculated in TEU on this basis * CELLULAR PALLETWIDE: 20ft = 1.45; 40ft = 1.15; 45ft = 1.50
Height and width differences have no influence on TEU calculation * OTHER TYPE: 20ft = 1.6; 40ft = 1.3
Collapsible flatracks are grouped by their fully-erected height MARITIME INTEGRAL REEFER: 20ft = 5.3; 40ft = 3.3
Cellular pallet-wide units are classified as maritime dry freight special MARITIME TANK CONTAINER: 20ft = 9.0; 30ft = 8.0
REGIONAL 2.5m PALLET-WIDE STANDARD: 20ft = 1.35; 40ft = 1.10; 45ft = 1.45
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT UNIT (CEU) definitions:
REGIONAL 2.5m PALLET-WIDE SPECIAL: 20ft = 1.9; 30ft = 1.65; 40ft = 1.50
New-for-old replacement value per TEU = CEU value multiplied by new 20ft standard
container price annualised at the survey date (USD2,500 at mid-2010, USD1,950 at REGIONAL 2.5m SWAPBODY STANDARD: 24ft = 2.55; 45ft = 1.65
mid-2009, USD2,350 at mid-2008, USD1,950 at mid-2007, USD1,850 at mid-2006, REGIONAL 2.5m SWAPBODY SPECIAL: 24ft = 3.9; 45ft = 2.4
USD2,100 at mid-2005, USD1,850 at mid-2004). This total is then multiplied by the
REGIONAL 2.5m SWAP-TANK CONTAINER: 20ft = 9.0; 24ft = 9.0; 30ft = 8.0
number of TEU making up the unit size to give replacement value for any particular
container-type. Capital equipment values (per TEU) at mid-2010 were: REGIONAL 8ft 6in (NORTH AMERICAN) STANDARD: 48ft = 1.9; 53ft = 1.8

company review
Strong year for top names

The world’s container leasing industry is being called on to redress a
growing container deficit in 2010, after a year of recession and
curtailed production has left shipping companies chronically short of
both investment funds and available equipment, and box
manufacturers hard pressed to meet the increase in demand. The
majority of top leasing companies have risen to the challenge, as they
know it may yet prove short-lived
In 2010, the global container leasing industry has rarely to the greatest extent, as this was hit by the highest level of
been better placed to take advantage of its position as a factory closures during 2009 and consequently took
key supplier of container equipment for ocean transport, longer to get restarted. Over 95% of container manufac-
and most top participants have moved quickly to resume turing capacity is now operated within China, which has
their volume investment. further concentrated the problem. In all, world container
More than a year of recession has left the majority of output was 450,000TEU in 2009, which included a
box shipping companies financially bruised and still portion held over from 2008.
largely unable to raise finance for their own expenditure It surpassed 3.25 million TEU for that year overall, all
on containers. Moreover, the virtual cessation of con- of which was built in the run up to October, and had
tainer production that occurred from late in 2008, and earlier peaked at 4.25 million TEU during 2007, which
continued throughout much of 2009, has resulted in a was nearly tenfold higher than the figure for 2009!
chronic and growing equipment shortage during 2010. Leasing companies acquired 240,000TEU (almost 55%)
The all-important standard dry freight sector (com- in 2009, as compared with 130,000TEU by shipping lines
prising over 90% of the total market) has been impacted and 80,000TEU by other (mainly inland) transport oper-
TABLE 1:
GLOBAL CONTAINER FLEET (TEU X 1000) BY OWNER CATEGORY FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010
MID-2004 MID-2005 MID-2006 MID-2007 MID-2008 MID-2009 MID-2010

Maritime container fleet
Lessor - top ten companies 7,818 8,270 8,426 9,650 9,883 9,862 10,072
Lessor - other 1,085 1,332 1,236 890 1,352 1,074 1,076
Lessor - total 8,903 9,602 9,662 10,540 11,235 10,936 11,148
Shipping company 8,553 9,806 10,913 12,517 14,685 14,577 14,420
Other transport operator* 593 637 683 749 831 853 860
Grand total 18,049 20,045 21,258 23,806 26,751 26,366 26,428
Regional container fleet

Lessor - top ten companies 34 35 36 48 44 51 29
Lessor - other 178 201 216 202 182 160 163
Lessor - total 212 236 252 250 226 211 192
Shipping company 90 99 113 130 147 155 160
Other transport operator* 599 632 661 694 730 723 720
Grand total 901 967 1,026 1,074 1,103 1,089 1,072
Total container fleet

Lessor - top ten companies 7,852 8,305 8,462 9,698 9,927 9,913 10,101
Lessor - other 1,263 1,533 1,452 1,092 1,534 1,234 1,239
Lessor - total 9,115 9,838 9,914 10,790 11,461 11,147 11,340
Shipping company 8,643 9,905 11,026 12,647 14,832 14,732 14,580
Other transport operator* 1,192 1,269 1,344 1,443 1,561 1,576 1,580
Grand total 18,950 21,012 22,284 24,880 27,854 27,455 27,500
* = shipper, forwarder, nvocc, and rail, intermodal, military and specialised tank operator

company review
TABLE 2:
GLOBAL CONTAINER FLEET (TEU X 1000) BY OPERATING CATEGORY AND RATIO TO VESSEL-SLOT FOR 2004-09
AND PROJECTED 2010
Container fleet
Maritime - seaborne 17,603 19,573 20,753 23,250 26,126 25,710 25,740
Maritime - inland* 446 472 505 556 625 656 688
Regional* 901 967 1,026 1,074 1,103 1,089 1,072
Grand total 18,950 21,012 22,284 24,880 27,854 27,455 27,500
Vessel-slot fleet**
Grand total 8,750 9,520 10,650 12,050 13,500 14,700 15,900
TEU operating ratio*** 2.01 2.06 1.95 1.93 1.94 1.75 1.62
* = deployed in land-based or (non-cellular) coastal service ** = totals in 2009-10 include laid-up slot capacity
*** = ratio of seaborne container TEU operated per vessel slot TEU
ators. Dry freight standard output amounted to just The gap between demand and supply was to open
200,000TEU globally, with leasing firms accounting for rapidly once the market picked up again and it became
an even greater two thirds of this total. apparent that the container trade collapse of 2009 would
Shipping lines have been equally quick to turn to the be followed by stronger than expected recovery this year.
leasing sector, with its greater liquidity and better access to In addition, the container/shipboard-slot TEU oper-
competitive funding, in order to address their box require- ating ratio has moved yet further out of balance, as the
ment in 2010. Rental firms could thus again end up buying global delivery of slots has continued to outrun box pro-
a proportionally bigger share of dry freight, as well as duction. Even with as much as 5% of the global slots’ fleet
reefer and other specialised equipment, than at any time still laid up, this ratio was calculated at around 1.7 ocean-
in recent years. borne container TEU for each slot at mid-2010, which
They are expected to account for almost 60% of the represented an all-time low when compared with the
two million TEU production forecast for this year, with at approximate 2:1 averaged in most previous years. Neither
least 650,000TEU (70%) undergoing delivery before can this falling ratio be attributed to improved vessel
August 2010. Lessors will, furthermore, take over 60% of operating efficiencies, as many lines have opted for slower
all standard production – which is currently expected to steaming in 2010 in the past 12 months order to save on
top 1.7 million TEU this year. bunker charges.
Major leasing firms have found themselves well The global fleet of vessel slots is, furthermore, set to
placed to raise capital in 2010 due to the greater strength go on growing for some time yet, as the perennial backlog
and stability of their financial backing. This is supported by of vessel orders is gradually worked through. It increased
a wide range of public, private-equity and bank credit by at least 8% in the year to mid-2010, having achieved an
offerings. even greater 9% expansion during the preceding year (to
Once again, it has become attractive for many classes mid-2009).
of investor (public and private alike) to put their money In contrast, the world’s container fleet barely altered
into container ownership – by funding the expansion and in size. This actually declined by 3.7% throughout 2009
replacement of the rental fleet – with signs that even the (as compared to a 5% growth in the slots’ count), with the
KG (and similar) investor syndicate market might once loss expected to be only partially reversed in 2010 by a
again be viewing this as a suitable outlet for investment predicted net increase of about 2%. The prospect for
funds. global container trade growth is also rather better than
KG-type investors were responsible for a big share of this, although it admittedly fell more steeply last year than
all capital raised by container lessors in the five years prior the corresponding shrinkage in the box fleet size – and
to 2008, at which point many were largely dissuaded from also caused an immediate lay-up of over one million TEU
continuing by falling returns and other uncertainties. of vessel slots, plus the delay and cancellation of many
They had previously been responsible for greatly increas- newbuild contracts.
ing the portion of equipment held under management by The trade downturn also translated into a huge build-
top leasing firms. up of idle container equipment, mainly in China, with the
Investor interest has naturally been rekindled by the stockpile running to several million TEU during the lean
prospect of a sizeable, and possibly sustained, shortage of summer months of 2009. Leasing companies suffered in
containers going forward. their turn, as their collective utilisation had slumped

company review
below 85% and hit its lowest level in more than six years. In addition, dry freight container manufacturers have
The subsequent recovery had already absorbed had difficulty resuming normal production after more
much of the former surplus by early 2010. Leasing than a year of inactivity. The majority of factories have
company utilisation was again indicative of the trend, as taken six months or greater to re-establish a semblance of
it had already again surpassed 90% by early 2010 and double-shift operation, with many plants still working one
since gone above 95% for many firms. The lease indus- shift or little better during third quarter 2010. Many have
try, by taking delivery of an anticipated 1.15 million encountered difficulties rehiring, and then retaining,
TEU in 2010, is also expected to commit to as big a skilled staff. This had already put a curb on production –
level of new container investment as witnessed during and resulted in lengthening delivery lead-times and a rapid
some of its more upbeat years immediately prior to rise in prices as buyers (mainly leasing companies) rushed
2009. Moreover, this strong purchase will be further to secure factory space. It further explains why container
augmented by a sizeable intake of used containers output has been unable to keep pace with the rate of slot
acquired from cash-strapped shipping companies by deliveries and trade growth more generally.
way of sale and lease-back agreements. By mid-2010, the dry freight market appeared to be
This activity is certain to run at a record level during close to overheating, with the 20ft headline price soaring
2010, with over 100,000TEU already traded in this way by above USD2,750 and order backlog running beyond
the third quarter. Some lines are currently favouring it three months.
over a more direct resale into secondary use – a far This price level had not been witnessed even in 2008,
stronger feature of 2009 – and for the obvious reason that when Corten Steel and other material prices were over
it retains the equipment in service while also raising 20% higher and market strength appeared to be more
much-needed capital. sustained, having already continued high for several years.
However, it runs counter to the situation in 2008-09, In comparison to the more stable USD800-850 being
when top leasing firms collectively transferred a greater paid per tonne for Corten Steel during the summer
net quantity of containers from their operating fleet to months of 2010, its average had peaked at over
shipping line ownership, usually through a direct conver- USD1,050 two years earlier. However, the average 20ft
sion to finance lease. price had only just touched USD2,600 during this same
The container shortage of 2010 has been made all the earlier period.
worse by the policy of slow-steaming, adopted by many Instead, it is apparent that many container factories
shipping companies. This has since rebounded on to ship- are looking to recover losses incurred in 2009 (and in
pers, which are increasingly being forced to pay surcharges earlier years) by maximising profits in 2010. For this
to cover extra container availability. reason, there was little indication that prices would drop
TABLE 3:
TOP RANKING CONTAINER LEASE COMPANIES AND THEIR OPERATING FLEETS AT MID-2009. TEU, CEU*
AND UNIT FLEETS IN THOUSANDS, COST IS USD MILLION
TEU % UNIT % CEU* % COST** %
Textainer Group 2,285.0 20.5 1,515.5 20.8 2,129.0 15.8 4,151.5 15.8
Florens Container Leasing 1,601.5 14.4 1,048.5 14.4 1,603.5 11.9 3,127.0 11.9
Triton Container 1,423.5 12.8 883.0 12.1 1,483.5 11.0 2,893.0 11.0
TAL International 1,049.0 9.4 641.0 8.8 1,181.5 8.8 2,304.0 8.8
GESeaCo 960.0 8.6 619.5 8.5 1,438.0 10.7 2,804.0 10.7
CAI International 751.0 6.7 500.0 6.8 701.5 5.2 1,368.0 5.2
Gold Container 501.0 4.5 355.5 4.9 453.5 3.4 884.5 3.4
UES International HK 493.0 4.4 299.5 4.1 493.5 3.6 962.5 3.6
Seacastle Container Leasing 427.5 3.8 271.5 3.7 793.5 5.9 1,547.0 5.9
Cronos Group 421.0 3.8 303.5 4.2 612.0 4.5 1,193.0 4.5
Dong Fang International 348.0 3.1 219.0 3.0 328.0 2.4 639.5 2.4
Beacon Intermodal Leasing 123.5 1.1 89.0 1.2 149.0 1.1 291.0 1.1
Blue Sky Intermodal 93.5 0.9 66.0 0.9 86.5 0.6 169.0 0.6
CARU 90.0 0.8 69.0 0.9 85.5 0.6 167.0 0.6
Waterfront Leasing 67.5 0.6 45.0 0.6 62.0 0.5 120.5 0.5
Other 511.5 4.6 371.5 5.1 1,888.0 14.0 3,681.5 14.0
Total 11,146.5 100.0 7,297.0 100.0 13,488.5 100.0 26,303.0 100.0
* = see executive summary for CEU calculations ** = new-for-old cash replacement cost calculated from annualised newbuild ex-factory price index current at mid-2009

company review
TABLE 4:
TOP RANKING CONTAINER LEASE COMPANIES AND THEIR DETAILED OPERATING FLEETS (TEU X 1000) AT MID-2009
Dry Freight Dry Freight Dry Freight Integral Tank Regional* Total
Standard High Cube Special Reefer
Textainer Group 1,211.0 1,013.0 41.5 18.5 - 1.0 2,285.0
Florens Container Leasing 799.0 747.0 11.0 44.5 - - 1,601.5
Triton Container 693.0 637.0 32.5 61.0 - - 1,423.5
TAL International 480.5 427.5 84.3 55.5 1.2 - 1,049.0
GESeaCo 353.0 413.0 52.0 115.5 10.0 16.5 960.0
CAI International 416.5 310.5 9.5 5.5 - 9.0 751.0
Gold Container 295.0 205.0 1.0 - - - 501.0
UES International HK 212.0 251.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 23.5 493.0
Seacastle Container Leasing 156.5 157.0 - 114.0 - - 427.5
Cronos Group 212.5 128.0 48.2 21.8 9.5 1.0 421.0
Dong Fang International 192.0 149.0 1.0 6.0 - - 348.0
Beacon Intermodal Leasing 68.0 45.0 - 10.5 - - 123.5
Blue Sky Intermodal 53.5 37.5 2.5 - - - 93.5
CARU 71.5 17.5 0.5 0.5 - - 90.0
Waterfront Leasing 43.5 23.5 0.3 0.2 - - 67.5
Other 149.5 51.5 48.2 8.0 94.8 159.5 511.5
Grand total 5,407.0 4,613.0 334.0 464.5 117.5 210.5 11,146.5
* = North American domestic containers, and European swapbody, swap-tank and conventional pallet-wide containers
later in 2010, even if some downward adjustment was the moment, to draw in yet more investment for the
anticipated by the final quarter. leasing side.
Given that lessors had already committed to around The lessors’ recent headlong rush back into the pur-
two thirds of all dry freight purchases made during the chasing market has already helped restore their collective
first eight months of 2010, due to the relative absence of position – albeit by only a small margin. The rental fleet
shipping company investment, rental firms might appear stood at 11.34 million TEU by mid-2010 and, although
to be taking on a big share of the risk associated with this was still about 1% down on its peak size at mid-2008,
paying so high a premium. it had recovered from the larger dip that occurred in 2009
However, they too have been able to build in some when a far greater emphasis had been placed on disposal.
protection in order safeguard profitability by securing By comparison, the global container fleet amounted to
record-high per diem rates and a better level of initial cash 27.5 million TEU by mid-2010, which as mentioned was
investment return (ICIR) than seen in many years. virtually unchanged on its size one year earlier, in mid-
Rate levels as high as USD1.10 have been reported 2009, but also down slightly (by 1.3%) on the 27.85 million
for the highest priced equipment, exceeding USD2,700 TEU returned at mid-2008.
per 20ft (and due for August delivery), which are yielding The lessors’ collective share of TEU thus experienced
an ICIR in excess of 14.5%. This compares very a further small loss during 2009, as they controlled just
favourably with the 11.5-12.5% averaged throughout 40.6% at the mid-year. This was their lowest level after
2007-09, when (20ft) equipment costing around several years of systemic decline. It subsequently recov-
USD2,000 had typically attracted a daily rate of nearer ered again to over 41% by mid-2010, which was the same
USD0.65, and also halted a much longer term downward level as in mid-2008, but was still down on the 43.3%
slide in dry freight ICIR levels, which has been occurring returned in mid-2007 and 44.5% at mid-2006.
since the 1990s. Although many top firms are hoping that the small
Of course, the higher returns of recent months may revival of the past year could mark a reversal of the trend
yet prove to be ephemeral, as they are a natural conse- of the past decade, during which the leasing side has shed
quence of the strengthening market and pressures being around 7% in terms of its global TEU holding, most
exerted on those shipping lines still unable to commit to again concede that this can only occur if the ongoing
any container procurement of their own. demand for rental equipment stays very high as in recent
Most lessors already expect ICIR levels to fall again months.
once demand and pricing return to a more normal state, However, this is far from guaranteed, as the improv-
although the recent high is continuing, at least for ing financial position of some leading ocean crriers,

company review
TABLE 5:
TOP RANKING CONTAINER LEASE COMPANIES AND THEIR DETAILED OPERATING FLEETS (TEU X 1000)
PROJECTED AT MID-2010
Dry Freight Standard* Dry Freight Special Integral Reefer Tank Regional** Total
Textainer Group 2,150.0 39.0 25.0 - 1.0 2,215.0
Triton Container 1,490.0 35.0 85.0 - - 1,610.0
Florens Container Leasing 1,527.0 10.0 43.0 - - 1,580.0
TAL International 959.0 82.0 57.5 1.5 - 1,100.0
GESeaCo 707.0 56.0 110.0 10.5 16.5 900.0
CAI International 755.0 10.0 5.5 - 9.5 780.0
Cronos Group 554.0 47.0 22.5 9.5 2.0 635.0
Gold Container 499.0 1.0 - - - 500.0
Seacastle Container Leasing 306.0 - 114.0 - - 420.0
Dong Fang International 348.0 2.0 10.0 - - 360.0
Beacon Intermodal Leasing 218.0 - 22.0 - - 240.0
UES International HK 210.0 1.5 3.0 2.5 23.0 240.0
Blue Sky Intermodal 109.0 3.0 - - - 112.0
CARU 94.0 0.5 0.5 - - 95.0
Waterfront Leasing 64.5 0.3 0.2 - - 65.0
Other 195.5 50.7 7.8 94.0 140.0 488.0
Grand total 10,186.0 338.0 506.0 118.0 192.0 11,340.0
* = including high cube ** = North American domestic containers, and European swapbody, swap-tank and conventional pallet-wide containers
coupled with a greater market confidence, could yet since the original takeover of Unit Equipment Services AG
encourage a greater resumption of their own direct con- by Grand View Container Leasing in 2006) and its sizeable
tainer investment. This, should it not occur later in 2010, specials’ component intact. This merger was explained by
is certain to be more prominent again by 2011. Cronos’ more developed involvement in the master lease
Prior to 2009, shipping companies had committed to sector, as compared to UES, which afforded a better after-
the majority (over 60%) of container purchasing for market from older, returned UES equipment.
several years in succession – and they could do so again The master of these takeovers is Textainer, which has
once the conditions are right. now held on to its top position for almost five years and
By mid-2010, the 10 largest leasing companies had added over 1.2 million TEU by way of merger along the
also increased their proportional holding, having finally way, thereby more than doubling its original fleet size.
gained control of a fleet exceeding 10 million TEU for the Managed assets have been acquired from four major
first time. This amounted to 89% of all leased TEU, with companies since 2006, resulting in the disappearance of
this share last attained in 2007 (when the 10 market Gateway Container, Capital Lease, Amficon Leasing and
leaders controlled almost 90% of rental equipment). Capital Intermodal (including XINES).
It slumped a little during 2008-09, when some large Textainer gained a further boost in 2007 when the
companies were more intent of retiring or reselling older company went public, which prompted its subsequent
units. This dented their overall growth rate, and certain entry into the reefer lease sector and takeover in 2009 of
smaller newcomers – typified by Beacon Intermodal the predominantly specialised fleets from Capital
Leasing – stole a march in expansion terms. Nevertheless, Intermodal and Amficon.
the top hierarchy has proven relatively resistant to change Textainer currently controls a fleet of more than 2.2
in recent years, whilst there has been little activity on the million TEU, with an estimated new-for-old replacement
mergers and acquisitions front. cost exceeding USD5 billion. This makes up almost 20%
The only takeover of significance to have occurred in of the entire rental TEU fleet, equivalent to 15% in cost
early 2010 concerned Cronos Container and UES terms.
International, currently ranked in seventh and (joint) 11th A majority of the total is managed. Newbuild orders
place, respectively, and this only covered a partial transfer covering 110,000TEU of standard had already been con-
of managed assets between the two firms. firmed by August 2010, with space secured for up to
Cronos took control of around a half of the existing another 100,000TEU to be delivered in the year should
UES operating fleet in January 2010, leaving the latter demand warrant it.
company mostly with newer equipment (largely financed The company’s annual rate of container disposal is

company review
now running at almost 200,000TEU, as it strives to further Chinese lessor’s fleet, or 515,000TEU at mid-2010.
drive down its fleet age from the present average of about The balance of ‘internationally-leased’ equipment
six years. This age is, however, the approximate norm for amounted to 1,065,000TEU, and orders covering at least
most of the established mainstream companies. 50,000TEU of standard equipment had been placed
Textainer’s two main rival are Triton Container and during the opening half of 2010 – mainly destined for the
Florens Leasing, each with around 1.6 million TEU. international fleet. A similar quantity is due for delivery in
Triton manages its equipment on behalf of a number the closing six months of the year, whilst Florens is due to
of large private shareholders and has long preferred to dispose of at least 50,000TEU of older equipment this
expand exclusively by way of newbuild purchase. Its year.
growth rate has slowed in recent years, as the majority of Its overall fleet age is significantly below five years.
purchases have been made to cover replacement (its fleet Florens is owned by Cosco Pacific Group, listed on the
is also calculated at around six years’ average age), Hong Kong stock exchange, but two thirds of the
although some fleet addition has been made during 2010. company’s international fleet is currently managed on
Triton was one of the few leasing companies to make behalf of KG or similar syndicates.
any investment during 2009, when it received 55,000TEU This equipment has been resold, and then taken back
as standards and reefers, and has subsequently commit- by Florens under management, during the past four years
ted much more heavily in 2010. Its purchase had already in order to raise funds for further expansion. It is another
topped 150,000TEU by July, with more in prospect. to have pursued newbuild growth, in favour of any
Florens continues to operate two rental divisions, one takeover of smaller rivals, and been the largest single pur-
serving the international (or third party) market and the chaser of containers amongst leasing firms in recent years.
other the in-house needs of its affiliate, Cosco It received 600,000TEU during 2006-07 – the company’s
Containerlines. two most active years to date.
The latter business accounts for a stable third of the Another well known leasing name to have recom-
TABLE 6:
TOP RANKING CONTAINER LEASE COMPANIES* AND THEIR TOTAL OPERATING FLEETS (TEU X 1000)
FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010
Mid-2004 Mid-2005 Mid-2006 Mid-2007 Mid-2008 Mid-2009 Mid-2010
Textainer Group** 1,127.0 1,200.0 1,515.5 2,044.0 2,069.0 2,285.0 2,215.0
Gateway Container** 300.5 332.0 - - - - -
Capital Lease** 422.0 499.0 522.5 - - - -
Amficon Leasing** 96.0 105.0 113.5 128.0 147.5 - -
Capital Intermodal-XINES** - 15.5 100.0 167.5 192.5 - -
Florens Container Leasing 861.0 1,024.0 1,107.0 1,392.5 1,632.0 1,601.5 1,580.0
Triton Container 1,327.0 1,392.5 1,379.5 1,424.5 1,477.5 1,423.5 1,610.0
TAL International 1,003.5 993.0 946.5 994.5 1,033.5 1,049.0 1,100.0
GESeaCo 1,001.5 1,014.5 935.0 945.5 946.0 960.0 900.0
CAI International 560.0 612.0 623.5 688.5 785.5 751.0 780.0
Gold Container 236.0 280.0 324.0 400.0 480.0 501.0 500.0
UES international HK*** - - - - 491.0 493.0 240.0
Grand View Container Leasing 73.0 120.5 149.0 176.0 - - -
Unit Equipment Services 178.0 251.0 269.0 281.5 - - -
Seacastle Container Leasing**** - - - - 566.0 427.5 420.0
Interpool Group 837.0 830.5 704.0 767.0 - - -
Carlisle Leasing 104.5 120.0 121.0 171.0 - - -
Cronos Group 412.5 407.5 404.5 413.0 446.0 421.0 635.0
Dong Fang International - - - - 331.5 348.0 360.0
Beacon Intermodal Leasing - - - - 75.5 123.5 240.0
Blue Sky Intermodal 7.5 39.5 49.0 66.0 92.0 93.5 112.0
Waterfront Leasing 92.0 90.5 88.0 84.0 73.5 67.5 65.0
Other 476.0 510.5 562.5 646.0 622.0 601.5 583.0
Grand total 9,115.0 9,837.5 9,914.0 10,789.5 11,461.0 11,146.5 11,340.0
* = ranked by TEU size at mid-2009 ** = Textainer took management control of Gateway fleet in 2006, Capital Lease fleet in 2007, Amficon and Capital Intermodal-
XINES fleets in 2009 *** = created from merger of Grand View Container Leasing and Unit Equipment Services in 2007 ***** = created from merger of Interpool
and Carlisle Leasing in 2007

company review
menced its new box purchasing in a big way during 2010 GESeaCo, positioned fifth with a fleet of
is TAL International. 900,000TEU, remains altogether more specialised. This
This firm has an established track record in the busi- boosts the current replacement cost of its fleet to around
ness stretching back four decades, and is the only one left USD3 billion giving it a fourth ranking overall.
of the original ‘Big Seven’ US-based companies that GESeaCo, together with TAL, control marginally older
dominated the earliest days of the box rental industry fleets – of nearer 6.5 years average age – which explains
during the 1970s and early 1980s. their continued focus on renewal and relative lack of
TAL acquired a public listing in 2005, which has expansion, in recent years.
amply financed the company’s subsequent investment The GESeaCo fleet has been falling in size over the
programme of fleet renewal and expansion, and provided longer term, although investment has stayed strong, with
a further USD425 million for expenditure in 2010. almost 50,000TEU supplied during the opening half of
The operating fleet stood close to 1.1 million TEU by 2010. In addition to controlling dry freight
mid-2010, with TAL also controlling a further standards/specials, reefers and tanks, the company also
120,000TEU on finance lease. Its total purchase for the provide a wide range of regional box equipment.
operating fleet amounted to at least 100,000TEU (includ- GESeaCo was originally established as a joint
ing standard and reefer) during first half 2010, with a venture between GE (the former owner of Genstar
further 75,000TEU or greater due later in the year. The Corp) and Sea Containers – another of the Big Seven
corresponding disposal figure is again expected to top originals – but control has been steadily transferred to
80,000TEU in 2010. GE following Sea Containers’ entry into bankruptcy in
The above four ‘TEU millionaire’ companies head 2006 and its subsequent attempts at refinancing.
the ranking and each control a broadly similar mix of A further three lessors can claim fleets in excess of
standard, special and reefer equipment (with TAL now 500,000TEU.
also offering tank containers). These currently occupy the ‘mid-rank’ area within the
TABLE 7:
TOP RANKING CONTAINER LEASE COMPANIES* AND THEIR TOTAL OPERATING FLEETS, CALCULATED AS CEU**
(X1000), FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010
Textainer Group*** 992.5 1,060.5 1,347.0 1,820.5 1,863.5 2,129.0 2,066.5
Gateway Container*** 273.0 300.0 - - - - -
Capital Lease*** 376.0 445.0 466.0 - - - -
Amficon Leasing*** 100.0 107.5 113.0 127.0 147.0 - -
Capital Intermodal-XINES*** - 14.0 92.5 161.0 209.5 - -
Florens Container Leasing 946.0 1,068.0 1,166.5 1,421.0 1,607.0 1,603.5 1,531.5
GESeaCo 1,551.5 1,455.0 1,423.5 1,474.5 1,392.0 1,438.0 1,219.0
TAL International 1,193.0 1,123.0 1,082.5 1,121.0 1,148.5 1,181.5 1,172.5
Seacastle Container Leasing**** - - - - 918.5 793.5 666.5
Interpool Group 812.5 799.0 696.5 753.0 - - -
Carlisle Leasing 547.0 536.0 604.5 705.0 - - -
CAI International 495.0 540.0 551.0 612.5 719.5 701.5 721.0
Cronos Group 475.0 489.0 530.0 579.0 629.5 612.0 745.5
UES international HK***** - - - - 480.0 493.5 258.5
Gold Container 209.5 250.0 290.0 360.0 435.0 453.5 453.5
Other 1,736.0 1,737.5 2,010.0 2,332.5 1,970.5 1,973.5 1,553.5
Grand total 11,398.5 11,797.0 12,314.5 13,528.5 13,556.5 13,488.5 12,809.5
* = ranked by TEU size at mid-2009 ** = see executive summary for CEU (Capital Equipment Unit) calculations *** = Textainer took management control of Gateway
fleet in 2006, Capital Lease fleet in 2007, Amficon and Capital Intermodal-XINES fleets in 2009 **** = created from merger of Interpool and Carlisle Leasing in 2007
***** = created from merger of Grand View Container Leasing and Unit Equipment Services in 2007

company review
box lease hierarchy, placed between the top ‘volume’ con- was looming, and further equipment through sale and
tenders and the increasingly more specialised ranks lease-back earlier more recently in early 2010.
below. This has been sufficient to maintain its existing
Headed by CAI International, with 780,000TEU, 500,000TEU-size, net of a rising disposal figure.
they also include Gold Container, France’s sole surviving However, its fleet remains relatively young, with an esti-
entrant, and the newly enlarged Cronos Container. The mated average age of 4.5 years, and still almost entirely
latter has also opted for a more specialised fleet mix, and comprising dry freight standard containers.
currently offers standard, special, reefer, tank and pallet- The company is a subsidiary of Touax Group, which
wide containers. The total count was 635,000TEU at mid- is publicly quoted in France and the US.
2010, following the earlier addition of 220,000TEU from CAI has a comparable mix of standard and spe-
UES. cialised equipment to its largest rivals, with the specials’
Cronos is funded by private equity capital, following component boosted by an earlier takeover of Consent
the company’s delisting in 2007 when private interests Leasing (of Sweden) in 2008.
(including its own management) bought out its entire CAI too has since acquired additional equipment
shareholding. The company has since increased its invest- by way of sale and lease-back, including 40,000TEU
ment, although the recent taking of containers from UES received from Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM) in
was understood to have dampened its appetite for new- early 2010. The company is also stepping up its new-
build in early 2010. build investment, with at least 25,000TEU delivered
Gold has similarly made only a minimal new con- during first half 2010.
tainer purchase since end-2008, before which the CAI is yet another publicly listed name, also achiev-
company had been expanding aggressively for several ing its flotation in 2007. As with Textainer, the majority
years. It acquired a small fleet from C&Container of CAI’s operating fleet is managed on behalf of
Leasing (of South Korea) late in 2008, as the recession investors.
TABLE 8:
TOP RANKING CONTAINER LEASE COMPANIES* AND THEIR TOTAL OPERATING FLEETS, CALCULATED AS CASH
REPLACEMENT COST** (USD MILLION), FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010
Textainer Group*** 1,836.0 2,227.5 2,492.0 3,549.5 4,379.0 4,151.5 5,166.5
Gateway Container*** 505.0 629.5 - - - - -
Capital Lease*** 696.0 935.0 862.0 - - - -
Amficon Leasing*** 185.0 225.0 209.5 248.0 346.0 - -
Capital Intermodal-XINES*** - 30.0 171.0 314.0 492.5 - -
Florens Container Leasing 1,750.5 2,243.0 2,157.5 2,771.0 3,776.5 3,127.0 3,829.5
GESeaCo 2,870.5 3,055.0 2,633.0 2,875.0 3,271.5 2,804.0 3,047.5
TAL International 2,207.0 2,358.0 2,002.5 2,185.5 2,698.5 2,304.0 2,931.5
Seacastle Container Leasing**** - - - - 2,159.0 1,547.0 1,666.5
Interpool Group 1,503.0 1,678.5 1,288.0 1,469.0 - - -
Carlisle Leasing 1,011.5 1,125.5 1,118.5 1,375.5 - - -
CAI International 915.5 1,134.5 1,019.5 1,194.5 1,690.5 1,368.0 1,802.5
Cronos Group 878.5 1,026.5 980.5 1,129.0 1,479.5 1,193.0 1,863.5
UES international HK***** - - - - 1,128.0 962.5 646.0
Gold Container 387.5 525.0 536.5 702.0 1,021.5 884.5 1,133.0
Other 3,212.5 3,648.5 3,718.0 4,547.5 4,630.5 3,848.5 3,883.5
Grand total 21,087.5 24,773.5 22,781.5 26,380.5 31,858.0 26,303.0 32,023.5
* = ranked by cost of replacement at mid-2009 ** = new-for-old cash replacement cost calculated from annualised newbuild ex-factory price index current at date
*** = Textainer took management control of Gateway fleet in 2006, Capital Lease fleet in 2007, Amficon and Capital Intermodal-XINES fleets in 2009
**** = created from merger of Interpool and Carlisle Leasing in 2007 ***** = created from merger of Grand View Container Leasing and Unit Equipment Services in 2007

general market review
Seacastle Container Leasing – which has recently Beacon was relatively active in 2009 when it received
been restyled as SeaCube, was planning its own flotation 45,000TEU, and currently on track to take up to three
later in 2010, to take advantage of the much improved times this quantity in 2010 – with 90,000TEU already sup-
market conditions. plied by July. Its operating fleet, of standard and reefer
The company is a subsidiary of the Fortress equipment, was already close to 250,000TEU at the mid-
Investment Group, and manages box (and chassis) equip- year (with another 25,000TEU fixed on finance lease)
ment on behalf of several major investor pools/syndicates. after just 2.5 years of existence.
Its operating fleet has been pared back in recent years, in The raising of funds poses little problem for the
the aftermath of the company’s formation in 2007 from a company, given its ownership by BTMU Capital Corp,
merger between Interpool (another Big Seven original) which is owned by one of the largest banking interest in
and reefer lease specialists, Carlisle Leasing and Magnum Japan (Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi).
Lease. Currently, it stands at about 420,000TEU. Over Meanwhile, DFIL has the resources of the China
the quarter of this total is reefer. Shipping Group (CSG) to draw on. This company – a
A similar 400,000TEU is held by the company on CSG subsidiary – properly entered the third party
finance lease, giving an overall quoted fleet in excess of rental market in 2007, having previous leased contain-
800,000TEU. ers in-house to China Shipping Container Lines
Seacastle/SeaCube has tentatively re-entered the (CSCL) for several years.
purchasing market in 2010, after a virtual two-year It has followed much the same model as
absence, and its delivery rate is expected to rise again Florens/Cosco.
during the second half of this year. DFIL is continuing with this operation, again in
Fast growth is being anticipated each for Dong Fang parallel with Florens’ earlier development, and cur-
International Leasing (DFIL) and Beacon Intermodal rently has around 60% (215,000TEU) of its entire
Leasing, as these are still the two newest entrants of rental fleet on hire to CSCL. This left around 40%
recent years. (145,000TEU) on ‘international’ lease at mid-2010.
TABLE 9:
TOP RANKING CONTAINER LEASE COMPANIES* AND THEIR NEWBUILD PURCHASES (TEU X 1000) FOR OPERATING
FLEETS FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED FIRST HALF 2010
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-1H
Textainer Group** 150 80 95 140 115 10 70
Gateway Container** 20 25 5 - - - -
Capital Lease** 45 50 35 40 - - -
Amficon Leasing** 10 10 22 23 5 - -
Capital Intermodal-XINES** - 25 95 73 57 - -
Florens Container Leasing 155 165 265 340 150 15 50
Triton Container 290 55 110 115 155 55 150
TAL International 115 60 75 125 135 10 100
GESeaCo 130 65 70 95 110 20 40
Seacastle Container Leasing*** - - - - 25 - 15
Interpool Group 90 100 80 110 - - -
Carlisle Leasing 13 15 35 20 - - -
CAI International 65 45 115 120 65 10 25
UES international HK**** - - - - 50 40 -
Grand View Container Leasing 30 45 25 40 - - -
Unit Equipment Services 72 35 20 15 - - -
Gold Container 50 35 85 90 80 5 -
Cronos Group 55 35 35 75 60 5 15
Beacon Intermodal Leasing - - - - 108 45 90
Blue Sky Intermodal 25 15 15 20 18 3 15
Other 70 40 68 159 167 22 60
Grand total 1,385 900 1,250 1,600 1,300 240 630
Total resold or scrapped -495 -525 -520 -610 -585 -685 -360
Other loss or gain from leased fleet***** -150 -80 -185 90 -545 -140 110
Total net gain or loss 740 295 545 1,080 170 -585 380
* = ranked by cumulative TEU purchase size for period 2003-09 ** = Textainer took management control of Gateway fleet in 2006, Capital Lease fleet in 2007, Amficon
and Capital Intermodal-XINES fleets in 2009 *** = created from merger of Interpool and Carlisle Leasing in 2007 **** = created from merger of Grand View Container
Leasing and Unit Equipment Services in 2007 ***** = includes transfers from operating to finance lease or sale and lease-back agreements

TABLE 10:
CONTAINER FLEET MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS CONCLUDED BETWEEN LEASING (AND SHIPPING)
COMPANIES FOR 1985-99
Acquiring company From Status Type TEU (x1000)
1985 Catu Holdings SA Landless Container Ltd managed Dry Freight 5.0
1985 Catu Holdings SA ARTU Container SA managed Dry Freight 5.0
1985 Transamerica Leasing NIC Leasing (Japan) owned/managed Dry Freight 35.0
1985 Trans Ocean Ltd Tank Cargo Container managed Dry Freight 20.0
1986 Textainer Group Cross County Leasing managed Dry Freight 20.0
1987 CLOU Container Acugreen Container managed Dry Freight 3.0
1987 CLOU Container Ideal Container Srl managed Dry Freight 7.0
1987 CLOU Container ICCU Group managed Dry Freight 47.0
1987 Trans Ocean Ltd Nautilus Leasing managed Dry Freight 10.0
1987 Trans Ocean Ltd Traco Container managed Dry Freight 5.0
1987 Textainer Group InterOcean Leasing managed Dry Freight 12.0
1987 Itel Containers Flexi-Van Corp owned Dry Freight, Reefer 180.0
1987 Genstar Container Gelco-CTI owned Dry Freight 300.0
1988 Itel Containers Intl Xtra Inc owned Dry Freight 120.0
1988 Trans Ocean Ltd Showa Line owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer 20.0
1989 Trans Ocean Ltd Intl Container Leasing managed Dry Freight, Tank 7.0
1990 Tiphook Container Rental Sea Containers owned Dry Freight, Tank 200.0
1990 Genstar Container Itel Containers owned Dry Freight, Reefer, Regional 430.0
1991 Textainer Group Maxu Containers SA managed Dry Freight 12.0
1991 Transamerica Leasing First Tank Container owned Tank 0.5
1991 Trans Ocean Ltd Redcliffe International owned/managed Reefer 5.0
1991 Trans Ocean Ltd Trans Container Leasing managed Dry Freight 10.0
1991 Trans Ocean Ltd Nippon Liner Systems owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer 18.0
1991 Cronos Group IEA/Leasing Partners Intl managed Dry Freight, Reefer 90.0
1992 United Container Systems CIS Continent-Israel GmbH owned Dry Freight 1.0
1992 Trans Ocean Ltd Dolphin AB managed Dry Freight 35.0
1993 Textainer Group World Container Leasing owned Dry Freight 20.0
1993 Sea Containers East Med Tanks owned Tank 0.5
1993 Sea Containers CLOU Container owned Dry Freight 56.0
1994 Sea Containers SCAC Delmas Vieljeux owned (lease-back) Dry Freight, Reefer 20.0
1994 Genstar Container various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight, Reefer 50.0
1994 Transamerica Leasing Tiphook Container Rental owned Dry Freight, Tank 480.0
1995 Xtra Corp Matson Leasing owned Dry Freight 165.0
1995 Catu Holdings SA Maritainer SA managed Dry Freight 10.0
1996 Transamerica Leasing Trans Ocean Ltd owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Tank 280.0
1997 Sea Containers Wreckair Cont Service owned Dry Freight, Regional 5.0
1997 GE-TIP Intermodal Services Genstar Container owned (internal) Regional 43.0
1997 Interpool Group Hanjin Shipping owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 50.0
1998 Container Leasing Bell Lines owned Dry Freight 5.0
1998 Textainer Group PrimeSource Holdings managed Dry Freight 55.0
1998 GESeaCo Genstar/Sea Containers owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Tank, Regional 1,130.0
1998 Interpool Group CAI International managed Dry Freight 240.0
1999 Transamerica Leasing Stolt-Nielsen Leasing owned Tank 3.0
1999 Textainer Group Xtra International owned/managed Dry Freight 225.0
Total 4,435.0
Most growth is being targeted at the smaller third least 100,000TEU per annum in order to reach the one
party rental fleet, with up to 100,000TEU due for pur- million TEU mark within six years.
chase in 2010. Over 30,000TEU of this had already DFIL had managed to gain 10th place within the
been delivered by July. lessors’ ranking by mid-2010, with Beacon and the
DFIL has longer term plans to grow its fleet by at reduced-size UES taking joint 11th. The only other

TABLE 11:
CONTAINER FLEET MERGERS AND ACQUISTIONS CONCLUDED BETWEEN LEASING (AND SHIPPING)
COMPANIES FROM YEAR 2000 ONWARDS
Acquiring company From Status Type TEU (x1000)
2000 Eurotainer CCR Group managed Tank 10.0
2000 Exsif Worldwide Transamerica Leasing owned Tank 20.0
2000 Interpool Group Transamerica Leasing owned Regional 45.0
2001 GE-TIP Intermodal Services Interpool Group owned Regional 58.0
2002 Exsif Worldwide Tank Partners International managed Tank 3.5
2002 Textainer Group various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 17.5
2004 Unit Equipment Services United Container Systems managed Dry Freight 25.0
2004 CARU Maritrade managed Dry Freight 5.0
2005 CARU Catu Container managed Dry Freight 40.0
2006 Textainer Group Gateway Container managed Dry Freight 315.0
2007 Textainer Group Capital Lease managed Dry Freight 505.0
2007 Seacastle Cont Leasing Interpool/Carlisle Leasing owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Regional 970.0
2007 UES International GVC/UES* managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Tank, Regional 465.0
2007 VGT Group Tankspan Leasing managed Tank 3.0
2008 CARU Schouten Cont Services owned Dry Freight 3.5
2008 Seacastle Cont Leasing Magnum Lease managed Reefer 3.5
2008 CAI International Consent Equipment owned Regional 12.5
2008 Unitas Leasing Bond International owned Tank 1.5
2008 Capital Intermodal XINES Ltd managed Dry Freight 155.0
2008 Gold Container C&Container Leasing managed Dry Freight 16.5
2008 TAL International various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 55.0
2009 Textainer Group Amficon Leasing managed Dry Freight 147.0
2009 Textainer Group Capital Intermodal managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Tank, Regional 155.0
2009 Textainer Group various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 85.0
2010 Cronos Group UES International managed Dry Freight 220.0
2010 CAI International various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 45.0
2010 Gold Container various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 35.0
2010 various (leasing company) various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 80.0
Total 3,496.5
* = GVC (Grand View Container Leasing) initially acquired control of UES (Unit Equipment Services AG) in 2006
firm with any significant holding was Blue Sky process and rising barrier of entry facing new compa-
Intermodal, which controlled around 110,000TEU of nies. The only way to bridge this, and stand any real-
managed equipment at mid-2010. istic chance of entering the big time, is through a full-
Below this are Waterfront Leasing and Bridgehead on assault of the type being pursued by Beacon and
Container Services, with around 65,000TEU and DFIL, which necessitates a very robust line of financ-
55,000TEU respectively. ing. Otherwise growth towards the all-important mid-
A further glance down the ranking reveals companies rank area is impossible to contemplate, with would-be
of increasingly specialised character. Many of these have entrants either forced to limit their aspirations and go
long been focussed on more ‘niche-type’ tank or regional down more specialised routes or remain on the
container sectors, although their smaller TEU holding margins. The least favoured tended to fall by the
often belies a greater importance in CEU and replace- wayside, and usually because of their vulnerability to
ment cost terms. takeover.
The ever-widening gulf that exists between box lease Recent examples include XINES, Capital
companies of the largest, mid-range and smallest sizes is Intermodal, Amficon, C&Container Leasing (and
a natural consequence of industry’s inexorable scaling-up possibly even UES), which provide warning enough.

equipment review
Equipment review
The recent meteoric rise in new container pricing has greatly boosted
the replacement cost of the world’s rental fleet in the year to mid-
2010, lifting it slightly above the former high of mid-2008. Growth in
TEU terms has been more modest, with some shrinkage occurring for
the calculated CEU size. Once again, the lessors’ standard/reefer
high-cube fleets have tended to expand to the detriment of other
sizes/types
TABLE 12:
GLOBAL CONTAINER FLEET BY OWNER CATEGORY FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010. TEU, CEU*
AND UNIT FLEETS IN THOUSANDS, COST IS USD MILLION
Leasing company
Unit 5,903.5 6,355.0 6,422.0 7,042.5 7,499.0 7,297.0 7,421.5
TEU 9,115.0 9,837.5 9,914.0 10,789.5 11,461.0 11,146.5 11,340.0
CEU* 11,398.5 11,797.0 12,314.5 13,528.5 13,556.5 13,488.5 12,809.5
Cash replacement cost** 21,087.5 24,773.5 22,781.5 26,380.5 31,858.0 26,303.0 32,023.5
Shipping company***
Unit 6,546.0 7,388.0 8,129.0 9,193.5 10,640.5 10,572.5 10,473.0
TEU 9,835.0 11,174.5 12,370.0 14,090.0 16,393.5 16,308.0 16,160.0
CEU* 14,563.0 15,398.0 17,695.0 19,806.0 21,291.5 21,893.0 19,903.5
Global total
Unit 12,449.5 13,743.0 14,551.0 16,236.0 18,139.5 17,869.5 17,894.5
TEU 18,950.0 21,012.0 22,284.0 24,879.5 27,854.5 27,454.5 27,500.0
CEU* 25,961.5 27,195.0 30,009.5 33,334.5 34,848.0 35,381.5 32,713.0
* = see executive summary for CEU calculations ** = new-for-old cash replacement cost calculated from annualised newbuild ex-factory price index current at date
*** = includes other transport operators

equipment review
TABLE 13:
TOTAL CONTAINER FLEET (TEU X 1000) ON OPERATING LEASE BY DETAILED TYPE FOR 2004-09
AND PROJECTED 2010
Maritime - dry freight standard
20ft 2,464.0 2,648.0 2,707.5 3,069.5 3,300.5 3,206.0 3,260.0
40ft 2,619.0 2,633.0 2,496.0 2,422.0 2,392.5 2,201.0 2,045.0
40ft high cube 2,967.5 3,453.0 3,603.5 4,124.5 4,558.5 4,529.0 4,792.0
45ft high cube 62.0 65.5 67.0 69.5 82.0 84.0 89.0
Subtotal 8,112.5 8,799.5 8,874.0 9,685.5 10,333.5 10,020.0 10,186.0
Maritime - dry freight special
Cellular pallet-wide 71.3 70.3 67.4 74.8 75.0 73.0 78.3
Open-top - 20ft 44.7 41.6 38.9 36.9 35.9 34.3 33.0
Open-top - 40ft 92.5 84.4 81.0 85.4 91.8 94.7 94.0
Collapsible flatrack - 20ft 13.8 13.5 13.6 14.3 16.6 17.0 17.0
Fixed flatrack and platform 3.3 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.5
Other* 15.2 12.7 9.4 7.7 8.0 9.8 9.7
Subtotal 313.0 301.0 290.0 309.0 327.0 334.0 338.0
Maritime - integral reefer
20ft 53.1 50.0 47.5 43.0 42.0 38.5 38.0
40ft 41.4 37.5 27.5 20.5 16.5 12.0 8.0
40ft high cube 292.0 316.5 322.5 374.5 402.0 414.0 460.0
Subtotal 386.5 404.0 397.5 438.0 460.5 464.5 506.0
Maritime - tank (liquid bulk)
Subtotal 90.5 97.0 101.0 107.5 114.0 117.5 118.0
Regional - 8ft 6in width
US domestic - 48ft 90.5 83.8 76.2 65.0 39.5 18.6 3.6
US domestic - 53ft 50.5 68.2 76.8 80.0 72.5 70.4 66.4
Subtotal 141.0 152.0 153.0 145.0 112.0 89.0 70.0
Regional - 2.5m width
Conventional pallet-wide 24.0 34.5 43.5 52.0 62.0 69.5 71.5
Swapbody - 20-25ft (6-8m) 29.0 31.5 37.0 39.0 41.2 42.0 41.2
Swapbody - 40-45ft (12-14m) 9.5 9.0 9.0 4.5 3.3 2.2 1.5
Swap-tank (liquid bulk) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 7.5 7.8 7.8
Subtotal 71.5 84.0 98.5 104.5 114.0 121.5 122.0
Total - maritime 8,902.5 9,601.5 9,662.5 10,540.0 11,235.0 10,936.0 11,148.0
Total - regional 212.5 236.0 251.5 249.5 226.0 210.5 192.0
Grand total 9,115.0 9,837.5 9,914.0 10,789.5 11,461.0 11,146.5 11,340.0
* = dry bulk/silo, ventilated and open-side

equipment review
TABLE 14:
TOTAL CONTAINER FLEET ON OPERATING LEASE BY DETAILED TYPE, CALCULATED AS CEU* (X 1000),
20ft 2,464.0 2,648.0 2,707.5 3,069.5 3,300.5 3,206.0 3,260.0
40ft 2,095.0 2,106.5 1,997.0 1,937.5 1,914.0 1,761.0 1,636.0
40ft high cube 2,522.5 2,935.0 3,063.0 3,506.0 3,875.0 3,849.5 4,073.0
45ft high cube 68.0 65.5 67.0 69.5 82.0 84.0 89.0
Subtotal 7,149.5 7,755.0 7,834.5 8,582.5 9,171.5 8,900.5 9,058.0
Open-top - 20ft 71.5 66.5 62.0 59.0 57.4 54.5 53.0
Open-top - 40ft 120.5 110.0 105.5 111.0 119.4 123.0 121.8
Fixed flatrack and platform 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.8 1.8
Other*** 45.0 39.5 36.0 34.8 34.0 36.7 33.2
Subtotal 479.0 461.5 449.0 478.5 514.0 526.5 527.0
20ft 425.0 342.7 366.7 322.5 263.7 265.8 202.5
40ft 206.0 161.0 131.8 97.8 65.0 51.2 26.5
40ft high cube 1,459.0 1,360.8 1,546.0 1,760.2 1,607.3 1,781.5 1,518.0
Subtotal 2,090.0 1,864.5 2,044.5 2,180.5 1,936.0 2,098.5 1,747.0
Subtotal 1,131.0 1,162.5 1,364.5 1,667.0 1,427.0 1,469.0 1,062.5
Regional - 8ft 6in width
US domestic - 48ft 199.4 168.0 159.8 130.0 75.0 36.3 6.8
US domestic - 53ft 105.8 129.5 153.7 152.5 130.5 130.0 119.2
Subtotal 305.2 297.5 313.5 282.5 205.5 166.3 126.0
Swapbody - 20-25ft (6-8m) 79.0 82.5 103.8 109.0 108.5 117.3 108.2
Swapbody - 40-45ft (12-14m) 16.5 15.0 17.2 8.5 6.0 4.7 3.0
Swap-tank (liquid bulk) 112.5 109.0 119.5 135.5 93.7 96.2 69.3
Subtotal 243.8 256.0 308.5 337.5 302.5 327.7 289.0
Total - maritime 10,849.5 11,243.5 11,692.5 12,908.5 13,048.5 12,994.5 12,394.5
Total - regional 549.0 553.5 622.0 620.0 508.0 494.0 415.0
Grand total 11,398.5 11,797.0 12,314.5 13,528.5 13,556.5 13,488.5 12,809.5
Total - replacement cost** 21,087.5 24,773.5 22,781.5 26,380.5 31,858.0 26,303.0 32,023.5
* = see executive summary for CEU calculations ** = new-for-old cash replacement cost calculated from annualised newbuild ex-factory price index current at date
*** = dry bulk/silo, ventilated and open-side

equipment review
TABLE 15:
TOTAL CONTAINER FLEET ON OPERATING LEASE BY DETAILED TYPE AT MID-2009. TEU, CEU*
AND UNIT FLEET IN THOUSANDS, COST IS USD MILLION
Maritime
Standard - 20ft 3,206.0 29.3 3,206.0 44.7 3,206.0 24.7 6,252.0 24.7
Standard - 40ft 2,201.0 20.1 1,100.5 15.3 1,761.0 13.6 3,434.0 13.6
Standard - 40ft high cube 4,529.0 41.4 2,264.5 31.6 3,849.5 29.6 7,506.5 29.6
Standard - 45ft high cube 84.0 0.8 37.5 0.5 84.0 0.6 163.7 0.6
Cellular pallet-wide 73.0 0.7 43.0 0.6 92.0 0.7 179.5 0.7
Open-top 129.0 1.2 81.5 1.1 177.5 1.4 346.0 1.4
Collapsible flatrack 120.5 1.1 68.7 1.0 218.5 1.7 426.0 1.7
Other special*** 11.5 0.1 9.3 0.1 38.5 0.3 75.0 0.3
Integral reefer - 20ft 38.5 0.3 38.5 0.5 265.8 2.0 518.5 2.0
Integral reefer - 40ft 12.0 0.1 6.0 0.1 51.2 0.4 99.8 0.4
Integral reefer - 40ft high cube 414.0 3.8 207.0 2.9 1,781.5 13.7 3,474.0 13.7
Tank (liquid bulk) 117.5 1.1 117.0 1.6 1,469.0 11.3 2,864.5 11.3
Subtotal 10,936.0 100.0 7,179.5 100.0 12,994.5 100.0 25,339.5 100.0
Regional
US domestic (8ft 6in width) 89.0 42.3 34.5 29.4 166.3 33.6 324.5 33.6
Conventional pallet-wide (2.5m width) 69.5 33.0 40.5 34.5 109.5 22.2 213.5 22.2
Swapbody (2.5m width) 44.2 21.0 36.0 30.6 122.0 24.7 238.0 24.7
Swap-tank (2.5m width) 7.8 3.7 6.5 5.5 96.2 19.5 187.5 19.5
Subtotal 210.5 100.0 117.5 100.0 494.0 100.0 963.5 100.0
Grand total 11,146.5 7,297.0 13,488.5 26,303.0
* = see executive summary for CEU (Capital Equipment Unit) calculations
** = new-for-old cash replacement cost calculated from annualised newbuild ex-factory price index current at mid-2009 *** = dry bulk/silo, ventilated and open-side

equipment review
TABLE 16:
TOTAL NEWBUILD PURCHASE OF CONTAINERS (TEU X 1000) FOR OPERATING LEASE BY DETAILED TYPE FOR 2004-09
AND PROJECTED 2010
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Standard - 20ft 380.0 280.0 425.0 580.0 535.0 50.0 275.0
Standard - 40ft 260.0 145.0 275.0 140.0 160.0 15.0 75.0
Standard - 40ft high cube 654.0 385.0 445.0 725.0 463.0 67.0 655.0
Standard - 45ft high cube 3.0 5.0 4.0 8.0 12.5 2.5 12.0
Subtotal 1,297.0 815.0 1,149.0 1,453.0 1,170.5 134.5 1,017.0
Open-top 2.5 1.0 5.0 13.0 11.0 14.0 9.0
Flatrack and platform 4.0 9.0 8.0 15.0 17.0 9.5 8.0
Other* 2.0 1.5 - - 1.5 1.5 0.5
Subtotal 16.0 16.0 17.5 36.0 36.5 34.5 25.0
20ft 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.5 3.5 2.0 2.5
40ft high cube 37.0 33.0 45.5 70.5 62.5 51.0 87.5
Subtotal 40.0 36.0 50.5 76.0 66.0 53.0 90.0
Subtotal 6.5 8.0 7.5 10.0 10.0 6.0 7.0
Regional - 8ft 6in width (US domestic)
Subtotal 14.5 11.0 8.0 10.0 - - -
Swapbody/swap-tank 2.5 3.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 3.5 4.0
Subtotal 11.0 14.0 17.5 15.0 17.0 12.0 11.0
Total - maritime 1,359.5 875.0 1,224.5 1,575.0 1,283.0 228.0 1,139.0
Total - regional 25.5 25.0 25.5 25.0 17.0 12.0 11.0
Grand total 1,385.0 900.0 1,250.0 1,600.0 1,300.0 240.0 1,150.0
* = dry bulk/silo, ventilated and open-side

equipment review
TABLE 17:
TOTAL NEWBUILD PURCHASE OF CONTAINERS FOR OPERATING LEASE BY DETAILED TYPE, CALCULATED AS CEU*
(X 1000), FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
20ft 380.0 280.0 425.0 580.0 535.0 50.0 275.0
40ft 208.0 116.0 220.0 112.0 128.0 12.0 60.0
40ft high cube 556.0 327.5 378.0 616.5 393.5 57.0 557.0
45ft high cube 3.0 5.0 4.0 8.0 12.5 2.5 12.0
Subtotal 1,147.0 728.5 1,027.0 1,316.5 1,069.0 121.5 904.0
Open-top 3.6 1.5 6.7 17.3 14.8 19.3 13.0
Flatrack and platform 7.0 16.0 14.0 26.0 31.2 17.4 14.0
Other** 5.0 3.4 - - 4.0 3.8 1.0
Subtotal 25.0 26.5 26.5 53.5 59.0 52.5 37.0
20ft 24.0 20.5 38.5 41.2 22.0 13.8 13.3
40ft highcube 185.0 142.0 218.5 331.3 250.0 219.2 288.7
Subtotal 209.0 162.5 257.0 372.5 272.0 233.0 302.0
Subtotal 81.5 96.0 101.5 155.0 125.0 75.0 63.0
Regional - 8ft 6in width (US domestic)
Subtotal 30.5 21.0 16.0 19.5 - - -
Swapbody/swap-tank 16.3 13.5 22.8 24.0 26.0 19.2 16.5
Subtotal 29.5 28.5 41.0 39.0 41.0 31.5 26.5
Total - maritime 1,462.5 1,013.5 1,412.0 1,897.5 1,525.0 482.0 1,306.0
Total - regional 60.0 49.5 57.0 58.5 41.0 31.5 26.5
Grand total 1,522.5 1,063.0 1,469.0 1,956.0 1,566.0 513.5 1,332.5
Total - investment cost*** 2,816.5 2,232.5 2,717.5 3,814.0 3,680.0 1,001.5 3,331.0
* = see executive summary for CEU (Capital Equipment Unit) calculations ** = dry bulk/silo, ventilated and open-side
*** = cash investment cost is calculated from annualised newbuild ex-factory price index current for each year

equipment review
TABLE 18:
TOTAL NEWBUILD CONTAINER PURCHASE FOR OPERATING LEASE BY DETAILED TYPE DURING 2009. TEU, CEU* AND UNIT
FLEETS IN THOUSANDS, COST IS USD MILLION
Maritime
Standard - 20ft 50.0 21.9 50.0 34.3 50.0 10.4 97.5 10.4
Standard - 40ft 15.0 6.6 7.5 5.1 12.0 2.5 23.5 2.5
Cellular pallet-wide 9.5 4.2 5.0 3.4 12.0 2.5 23.4 2.5
Open-top 14.0 6.1 8.8 6.0 19.3 4.0 37.5 4.0
Collapsible flatrack 9.5 4.2 5.5 3.8 17.4 3.6 34.0 3.6
Bulk/silo 1.5 0.7 1.1 0.8 3.8 0.8 7.4 0.8
Integral reefer 53.0 23.2 27.5 18.8 233.0 48.3 454.5 48.3
Tank (liquid bulk) 6.0 2.6 6.0 4.1 75.0 15.6 146.0 15.6
Subtotal 228.0 100.0 146.0 100.0 482.0 100.0 940.0 100.0
Regional
Conventional pallet-wide (2.5m width) 8.5 70.8 4.0 57.1 12.3 39.0 24.0 39.0
Swapbody/swap-tank (2.5m width) 3.5 29.2 3.0 42.9 19.2 61.0 37.5 61.0
Subtotal 12.0 100.0 7.0 100.0 31.5 100.0 61.5 100.0
Grand total 240.0 153.0 513.5 1,001.5
* = see executive summary for CEU calculations ** cash investment cost calculated from annualised newbuild ex-factory price index for year 2009
TABLE 19:
SHARE OF GLOBAL CONTAINER TEU FLEET (%) ON OPERATING LEASE BY DETAILED TYPE FOR 2003-09
20ft 48.1 48.0 46.8 45.1 45.4 43.5 43.0
40ft 50.1 48.6 46.5 43.6 40.7 38.6 37.8
40ft high cube 57.7 58.1 56.0 52.7 50.3 46.6 46.0
45ft high cube 20.3 19.8 19.0 18.0 17.6 19.5 20.3
Open-top 54.2 51.6 49.1 47.1 44.7 43.4 43.4
Collapsible flatrack 55.9 54.2 54.2 51.9 52.7 51.4 47.9
Fixed-end flatrack and platform 6.3 4.5 3.9 3.5 3.5 2.7 3.2
Other* 9.4 8.6 6.9 4.9 3.9 4.0 4.9
20ft 36.2 34.6 32.1 30.2 27.8 26.7 25.8
40ft 45.5 43.7 45.3 44.2 43.0 42.0 35.7
40ft high cube 32.0 33.2 31.7 29.3 30.2 28.0 27.6
20ft (and 30ft) 55.9 55.4 56.3 56.0 55.8 56.7 56.9
Regional - all types
US domestic (8ft 6in width) 36.9 36.3 36.4 34.2 30.7 23.1 18.8
Conventional pallet-wide (2.5m width) 13.4 14.5 17.9 20.1 21.3 23.3 25.5
Swapbody/swap-tank (2.5m width) 14.0 13.7 13.9 15.2 14.7 14.8 15.2
Maritime - dry freight standard 51.0 50.9 49.4 46.9 45.5 43.1 42.6
Maritime - dry freight special 41.2 39.8 37.8 35.5 35.6 35.4 35.1
Maritime - integral reefer 34.1 34.2 32.7 30.1 30.3 28.2 27.6
Maritime - total 49.5 49.3 47.9 45.5 44.3 42.0 41.5
Regional - total 23.9 23.6 24.4 24.5 23.2 20.5 19.3
Grand total 48.2 48.1 46.8 44.5 43.4 41.1 40.6
* = dry bulk/silo, ventilated and open-side/military module

operating review
Operating review
The operational outlook for the lease industry vastly improved in
2010, with utilisation, rental rates and cash returns all rising fast –
and overheads falling. This has been a consequence of the strong
recovery in demand, and a shipping industry still short of funds for
investment. Equipment prices are at a 20-year high as well, bringing
a further plus in the form of strong residual/secondary values
TABLE 20:
AVERAGED USD PER DIEM RENTAL RATES, USD EX-FACTORY PRICES AND RENTAL RETURN (%) FOR NEWBUILD
DRY FREIGHT CONTAINERS PLACED ON LONG-TERM LEASE (LTL)FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010
20ft standard unit 40ft standard unit 40ft high-cube unit
Newbuild Ex-factory Initial cash Newbuild Ex-factory Initial cash Newbuild Ex-factory Initial cash
LTL – per price investment LTL – per price investment LTL – per return investment
diem return diem return diem return
USD USD % USD USD % USD USD %
1990 1.80 2,700 24.3 2.90 4,350 24.3 3.10 4,600 24.6
1991 1.75 2,700 23.7 2.80 4,300 23.8 3.00 4,600 23.8
1992 1.45 2,350 22.6 2.30 3,750 22.4 2.50 4,000 22.9
1993 1.30 2,200 21.6 2.05 3,500 21.4 2.20 3,750 21.4
1994 1.35 2,300 21.4 2.15 3,700 21.2 2.30 3,900 21.5
1995 1.35 2,400 20.5 2.15 3,850 20.4 2.30 4,075 20.6
1996 1.10 2,100 19.2 1.75 3,350 19.1 1.85 3,550 19.1
1997 0.95 1,850 18.7 1.50 2,950 18.6 1.60 3,125 18.7
1998 0.85 1,700 18.3 1.35 2,720 18.1 1.45 2,850 18.6
1999 0.70 1,400 18.3 1.15 2,250 18.7 1.20 2,350 18.6
2000 0.75 1,500 18.3 1.20 2,400 18.3 1.30 2,520 18.9
2001 0.70 1,450 17.6 1.10 2,320 17.3 1.20 2,450 17.9
2002 0.60 1,350 16.2 0.95 2,160 16.1 1.00 2,275 16.0
2003 0.60 1,400 15.6 0.95 2,240 15.5 1.00 2,350 15.5
2004 0.80 1,850 15.8 1.25 2,960 15.5 1.35 3,150 15.7
2005 0.85 2,100 14.8 1.35 3,360 14.7 1.45 3,550 14.9
2006 0.65 1,850 12.8 1.05 2,960 12.9 1.10 3,150 12.7
2007 0.65 1,950 12.2 1.05 3,120 12.3 1.10 3,300 12.2
2008 0.75 2,350 11.7 1.20 3,760 11.7 1.25 4,000 11.4
2009 0.65 1,950 12.2 1.05 3,120 12.3 1.10 3,300 12.2
2010 0.95 2,500 13.9 1.55 4,000 14.1 1.65 4,250 14.2
LTL = long-term lease (averaged five year duration)

operating review
TABLE 21:
AVERAGED USD PER DIEM RENTAL RATES, USD EX-FACTORY PRICES AND RENTAL RETURN (%) FOR NEWBUILD DRY
FREIGHT CONTAINERS PLACED ON MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT (MLA) FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010
20ft standard unit 40ft standard unit 40ft high-cube unit
Newbuild Ex-factory Initial cash Newbuild Ex-factory Initial cash Newbuild Ex-factory Initial cash
MLA – per price investment MLA – per price investment MLA – per return investment
diem return diem return diem return
1990 2.25 2,700 30.4 3.65 4,350 30.6 3.85 4,600 30.5
1991 2.20 2,700 29.7 3.50 4,300 29.7 3.75 4,600 29.8
1992 1.80 2,350 28.0 2.85 3,750 27.8 3.10 4,000 28.4
1993 1.65 2,200 27.4 2.60 3,500 27.1 2.80 3,750 27.3
1994 1.70 2,300 27.0 2.70 3,700 26.6 2.90 3,900 27.1
1995 1.70 2,400 25.9 2.70 3,850 25.6 2.90 4,075 26.0
1996 1.40 2,100 24.4 2.25 3,350 24.6 2.40 3,550 24.7
1997 1.25 1,850 24.7 2.00 2,950 24.7 2.15 3,125 25.1
1998 1.20 1,700 25.8 1.90 2,720 25.5 2.05 2,850 26.3
1999 1.15 1,400 30.0 1.85 2,250 30.0 1.95 2,350 30.3
2000 1.15 1,500 28.1 1.85 2,400 28.2 1.95 2,520 28.3
2001 1.10 1,450 27.7 1.75 2,320 27.5 1.90 2,450 28.3
2002 1.05 1,350 28.4 1.65 2,160 27.9 1.80 2,275 28.9
2003 1.05 1,400 27.4 1.65 2,240 26.9 1.80 2,350 28.0
2004 1.20 1,850 23.7 1.90 2,960 23.5 2.05 3,150 23.8
2005 1.20 2,100 20.9 1.90 3,360 20.6 2.00 3,550 20.6
2006 1.10 1,850 21.7 1.75 2,960 21.6 1.85 3,150 21.4
2007 1.10 1,950 20.6 1.75 3,120 20.5 1.85 3,300 20.5
2008 1.20 2,350 18.7 1.90 3,760 18.5 2.05 4,000 18.8
2009 0.90 1,950 16.8 1.45 3,120 17.0 1.50 3,300 16.6
2010 1.20 2,500 17.5 1.90 4,000 17.3 2.05 4,250 17.6
MLA = master lease agreement or short-term lease (up to three year duration)
TABLE 22:
ANNUALISED USD PER DIEM RENTAL RATES, USD REVENUE GENERATED PER CEU* AND UTILISATION (%),
CALCULATED FOR LEASED DRY FREIGHT FLEET FOR 1990-2009
Annualised per diem Annualised Annualised revenue
rate per utilised CEU utilisation rate generated per CEU
LTL MLA LTL MLA LTL MLA
1990 1.55 1.95 98 85 554.4 605.0
1991 1.55 1.95 98 85 554.4 605.0
1992 1.45 1.80 95 80 504.2 527.0
1993 1.30 1.65 96 75 455.5 451.7
1994 1.22 1.63 98 81 436.4 481.9
1995 1.20 1.65 98 77 429.2 463.7
1996 1.15 1.40 97 71 408.3 363.8
1997 1.07 1.25 97 72 378.8 328.5
1998 1.00 1.23 97 68 354.1 305.3
1999 0.85 1.20 98 63 304.0 275.9
2000 0.75 1.17 97 69 266.3 295.5
2001 0.73 1.10 95 56 253.1 224.8
2002 0.68 0.90 97 65 240.8 213.5
2003 0.65 0.88 98 75 232.5 240.9
2004 0.65 0.88 98 82 233.1 264.1
2005 0.67 0.87 95 82 232.3 260.4
2006 0.67 0.83 97 82 237.2 248.4
2007 0.67 0.80 97 82 237.2 239.4
2008 0.67 0.80 97 81 237.9 237.2
2009 0.65 0.80 94 67 223.0 195.6
LTL = long-term lease (3-10 years duration) MLA = master lease agreement or short-term lease (up to three-year duration)
* = see executive summary for CEU calculations ** = calculated per asset TEU for lessors’ entire fleet (including off-hired)

operating review
TABLE 23:
MARITIME DRY FREIGHT AND REEFER CONTAINER FLEETS (TEU X 1000) ON OPERATING LEASE BY
RENTAL AGREEMENT TYPE FOR 1994-2009
Long-term % Master lease % Off-hire % Total
lease* agreement**
Maritime - dry freight (standard and special)
Mid-1994 1,221.6 33.7 1,923.9 53.1 480.0 13.2 3,625.5
Mid-1995 1,505.7 37.3 1,917.1 47.6 607.2 15.1 4,030.0
Mid-1996 1,994.6 43.3 1,825.0 39.6 788.4 17.1 4,608.0
Mid-1997 2,286.7 45.1 1,959.9 38.7 820.9 16.2 5,067.5
Mid-1998 2,480.8 45.4 1,976.1 36.1 1,009.9 18.5 5,466.8
Mid-1999 2,786.4 47.1 1,932.7 32.6 1,200.9 20.3 5,920.0
Mid-2000 3,254.1 49.8 2,198.8 33.6 1,086.1 16.6 6,539.0
Mid-2001 3,543.9 52.2 1,707.8 25.2 1,532.3 22.6 6,784.0
Mid-2002 4,054.5 56.6 1,941.3 27.1 1,166.2 16.3 7,162.0
Mid-2003 4,709.2 60.6 2,219.6 28.5 846.7 10.9 7,775.5
Mid-2004 5,452.3 64.7 2,341.5 27.8 631.7 7.5 8,425.5
Mid-2005 6,084.4 66.9 2,215.9 24.3 800.2 8.8 9,100.5
Mid-2006 6,405.5 69.9 2,103.3 23.0 655.2 7.1 9,164.0
Mid-2007 7,115.8 71.2 2,190.7 21.9 688.0 6.9 9,994.5
Mid-2008 7,902.1 74.1 2,026.6 19.0 731.8 6.9 10,660.5
Mid-2009 7,635.6 73.8 1,494.5 14.4 1,223.9 11.8 10,354.0
Mid-1994 119.8 71.5 25.6 15.3 22.1 13.2 167.5
Mid-1995 137.2 69.3 36.1 18.2 24.7 12.5 198.0
Mid-1996 146.8 65.3 47.3 21.0 30.9 13.7 225.0
Mid-1997 152.5 62.4 56.8 23.2 35.2 14.4 244.5
Mid-1998 155.2 60.3 66.5 25.9 35.5 13.8 257.2
Mid-1999 153.9 57.3 79.5 29.6 35.1 13.1 268.5
Mid-2000 171.4 57.5 93.5 31.4 33.1 11.1 298.0
Mid-2001 182.2 57.7 98.7 31.3 34.6 11.0 315.5
Mid-2002 192.7 57.7 111.0 33.2 30.3 9.1 334.0
Mid-2003 212.7 60.7 113.3 32.3 24.5 7.0 350.5
Mid-2004 242.9 62.9 116.8 30.2 26.8 6.9 386.5
Mid-2005 259.5 64.2 117.0 29.0 27.5 6.8 404.0
Mid-2006 265.5 66.8 103.0 25.9 29.0 7.3 397.5
Mid-2007 306.4 69.9 99.7 22.8 31.9 7.3 438.0
Mid-2008 332.8 72.3 94.6 20.5 33.1 7.2 460.5
Mid-2009 341.1 73.4 77.5 16.7 45.9 9.9 464.5
* = 3-10 years duration ** = up to three-year duration

operating review
TABLE 24:
TANK AND REGIONAL CONTAINER FLEETS (TEU X 1000) ON OPERATING LEASE BY RENTAL
AGREEMENT TYPE FOR 1994-2009
lease* agreement**
Maritime - tank
Mid-1994 29.9 64.3 10.6 22.8 6.0 12.9 46.5
Mid-1995 32.8 64.9 12.4 24.6 5.3 10.5 50.5
Mid-1996 36.3 62.6 14.0 24.1 7.7 13.3 58.0
Mid-1997 41.4 63.7 14.6 22.5 9.0 13.8 65.0
Mid-1998 44.1 60.8 17.0 23.5 11.4 15.7 72.5
Mid-1999 45.6 59.6 17.3 22.6 13.6 17.8 76.5
Mid-2000 45.2 57.6 19.4 24.7 13.9 17.7 78.5
Mid-2001 43.9 54.9 21.1 26.4 15.0 18.7 80.0
Mid-2002 46.0 55.4 24.0 28.9 13.0 15.7 83.0
Mid-2003 49.6 57.0 26.4 30.4 11.0 12.6 87.0
Mid-2004 54.3 60.0 26.7 29.5 9.5 10.5 90.5
Mid-2005 61.3 63.2 27.7 28.6 8.0 8.2 97.0
Mid-2006 65.1 64.5 26.9 26.6 9.0 8.9 101.0
Mid-2007 69.4 64.6 28.7 26.7 9.4 8.7 107.5
Mid-2008 74.2 65.1 29.8 26.1 10.0 8.8 114.0
Mid-2009 75.9 64.6 28.1 23.9 13.5 11.5 117.5
Regional*** - all types
Mid-1994 84.7 78.1 12.9 11.9 10.9 10.0 108.5
Mid-1995 101.8 77.1 13.4 10.2 16.8 12.7 132.0
Mid-1996 103.3 74.6 16.2 11.7 19.0 13.7 138.5
Mid-1997 106.4 70.9 23.7 15.8 19.9 13.3 150.0
Mid-1998 117.4 70.7 30.4 18.3 18.2 11.0 166.0
Mid-1999 125.1 70.3 33.5 18.8 19.4 10.9 178.0
Mid-2000 123.8 69.9 34.3 19.4 18.9 10.7 177.0
Mid-2001 117.0 66.3 39.4 22.3 20.1 11.4 176.5
Mid-2002 113.3 63.8 44.7 25.2 19.5 11.0 177.5
Mid-2003 132.5 65.6 51.7 25.6 17.8 8.8 202.0
Mid-2004 138.5 65.2 57.0 26.8 17.0 8.0 212.5
Mid-2005 157.3 66.6 60.4 25.6 18.3 7.8 236.0
Mid-2006 165.4 65.8 69.8 27.7 16.3 6.5 251.5
Mid-2007 170.9 68.5 62.9 25.2 15.7 6.3 249.5
Mid-2008 155.9 69.0 55.0 24.3 15.1 6.7 226.0
Mid-2009 151.4 71.9 37.4 17.8 21.7 10.3 210.5
*** = North American domestic and European swapbody, swap-tank and conventional pallet-wide containers

operating review
TABLE 25:
TOTAL GLOBAL CONTAINER FLEET (TEU X 1000) ON OPERATING LEASE BY RENTAL AGREEMENT TYPE FOR 1994-2009
lease* agreement**
Mid-1994 1,456.0 36.9 1,973.0 50.0 519.0 13.1 3,948.0
Mid-1995 1,777.5 40.3 1,979.0 44.9 654.0 14.8 4,410.5
Mid-1996 2,281.0 45.4 1,902.5 37.8 846.0 16.8 5,029.5
Mid-1997 2,587.0 46.8 2,055.0 37.2 885.0 16.0 5,527.0
Mid-1998 2,797.5 46.9 2,090.0 35.1 1,075.0 18.0 5,962.5
Mid-1999 3,111.0 48.3 2,063.0 32.0 1,269.0 19.7 6,443.0
Mid-2000 3,594.5 50.7 2,346.0 33.1 1,152.0 16.2 7,092.5
Mid-2001 3,887.0 52.8 1,867.0 25.4 1,602.0 21.8 7,356.0
Mid-2002 4,406.5 56.8 2,121.0 27.4 1,229.0 15.8 7,756.5
Mid-2003 5,104.0 60.7 2,411.0 28.6 900.0 10.7 8,415.0
Mid-2004 5,888.0 64.6 2,542.0 27.9 685.0 7.5 9,115.0
Mid-2005 6,562.5 66.7 2,421.0 24.6 854.0 8.7 9,837.5
Mid-2006 6,901.5 69.6 2,303.0 23.2 709.5 7.2 9,914.0
Mid-2007 7,662.5 71.0 2,382.0 22.1 745.0 6.9 10,789.5
Mid-2008 8,465.0 73.9 2,206.0 19.2 790.0 6.9 11,461.0
Mid-2009 8,204.0 73.6 1,637.5 14.7 1,305.0 11.7 11,146.5
TABLE 26:
TOTAL GLOBAL CONTAINER FLEET ON OPERATING LEASE BY RENTAL AGREEMENT TYPE, CALCULATED AS CEU*
(X 1000), FOR 1994-2009
lease** agreement***
Mid-1994 2,478.0 47.4 2,066.0 39.5 681.5 13.1 5,225.5
Mid-1995 2,876.5 49.3 2,147.5 36.8 810.0 13.9 5,834.0
Mid-1996 3,463.5 51.8 2,171.0 32.4 1,056.0 15.8 6,690.5
Mid-1997 3,831.0 52.2 2,371.0 32.3 1,137.5 15.5 7,339.5
Mid-1998 4,083.5 51.5 2,503.5 31.6 1,341.5 16.9 7,928.5
Mid-1999 4,609.5 52.0 2,656.0 29.9 1,602.0 18.1 8,867.5
Mid-2000 5,052.0 53.0 3,013.5 31.6 1,462.5 15.4 9,528.0
Mid-2001 5,279.5 54.0 2,635.5 26.9 1,864.5 19.1 9,779.5
Mid-2002 5,871.5 56.5 3,034.5 29.2 1,489.0 14.3 10,395.0
Mid-2003 6,715.5 59.9 3,365.5 30.0 1,133.5 10.1 11,214.5
Mid-2004 7,221.0 63.3 3,291.5 28.9 886.0 7.8 11,398.5
Mid-2005 7,737.0 65.6 3,068.0 26.0 992.0 8.4 11,797.0
Mid-2006 8,399.5 68.2 3,009.5 24.4 905.5 7.4 12,314.5
Mid-2007 9,436.5 69.8 3,126.0 23.1 966.0 7.1 13,528.5
Mid-2008 9,816.0 72.4 2,776.5 20.5 964.0 7.1 13,556.5
Mid-2009 9,747.0 72.3 2,197.5 16.3 1,544.0 11.4 13,488.5
* = see executive summary for CEU (Capital Equipment Unit) calculations ** = 3-10 years duration *** = up to three-year duration

operating review
TABLE 27
CALCULATED ANNUAL REVENUE (USD MILLION) GENERATED BY RENTAL AGREEMENT TYPE FOR 1994-2009
Long-term lease* % Master lease** % Total
1994 1,105.0 49.3 1,135.0 50.7 2,240.0
1995 1,265.0 52.0 1,170.0 48.0 2,435.0
1996 1,465.0 59.3 1,005.0 40.7 2,470.0
1997 1,520.0 60.7 985.0 39.3 2,505.0
1998 1,495.0 60.3 985.0 39.7 2,480.0
1999 1,415.0 59.6 960.0 40.4 2,375.0
2000 1,460.0 57.5 1,080.0 42.5 2,540.0
2001 1,460.0 62.9 860.0 37.1 2,320.0
2002 1,495.0 64.3 830.0 35.7 2,325.0
2003 1,600.0 63.4 925.0 36.6 2,525.0
2004 1,795.0 65.2 960.0 34.8 2,755.0
2005 1,990.0 68.5 915.0 31.5 2,905.0
2006 2,080.0 71.6 825.0 28.4 2,905.0
2007 2,280.0 73.3 830.0 26.7 3,110.0
2008 2,535.0 76.6 775.0 23.4 3,310.0
2009 2,410.0 79.9 605.0 20.1 3,015.0
* = 3-10 years duration ** up to three-year duration
TABLE 28:
CALCULATED ANNUALISED USD REVENUE PER CEU*BY RENTAL AGREEMENT TYPE FOR 1994-2009
Long-term lease** Master lease*** Total utilised Total utilised and
agreement agreement off-hired
1994 445.9 549.4 493.0 428.7
1995 439.8 544.8 484.7 417.4
1996 423.0 462.9 438.4 369.2
1997 396.8 415.4 403.9 341.3
1998 366.1 393.4 376.5 312.8
1999 307.0 361.4 326.9 267.8
2000 289.0 358.4 314.9 266.6
2001 276.5 326.3 293.1 237.2
2002 254.6 273.5 261.1 223.7
2003 238.3 274.8 250.5 225.2
2004 248.6 291.7 262.1 241.7
2005 257.2 298.2 268.9 246.2
2006 247.6 274.1 254.6 235.9
2007 241.6 265.5 247.6 229.9
2008 258.3 279.1 262.9 244.2
2009 247.3 275.3 252.4 223.5
* = see executive summary for CEU calculations ** = 3-10 years duration *** = up to three-year duration

operating review
TABLE 29:
CALCULATED USD DEPRECIATED COST FOR STANDARD DRY FREIGHT CONTAINERS AT MID-2010 ASSUMING
LINEAR 6% PER ANNUM (LEAVING 10% RESIDUAL AT END OF YEAR 15)
20ft standard unit 40ft standard unit 40ft high cube unit
Original year Averaged age Original newbuild Calculated Original newbuild Calculated Original newbuild Calculated
of build (years) cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost
USD USD USD USD USD UDS
Mid-2010 newbuild 2,700 2,700 4,320 4,320 4,600 4,600

2009 1.0 1,950 1,835 3,120 2,935 3,300 3,100
2008 2.0 2,350 2,070 3,760 3,310 4,000 3,520
2007 3.0 1,950 1,600 3,120 2,560 3,300 2,705
2006 4.0 1,850 1,405 2,960 2,250 3,150 2,395
2005 5.0 2,100 1,470 3,360 2,350 3,550 2,485
2004 6.0 1,850 1,185 2,960 1,895 3,150 2,015
2003 7.0 1,400 810 2,240 1,300 2,350 1,365
2002 8.0 1,350 700 2,160 1,125 2,275 1,185
2001 9.0 1,450 665 2,320 1,065 2,440 1,120
2000 10.0 1,500 600 2,400 960 2,520 1,010
1999 11.0 1,400 475 2,250 765 2,350 800
1998 12.0 1,700 475 2,720 760 2,850 800
1997 13.0 1,850 405 2,950 650 3,125 690
1996 14.0 2,100 335 3,350 535 3,550 570
1995 15.0 2,400 240 3,850 385 4,075 410
TABLE 30:
AVERAGED USD RESALE PRICES FOR USED STANDARD DRY FREIGHT CONTAINERS AT MID-2010BY ORIGINAL
YEAR OF BUILD AND % OF USD EX-FACTORY PRICE AT MID-2010
20ft standard unit 40ft standard unit 40ft high cube unit
Original year Averaged age Averaged % of ex-factory Averaged % of ex-factory Averaged % of ex-factory
of build (years) resale price price resale price price resale price price
USD USD USD USD USD USD
Mid-2010 newbuild 2,700 100.0 4,320 100.0 4,600 100.0

2009 1.0 2,510 93.0 4,010 92.8 4,280 93.0
2008 2.0 2,320 85.9 3,700 85.6 3,960 86.1
2007 3.0 2,130 78.9 3,395 78.6 3,640 79.1
2006 4.0 1,945 72.0 3,090 71.5 3,320 72.2
2005 5.0 1,760 65.2 2,790 64.6 3,005 65.3
2004 6.0 1,575 58.3 2,495 57.8 2,690 58.5
2003 7.0 1,400 51.9 2,200 50.9 2,385 51.8
2002 8.0 1,255 46.5 1,920 44.4 2,095 45.5
2001 9.0 1,150 42.6 1,670 38.7 1,885 41.0
2000 10.0 1,100 40.7 1,500 34.7 1,710 37.2
1999 11.0 1,060 39.3 1,380 31.9 1,580 34.3
1998 12.0 1,020 37.8 1,320 30.6 1,520 33.0
1997 13.0 985 36.5 1,255 29.1 1,450 31.5
1996 14.0 945 35.0 1,180 27.3 1,365 29.7
1995 15.0 905 33.5 1,090 25.2 1,265 27.5
Scrap - 580 21.5 970 22.5 1,060 23.0

operating review
TABLE 31:
SUMMARY OF AVERAGED USD RESALE PRICES* FOR STANDARD DRY
FREIGHT CONTAINERS FOR 1995-2010
20ft 40ft 40ft high cube
End-1995 1,000 1,550 1,640
End-1996 875 1,370 1,420
End-1997 800 1,220 1,280
End-1998 750 1,160 1,220
End-1999 700 1,120 1,160
End-2000 680 1,050 1,080
End-2001 570 870 900
End-2002 620 850 880
End-2003 660 920 950
End-2004 900 1,100 1,150
End-2005 750 930 950
End-2006 920 1,120 1,170
End-2007 930 1,100 1,150
End-2008 1,000 1,280 1,450
End-2009 880 1,150 1,280
Mid-2010 1,020 1,320 1,520
* = applicable to used containers of 12 years’ average age and excluding cost of repairs/modification or customisation

fleet change review
Fleet change review

Although the global container leasing industry is certain to purchase
the majority (up to 60%) of TEU built in 2010, this will hardly do much
to reverse the long-term erosion in its market share. To influence the
latter, the sector would have buy in this proportion for much of the
next decade. Instead, shipping line investment is expected to
reassert its dominance once normal business is resumed
TABLE 32:
CALCULATED AVERAGE AGE IN YEARS OF GLOBAL CONTAINER TEU FLEET BY OWNER CATEGORY FOR 1994-2009
Leasing company Shipping company Other transport operator* Total
END-1994 5.10 4.90 4.70 5.00
END-1995 5.00 4.85 4.95 4.90
END-1996 5.00 4.90 5.20 4.95
END-1997 4.85 5.00 5.10 4.90
END-1998 4.90 5.15 4.80 5.00
END-1999 5.05 5.35 4.75 5.15
END-2000 5.10 5.40 4.65 5.20
END-2001 5.45 5.70 4.80 5.50
END-2002 5.45 5.90 4.95 5.65
END-2003 5.40 5.70 5.10 5.50
END-2004 5.20 5.40 5.20 5.30
END-2005 5.35 5.15 5.40 5.25
END-2006 5.25 5.00 5.45 5.15
END-2007 5.05 4.75 5.30 4.90
END-2008 5.05 4.85 5.25 4.95
END-2009 5.45 5.45 5.35 5.50
* = shipper, forwarder, nvocc, and rail, intermodal, military and specialised tank operator
TABLE 33:
GLOBAL CONTAINER FLEET (TEU X 1000) AT END-2009 BY OWNER CATEGORY AND ORIGINAL YEAR OF PRODUCTION
Year of build Leasing % Shipping % Other transport % Grand Total original
company company operator* total % production**
2009 240 2.2 130 0.9 80 5.1 450 1.7 430
2008 1,320 12.1 1,775 12.2 155 9.8 3,250 12.0 3,250
2007 1,690 15.4 2,340 16.1 220 14.0 4,250 15.7 4,250
2006 1,245 11.4 1,715 11.8 140 8.9 3,100 11.4 3,100
2005 915 8.4 1,565 10.8 120 7.6 2,600 9.6 2,600
2004 1,330 12.1 1,485 10.2 145 9.2 2,960 10.9 2,960
2003 960 8.8 1,330 9.1 95 6.0 2,385 8.8 2,400
2002 810 7.4 800 5.5 110 7.0 1,720 6.4 1,740
2001 420 3.8 705 4.8 110 7.0 1,235 4.6 1,280
2000 695 6.3 1,015 7.0 145 9.2 1,855 6.8 1,930
1999 475 4.3 665 4.6 115 7.3 1,255 4.6 1,540
1998 385 3.5 545 3.7 105 6.7 1,035 3.8 1,480
Pre-1998 475 4.3 480 3.3 35 2.2 990 3.7 17,385
Total 10,960 100.0 14,550 100.0 1,575 100.0 27,085 100.0 44,345
* = shipper, forwarder, and road, rail, intermodal, nvocc, military and specialised tank operator ** = includes containers resold or scrapped before end-2009

fleet change review
TABLE 34:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF TOTAL CONTAINER TEU FLEET ON OPERATING LEASE FOR 1990-2009
AND PROJECTED 2010-15
Fleet addition %* Fleet Replaced %* Total output End-year fleet size
Historic profile
pre-1990 2,585,000 - 1,080,000 - 3,665,000 2,585,000
1990 170,000 6.6 145,000 5.6 315,000 2,755,000
1991 275,000 10.0 155,000 5.6 430,000 3,030,000
1992 450,000 14.9 160,000 5.3 610,000 3,480,000
1993 160,000 4.6 225,000 6.5 385,000 3,640,000
1994 490,000 13.5 200,000 5.5 690,000 4,130,000
1995 430,000 10.4 220,000 5.3 650,000 4,560,000
1996 580,000 12.7 235,000 5.2 815,000 5,140,000
1997 580,000 11.3 295,000 5.7 875,000 5,720,000
1998 470,000 8.2 285,000 5.0 755,000 6,190,000
1999 535,000 8.6 250,000 4.0 785,000 6,725,000
2000 570,000 8.5 260,000 3.9 830,000 7,295,000
2001 120,000 1.6 305,000 4.2 425,000 7,415,000
2002 595,000 8.0 370,000 5.0 965,000 8,010,000
2003 705,000 8.8 375,000 4.7 1,080,000 8,715,000
2004 740,000 8.5 495,000 5.7 1,235,000 9,455,000
2005 295,000 3.1 525,000 5.6 820,000 9,750,000
2006 545,000 5.6 520,000 5.3 1,065,000 10,295,000
2007 1,080,000 10.5 610,000 5.9 1,690,000 11,375,000
2008 170,000 1.5 585,000 5.1 755,000 11,545,000
2009 -585,000 -5.1 685,000 5.9 100,000 10,960,000
Projected profile
2010 650,000 5.9 620,000 5.7 1,270,000 11,610,000
2011 1,020,000 8.8 630,000 5.4 1,650,000 12,630,000
2012 1,300,000 10.3 660,000 5.2 1,960,000 13,930,000
2013 1,150,000 8.3 550,000 3.9 1,700,000 15,080,000
2014 1,200,000 8.0 780,000 5.2 1,980,000 16,280,000
2015 1,250,000 7.7 880,000 5.4 2,130,000 17,530,000
* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size

fleet change review
TABLE 35:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF TOTAL CONTAINER TEU FLEET OWNED BY SHIPPING COMPANIES**
FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15
Fleet addition %* Fleet replaced %* Total output End-year fleet size
Historic profile
pre-1990 3,375,000 - 1,195,000 - 4,570,000 3,375,000
1990 245,000 7.3 245,000 7.3 490,000 3,620,000
1991 255,000 7.0 235,000 6.5 490,000 3,875,000
1992 275,000 7.1 250,000 6.5 525,000 4,150,000
1993 320,000 7.7 270,000 6.5 590,000 4,470,000
1994 200,000 4.5 260,000 5.8 460,000 4,670,000
1995 500,000 10.7 245,000 5.2 745,000 5,170,000
1996 240,000 4.6 235,000 4.5 475,000 5,410,000
1997 355,000 6.6 250,000 4.6 605,000 5,765,000
1998 490,000 8.5 235,000 4.1 725,000 6,255,000
1999 490,000 7.8 265,000 4.2 755,000 6,745,000
2000 835,000 12.4 265,000 3.9 1,100,000 7,580,000
2001 535,000 7.1 320,000 4.2 855,000 8,115,000
2002 435,000 5.4 340,000 4.2 775,000 8,550,000
2003 820,000 9.6 500,000 5.8 1,320,000 9,370,000
2004 1,140,000 12.2 585,000 6.2 1,725,000 10,510,000
2005 1,155,000 11.0 625,000 5.9 1,780,000 11,665,000
2006 1,375,000 11.8 660,000 5.7 2,035,000 13,040,000
2007 1,820,000 14.0 740,000 5.7 2,560,000 14,860,000
2008 1,730,000 11.6 765,000 5.1 2,495,000 16,590,000
2009 -465,000 -2.8 815,000 4.9 350,000 16,125,000
Projected profile
2010 -100,000 -0.6 830,000 5.1 730,000 16,025,000
2011 830,000 5.2 920,000 5.7 1,750,000 16,855,000
2012 1,400,000 8.3 940,000 5.6 2,340,000 18,255,000
2013 1,600,000 8.8 1,100,000 6.0 2,700,000 19,855,000
2014 1,500,000 7.6 1,020,000 5.1 2,520,000 21,355,000
2015 1,750,000 8.2 1,120,000 5.2 2,870,000 23,105,000
* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size ** = includes other transport operators

fleet change review
TABLE 36:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF GLOBAL CONTAINER TEU FLEET FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15
Fleet addition %* Fleet replaced %* Total output End-year fleet size
Historic profile
pre-1990 5,960,000 - 2,275,000 - 8,235,000 5,960,000
1990 415,000 7.0 390,000 6.5 805,000 6,375,000
1991 530,000 8.3 390,000 6.1 920,000 6,905,000
1992 725,000 10.5 410,000 5.9 1,135,000 7,630,000
1993 480,000 6.3 495,000 6.5 975,000 8,110,000
1994 690,000 8.5 460,000 5.7 1,150,000 8,800,000
1995 930,000 10.6 465,000 5.3 1,395,000 9,730,000
1996 820,000 8.4 470,000 4.8 1,290,000 10,550,000
1997 935,000 8.9 545,000 5.2 1,480,000 11,485,000
1998 960,000 8.4 520,000 4.5 1,480,000 12,445,000
1999 1,025,000 8.2 515,000 4.1 1,540,000 13,470,000
2000 1,405,000 10.4 525,000 3.9 1,930,000 14,875,000
2001 655,000 4.4 625,000 4.2 1,280,000 15,530,000
2002 1,030,000 6.6 710,000 4.6 1,740,000 16,560,000
2003 1,525,000 9.2 875,000 5.3 2,400,000 18,085,000
2004 1,880,000 10.4 1,080,000 6.0 2,960,000 19,965,000
2005 1,450,000 7.3 1,150,000 5.8 2,600,000 21,415,000
2006 1,920,000 9.0 1,180,000 5.5 3,100,000 23,335,000
2007 2,900,000 12.4 1,350,000 5.8 4,250,000 26,235,000
2008 1,900,000 7.2 1,350,000 5.1 3,250,000 28,135,000
2009 -1,050,000 -3.7 1,500,000 5.3 450,000 27,085,000
Projected profile
2010 550,000 2.0 1,450,000 5.4 2,000,000 27,635,000
2011 1,850,000 6.7 1,550,000 5.6 3,400,000 29,485,000
2012 2,700,000 9.2 1,600,000 5.4 4,300,000 32,185,000
2013 2,750,000 8.5 1,650,000 5.1 4,400,000 34,935,000
2014 2,700,000 7.7 1,800,000 5.2 4,500,000 37,635,000
2015 3,000,000 8.0 2,000,000 5.3 5,000,000 40,635,000

fleet change review
TABLE 37:
OCEAN-BORNE CONTAINER TEU DEPLOYMENT FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15, GIVING SPLIT BY OWNER
CATEGORY AND GLOBAL CONTAINER/SLOT OPERATING RATIO
TEU Leasing TEU Shipping TEU Global TEU Global Container:
(x 1000) company (x 1000) company (x 1000) container (x 1000) vessel Vessel slot
container container fleet* slot fleet operating
fleet* fleet* increase increase ratio
increase increase (%)** (%)**
(%)** (%)**
Historic profile
End-1989 2,535 3,030 5,565 3,050 1.82
1990 addition 160 6.3 240 7.9 400 7.2 160 5.2
End-1990 2,695 3,270 5,965 3,210 1.86
1991 addition 265 9.8 240 7.3 505 8.5 215 6.7
End-1991 2,960 3,510 6,470 3,425 1.89
1992 addition 440 14.9 265 7.5 705 10.9 235 6.9
End-1992 3,400 3,775 7,175 3,660 1.96
1993 addition 135 4.0 300 7.9 435 6.1 115 3.1
End-1993 3,535 4,075 7,610 3,775 2.02
1994 addition 465 13.2 180 4.4 645 8.5 385 10.2
End-1994 4,000 4,255 8,255 4,160 1.98
1995 addition 405 10.1 480 11.3 885 10.7 300 7.2
End-1995 4,405 4,735 9,140 4,460 2.05
1996 addition 570 12.9 195 4.1 765 8.4 500 11.2
End-1996 4,975 4,930 9,905 4,960 2.00
1997 addition 575 11.6 255 5.2 830 8.4 515 10.4
End-1997 5,550 5,185 10,735 5,475 1.96
1998 addition 450 8.1 380 7.3 830 7.7 405 7.4
End-1998 6,000 5,565 11,565 5,880 1.97
1999 addition 530 8.8 405 7.3 935 8.1 170 2.9
End-1999 6,530 5,970 12,500 6,050 2.07
2000 addition 565 8.7 740 12.4 1,305 10.4 600 9.9
End-2000 7,095 6,710 13,805 6,650 2.08
2001 addition 115 1.6 440 6.6 555 4.0 710 10.7
End-2001 7,210 7,150 14,360 7,360 1.95
2002 addition 590 8.2 380 5.3 970 6.8 575 7.8
End-2002 7,800 7,530 15,330 7,935 1.93
2003 addition 675 8.7 770 10.2 1,445 9.4 485 6.1
End-2003 8,475 8,300 16,775 8,420 1.99
2004 addition 730 8.6 1,075 13.0 1,805 10.8 680 8.1
End-2004 9,205 9,375 18,580 9,100 2.04
2005 addition 275 3.0 1,080 11.5 1,355 7.3 875 9.6
End-2005 9,480 10,455 19,935 9,975 2.00
2006 addition 535 5.6 1,290 12.3 1,825 9.2 1,405 14.1
End-2006 10,015 11,745 21,760 11,380 1.91
2007 addition 1,075 10.7 1,720 14.6 2,795 12.8 1,345 11.8
End-2007 11,090 13,465 24,555 12,725 1.93
2008 addition 200 1.8 1,630 12.1 1,830 7.5 1,375 10.8
End-2008 11,290 15,095 26,385 14,100 1.87
2009 addition -570 -5.0 -475 -3.1 -1,045 -4.0 900 6.4
End-2009 10,720 14,620 25,340 15,000 1.69
Projected profile
2010 addition 665 6.2 -145 -1.0 520 2.1 500 3.3
End-2010 11,385 14,475 25,860 15,500 1.67
2011 addition 1,035 9.1 765 5.3 1,800 7.0 500 3.2
End-2011 12,420 15,240 27,660 16,000 1.73
2012 addition 1,310 10.5 1,300 8.5 2,610 9.4 500 3.1
End-2012 13,730 16,540 30,270 16,500 1.83
2013 addition 1,155 8.4 1,480 8.9 2,635 8.7 1,000 6.1
End-2013 14,885 18,020 32,905 17,500 1.88
2014 addition 1,190 8.0 1,420 7.9 2,610 7.9 1,500 8.6
End-2014 16,075 19,440 35,515 19,000 1.87
2015 addition 1,240 7.7 1,620 8.3 2,860 8.1 1,500 7.9
End-2015 17,315 21,060 38,375 20,500 1.87
* = containers deployed in ocean-borne transport; ** = expressed as percentage of preceding end-year fleet size

fleet change review
TABLE 38:
ORIGINAL NEWBUILD CONTAINER TEU PURCHASES BY OWNER CATEGORY FOR 1990-2009 AND
PROJECTED 2010-15
Year Leasing company % Shipping company* % Total % increase on
previous year
Historic profile
pre-1990 3,635,000 44.1 4,600,000 55.9 8,235,000 -
1990 315,000 39.1 490,000 60.9 805,000 6.6
1991 415,000 45.1 505,000 54.9 920,000 14.3
1992 610,000 53.7 525,000 46.3 1,135,000 23.4
1993 395,000 40.5 580,000 59.5 975,000 -14.1
1994 620,000 53.9 530,000 46.1 1,150,000 17.9
1995 650,000 46.6 745,000 53.4 1,395,000 21.3
1996 530,000 41.1 760,000 58.9 1,290,000 -7.5
1997 830,000 56.1 650,000 43.9 1,480,000 14.7
1998 755,000 51.0 725,000 49.0 1,480,000 0.0
1999 815,000 52.9 725,000 47.1 1,540,000 4.1
2000 910,000 47.2 1,020,000 52.8 1,930,000 25.3
2001 540,000 42.2 740,000 57.8 1,280,000 -33.7
2002 985,000 56.6 755,000 43.4 1,740,000 35.9
2003 1,160,000 48.3 1,240,000 51.7 2,400,000 37.9
2004 1,385,000 46.8 1,575,000 53.2 2,960,000 23.3
2005 900,000 34.6 1,700,000 65.4 2,600,000 -12.2
2006 1,250,000 40.3 1,850,000 59.7 3,100,000 19.2
2007 1,600,000 37.6 2,650,000 62.4 4,250,000 37.1
2008 1,300,000 40.0 1,950,000 60.0 3,250,000 -23.5
2009 240,000 53.3 210,000 46.7 450,000 -86.2
Projected profile
2010 1,150,000 57.5 850,000 42.5 2,000,000 344.4
2011 1,650,000 48.5 1,750,000 51.5 3,400,000 70.0
2012 1,960,000 45.6 2,340,000 54.4 4,300,000 26.5
2013 1,700,000 38.6 2,700,000 61.4 4,400,000 2.3
2014 1,980,000 44.0 2,520,000 56.0 4,500,000 2.3
2015 2,130,000 42.6 2,870,000 57.4 5,000,000 11.1
* = includes other transport operators

fleet change review
TABLE 39:
GLOBAL CONTAINER TEU FLEET BY OWNER CATEGORY FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15
Year Leasing company % Shipping company* % Total % increase on
previous year
Historic profile
End-1989 2,585,000 43.4 3,375,000 56.6 5,960,000 7.2
End-1990 2,755,000 43.2 3,620,000 56.8 6,375,000 7.0
End-1991 3,030,000 43.9 3,875,000 56.1 6,905,000 8.3
End-1992 3,480,000 45.6 4,150,000 54.4 7,630,000 10.5
End-1993 3,640,000 44.9 4,470,000 55.1 8,110,000 6.3
End-1994 4,130,000 46.9 4,670,000 53.1 8,800,000 8.5
End-1995 4,560,000 46.9 5,170,000 53.1 9,730,000 10.6
End-1996 5,140,000 48.7 5,410,000 51.3 10,550,000 8.4
End-1997 5,720,000 49.8 5,765,000 50.2 11,485,000 8.9
End-1998 6,190,000 49.7 6,255,000 50.3 12,445,000 8.4
End-1999 6,725,000 49.9 6,745,000 50.1 13,470,000 8.2
End-2000 7,295,000 49.0 7,580,000 51.0 14,875,000 10.4
End-2001 7,415,000 47.7 8,115,000 52.3 15,530,000 4.4
End-2002 8,010,000 48.4 8,550,000 51.6 16,560,000 6.6
End-2003 8,715,000 48.2 9,370,000 51.8 18,085,000 9.2
End-2004 9,455,000 47.4 10,510,000 52.6 19,965,000 10.4
End-2005 9,750,000 45.5 11,665,000 54.5 21,415,000 7.3
End-2006 10,295,000 44.1 13,040,000 55.9 23,335,000 9.0
End-2007 11,375,000 43.4 14,860,000 56.6 26,235,000 12.4
End-2008 11,545,000 41.0 16,590,000 59.0 28,135,000 7.2
End-2009 10,960,000 40.5 16,125,000 59.5 27,085,000 -3.7
Projected profile
End-2010 11,610,000 42.0 16,025,000 58.0 27,635,000 2.0
End-2011 12,630,000 42.8 16,855,000 57.2 29,485,000 6.7
End-2012 13,930,000 43.3 18,255,000 56.7 32,185,000 9.2
End-2013 15,080,000 43.2 19,855,000 56.8 34,935,000 8.5
End-2014 16,280,000 43.3 21,355,000 56.7 37,635,000 7.7
End-2015 17,530,000 43.1 23,105,000 56.9 40,635,000 8.0
* = includes other transport operators

reefer market review
Reefer market review

The reefer lease sector has so far experienced a smoother ride (than
dry freight) since the market downturn of late 2008, with companies
suffering less of a drop in 2009, but then a smaller recovery during
2010. New prices, rental rates and cash returns have all stayed
relatively flat, although investment has held up strongly for lessors
during 2009-10, and resulted in sizeable fleet growth for the latter
year
TABLE 40:
AVERAGED USD PER DIEM RENTAL RATES, USD EX-FACTORY PRICES AND RENTAL RETURN (%) FOR NEWBUILD
INTEGRAL REEFER CONTAINERS PLACED ON LONG-TERM LEASE (LTL) FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010
20ft standard unit 40ft standard unit* 40ft high cube unit
Newbuild LTL Ex-factory Initial cash Newbuild LTL Ex-factory Initial cash Newbuild LTL Ex-factory Initial cash
per diem price investment per diem price investment per diem price investment
return return return
1990 12.00 18,900 23.2 15.80 24,300 23.7 16.50 25,600 23.5
1991 11.50 18,900 22.2 15.00 24,300 22.5 15.70 25,600 22.4
1992 11.00 18,800 21.4 14.50 24,500 21.7 15.20 25,600 21.7
1993 10.80 18,700 21.1 14.00 24,200 21.1 14.75 25,300 21.3
1994 10.50 19,500 19.7 13.50 25,300 19.5 14.50 26,500 20.0
1995 10.50 20,400 18.8 13.20 26,400 18.3 14.50 27,600 19.2
1996 9.50 17,800 19.5 11.60 23,000 18.5 13.00 24,200 19.7
1997 8.80 15,700 20.5 10.50 20,400 18.8 11.80 21,300 20.2
1998 8.50 15,300 20.3 9.50 19,000 18.3 10.80 19,500 20.2
1999 7.70 14,000 20.1 - 17,500 - 9.75 17,700 20.1
2000 8.00 15,000 19.5 - 19,200 - 10.25 19,200 19.5
2001 7.30 14,500 18.4 - 18,500 - 9.30 18,500 18.3
2002 6.50 14,200 16.7 - 17,800 - 8.00 17,800 16.4
2003 6.50 14,600 16.3 - 18,200 - 8.00 18,200 16.0
2004 6.40 14,800 15.8 - 18,500 - 7.80 18,500 15.4
2005 6.00 14,400 15.2 - 18,000 - 7.25 18,000 14.7
2006 5.60 14,250 14.3 - 17,750 - 6.70 17,750 13.8
2007 5.50 14,600 13.8 - 18,350 - 6.60 18,350 13.1
2008 5.20 14,800 12.9 - 18,800 - 6.40 18,800 12.5
2009 4.70 13,450 12.8 - 16,800 - 5.70 16,800 12.4
2010 4.70 13,250 12.9 - 16,500 - 5.70 16,500 12.6
LTL = long-term lease (averaged five year duration) * = no 40ft standard reefer containers purchased by leasing companies since 1999

TABLE 41:
SUMMARY OF ANNUALISED USD RENTAL PER DIEM, USD REVENUE GENERATED PER UNIT AND
UTILISATION (%), CALCULATED FOR LEASED INTEGRAL REEFER FLEET FOR 1994-2009
Annualised per diem Annualised utilisation Annualised revenue
per utilised unit rate (%) per unit*
20ft 40ft 40ft high cube 20ft 40ft 40ft high cube 20ft 40ft 40ft high cube
1994 9.90 12.90 13.75 85.5 84.5 92.5 3,089.5 3,978.7 4,642.3
1995 9.50 12.25 13.25 87.0 85.0 91.5 3,016.7 3,800.6 4,425.2
1996 9.25 11.95 12.90 83.5 83.0 92.0 2,826.9 3,630.2 4,343.7
1997 8.95 11.10 12.40 82.0 79.5 93.0 2,678.7 3,220.9 4,209.2
1998 8.55 10.40 11.75 81.0 77.0 95.0 2,527.8 2,922.9 4,074.3
1999 7.75 9.75 10.55 80.5 78.0 95.0 2,277.1 2,775.8 3,658.2
2000 7.35 8.85 10.25 81.5 78.0 96.0 2,192.4 2,526.5 3,601.4
2001 7.30 8.50 9.75 81.5 78.0 95.5 2,171.6 2,420.0 3,398.6
2002 6.75 7.95 9.40 85.5 79.5 96.0 2,106.5 2,306.9 3,293.8
2003 6.50 7.60 8.80 90.5 86.5 95.0 2,147.1 2,399.5 3,051.4
2004 6.40 6.95 8.25 89.5 85.5 95.0 2,096.4 2,174.9 2,868.5
2005 6.15 6.75 7.65 91.0 87.0 94.5 2,042.7 2,143.5 2,638.7
2006 5.70 6.10 7.45 91.5 87.5 93.5 1,903.7 1,948.2 2,542.5
2007 5.60 6.05 6.90 92.5 86.5 93.0 1,890.7 1,910.1 2,342.2
2008 5.35 5.70 6.65 92.0 86.5 93.0 1,801.5 1,804.6 2,263.5
2009 5.30 5.60 6.35 90.0 85.0 90.5 1,741.1 1,737.4 2,097.6
* = calculated as average per unit for lessors' entire fleet (including utilised and off-hired)
TABLE 42:
CALCULATED USD DEPRECIATED COST FOR INTEGRAL REEFER CONTAINERS AT MID-2010 ASSUMING LINEAR 7%
PER ANNUM (LEAVING 9% RESIDUAL AT END OF YEAR 13)
Original year Averaged Original newbuild Calculated Original newbuild Calculated Original newbuild Calculated
of build age (years) cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost
USD USD USD USD USD USD
Mid-2010 newbuild 13,200 13,200 16,500 - 16,500 16,500
2009 1.0 13,450 12,510 16,800 - 16,800 15,625
2008 2.0 14,800 12,730 18,800 - 18,800 16,170
2007 3.0 14,600 11,535 18,350 - 18,350 14,495
2006 4.0 14,250 10,260 17,800 - 17,800 12,815
2005 5.0 14,400 9,360 18,000 - 18,000 11,700
2004 6.0 14,800 8,585 18,500 - 18,500 10,730
2003 7.0 14,600 7,445 18,200 - 18,200 9,280
2002 8.0 14,200 6,250 17,800 - 17,800 7,830
2001 9.0 14,500 5,365 18,500 - 18,500 6,845
2000 10.0 15,000 4,500 19,200 - 19,200 5,760
1999 11.0 14,000 3,220 17,500 4,025 17,700 4,070
1998 12.0 15,300 2,450 19,000 3,040 19,500 3,120
1997 13.0 15,700 1,415 20,400 1,835 21,300 1,915
* = no 40ft standard reefer containers purchased by leasing companies since 1999

TABLE 43:
AVERAGED USD RESALE PRICES FOR USED INTEGRAL REEFER CONTAINERS AT MID-2010BY ORIGINAL
YEAR OF BUILD AND % OF USD EX-FACTORY PRICE AT MID-2010
Original year Averaged Averaged USd % of ex-factory Averaged % of ex-factory Averaged % of ex-factory
of build age (years) resale price price resale price price resale price price
Mid-2010 newbuild 13,200 100.0 16,500 100.0 16,500 100.0
2009 1.0 12,090 91.6 - - 15,100 91.5
2008 2.0 11,010 83.4 - - 13,745 83.3
2007 3.0 9,950 75.4 - - 12,440 75.4
2006 4.0 8,925 67.6 - - 11,170 67.7
2005 5.0 7,930 60.1 - - 9,935 60.2
2004 6.0 7,030 53.3 - - 8,730 52.9
2003 7.0 6,165 46.7 - - 7,555 45.8
2002 8.0 5,305 40.2 - - 6,435 39.0
2001 9.0 4,460 33.8 - - 5,380 32.6
2000 10.0 3,645 27.6 - - 4,405 26.7
1999 11.0 2,880 21.8 3,430 20.8 3,500 21.2
1998 12.0 2,375 18.0 2,740 16.6 2,770 16.8
1997 13.0 1,915 14.5 2,230 13.5 2,245 13.6
1996 14.0 1,740 13.2 2,015 12.2 2,045 12.4
1995 15.0 1,545 11.7 1,780 10.8 1,815 11.0
Scrap - 845 6.4 1,450 8.8 1,500 9.1
** = no 40ft standard reefer containers purchased by leasing companies since 1999

TABLE 44:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF INTEGRAL REEFER TEU FLEET ON OPERATING LEASE FOR 1990-2009
Historic profile
pre-1990 85,000 - 9,000 - 94,000 85,000
1990 7,000 8.2 2,000 2.4 9,000 92,000
1991 5,000 5.4 1,000 1.1 6,000 97,000
1992 23,000 23.7 2,000 2.1 25,000 120,000
1993 35,000 29.2 1,000 0.8 36,000 155,000
1994 20,000 12.9 5,000 3.2 25,000 175,000
1995 25,000 14.3 5,000 2.9 30,000 200,000
1996 39,000 19.5 5,000 2.5 44,000 239,000
1997 11,000 4.6 7,000 2.9 18,000 250,000
1998 12,000 4.8 7,000 2.8 19,000 262,000
1999 23,000 8.8 9,000 3.4 32,000 285,000
2000 22,500 7.9 10,000 3.5 32,500 307,500
2001 14,500 4.7 9,000 2.9 23,500 322,000
2002 24,500 7.6 11,500 3.6 36,000 346,500
2003 23,500 6.8 31,500 9.1 55,000 370,000
2004 20,500 5.5 19,500 5.3 40,000 390,500
2005 17,000 4.4 19,000 4.9 36,000 407,500
2006 7,500 1.8 43,000 10.6 50,500 415,000
2007 47,000 11.3 33,500 8.1 80,500 462,000
2008 -3,000 -0.6 29,000 6.3 26,000 459,000
2009 13,500 2.9 29,500 6.4 43,000 472,500
Projected profile
2010 70,000 14.8 20,000 4.2 90,000 542,500
2011 70,000 12.9 20,000 3.7 90,000 612,500
2012 50,000 8.2 20,000 3.3 70,000 662,500
2013 45,000 6.8 15,000 2.3 60,000 707,500
2014 50,000 7.1 20,000 2.8 70,000 757,500
2015 50,000 6.6 50,000 6.6 100,000 807,500

TABLE 45:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF INTEGRAL (AND INSULATED) REEFER TEU FLEET OWNED BY SHIPPING COMPANIES**
Historic profile
pre-1990 255,000 - 86,500 - 341,500 255,000
1990 28,000 11.0 10,000 3.9 38,000 283,000
1991 17,000 6.0 10,500 3.7 27,500 300,000
1992 23,000 7.7 14,000 4.7 37,000 323,000
1993 13,000 4.0 9,000 2.8 22,000 336,000
1994 32,000 9.5 9,000 2.7 41,000 368,000
1995 33,000 9.0 18,000 4.9 51,000 401,000
1996 9,000 2.2 26,000 6.5 35,000 410,000
1997 51,000 12.4 22,000 5.4 73,000 461,000
1998 50,000 10.8 25,000 5.4 75,000 511,000
1999 35,000 6.8 23,000 4.5 58,000 546,000
2000 44,500 8.2 24,000 4.4 68,500 590,500
2001 47,500 8.0 24,000 4.1 71,500 638,000
2002 42,500 6.7 36,500 5.7 79,000 680,500
2003 43,500 6.4 33,500 4.9 77,000 724,000
2004 68,500 9.5 39,500 5.5 108,000 792,500
2005 90,000 11.4 44,000 5.6 134,000 882,500
2006 79,500 9.0 46,000 5.2 125,500 962,000
2007 98,000 10.2 45,500 4.7 143,500 1,060,000
2008 151,000 14.2 46,000 4.3 197,000 1,211,000
2009 12,500 1.0 46,500 3.8 59,000 1,223,500
Projected profile
2010 20,000 1.6 65,000 5.3 85,000 1,243,500
2011 65,000 5.2 75,000 6.0 140,000 1,308,500
2012 105,000 8.0 80,000 6.1 185,000 1,413,500
2013 120,000 8.5 85,000 6.0 205,000 1,533,500
2014 130,000 8.5 90,000 5.9 220,000 1,663,500
2015 150,000 9.0 80,000 4.8 230,000 1,813,500

TABLE 46:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF GLOBAL INTEGRAL (AND INSULATED) REEFER TEU FLEET FOR
1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15
Historic profile
pre-1990 340,000 - 95,500 - 435,500 340,000
1990 35,000 10.3 12,000 3.5 47,000 375,000
1991 22,000 5.9 11,500 3.1 33,500 397,000
1992 46,000 11.6 16,000 4.0 62,000 443,000
1993 48,000 10.8 10,000 2.3 58,000 491,000
1994 52,000 10.6 14,000 2.9 66,000 543,000
1995 58,000 10.7 23,000 4.2 81,000 601,000
1996 48,000 8.0 31,000 5.2 79,000 649,000
1997 62,000 9.6 29,000 4.5 91,000 711,000
1998 62,000 8.7 32,000 4.5 94,000 773,000
1999 58,000 7.5 32,000 4.1 90,000 831,000
2000 67,000 8.1 34,000 4.1 101,000 898,000
2001 62,000 6.9 33,000 3.7 95,000 960,000
2002 67,000 7.0 48,000 5.0 115,000 1,027,000
2003 67,000 6.5 65,000 6.3 132,000 1,094,000
2004 89,000 8.1 59,000 5.4 148,000 1,183,000
2005 107,000 9.0 63,000 5.3 170,000 1,290,000
2006 87,000 6.7 89,000 6.9 176,000 1,377,000
2007 145,000 10.5 79,000 5.7 224,000 1,522,000
2008 148,000 9.7 75,000 4.9 223,000 1,670,000
2009 26,000 1.6 76,000 4.6 102,000 1,696,000
Projected profile
2010 90,000 5.3 85,000 5.0 175,000 1,786,000
2011 135,000 7.6 95,000 5.3 230,000 1,921,000
2012 155,000 8.1 100,000 5.2 255,000 2,076,000
2013 165,000 7.9 100,000 4.8 265,000 2,241,000
2014 180,000 8.0 110,000 4.9 290,000 2,421,000
2015 200,000 8.3 130,000 5.4 330,000 2,621,000

TABLE 47:
GLOBAL INTEGRAL REEFER (AND INSULATED) TEU CONTAINER FLEET BY OWNER CATEGORY FOR 1990-2009
Global fleet – Shipping company* – Shipping company* – Leasing company – Leasing company
integral reefer and insulated integral reefer integral reefer share** (%)
insulated
Historic profile
End-1989 340,000 80,000 175,000 85,000 25.0
End-1990 375,000 78,000 205,000 92,000 24.5
End-1991 397,000 75,000 225,000 97,000 24.4
End-1992 443,000 75,000 248,000 120,000 27.1
End-1993 491,000 75,000 261,000 155,000 31.6
End-1994 543,000 72,000 296,000 175,000 32.2
End-1995 601,000 70,000 331,000 200,000 33.3
End-1996 649,000 66,000 344,000 239,000 36.8
End-1997 711,000 60,000 401,000 250,000 35.2
End-1998 773,000 54,000 457,000 262,000 33.9
End-1999 831,000 47,000 499,000 285,000 34.3
End-2000 898,000 44,000 546,500 307,500 34.2
End-2001 960,000 39,000 599,000 322,000 33.5
End-2002 1,027,000 35,000 645,500 346,500 33.7
End-2003 1,094,000 25,000 699,000 370,000 33.8
End-2004 1,183,000 19,500 773,000 390,500 33.0
End-2005 1,290,000 10,500 872,000 407,500 31.6
End-2006 1,377,000 3,500 958,500 415,000 30.1
End-2007 1,522,000 2,000 1,058,000 462,000 30.4
End-2008 1,670,000 1,000 1,210,000 459,000 27.5
End-2009 1,696,000 500 1,223,000 472,500 27.9
Projected profile
End-2010 1,786,000 500 1,243,000 542,500 30.4
End-2011 1,921,000 500 1,308,000 612,500 31.9
End-2012 2,076,000 500 1,413,000 662,500 31.9
End-2013 2,241,000 500 1,533,000 707,500 31.6
End-2014 2,421,000 500 1,663,000 757,500 31.3
End-2015 2,621,000 500 1,813,000 807,500 30.8
* = includes other transport operators ** = global integral reefer and insulated TEU combined
TABLE 48:
TOP RANKING REEFER LEASE COMPANIES* AND THEIR OPERATING TEU FLEETS FOR 2007-09 AND PROJECTED 2010
Mid-2007 % Mid-2008 % Mid-2009 % Mid-2010 %
GESeaCo 110,000 25.1 117,700 25.6 115,500 24.9 110,000 21.7

Seacastle Container Leasing** - - 124,500 27.0 114,000 24.5 114,000 22.5
Carlisle Leasing 139,000 31.8 - - - - - -
Interpool Group 8,650 2.0 - - - - - -
Magnum Lease 3,650 0.8 - - - - - -
Triton Container 54,300 12.4 55,300 12.0 61,000 13.1 85,000 16.8
TAL International 52,250 11.9 58,200 12.7 55,500 11.9 57,500 11.4
Florens Group 40,300 9.2 42,500 9.2 44,500 9.6 43,000 8.5
Cronos Group 19,750 4.5 25,500 5.5 21,800 4.7 22,500 4.4
Textainer Group 150 0.0 5,000 1.1 18,500 4.0 25,000 4.9
Beacon Intermodal - - 3,600 0.8 10,500 2.3 22,000 4.4
Dong Fang International - - 6,000 1.3 6,000 1.3 10,000 2.0
CAI International - - 3,200 0.7 5,500 1.2 5,500 1.1
UES International 1,950 0.5 2,000 0.4 3,000 0.6 3,000 0.6
Other 8,000 1.8 17,000 3.7 8,700 1.9 8,500 1.7
Grand total 438,000 100.0 460,500 100.0 464,500 100.0 506,000 100.0
* = companies are ranked by TEU size at mid-2009 ** = created from merger of Carlisle Leasing and Interpool in 2007, and acquired Magnum fleet in 2008

TABLE 49:
INTEGRAL REEFER TEU FLEET ON OPERATING LEASE BY LENGTH-HEIGHT FOR 1990-2009
AND PROJECTED 2010
20ft 40ft 40ft high cube Total % change on previous year-end
Historical profile
End-1989 28,000 50,000 7,000 85,000 25.0
End-1990 30,000 52,000 10,000 92,000 8.2
End-1991 32,000 53,000 12,000 97,000 5.4
End-1992 36,000 64,000 20,000 120,000 23.7
End-1993 46,000 71,000 38,000 155,000 29.2
End-1994 53,000 72,000 50,000 175,000 12.9
End-1995 55,000 78,000 67,000 200,000 14.3
End-1996 59,000 85,500 94,500 239,000 19.5
End-1997 58,000 84,500 107,500 250,000 4.6
End-1998 57,000 81,500 123,500 262,000 4.8
End-1999 57,000 75,500 152,500 285,000 8.8
End-2000 56,000 71,000 180,500 307,500 7.9
End-2001 58,000 66,000 198,000 322,000 4.7
End-2002 57,500 60,500 228,500 346,500 7.6
End-2003 53,500 49,000 267,500 370,000 6.8
End-2004 51,000 40,500 299,000 390,500 5.5
End-2005 49,500 36,000 322,000 407,500 4.4
End-2006 45,000 24,000 346,000 415,000 1.8
End-2007 42,000 18,000 402,000 462,000 11.3
End-2008 40,000 14,000 405,000 459,000 -0.6
End-2009 38,500 9,000 425,000 472,500 2.9
Projected profile
End-2010 35,000 5,000 502,500 542,500 14.8
TABLE 50:
INTEGRAL REEFER TEU FLEET OWNED BY SHIPPING COMPANIES* BY LENGTH-HEIGHT FOR 1990-2009
AND PROJECTED 2010
20ft 40ft 40ft high cube Other length** Total % change on
previous year-end
Historic profile
End-1989 42,500 87,000 40,000 5,500 175,000 20.7
End-1990 48,500 97,500 51,000 8,000 205,000 17.1
End-1991 50,500 102,000 64,000 8,500 225,000 9.8
End-1992 54,500 103,500 79,000 11,000 248,000 10.2
End-1993 55,500 105,000 89,000 11,500 261,000 5.2
End-1994 56,500 112,000 116,000 11,500 296,000 13.4
End-1995 61,500 110,000 148,000 11,500 331,000 11.8
End-1996 58,500 99,000 175,500 11,000 344,000 3.9
End-1997 59,500 97,000 233,500 11,000 401,000 16.6
End-1998 65,500 91,000 289,500 11,000 457,000 14.0
End-1999 73,500 87,500 327,500 10,500 499,000 9.2
End-2000 80,500 77,000 378,500 10,500 546,500 9.5
End-2001 85,500 67,000 436,000 10,500 599,000 9.6
End-2002 92,000 54,500 488,500 10,500 645,500 7.8
End-2003 98,500 47,000 544,500 9,000 699,000 8.3
End-2004 102,000 41,000 623,000 7,000 773,000 10.6
End-2005 105,000 34,500 728,000 4,500 872,000 12.8
End-2006 110,500 31,000 816,000 1,000 958,500 9.9
End-2007 113,000 25,000 918,500 1,500 1,058,000 10.4
End-2008 114,000 22,000 1,072,000 2,000 1,210,000 14.4
End-2009 104,000 24,000 1,093,000 2,000 1,223,000 1.1
Projected profile
End-2010 103,500 22,500 1,114,500 2,500 1,243,000 1.6
* = includes other transport operators ** 24ft, 43ft and 45ft lengths

TABLE 51:
GLOBAL INTEGRAL REEFER TEU FLEET BY LENGTH-HEIGHT FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010
20ft 40ft 40ft high cube Other length* Total % change on
previous year-end
Historic profile
End-1989 70,500 137,000 47,000 5,500 260,000 22.1
End-1990 78,500 149,500 61,000 8,000 297,000 14.2
End-1991 82,500 155,000 76,000 8,500 322,000 8.4
End-1992 90,500 167,500 99,000 11,000 368,000 14.3
End-1993 101,500 176,000 127,000 11,500 416,000 13.0
End-1994 109,500 184,000 166,000 11,500 471,000 13.2
End-1995 116,500 188,000 215,000 11,500 531,000 12.7
End-1996 117,500 184,500 270,000 11,000 583,000 9.8
End-1997 117,500 181,500 341,000 11,000 651,000 11.7
End-1998 122,500 172,500 413,000 11,000 719,000 10.4
End-1999 130,500 163,000 480,000 10,500 784,000 9.0
End-2000 136,500 148,000 559,000 10,500 854,000 8.9
End-2001 143,500 133,000 634,000 10,500 921,000 7.8
End-2002 149,500 115,000 717,000 10,500 992,000 7.7
End-2003 152,000 96,000 812,000 9,000 1,069,000 7.8
End-2004 153,000 81,500 922,000 7,000 1,163,500 8.8
End-2005 154,500 70,500 1,050,000 4,500 1,279,500 10.0
End-2006 155,500 55,000 1,162,000 1,000 1,373,500 7.3
End-2007 155,000 43,000 1,320,500 1,500 1,520,000 10.7
End-2008 154,000 36,000 1,477,000 2,000 1,669,000 9.8
End-2009 142,500 33,000 1,518,000 2,000 1,695,500 1.6
Projected profile
End-2010 138,500 27,500 1,617,000 2,500 1,785,500 5.3
* = 24ft, 43ft and 45ft lengths
TABLE 52:
GLOBAL INTEGRAL REEFER TEU FLEET AT END-2009 BY OWNER CATEGORY AND ORIGINAL YEAR OF PRODUCTION
Year of build Leasing % Shipping * % Grand total % Total original
company company production**
2009 53,000 11.2 49,000 4.0 102,000 6.0 102,000

2008 66,000 14.0 157,000 12.8 223,000 13.1 223,000
2007 78,500 16.6 145,500 11.9 224,000 13.2 224,000
2006 52,500 11.1 123,500 10.1 176,000 10.4 176,000
2005 33,000 7.0 137,000 11.2 170,000 10.0 170,000
2004 40,000 8.5 108,000 8.8 148,000 8.7 148,000
2003 52,000 11.0 80,000 6.5 132,000 7.8 132,000
2002 27,000 5.7 88,000 7.2 115,000 6.8 115,000
2001 18,500 3.9 76,500 6.3 95,000 5.6 95,000
2000 22,500 4.8 77,500 6.3 100,000 5.9 101,000
1999 14,000 3.0 72,000 5.9 86,000 5.1 90,000
1998 3,500 0.7 82,500 6.8 86,000 5.1 94,000
Pre-1998 12,000 2.5 26,500 2.2 38,500 2.3 807,500
Total 472,500 100.0 1,223,000 100.0 1,695,500 100.0 2,477,500
* = includes other transport operators ** = includes containers resold or scrapped before end-2009

TABLE 53:
INTEGRAL REEFER FLEET (UNIT AND TEU) ON OPERATING LEASE BY REFRIGERANT TYPE FOR 1990-2009
Unit TEU Refrigerant Unit TEU Refrigerant Unit TEU Refrigerant

CFC12, HCFC22 HFC134a* HFC404a
and blends TEU share (%) TEU share (%)
TEU share (%)
End-1989 56,500 85,000 100.0 - - - - - -

End-1990 61,000 92,000 100.0 - - - - - -
End-1991 64,500 97,000 100.0 - - - - - -
End-1992 77,000 118,500 98.8 1,000 1,500 1.2 - - -
End-1993 81,000 124,500 80.3 19,500 30,500 19.7 - - -
End-1994 83,500 127,500 72.9 30,500 47,500 27.1 - - -
End-1995 82,500 127,000 63.5 45,000 73,000 36.5 - - -
End-1996 81,750 126,500 52.9 67,250 112,500 47.1 - - -
End-1997 74,750 116,500 46.6 79,250 133,500 53.4 - - -
End-1998 69,250 107,500 41.0 90,250 154,500 59.0 - - -
End-1999 61,750 94,500 33.2 109,250 190,500 66.8 - - -
End-2000 53,500 82,000 26.7 128,250 225,500 73.3 - - -
End-2001 47,250 71,500 22.2 142,750 250,500 77.8 - - -
End-2002 39,000 59,000 17.0 163,000 287,500 83.0 - - -
End-2003 21,500 31,500 8.5 190,250 338,500 91.5 - - -
End-2004 14,000 21,500 5.5 206,250 368,000 94.2 500 1,000 0.3
End-2005 8,750 14,500 3.6 218,750 391,000 95.9 1,000 2,000 0.5
End-2006 3,250 5,250 1.2 221,250 398,750 96.1 5,500 11,000 2.7
End-2007 500 1,000 0.2 243,250 444,500 96.2 8,250 16,500 3.6
End-2008 500 1,000 0.2 233,750 428,000 93.3 15,250 30,000 6.5
End-2009 500 1,000 0.2 236,500 435,000 92.1 18,500 36,500 7.7
* = newbuild and retrofitted units
TABLE 54:
GLOBAL INTEGRAL REEFER TEU FLEET BY OWNER CATEGORY AND REFRIGERANT TYPE AT END-2009
TEU Leasing company TEU Shipping company* TEU Total

% % %
HFC134a 435,000 92.1 1,025,000 83.8 1,460,000 86.1
HFC404a 36,500 7.7 168,000 13.7 204,500 12.1
HCFC22 1,000 0.2 30,000 2.5 31,000 1.8
Total 472,500 100.0 1,223,000 100.0 1,695,500 100.0
* = includes other transport operator

tank market review
Tank market review

Lessors of (bulk liquid) tank containers suffered during 2009, as
demand plummeted, but the outlook is improving in 2010. New prices
are down significantly on two years earlier, and investment already
set to be stronger in 2010. However, the sector remains highly
specialised and operates to a different model, as well as serving
different customers, to the dry freight or reefer lease markets
TABLE 55:
AVERAGED USD PER DIEM RENTAL RATES, USD EX-FACTORY PRICES AND RENTAL RETURN (%) FOR NEWBUILD MARITIME
20FT TANK CONTAINER* PLACED ON LONG-TERM LEASE (LTL) FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010
Newbuild LTL - per diem Ex-factory price Initial cash investment return
USD USD %
1990 16.50 28,000 21.5
1991 16.00 27,500 21.2
1992 15.20 26,500 21.0
1993 14.00 24,500 20.9
1994 14.50 26,000 20.4
1995 14.00 25,000 20.4
1996 12.50 23,500 19.5
1997 11.00 21,000 19.1
1998 9.80 19,000 18.8
1999 9.50 18,500 18.7
2000 8.50 17,500 17.8
2001 7.50 15,500 17.7
2002 7.00 15,000 17.0
2003 8.00 17,000 17.2
2004 10.00 22,000 16.6
2005 10.50 24,000 16.0
2006 10.50 24,000 16.0
2007 12.50 29,000 15.7
2008 12.00 28,000 15.7
2009 10.00 23,500 15.5
2010 9.50 22,500 15.4
LTL = long-term lease (averaged 5-8 year duration) * = swapbody tank container (of 7-8m length) is priced, and generates rental rate, around 1.25 times greater than
for maritime 20ft standard tank

tank market review
TABLE 56:
CALCULATED USD DEPRECIATION COST FOR 20FT TANK CONTAINER, ASSUMING LINEAR 5% (LEAVING ZERO RESIDUAL
AT END OF YEAR 20), AND ITS USD RESALE PRICE BY ORIGINAL YEAR OF BUILD AT MID-2010
Original year of build Averaged age Original USD Calculated USD Averaged USD % of ex-factory
(years) newbuild cost depreciated resale price price
(ex-factory) cost
USD USD USD USD
Mid-2010 newbuild 22,500 22,500 22,500 100.0
2009 1.0 22,500 21,375 21,060 93.6
2008 2.0 28,000 25,200 19,690 87.5
2007 3.0 29,000 24,650 18,340 81.5
2006 4.0 24,000 19,200 17,010 75.6
2005 5.0 24,000 18,000 15,680 69.7
2004 6.0 22,000 15,400 14,400 64.0
2003 7.0 17,000 11,050 13,165 58.5
2002 8.0 15,000 9,000 11,950 53.1
2001 9.0 15,500 8,525 10,845 48.2
2000 10.0 17,500 8,750 9,790 43.5
1999 11.0 18,500 8,325 8,750 38.9
1998 12.0 19,000 7,600 7,760 34.5
1997 13.0 21,000 7,350 6,975 31.0
1996 14.0 23,500 7,050 6,250 27.8
1995 15.0 25,000 6,250 5,625 25.0
1994 16.0 26,000 5,200 5,080 22.6
1993 17.0 24,500 3,675 4,590 20.4
1992 18.0 26,500 2,650 4,140 18.4
1991 19.0 27,500 1,375 3,713 16.5
1990 20.0 28,000 0 3,375 15.0
Scrap - - - 3,320 14.8
TABLE 57:
TOP RANKING LESSORS* OF MARITIME TANK AND SWAP-TANK CONTAINERS AND THEIR OPERATING TEU FLEETS
Mid-2007 % Mid-2008 % Mid-2009 % Mid-2010 %
Exsif Worldwide 35,000 30.1 35,000 28.8 35,000 27.9 34,500 27.4
Eurotainer Group 20,650 17.7 21,000 17.3 21,750 17.4 21,800 17.3
GESeaCo 8,900 7.7 9,600 7.9 10,000 8.0 10,400 8.3
Cronos Group 6,200 5.3 8,500 7.0 9,250 7.4 9,500 7.5
Trifleet Leasing 8,500 7.3 8,650 7.1 8,700 6.9 8,750 7.0
Taylor Minster Leasing 4,200 3.6 4,550 3.8 4,800 3.8 5,000 4.0
Multistar Leasing 4,700 4.0 4,500 3.7 4,500 3.6 4,500 3.6
NRS Corp 4,000 3.4 4,000 3.3 4,000 3.2 4,000 3.2
Tankspan Leasing 3,000 2.6 3,300 2.7 3,300 2.6 3,300 2.6
UES International 2,100 1.8 2,300 1.9 2,250 1.8 2,500 2.0
Unitas Leasing 150 0.1 1,500 1.2 1,950 1.6 2,000 1.6
TAL International - - 750 0.6 1,250 1.0 1,500 1.2
Capital Intermodal 100 0.1 600 0.5 550 0.4 550 0.4
Other 19,000 16.3 17,250 14.2 18,000 14.4 17,500 13.9
0
* = companies are ranked by TEU size at mid-2009

tank market review
TABLE 58:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF MARITIME TANK AND SWAP-TANK TEU FLEET ON OPERATING LEASE FOR 1990-2009
Historic profile
pre-1990 27,300 - 1,500 - 28,800 27,300
1990 4,000 14.7 300 1.1 4,300 31,300
1991 4,000 12.8 300 1.0 4,300 35,300
1992 4,200 11.9 200 0.6 4,400 39,500
1993 4,800 12.2 500 1.3 5,300 44,300
1994 6,500 14.7 500 1.1 7,000 50,800
1995 4,500 8.9 500 1.0 5,000 55,300
1996 10,500 19.0 200 0.4 10,700 65,800
1997 7,000 10.6 2,000 3.0 9,000 72,800
1998 7,000 9.6 2,500 3.4 9,500 79,800
1999 3,100 3.9 4,000 5.0 7,100 82,900
2000 2,400 2.9 3,000 3.6 5,400 85,300
2001 500 0.6 2,500 2.9 3,000 85,800
2002 4,700 5.5 1,500 1.7 6,200 90,500
2003 6,000 6.6 1,000 1.1 7,000 96,500
2004 5,000 5.2 2,500 2.6 7,500 101,500
2005 6,000 5.9 2,500 2.5 8,500 107,500
2006 4,500 4.2 3,500 3.3 8,000 112,000
2007 7,000 6.3 3,500 3.1 10,500 119,000
2008 4,000 3.4 7,000 5.9 11,000 123,000
2009 3,000 2.4 4,000 3.3 7,000 126,000
Projected profile
2010 1,000 0.8 6,000 4.8 7,000 127,000
2011 5,000 3.9 4,000 3.1 9,000 132,000
2012 7,500 5.7 4,000 3.0 11,500 139,500
2013 6,000 4.3 5,000 3.6 11,000 145,500
2014 8,000 5.5 4,000 2.7 12,000 153,500
2015 10,000 6.5 4,000 2.6 14,000 163,500

tank market review
TABLE 59:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF MARITIME TANK AND SWAP-TANK TEU FLEET OWNED BY TRANSPORT OPERATOR**
Historic profile
pre-1990 26,200 - 3,500 - 29,700 26,200
1990 2,500 9.5 700 2.7 3,200 28,700
1991 2,000 7.0 700 2.4 2,700 30,700
1992 2,800 9.1 300 1.0 3,100 33,500
1993 1,700 5.1 1,500 4.5 3,200 35,200
1994 2,500 7.1 1,000 2.8 3,500 37,700
1995 8,000 21.2 500 1.3 8,500 45,700
1996 4,000 8.8 300 0.7 4,300 49,700
1997 6,000 12.1 1,000 2.0 7,000 55,700
1998 6,000 10.8 1,500 2.7 7,500 61,700
1999 6,400 10.4 1,000 1.6 7,400 68,100
2000 4,600 6.8 1,500 2.2 6,100 72,700
2001 7,000 9.6 1,500 2.1 8,500 79,700
2002 4,800 6.0 1,000 1.3 5,800 84,500
2003 4,000 4.7 500 0.6 4,500 88,500
2004 5,500 6.2 500 0.6 6,000 94,000
2005 3,000 3.2 3,500 3.7 6,500 97,000
2006 5,500 5.7 3,500 3.6 9,000 102,500
2007 6,500 6.3 2,500 2.4 9,000 109,000
2008 4,000 3.7 7,000 6.4 11,000 113,000
2009 1,500 1.3 2,500 2.2 4,000 114,500
Projected profile
2010 3,000 2.9 2,000 2.0 5,000 117,500
2011 5,000 4.3 5,500 4.7 10,500 122,500
2012 4,000 3.3 5,500 4.5 9,500 126,500
2013 7,500 5.9 4,500 3.6 12,000 134,000
2014 6,000 4.5 4,500 3.4 10,500 140,000
2015 7,500 5.4 4,000 2.9 11,500 147,500
* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size ** = a minority are owned by ocean carriers, forwarders and shippers

tank market review
TABLE 60:
GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF GLOBAL MARITIME TANK AND SWAP-TANK TEU FLEET FOR 1990-2009
Historic profile
pre-1990 53,500 - 5,000 - 58,500 53,500
1990 6,500 12.1 1,000 1.9 7,500 60,000
1991 6,000 10.0 1,000 1.7 7,000 66,000
1992 7,000 10.6 500 0.8 7,500 73,000
1993 6,500 8.9 2,000 2.7 8,500 79,500
1994 9,000 11.3 1,500 1.9 10,500 88,500
1995 12,500 14.1 1,000 1.1 13,500 101,000
1996 14,500 14.4 500 0.5 15,000 115,500
1997 13,000 11.3 3,000 2.6 16,000 128,500
1998 13,000 10.1 4,000 3.1 17,000 141,500
1999 9,500 6.7 5,000 3.5 14,500 151,000
2000 7,000 4.6 4,500 3.0 11,500 158,000
2001 7,500 4.7 4,000 2.5 11,500 165,500
2002 9,500 5.7 2,500 1.5 12,000 175,000
2003 10,000 5.7 1,500 0.9 11,500 185,000
2004 10,500 5.7 3,000 1.6 13,500 195,500
2005 9,000 4.6 6,000 3.1 15,000 204,500
2006 10,000 4.9 7,000 3.4 17,000 214,500
2007 13,500 6.3 6,000 2.8 19,500 228,000
2008 8,000 3.5 14,000 6.1 22,000 236,000
2009 4,500 1.9 6,500 2.8 11,000 240,500
Projected profile
2010 4,000 1.7 8,000 3.3 12,000 244,500
2011 10,000 4.1 9,500 3.9 19,500 254,500
2012 11,500 4.5 9,500 3.7 21,000 266,000
2013 13,500 5.1 9,500 3.6 23,000 279,500
2014 14,000 5.0 8,500 3.0 22,500 293,500
2015 17,500 6.0 8,000 2.7 25,500 311,000
TABLE 61:
GLOBAL MARITIME TANK AND SWAP-TANK TEU FLEET AT END-2009 BY OWNER CATEGORY AND ORIGINAL
YEAR OF PRODUCTION
Year of build Leasing % Tank % Grand % Total original
company operator* total production**
2009 7,000 5.6 4,000 3.5 11,000 4.6 11,000
2008 11,000 8.7 11,000 9.6 22,000 9.1 22,000
2007 10,500 8.3 9,000 7.9 19,500 8.1 19,500
2006 8,000 6.4 9,000 7.9 17,000 7.1 17,000
2005 8,500 6.7 6,500 5.7 15,000 6.2 15,000
2004 7,500 6.0 6,000 5.2 13,500 5.6 13,500
2003 7,000 5.6 4,500 3.9 11,500 4.8 11,500
2002 6,200 4.9 5,800 5.1 12,000 5.0 12,000
2001 3,000 2.4 8,500 7.4 11,500 4.8 11,500
2000 5,400 4.3 6,100 5.3 11,500 4.8 11,500
1999 7,100 5.6 7,400 6.5 14,500 6.0 14,500
1998 9,500 7.5 7,500 6.5 17,000 7.1 17,000
1997 9,000 7.1 7,000 6.1 16,000 6.7 16,000
1996 10,500 8.3 4,000 3.5 14,500 6.0 15,000
1995 4,500 3.6 8,000 7.0 12,500 5.2 13,500
Pre-1995 11,300 9.0 10,200 8.9 21,500 8.9 99,500
Total 126,000 100.0 114,500 100.0 240,500 100.0 320,000
* = a few tanks are also owned by ocean carriers, forwarders and shippers ** = includes tanks resold or scrapped before end-2009

CI Container Leasing 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CI Container Leasing 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Market Analysis

Sources, uses and disclosures of personal data held by Informa UK

32 fleet change review

39 reefer market review

49 tank market review

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 3

4 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 5

Strong year for top names

MID-2004 MID-2005 MID-2006 MID-2007 MID-2008 MID-2009 MID-2010

Regional container fleet

Total container fleet

6 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 7

8 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 9

10 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 11

12 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 13

14 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 15

16 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 17

18 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 19

20 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 21

22 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 23

24 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 25

26 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 27

28 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 29

Mid-2010 newbuild 2,700 2,700 4,320 4,320 4,600 4,600

Mid-2010 newbuild 2,700 100.0 4,320 100.0 4,600 100.0

30 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 31

Fleet change review

32 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 33

34 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 35

36 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 37

38 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Reefer market review

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 39

40 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 41

Fleet addition %* Fleet Replaced %* Total output End-year fleet size

42 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Fleet addition %* Fleet Replaced %* Total output End-year fleet size

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 43

44 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

GESeaCo 110,000 25.1 117,700 25.6 115,500 24.9 110,000 21.7

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 45

46 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

2009 53,000 11.2 49,000 4.0 102,000 6.0 102,000

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 47