OPA and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law.  OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the USCG evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the maximum amount of liability to which the particular responsible person may be subject. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing a proof of insurance, a surety bond, qualification as a self-insurer or a guarantee. We comply and plan to comply going forward with the USCG’s financial responsibility regulations by providing applicable certificates of financial responsibility.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including higher liability caps under OPA, new regulations regarding offshore oil and gas drilling, and a pilot inspection program for offshore facilities.  However, several of these initiatives and regulations have been or may be revised.  For example, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s, or BSEE, revised Production Safety Systems Rule, or PSSR, effective December 27, 2018, modified and relaxed certain environmental and safety protections under the 2016 PSSR.  Additionally, the BSEE released a final Well Control Rule, which eliminated a number of provisions which could affect offshore drilling operations.  Compliance with any new requirements of OPA and future legislation or regulations applicable to the operation of our vessels could negatively impact the cost of our operations and adversely affect our business.

OPA specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills.  Many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance.  These laws may be more stringent than U.S. federal law.  Moreover, some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters, although in some cases, states which have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessel owners’ responsibilities under these laws. The Company intends to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where the Company’s vessels call.

We currently maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage, that could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operation.

 

Other United States Environmental Initiatives

The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970 (including its amendments of 1977 and 1990), or CAA, requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants.  The CAA requires states to adopt State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, some of which regulate emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations which may affect our vessels.

The U.S. Clean Water Act, or CWA, prohibits the discharge of oil, hazardous substances and ballast water in U.S. navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges.  The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA.  In 2015, the EPA expanded the definition of “waters of the United States”, or WOTUS, thereby expanding federal authority under the CWA.  Following litigation on the revised WOTUS rule, in December 2018, the EPA and Department of the Army proposed a revised, limited definition of “waters of the United States”.   On October 22, 2019, the EPA and the Department of the Army published a final rule to repeal the 2015 WOTUS definition, reverting to the prior definition; the final rule became effective on December 23, 2019.

The EPA and the USCG have also enacted rules relating to ballast water discharge, compliance with which requires the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial costs, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. Waters.  The EPA will regulate these ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or VIDA, which was signed into law on December 4, 2018 and will replace the 2013 Vessel General Permit, or VGP, program (which authorizes discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and contains numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in U.S. waters, stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers, and requirements for the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants) and current Coast Guard ballast water management regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, such as mid-ocean ballast exchange programs and installation of approved USCG technology for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks bound for U.S. ports or entering U.S. waters.  VIDA establishes a new framework for the regulation of vessel incidental discharges under Clean Water Act (CWA), requires the EPA to develop performance standards for those discharges within two years of enactment, and requires the U.S. Coast Guard to develop implementation, compliance, and enforcement regulations within two years of EPA’s promulgation of standards.  Under VIDA, all provisions of the 2013 VGP and USCG regulations regarding ballast water treatment remain in force and effect until the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard regulations are finalized.  Non-military, non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in length must continue to comply with the requirements of the VGP, including submission of a Notice of Intent, or NOI, or retention of a PARI form and submission of annual reports. We have submitted NOIs for our vessels where required.  Compliance with the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard and state regulations could require the installation of ballast water treatment equipment on our vessels or the implementation of other port facility disposal procedures at potentially substantial cost or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

European Union Regulations

In October 2009, the European Union amended a directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and the discharges individually or in the aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water. Aiding and abetting the discharge of a polluting substance may also lead to criminal penalties. The directive applies to all types of vessels, irrespective of their flag, but certain exceptions apply to warships or where human safety or that of the ship is in danger. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims.  Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 ( amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2071 with respect to methods of calculating, inter alia, emission and consumption) governs the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and, subject to some exclusions, requires companies with ships over 5,000 gross tonnage to monitor and report carbon dioxide emissions annually, which may cause us to incur additional expenses.

 

The European Union has adopted several regulations and directives requiring, among other things, more frequent inspections of high-risk ships, as determined by type, age, and flag as well as the number of times the ship has been detained. The European Union also adopted and extended a ban on substandard ships and enacted a minimum ban period and a definitive ban for repeated offenses. The regulation also provided the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, by imposing more requirements on classification societies and providing for fines or penalty payments for organizations that failed to comply. Furthermore, the EU has implemented regulations requiring vessels to use reduced sulfur content fuel for their main and auxiliary engines. Since January 1, 2015, vessels have been required to burn fuel with sulphur content not exceeding 0.1% while within EU member states’ territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones that are included in “SOx Emission Control Areas.” EU Directive (EU) 2016/802 establishes limits on the maximum Sulphur content of gas oils and heavy fuel oil and contains fuel-specific requirements for ships calling at EU ports.

 

EU Directive 2004/35/CE regarding the prevention and remedying of environmental damage addresses liability for environmental damage (including damage to water, land, protected species and habitats) on the basis of the “polluter pays” principle. Operators whose activities caused the environmental damage are liable for the damage (subject to certain exceptions). With regard to specified activities causing environmental damage, operators are strictly liable. The directive applies where damage has already occurred and where there is an imminent threat of damage. The directive requires preventative and remedial actions, and that operators report environmental damage or an imminent threat of such damage.

International Labor Organization

The International Labor Organization, or the ILO, is a specialized agency of the UN that has adopted the Maritime Labor Convention 2006, or MLC 2006. A Maritime Labor Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labor Compliance is required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above 500 gross tons in international trade.  We believe that all our vessels are in substantial compliance with and are certified to meet MLC 2006.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 2005 and pursuant to which adopting countries have been required to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with targets extended through 2020.  International negotiations are continuing with respect to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and restrictions on shipping emissions may be included in any new treaty. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the U.S. and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord, which includes a non-binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris resulted in the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016 and does not directly limit greenhouse gas emissions from ships.  On November 4, 2019, the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, a draft outline of the structure of the initial strategy for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships was approved. In accordance with this roadmap, in April 2018, nations at the MEPC 72 adopted an initial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships.  The initial strategy identifies “levels of ambition” to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including (1) decreasing the carbon intensity from ships through implementation of further phases of the EEDI for new ships; (2) reducing carbon dioxide emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008 emission levels; and (3) reducing the total annual greenhouse emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 while pursuing efforts towards phasing them out entirely.  The initial strategy notes that technological innovation, alternative fuels and/or energy sources for international shipping will be integral to achieve the overall ambition.  These regulations could cause us to incur additional substantial expenses.

The EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from its member states from 20% of 1990 levels by 2020. The EU also committed to reduce its emissions by 20% under the Kyoto Protocol’s second period from 2013 to 2020.  As of January 2018, large ships calling at EU ports have been required to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide emissions and other information.

In the United States, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety, adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources, and proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources. The EPA or individual U.S. states could enact environmental regulations that could negatively affect our operations.

Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, the EU, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement, that restricts emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant expenditures which we cannot predict with certainty at this time. Even in the absence of climate control legislation, our business may be indirectly affected to the extent that climate change may result in sea level changes or certain weather events.

Vessel Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security such as the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and at certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the EPA.

Similarly, Chapter XI-2 of the SOLAS Convention imposes detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities and mandates compliance with the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, or the ISPS Code. The ISPS Code is designed to enhance the security of ports and ships against terrorism. To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel’s flag state. Ships operating without a valid certificate may be detained, expelled from, or refused entry at port until they obtain an ISSC.  The various requirements, some of which are found in the SOLAS Convention, include, for example, on-board installation of automatic identification systems to provide a means for the automatic transmission of safety-related information from among similarly equipped ships and shore stations, including information on a ship’s identity, position, course, speed and navigational status; on-board installation of ship security alert systems, which do not sound on the vessel but only alert the authorities on shore; the development of vessel security plans; ship identification number to be permanently marked on a vessel’s hull; a continuous synopsis record kept onboard showing a vessel’s history including the name of the ship, the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship was registered with that state, the ship’s identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of the registered owner(s) and their registered address; and compliance with flag state security certification requirements.

The USCG regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid ISSC that attests to the vessel’s compliance with the SOLAS Convention security requirements and the ISPS Code. Future security measures could have a significant negative financial impact on us.  We intend to comply with the various security measures addressed by MTSA, the SOLAS Convention and the ISPS Code.

The cost of vessel security measures has also been affected by the escalation in the frequency of acts of piracy against ships, notably off the coast of Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea area.  Substantial loss of revenue and other costs may be incurred as a result of detention of a vessel or additional security measures, and the risk of uninsured losses could significantly and negatively affect our business. Costs may be incurred in taking additional security measures in accordance with Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy, notably those contained in the BMP5 industry standard.

Inspection by Classification Societies

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and SOLAS. Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage and lending that a vessel be certified “in class” by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies, the IACS.  The IACS has adopted harmonized Common Structural Rules, or the Rules, which apply to oil tankers and bulk carriers constructed on or after July 1, 2015.  The Rules attempt to create a level of consistency between IACS Societies.  All of our vessels are certified as being “in class” by all the applicable Classification Societies (e.g., American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, Bureau Veritas).

A vessel must undergo annual surveys, intermediate surveys, drydockings and special surveys. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel’s machinery may be on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed periodically over a five-year period. Every vessel is also required to be drydocked every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts of the vessel.  If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey, drydocking or special survey, the vessel will be unable to carry cargo between ports and will be unemployable and uninsurable which could cause us to be in violation of certain covenants in our loan agreements. Any such inability to carry cargo or be employed, or any such violation of covenants, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance

General

The operation of any cargo vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, physical damage, collision, property loss, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, piracy incidents, hostilities and labor strikes. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA, which imposes virtually unlimited liability upon shipowners, operators and bareboat charterers of any vessel trading in the exclusive economic zone of the United States for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, has made liability insurance more expensive for shipowners and operators trading in the United States market. We carry insurance coverage as customary in the shipping industry. However, not all risks can be insured, specific claims may be rejected and we might not be always able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Hull & Machinery and War Risks Insurances

 

We maintain marine hull and machinery and war risks insurances, which include the risk of actual or constructive total loss, for all of our vessels.  Each of our vessels is covered up to at least fair market value with deductibles of $150,000 per vessel per incident.  We also maintain increased value coverage for our vessels.  Under this increased value coverage, in the event of total loss of a vessel, we will be able to recover the sum insured under the increased value policy in addition to the sum insured under the hull and machinery policy.  Increased value insurance also covers excess liabilities which are not recoverable under our hull and machinery policy by reason of under insurance.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

Protection and indemnity insurance, provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I Associations, covers our third-party liabilities in connection with our shipping activities. This includes third-party liability and other related expenses of injury, illness or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property such as fixed and floating objects, pollution arising from oil or other substances, salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal. Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance, extended by protection and indemnity mutual associations, or “clubs”.

Our coverage is limited to approximately $3.1 billion, except for oil pollution and crew liabilities which is limited to $1 billion and $3 billion, respectively.  The 13 P&I Associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world’s commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association’s liabilities. The International Group’s website states that the Pool provides a mechanism for reinsuring an International Group member’s claims in excess of US$ 10 million up to, currently, approximately US$ 8 billion.  As a member of a P&I Association, which is a member of the International Group, we are subject to calls payable to the associations based on our claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations and members of the shipping pool of P&I Associations comprising the International Group.

Permits and Authorizations

We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our vessels. The kinds of permits, licenses and certificates required depend upon several factors, including the commodity transported, the waters in which the vessel operates, the nationality of the vessel’s crew and the age of a vessel. We believe that we have obtained all permits, licenses and certificates currently required to permit our vessels to operate as planned. Additional laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise, may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of us doing business in the future.

D.	Property, Plants and Equipment

We do not own any real estate property. We maintain our principal executive offices at Glyfada, Athens, Greece. Other than our vessels, we do not have any material property. See “Item 4.B. Business Overview - Our Current Fleet” and “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects — B. Liquidity and Capital Resources – Loan Arrangements”.

 

Operating days. Operating days are the number of available days in a period less the aggregate number of days that our vessels are off-hire due to unforeseen circumstances. Operating days include the days that our vessels are in ballast voyages without having fixed their next employment. The shipping industry uses operating days to measure the aggregate number of days in a period during which vessels could actually generate revenues.

Fleet utilization. Fleet utilization is the percentage of time that our vessels were generating revenues and is determined by dividing operating days by ownership days for the relevant period.

Off-hire. The period a vessel is not being chartered or is unable to perform the services for which it is required under a charter.

Dry-docking. We periodically dry-dock each of our vessels for inspection, repairs and maintenance and any modifications to comply with industry certification or governmental requirements.

 

Time charter. A time charter is a contract for the use of a vessel for a specific period of time (period time charter) or for a specific voyage (trip time charter) during which the charterer pays substantially all of the voyage expenses, including port charges, bunker expenses, canal charges and other commissions. The vessel owner pays the vessel operating expenses, which include crew costs, provisions, deck and engine stores and spares, lubricants, insurance, maintenance and repairs. The vessel owner is also responsible for each vessel’s dry-docking and intermediate and special survey costs. Time charter rates are usually fixed during the term of the charter. Prevailing time charter rates do fluctuate on a seasonal and year-to-year basis and may be substantially higher or lower from a prior time charter agreement when the subject vessel is seeking to renew the time charter agreement with the existing charterer or enter into a new time charter agreement with another charterer. Fluctuations in time charter rates are influenced by changes in spot charter rates.

Voyage charter.  A voyage charter is generally a contract to carry a specific cargo from a load port to a discharge port for an agreed-upon total amount. Under voyage charters, voyage expenses, such as port charges, bunker expenses, canal charges and other commissions, are paid by the vessel owner, who also pays vessel operating expenses.

TCE.  Time charter equivalent, or TCE, rate is defined as our net revenue less voyage expenses during a period divided by the number of our operating days during the period. Voyage expenses include port charges, bunker expenses, canal charges and other commissions.

Daily Vessel Operating Expenses. Daily Vessel Operating Expenses are calculated by dividing vessel operating expenses less pre-delivery expenses by ownership days for the relevant time periods. Vessel operating expenses include crew costs, provisions, deck and engine stores, lubricants, insurance, maintenance and repairs. Vessel operating expenses before pre-delivery expenses exclude one-time pre-delivery and pre-joining expenses associated with initial crew manning and supply of stores of Company’s vessels upon delivery.

Principal Factors Affecting Our Business

The principal factors that affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flows include the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are also affected by the types of charters we enter into.  Vessels operating on period time charters and bareboat time charters provide more predictable cash flows, but can yield lower profit margins than vessels operating in the spot charter market, either on trip time charters or voyage charters, during periods characterized by favorable market conditions.

 

Vessels operating in the spot charter market generate revenues that are less predictable, but can yield increased profit margins during periods of improvements in dry bulk rates. Spot charters also expose vessel owners to the risk of declining dry bulk rates and rising fuel costs in case of voyage charters. The majority of our vessels in 2018 and 2017 operated in the spot charter market, except for the Lordship and the Partnership, while towards the end of 2018 the Championship was also time-chartered on a long-term employment. In 2019 three additional vessels were time-chartered on long-term employment arrangements, the Premiership, the Squireship and the Gloriuship.

Vessel Revenue, Net – The decrease was attributable to the decrease in operating days and was partially offset by the increase in prevailing charter rates. We had 3,393 operating days in 2019, as compared to 3,902 operating days in 2018. The operating days in 2019 were affected by seven vessels which underwent drydocking during 2019, incurring 233 repair days as compared to only 13 days in drydock during 2018. The TCE rate increased by 12% in 2019 to $14,694, as compared to $13,156 in 2018 due to the improved overall earnings environment. TCE rate is a non-GAAP measure.  Please see the reconciliation below of TCE rate to net revenues from vessels, the most directly comparable U.S. GAAP measure.

 

Voyage Expenses – The decrease was primarily attributable to the decrease in operating days and increased days that our vessels were chartered under time charter arrangements in 2019. We had 3,393 operating days in 2019 as compared to 3,902 operating days in 2018 and 1,633 and 1,514 days under time-charter employment in the respective years.

 

Vessel Operating Expenses - The decrease was primarily attributable to the decrease in ownership days as a result of the sale of two vessels towards the end of 2018 coupled with the acquisition of a vessel during the same period. We had 3,650 ownership days in 2019 as compared to 3,931 ownership days in 2018.

 

Management Fees - The decrease was attributable to the decrease in ownership days. We had 3,650 ownership days in 2019 as compared to 3,931 ownership days in 2018.

 

General and Administration Expenses – The decrease is mainly attributable to a decrease in management remuneration, legal expenses and professional fees.

 

Depreciation and Amortization – The increase was primarily attributable to the increased amortization of drydock expenses in 2019 as compared to 2018 which was however partly offset by a decrease in ownership days. Seven vessels performed their scheduled drydocks in 2019.

 

Impairment loss – The decrease was attributable to the impairment loss of $7.3 million recorded in respect with the Gladiatorship and Guardianship that were both sold in the fourth quarter of 2018.

 

Interest and Finance Costs - The decrease was primarily attributable to the NSF Loan Facility that was fully repaid in June 2018 and the Jelco Loans and Jelco Notes interest waived for the period of April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, effectively resetting the interest rate to zero for such period. The resetting of the Jelco interest rate was amortized as a deferred finance cost through the respective maturities between 2020 and 2022, thus offsetting the interest and finance cost decrease. The decrease was also partially offset by the amortization of the Wilmington Trust loan facility entered into on June 11, 2018 for the entire 2019, the amortization of the Hanchen financial liability entered into on June 28, 2018 for the entire 2019, the amortization of the Cargill sale and leaseback agreement entered into on November 7, 2018 for the entire 2019 and the amortization of the shares issued to Jelco under the Securities Purchase Agreement entered into on May 9, 2019. The weighted average interest rate on our outstanding debt and convertible notes for the years ended 2019 and 2018 was approximately 5.72% and 7.54%, respectively.

 

Please see Item 5.A of our Form 20-F filed with the SEC on March 25, 2019 for a discussion of the year-to-year comparison between 2018 and 2017.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

Refer to Note 2 of the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report.

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

 

Our Fleet – Illustrative Comparison of Possible Excess of Carrying Value Over Estimated Charter-Free Market Value of Certain Vessels

 

In “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates – Impairment of long-lived assets”, we discuss our policy for impairing the carrying values of our vessels. Historically, the market values of vessels have experienced volatility, which from time to time may be substantial.  As a result, the charter-free market value of certain of our vessels may have declined below those vessels’ carrying value, even though we would not impair those vessels’ carrying value under our accounting impairment policy. The table set forth below indicates (i) the carrying value of each of our vessels as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, and (ii) which of our vessels we believe had a basic market value below their carrying value. This aggregate difference between the carrying value of our vessels and their market value of $33.8 million and $10 million, as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, represents the amount by which we believe we would have had to reduce our net income if we sold all of such vessels, on industry standard terms, in cash transactions, and to a willing buyer where we are not under any compulsion to sell, and where the buyer was not under any compulsion to buy as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. For purposes of this calculation, we assumed that the vessels would be sold at a price that reflected our estimate of their charter-free market values as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

 

Our estimates of charter-free market value assume that our vessels were all in good and seaworthy condition without need for repair and if inspected would be certified in class without notations of any kind. Our estimates are based on information available from various industry sources, including:

 

As we obtain information from various industry and other sources, our estimates of basic market value are inherently uncertain. In addition, vessel values are highly volatile; as such, our estimates may not be indicative of the current or future basic market value of our vessels or prices that we could achieve if we were to sell them.

 

We refer you to the risk factor entitled “The market values of our vessels may decrease, which could limit the amount of funds that we can borrow or trigger certain financial covenants under our loan agreements, and we may incur an impairment or, if we sell vessels following a decline in their market value, a loss”.

We review our long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances, such as prevailing market conditions, obsolesce or damage to the asset, business plans to dispose a vessel earlier than the end of its useful life and other business plans, indicate that the carrying amount of the assets, plus unamortized dry-docking costs, may not be recoverable. The volatile market conditions in the dry bulk market with decreased charter rates and decreased vessel market values are conditions we consider to be indicators of a potential impairment for our vessels.  We determine undiscounted projected operating cash flows, for each vessel and compare it to the vessel’s carrying value. When the undiscounted projected operating cash flows expected to be generated by the use of the vessel and/or its eventual disposition are less than its carrying amount, we impair the carrying amount of the vessel. Measurement of the impairment loss is based on the fair value of the asset as determined by independent valuators and use of available market data. The undiscounted projected operating cash inflows are determined by considering the charter revenues from existing time charters for the fixed fleet days and an estimated daily time charter equivalent for the non-fixed days (based on a combination of one year charter rates estimate and the average of the trailing 10-year historical charter rates, excluding the outliers) adjusted for commissions, expected off hires due to scheduled vessels’ maintenance and estimated unexpected breakdown off hires. The undiscounted projected operating cash outflows are determined by applying various assumptions regarding vessel operating expenses, management fees and scheduled vessels’ maintenance.

Our assessment concluded that no impairment loss should be recorded as of December 31, 2019. The Company recognized an impairment loss of $7,267 for the year ended December 31, 2018 with respect to the two vessels Gladiatorship and Guardianship that were sold in the fourth quarter of 2018.

Although we believe that the assumptions used to evaluate potential asset impairment are based on historical trends and are reasonable and appropriate, such assumptions are highly subjective. To minimize such subjectivity, our analysis for the year ended December 31, 2019 also involved sensitivity analysis to the model input we believe is more important and likely to change. In particular, in terms of our estimates for the time charter equivalent for the unfixed period, we use a combination of one-year charter rates estimate and the average of the trailing 10-year historical charter rates, excluding outliers. Although the trailing 10-year historical charter rates, excluding the outliers, cover at least a full business cycle, we sensitized our model with regards to long-term historical charter rate assumptions for the unfixed period beyond the first year. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that, to the extent that going forward the 10-year historical charter rates, excluding the outliers, would not decline by more than 48% for Capesize vessels and we would not require to recognize impairment. Our analysis for the year ended December 31, 2018 also involved sensitivity analysis to the model input we believe was more important and likely to change. In particular, in terms of our estimates for the time charter equivalent for the unfixed period, we used a combination of one year charter rates estimate and the average of the trailing 10-year historical charter rates, excluding the trough years 2015 and 2016, available for each type of vessel. Although the trailing 10-year historical charter rates, excluding the trough years 2015 and 2016, covered at least a full business cycle, we sensitized our model with regards to long-term historical charter rate assumptions for the unfixed period beyond the first year. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that, to the extent that going forward the 10-year historical charter rates, excluding the trough years 2015 and 2016, would not decline by more than 46% for Capesize vessels, we would not require to recognize impairment.

Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the vessels (25 years), after considering the estimated salvage value. Salvage value is estimated by taking the cost of steel times the weight of the ship noted in lightweight ton. Salvage values are periodically reviewed and revised to recognize changes in conditions, new regulations or for other reasons. Revisions of salvage values affect the depreciable amount of the vessels and affect the depreciation expense in the period of the revision and future periods.

On January 1, 2018, we adopted ASU 2014-09 (ASC 606) Revenue from Contracts with Customers, issued by the FASB in May 2016 and as further amended, and elected to apply the modified retrospective method only to contracts that were not completed at January 1, 2018, the date of initial application. The prior period comparative information has not been restated and continues to be reported under the accounting guidance in effect for those periods. Under the new guidance, voyage revenue is recognized from the time when the vessel arrives at the load port until completion of cargo discharge. Previously, voyage revenue was recognized from the latter of the cargo discharge of the previous voyage and the signing of the next charter or date of the new charterparty until completion of cargo discharge. This change results in revenue being recognized over a shorter voyage time period, which may cause additional volatility in revenues and earnings between reporting periods.

 

We generate our revenues from chartering our vessels under time or bareboat charter agreements and voyage charter agreements.

 

Time and bareboat charters: Vessels are chartered when a contract exists and the vessel is delivered (commencement date) to the charterer, for a fixed period of time, at rates that are generally determined in the main body of charter parties and the relevant voyage expenses burden the charterer (i.e. port dues, canal tolls, pilotages and fuel consumption). Upon delivery of the vessel, the charterer has the right to control the use of the vessel (under agreed prudent operating practices) as it has the enforceable right to: (i) decide the delivery and redelivery time of the vessel; (ii) arrange the ports from which the vessel shall pass; (iii) give directions to the master of the vessel regarding vessel’s operations (i.e. speed, route, bunkers purchases, etc.); (iv) sub-charter the vessel and (v) consume any income deriving from the vessel’s charter. Time and bareboat charter agreements are accounted for as operating leases, ratably on a straight line over the duration of the charter basis in accordance with ASC 842. Any variable lease payments are recognized in the period when changes in the facts and circumstances on which the variable lease payments are based occur. Any off-hires are recognized as incurred.

 

The charterer may charter the vessel with or without owner’s crew and other operating services (time and bareboat charter, respectively). In the case of time charter agreements, the agreed hire rates include compensation for part of the agreed crew and other operating services provided by the owner (non-lease components). We elected to account for the lease and non-lease component of time charter agreements as a combined component in our financial statements, having taken into account that the non-lease component would be accounted for ratably on a straight-line basis over the duration of the time charter in accordance with ASC 606 and that the lease component is considered as the predominant. In this respect, we qualitative assessed that more value is ascribed to the vessel rather than to the services provided under the time charter agreements.

 

Apart from the agreed hire rates, the owner may be entitled to an additional income, such as ballast bonus which is considered as reimbursement of owner’s expenses and is recognized together with the lease component over the duration of the charter. The related ballast costs incurred over the period between the charterparty date or the prior redelivery date (whichever is latest) and the delivery date to the charterer are deferred and amortized on a straight line over the duration of the charter.

 

Spot charters: Spot, or voyage, charter is a charter where a contract is made in the spot market for the use of a vessel for a specific voyage for a specified freight rate per ton, regardless of time to complete. A voyage is deemed to commence upon the loading of the cargo and is deemed to end upon the completion of discharge of the current cargo. Spot charter payments are due upon discharge of the cargo. We have determined that under our spot charters, the charterer has no right to control any part of the use of the vessel. Thus, our spot charters do not contain lease and are accounted for in accordance with ASC 606. More precisely, we satisfy our single performance obligation to transfer cargo under the contract over the voyage period. Thus, spot charter revenues are recognized ratably over the loading to discharge period (voyage period).

 

Voyage related and vessel operating costs: Voyage expenses primarily consist of commissions, port dues, canal and bunkers. Vessel operating costs include crew costs, provisions, deck and engine stores and spares, lubricants, insurance, maintenance and repairs including dry-docking costs. Under spot charter arrangements, voyage expenses that are unique to a particular charter are paid for by us. Under a time charter, specified voyage costs, such as bunkers and port charges are paid by the charterer and other non-specified voyage expenses, such as commissions, are paid by us. Under a bareboat charter, the charterer assumes responsibility for all voyage and vessel operating expenses and risk of operation. Commissions are expensed as incurred. Contract fulfillment costs (mainly consisting of bunker expenses and port dues) for spot charters are recognized as a deferred contract cost and amortized over the voyage period when the relevant criteria under ASC 340-40 are met or are expensed as incurred. All vessel operating expenses are expensed as incurred.

 

Deferred revenue: Deferred revenue primarily relates to cash advances received from charterers. These amounts are recognized as revenue over the charter period.

 

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (ASC 842), as amended, which requires lessees to recognize most leases on the balance sheet. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-11, Leases (ASC 842) – Targeted Improvements. The amendments in this Update: (i) provide entities with an additional (and optional) transition method to adopt the new lease requirements by allowing entities to initially apply the requirements at the adoption date and recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the period of adoption; and, (ii) provide lessors with a practical expedient, by class of underlying asset, to not separate non-lease components from the associated lease component and, instead, to account for those components as a single component if the non-lease components otherwise would be accounted for under the new revenue guidance (ASC 606) and both of the following are met: (a) the timing and pattern of transfer of the non-lease component(s) and associated lease component are the same and (b) the lease component, if accounted for separately, would be classified as an operating lease. If the non-lease component or components associated with the lease component are the predominant component of the combined component, an entity is required to account for the combined component in accordance with ASC 606. Otherwise, the entity should account for the combined component as an operating lease in accordance with ASC 842.

 

We early adopted ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (ASC 842), as amended, retrospectively from January 1, 2018, using the modified retrospective method, and elected to apply the additional and optional transition method to existing leases at the beginning of the period of adoption of January 1, 2018. The prior period comparative information has not been restated and continues to be reported under the accounting guidance in effect for those periods (ASC 840), including the disclosure requirements. Under the new guidance, we elected certain practical expedients: (i) a package of practical expedients which does not require us to reassess: (1) whether any expired or existing contracts are or contain leases; (2) lease classification for any expired or existing leases; and (3) whether initial direct costs for any expired or existing leases would qualify for capitalization under ASC 842; (ii) to account for non-lease components (primarily crew and maintenance services) of time charters as a single lease component as the timing and pattern of transfer of the non-lease components and associated lease component are the same, the lease components, if accounted for separately would be classified as an operating lease, and such non-lease components are not predominant components of the combined component. We qualitatively assessed that more value is ascribed to the vessel rather than to the services provided under the time charter agreements. Therefore, the Company accounts for the combined component as a lease under ASC 842.

 

In accordance with ASC 842, we, as seller-lessee, determine whether the transfer of an asset should be accounted for as a sale in accordance with ASC 606. The existence of an option for the seller-lessee to repurchase the asset precludes the accounting for the transfer of the asset as a sale unless both of the following criteria are met: (1) the exercise price of the option is the fair value of the asset at the time the option is exercised and (2) there are alternative assets, substantially the same as the transferred asset, readily available in the marketplace; and the classification of the leaseback as a finance lease or a sales-type lease, precludes the buyer-lessor from obtaining control of the asset. The existence of an obligation for us, as seller-lessee, to repurchase the asset precludes accounting for the transfer of the asset as sale as the transaction would be classified as a financing arrangement by us as we effectively retain control of the underlying asset.

 

If the transfer of the asset meets the criteria of sale, we as seller-lessee recognize the transaction price for the sale when the buyer-lessor obtains control of the asset, derecognizes the carrying amount of the underlying asset and accounts for the lease in accordance with ASC 842. If the transfer does not meet the criteria of sale, we do not derecognize the transferred asset, account for any amounts received as a financing arrangement and recognize the difference between the amount of consideration received and the amount of consideration to be paid as interest.

 

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern. ASU No. 2014-15 provides guidance on management’s responsibility in evaluating whether there is substantial doubt about a company’s ability to continue as a going concern and on related required footnote disclosures.  For each reporting period, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year from the date the financial statements are issued.