At the Maritime CEO Forum at the Yacht Club de Monaco, five of the dry bulk sector’s best-known names gathered to dissect a market that continues to defy easy prediction. Moderated by Tim Huxley, CEO of Mandarin Shipping, the discussion swung between bullish fundamentals and geopolitical headaches — with China’s opaque outlook, tariff turmoil and technology confusion dominating the conversation.

“Trade flows haven’t changed as much as people think,” Huxley began, asking if 2025 had delivered the surprises the market had been bracing for. John Michael Radziwill, chairman of CTM, replied that volatility had been both a curse and a blessing. “We had our fair share of volatility — and we certainly need it,” he said. “There have been many surprises this year.”

Peter Weernink, chairman of SwissMarine, pointed to dramatic reversals in commodity expectations. “We started the year thinking iron ore exports wouldn’t be that high, grain trade would be zero,” he said. “But Brazilian iron ore hit record monthly levels from May. Chinese coal imports jumped because of domestic arbitrage and safety inspections. Grain exports were strong and Chinese steel exports are up 10% year-to-date.”

What emerged, he said, was “a shift, not in trade routes but in trade flows,” echoing Milena Pappas, commercial director of Star Bulk and head of Oceanbulk Maritime. “We’re seeing pauses and bursts of activity depending on political decisions and tariff postponements,” she observed. “September was the first month since 2018 that China imported zero grain from the U.S.—and by Sunday that had changed again. Everything turns on a dime.”

Lars-Christian Svensen, CEO of 2020 Bulkers and Himalaya Shipping, agreed that 2025 had largely tracked expectations. “Iron ore’s done well, bauxite’s fantastic. Coal remains down year-on-year, butpanamaxes have surprised on the upside,” he said. “Even with typhoons and geopolitics, the market’s been strong. You just need to stay agile.”

Cesare d’Amico, CEO of d’Amico Società di Navigazione, said the year’s unpredictability had actually boosted smaller segments. “This chaos has created redirection and change — positive for supramaxes, ultras and handies,” he said. “Those trades have been healthy, and there are buyers again for this tonnage.”

When China retaliated to US port fees in October, short-term panic gripped owners. “We rushed vessels at 14, 15 knots to make deadlines before the new day,” Pappas admitted. “Then it changed again. The Chinese tariffs were designed to be vague — strict or lenient depending on how events evolved.”

Radziwill said CTM’s approach was simply to stay nimble. “We embrace the uncertainty, acknowledge our mistakes, learn from others, and constantly rethink our views and plans,” he said.

Svensen added that “disruptions will always create havoc in what we do, but they also keep us sharp.”

The forum turned to the IMO’s decision to delay implementation of new carbon rules. Was shipping already doing enough?

“We’re the arteries of the global economy,” argued Weernink. “Our per-ton emissions have fallen dramatically. A 2022-built cape consumes 65% less fuel than a 2010-built one at the same speed.”

Radziwill noted that “the big bulge of 2010-built ships have actually become 10% better” thanks to retrofits and slower steaming.

Pappas said the delay might buy time but added complexity. “We’ll see 1.6 to 1.8% of the entire fleet go into third special surveys in the next two years,” she said. “With EEXIs being added, yard capacity will be tight. Fundamentals are positive for dry bulk, the orderbook is small — but geopolitics and unclear regulation still dominate everything.”

Svensen, whose fleet is heavily invested in LNG-fuelled newbuildings, called himself “one of the few people who shed a tear” after the IMO decision. “We ordered LNG capes for arbitrage reasons as much as emissions,” he said. “We’ll get there, but this is no setback for going green — modern tonnage will always outperform.”

d’Amico said his group’s focus on eco-vessels had proven wise. “Being prudent has been the right approach,” he said. “The delay gives time for more coordination. Fragmented decisions don’t help; we need a larger table to decide the future.”

Radziwill agreed that “the wheels of capitalism have reduced emissions more effectively than IMO rules. Shipyards made ships cheaper to operate because bunker costs were high — that’s what drove efficiency.”

No dry bulk debate is complete without China. Weernink noted that Chinese buyers were pushing for more iron ore to be priced in renminbi. “They want control of commodity costs and diversified supply chains,” he said. “BHP agreed to 30% of its iron ore being priced in RMB. Simandou will add about 130 million tonnes a year. Australia stays around 910 million tonnes, Brazil is increasing, so Australia’s share will fall.”

Radziwill saw this as positive: “The argument is quite bullish. The balance of power is shifting, but tonne-miles benefit.”

Pappas added nuance. “China imports 1.2bn tonnes of iron ore, 900m from Australia,” she said. “Even with Simandou and new Brazilian output, they’ll still need 450-550m tonnes from Australia. The dominance isn’t over; China’s just sensibly diversifying.”

When Huxley asked if the world misunderstood China’s long-term mindset, Radziwill was quick to respond. “I have a lot of confidence in President Xi,” he said. “His dual circulation policy will keep China a gravitational pull for commodities — bullish for shipping.”

Weernink was more guarded. “China is ex-growth to a large extent,” he cautioned.

Pappas countered that China’s rise was far from finished. “They’re quietly expanding influence,” she said. “Shipyards are investing and diversifying, leasing is strong, and with the IMO delay, cheaper vessels will be built. In 10 years, I think they’ll be stronger, not weaker.”

Svensen said China’s iron-ore planning proved its long-term vision. “Ten years ago they produced 1.4bn tonnes domestically, now 900m — they planned ahead in West Africa,” he said. “They’re slowly but surely more relevant.”

d’Amico summed it up simply: “Since 1981 I’ve been told — look to China, they have to eat every day. That hasn’t changed.”

Population decline? “They’re still a lot of them,” he smiled.

The conversation closed with the state of the orderbook. With conventionally fuelled bulkers commanding high prices and alternative fuels still unclear, are owners buying or holding?

Svensen admitted his recent sales were “tough to let go.” “We bought at $46m, sold at over $70m,” he said. “But we still believe 2026–27 will be amazing.”

Pappas said yards remain expensive and scarce. “The next available Chinese slots are in 2028, Japan 2029,” she said. “Yards prefer complex ships with higher margins. Prices are artificially high, but because no one is ordering, the future squeeze could be dramatic. The orderbook’s just 10% overall, 8% for capes.”

She added: “Expensive newbuilds mean few orders. That’s ultimately bullish.”

d’Amico closed on a typically long view. “Newbuilds for 2029 are too far out,” he said. “Maybe in 2026 we’ll order again. But for now, patience — and flexibility — remain the best investment.”