ci container leasing 2010

Container LeasingMarket 2010

Market Analysis

Consulting editorAndrew Foxcroft

Editorial directorJohn Fossey

Production editorRalph Murray

Informa House30-32 Mortimer Street,

London W1W 7RETelephone +44 (0) 20 7017 5000

Fax: +44 (0) 20 7017 7860

Sources, uses and disclosures of personal data held by Informa UKare described in the Official Data Protection Register. Copyright: Informa UK

Published by

Container Leasing Market 2010Market Analysis

contents

4 indexListing of tables

5 indexReferences and definitions

6 company reviewStrong year for top namesThe 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 availableequipment, and box manufacturers hard pressed to meet the increase in demand. The majority of top leasing companies haverisen to the challenge, as they know it may yet prove short-lived

17 equipment reviewThe recent meteoric rise in new container pricing has greatly boosted the replacement cost of the world’s rental fleet in theyear to mid-2010, lifting it slightly above the former high of mid-2008. Growth in TEU terms has been more modest, withsome shrinkage occurring for the calculated CEU size. Once again, the lessors’ standard/reefer high-cube fleets have tendedto expand to the detriment of other sizes/types

24 operating reviewThe operational outlook for the lease industry vastly improved in 2010, with utilisation, rental rates and cash returns all risingfast – and overheads falling. This has been a consequence of the strong recovery in demand, and a shipping industry stillshort of funds for investment. Equipment prices are at a 20-year high as well, bringing a further plus in the form of strongresidual/secondary values

32 fleet change reviewAlthough the global container leasing industry is certain to purchase the majority (up to 60%) of TEU built in 2010, this willhardly do much to reverse the long-term erosion in its market share. To influence the latter, the sector would have buy inthis proportion for much of the next decade. Instead, shipping line investment is expected to reassert its dominance oncenormal business is resumed

39 reefer market reviewThe reefer lease sector has so far experienced a smoother ride (than dry freight) since the market downturn of late 2008, withcompanies suffering less of a drop in 2009, but then a smaller recovery during 2010. New prices, rental rates and cash returnshave all stayed relatively flat, although investment has held up strongly for lessors during 2009-10, and resulted in sizeablefleet growth for the latter year

49 tank market reviewLessors 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, thesector remains highly specialised and operates to a different model, as well as serving different customers, to the dry freightor reefer lease markets

Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010 3

Contents

index

Section 1: Company Review6 Table 1: Global container TEU fleet by

owner category for 2004-09 and pro-jected 2010

7 Table 2: Global container TEU fleet byoperating category and ratio to vesselslot for 2004-09 and projected 2010

8 Table 3: Top ranking container leasecompanies and their operating fleets atmid-2009, by unit, TEU, CEU andUSD cash replacement cost

9 Table 4: Top ranking container leasecompanies and their detailed TEUoperating fleets at mid-2009

10 Table 5: Top ranking container leasecompanies and their detailed TEUoperating fleets projected at mid-2010

11 Table 6: Top ranking container leasecompanies and their total TEU operat-ing fleets for 2004-09 and projected2010

12 Table 7: Top ranking container leasecompanies and their total operatingfleets, as CEU, for 2004-09 and pro-jected 2010

13 Table 8: Top ranking container leasecompanies and their total operatingfleets, as USD cash replacement cost,for 2004-09 and projected 2010

14 Table 9: Top ranking container leasecompanies and their newbuild TEUpurchases for operating fleets for 2004-09 and projected first half 2010

15 Table 10: Container fleet mergers andacquisitions concluded between leasing(and shipping) companies for 1985-99

16 Table 11: Container fleet mergers andacquisitions concluded between leasing(and shipping) companies for 2000-10

Section 2: Equipment Review17 Table 12: Global container fleet by

owner category for 2004-09 and pro-jected 2010, by unit, TEU, CEU andUSD cash replacement cost

18 Table 13: Total container TEU fleet onoperating lease by detailed type for2004-09 and projected 2010

19 Table 14: Total container fleet on oper-ating lease by detailed type, as CEU, for2004-09 and projected 2010

20 Table 15: Total container fleet on oper-ating lease by detailed type at mid-2009,by unit, TEU, CEU and USD cashreplacement cost

21 Table 16: Total newbuild containerTEU purchase for operating lease bydetailed type for 2004-09 and projected2010

22 Table 17: Total newbuild container pur-chase for operating lease by detailedtype, as CEU, for 2004-09 and pro-jected 2010

23 Table 18: Total newbuild container pur-chase for operating lease by detailedtype for 2009, by unit, TEU, CEU andUSD cash investment cost

23 Table 19: Share of global containerTEU fleet on operating lease bydetailed type for 2003-09

Section 3: Operating Review24 Table 20: Averaged USD per diem

rental rates, USD ex-factory prices andpercentage rental return for newbuilddry freight containers placed on long-term lease (LTL) for 1990-2009 andprojected 2010

25 Table 21: Averaged USD per diemrental rates, USD ex-factory prices andpercentage rental return for newbuilddry freight containers placed on masterlease agreement (MLA) for 1990-2009and projected 2010

25 Table 22: Annualised USD per diemrental rate, USD revenue generatedper CEU and percentage utilisationcalculated for leased dry freight fleet for1990-2009

26 Table 23: Maritime dry freight andreefer container TEU fleets on operat-ing lease by rental agreement type for1994-2009

27 Table 24: Tank and regional containerTEU fleets on operating lease by rentalagreement type for 1994-2009

28 Table 25: Total container TEU fleet on

operating lease by rental agreementtype for 1994-2009

28 Table 26: Total container fleet on oper-ating lease, as CEU, by rental agree-ment type for 1994-2009

29 Table 27: Calculated annual USDrevenue generated by rental agreementtype for 1994-2009

29 Table 28: Calculated annualised USDrevenue yield per CEU by rental agree-ment type for 1994-2009

30 Table 29: Calculated USD depreciatedcost for standard dry freight containersat mid-2010 assuming linear 6% perannum (leaving 10% residual at end ofyear 15)

30 Table 30: Averaged USD resale pricesfor used standard dry freight containersat mid-2010 by original year of buildand % of USD ex-factory price at mid-2010

31 Table 31: Summary of annualised USDresale prices for used dry freight con-tainers for 1995-2010

Section 4: Fleet Change Review32 Table 32: Calculated average age in

years of global container TEU fleet bymain owner category for 1994-2009

32 Table 33: Global container TEU fleet atend-2009 by owner category and origi-nal year of production

33 Table 34: Growth and replacement oftotal container TEU fleet on operatinglease for 1990-2009 and projected 2010-15

34 Table 35: Growth and replacement oftotal container TEU fleet owned byshipping companies for 1990-2009 andprojected 2010-15

35 Table 36: Growth and replacement oftotal global container TEU fleet for1990-2009 and projected 2010-15

36 Table 37: Ocean-borne containerdeployment for 1990-2009 and pro-jected 2010-15, giving split by ownercategory and global container/slot oper-ating ratio

4 Containerisation International Market Analysis: Container Leasing Market 2010

Listing of tables

index

37 Table 38: Original newbuild containerTEU purchases by owner category for1990-2009 and projected 2010-15

38 Table 39: Global container TEU fleetby owner category for 1990-2009 andprojected 2010-15

Section 5: Reefer Market Review39 Table 40: Averaged USD per diem

rental rates, USD ex-factory prices andpercentage rental return for newbuildintegral reefer containers placed onlong-term lease (LTL) for 1990-2009and projected 2010

40 Table 41: Annualised USD per diemrental rate, USD revenue generatedper unit and percentage utilisation cal-culated for leased integral reefer fleetfor 1994-2009

40 Table 42: Calculated USD depreciatedcost for integral reefer containers atmid-2010 assuming linear 7% perannum (leaving 9% residual at end ofyear 13)

41 Table 43: Averaged USD resale pricesfor used integral reefer containers atmid-2010 by original year of build and% of factory price at mid-2010

42 Table 44: Growth and replacement ofintegral reefer TEU fleet on operat-ing lease for 1990-2009 and projected2010-15

43 Table 45: Growth and replacement ofintegral (and insulated) reefer TEUfleet owned by shipping companies for1990-2009 and projected 2010-15

44 Table 46: Growth and replacement ofglobal reefer TEU fleet for 1990-2009and projected 2010-15

45 Table 47: Global integral reefer (andinsulated) TEU container fleet byowner category for 1990-2009 and pro-jected 2010-15

45 Table 48: Top ranking reefer lease com-panies and their operating TEU fleetsfor 2007-09 and projected 2010

46 Table 49: Integral reefer TEU fleet onoperating lease by length-height for1990-2009 and projected 2010

46 Table 50: Integral reefer TEU fleetowned by shipping companies bylength-height for 1990-2009 and pro-jected 2010

47 Table 51: Global integral reefer TEUfleet by length-height for 1990-2009 andprojected 2010

47 Table 52: Integral reefer TEU fleet atend-2009 by owner category and origi-nal year of production

48 Table 53: Integral reefer fleet on operat-ing lease by refrigerant type for 1990-2009

48 Table 54: Global integral reefer TEUfleet by owner category and refrigeranttype at end-2009

Section 6: Tank Market Review49 Table 55: Averaged USD per diem

rental rates, USD ex-factory prices andpercentage rental return for newbuildmaritime 20ft tank container placed onlong-term lease (LTL) for 1990-2009and projected 2010

50 Table 56: Calculated USD depreciationcost for 20ft tank container, assuminglinear 5% (leaving zero residual at endof year 20), and USD resale price byoriginal year of build at mid-2010

50 Table 57: Top ranking lessors of mar-itime tank and swap-tank containersand their operating TEU fleets for2007-09 and projected 2010

51 Table 58: Growth and replacement ofmaritime tank and swap-tank TEUfleet on operating lease for 1990-2009and projected 2010-15

52 Table 59: Growth and replacement ofmaritime tank and swap-tank TEUfleet owned by transport operator for1990-2009 and projected 2010-15

53 Table 60: Growth and replacement ofglobalmaritime tank and swap-tankTEU fleet for 1990-2009 and projected2010-15

53 Table 61: Global maritime tank andswap-tank TEU fleet at end-2009 byowner category and original year ofproduction


The statistical information surveyed has been calculated on the following basis:TEU-DIMENSIONAL definitions:TEU figures are calculated in terms of length: 20ft=1.00; 24ft=1.20; 30ft=1.50;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 basisHeight and width differences have no influence on TEU calculationCollapsible flatracks are grouped by their fully-erected heightCellular pallet-wide units are classified as maritime dry freight special

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT UNIT (CEU) definitions:

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 mid-2009, USD2,350 at mid-2008, USD1,950 at mid-2007, USD1,850 at mid-2006,USD2,100 at mid-2005, USD1,850 at mid-2004). This total is then multiplied by thenumber 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:

MARITIME DRY FREIGHT STANDARD: 20ft = 1.0; 40ft (8ft 6in) = 0.8; 40ft (9ft 6in) = 0.85; 45ft (9ft 6in) = 1.0

MARITIME DRY FREIGHT SPECIAL:

* OPEN-TOP: 20ft = 1.6; 40ft = 1.3

* COLLAPSIBLE FLATRACK: 20ft = 2.5; 40ft = 1.7

* CELLULAR PALLETWIDE: 20ft = 1.45; 40ft = 1.15; 45ft = 1.50

* OTHER TYPE: 20ft = 1.6; 40ft = 1.3

MARITIME INTEGRAL REEFER: 20ft = 5.3; 40ft = 3.3

MARITIME TANK CONTAINER: 20ft = 9.0; 30ft = 8.0

REGIONAL 2.5m PALLET-WIDE STANDARD: 20ft = 1.35; 40ft = 1.10; 45ft = 1.45

REGIONAL 2.5m PALLET-WIDE SPECIAL: 20ft = 1.9; 30ft = 1.65; 40ft = 1.50

REGIONAL 2.5m SWAPBODY STANDARD: 24ft = 2.55; 45ft = 1.65

REGIONAL 2.5m SWAPBODY SPECIAL: 24ft = 3.9; 45ft = 2.4

REGIONAL 2.5m SWAP-TANK CONTAINER: 20ft = 9.0; 24ft = 9.0; 30ft = 8.0

REGIONAL 8ft 6in (NORTH AMERICAN) STANDARD: 48ft = 1.9; 53ft = 1.8

Summary of terms and definitions

company review

In 2010, the global container leasing industry has rarelybeen better placed to take advantage of its position as akey supplier of container equipment for ocean transport,and most top participants have moved quickly to resumetheir volume investment.

More than a year of recession has left the majority ofbox shipping companies financially bruised and stilllargely unable to raise finance for their own expenditureon containers. Moreover, the virtual cessation of con-tainer production that occurred from late in 2008, andcontinued throughout much of 2009, has resulted in achronic and growing equipment shortage during 2010.

The all-important standard dry freight sector (com-prising over 90% of the total market) has been impacted

to the greatest extent, as this was hit by the highest level offactory closures during 2009 and consequently tooklonger to get restarted. Over 95% of container manufac-turing capacity is now operated within China, which hasfurther concentrated the problem. In all, world containeroutput was 450,000TEU in 2009, which included aportion held over from 2008.

It surpassed 3.25 million TEU for that year overall, allof which was built in the run up to October, and hadearlier peaked at 4.25 million TEU during 2007, whichwas nearly tenfold higher than the figure for 2009!Leasing companies acquired 240,000TEU (almost 55%)in 2009, as compared with 130,000TEU by shipping linesand 80,000TEU by other (mainly inland) transport oper-


Strong year for top namesThe world’s container leasing industry is being called on to redress agrowing container deficit in 2010, after a year of recession andcurtailed production has left shipping companies chronically short ofboth investment funds and available equipment, and boxmanufacturers hard pressed to meet the increase in demand. Themajority of top leasing companies have risen to the challenge, as theyknow it may yet prove short-lived

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-2010Maritime container fleetLessor - top ten companies 7,818 8,270 8,426 9,650 9,883 9,862 10,072Lessor - other 1,085 1,332 1,236 890 1,352 1,074 1,076Lessor - total 8,903 9,602 9,662 10,540 11,235 10,936 11,148Shipping company 8,553 9,806 10,913 12,517 14,685 14,577 14,420Other transport operator* 593 637 683 749 831 853 860Grand total 18,049 20,045 21,258 23,806 26,751 26,366 26,428

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

Total container fleetLessor - top ten companies 7,852 8,305 8,462 9,698 9,927 9,913 10,101Lessor - other 1,263 1,533 1,452 1,092 1,534 1,234 1,239Lessor - total 9,115 9,838 9,914 10,790 11,461 11,147 11,340Shipping company 8,643 9,905 11,026 12,647 14,832 14,732 14,580Other transport operator* 1,192 1,269 1,344 1,443 1,561 1,576 1,580Grand 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

ators. Dry freight standard output amounted to just200,000TEU globally, with leasing firms accounting foran even greater two thirds of this total.

Shipping lines have been equally quick to turn to theleasing sector, with its greater liquidity and better access tocompetitive funding, in order to address their box require-ment in 2010. Rental firms could thus again end up buyinga proportionally bigger share of dry freight, as well asreefer and other specialised equipment, than at any timein recent years.

They are expected to account for almost 60% of thetwo million TEU production forecast for this year, with atleast 650,000TEU (70%) undergoing delivery beforeAugust 2010. Lessors will, furthermore, take over 60% ofall standard production – which is currently expected totop 1.7 million TEU this year.

Major leasing firms have found themselves wellplaced to raise capital in 2010 due to the greater strengthand stability of their financial backing. This is supported bya wide range of public, private-equity and bank creditofferings.

Once again, it has become attractive for many classesof investor (public and private alike) to put their moneyinto container ownership – by funding the expansion andreplacement of the rental fleet – with signs that even theKG (and similar) investor syndicate market might onceagain be viewing this as a suitable outlet for investmentfunds.

KG-type investors were responsible for a big share ofall capital raised by container lessors in the five years priorto 2008, at which point many were largely dissuaded fromcontinuing by falling returns and other uncertainties.They had previously been responsible for greatly increas-ing the portion of equipment held under management bytop leasing firms.

Investor interest has naturally been rekindled by theprospect of a sizeable, and possibly sustained, shortage ofcontainers going forward.

The gap between demand and supply was to openrapidly once the market picked up again and it becameapparent that the container trade collapse of 2009 wouldbe followed by stronger than expected recovery this year.

In addition, the container/shipboard-slot TEU oper-ating ratio has moved yet further out of balance, as theglobal delivery of slots has continued to outrun box pro-duction. Even with as much as 5% of the global slots’ fleetstill laid up, this ratio was calculated at around 1.7 ocean-borne container TEU for each slot at mid-2010, whichrepresented an all-time low when compared with theapproximate 2:1 averaged in most previous years. Neithercan this falling ratio be attributed to improved vesseloperating efficiencies, as many lines have opted for slowersteaming in 2010 in the past 12 months order to save onbunker charges.

The global fleet of vessel slots is, furthermore, set togo on growing for some time yet, as the perennial backlogof vessel orders is gradually worked through. It increasedby at least 8% in the year to mid-2010, having achieved aneven greater 9% expansion during the preceding year (tomid-2009).

In contrast, the world’s container fleet barely alteredin size. This actually declined by 3.7% throughout 2009(as compared to a 5% growth in the slots’ count), with theloss expected to be only partially reversed in 2010 by apredicted net increase of about 2%. The prospect forglobal container trade growth is also rather better thanthis, although it admittedly fell more steeply last year thanthe corresponding shrinkage in the box fleet size – andalso caused an immediate lay-up of over one million TEUof vessel slots, plus the delay and cancellation of manynewbuild contracts.

The trade downturn also translated into a huge build-up of idle container equipment, mainly in China, with thestockpile running to several million TEU during the leansummer months of 2009. Leasing companies suffered intheir turn, as their collective utilisation had slumped


TABLE 2:

GLOBAL CONTAINER FLEET (TEU X 1000) BY OPERATING CATEGORY AND RATIO TO VESSEL-SLOT FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010

MID-2004 MID-2005 MID-2006 MID-2007 MID-2008 MID-2009 MID-2010Container fleetMaritime - seaborne 17,603 19,573 20,753 23,250 26,126 25,710 25,740Maritime - inland* 446 472 505 556 625 656 688Regional* 901 967 1,026 1,074 1,103 1,089 1,072Grand 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 15,900TEU 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

company review

below 85% and hit its lowest level in more than six years.The subsequent recovery had already absorbed

much of the former surplus by early 2010. Leasingcompany utilisation was again indicative of the trend, asit had already again surpassed 90% by early 2010 andsince gone above 95% for many firms. The lease indus-try, by taking delivery of an anticipated 1.15 millionTEU in 2010, is also expected to commit to as big alevel of new container investment as witnessed duringsome of its more upbeat years immediately prior to2009. Moreover, this strong purchase will be furtheraugmented by a sizeable intake of used containersacquired from cash-strapped shipping companies byway of sale and lease-back agreements.

This activity is certain to run at a record level during2010, with over 100,000TEU already traded in this way bythe third quarter. Some lines are currently favouring itover a more direct resale into secondary use – a farstronger feature of 2009 – and for the obvious reason thatit retains the equipment in service while also raisingmuch-needed capital.

However, it runs counter to the situation in 2008-09,when top leasing firms collectively transferred a greaternet quantity of containers from their operating fleet toshipping line ownership, usually through a direct conver-sion to finance lease.

The container shortage of 2010 has been made all theworse by the policy of slow-steaming, adopted by manyshipping companies. This has since rebounded on to ship-pers, which are increasingly being forced to pay surchargesto cover extra container availability.

In addition, dry freight container manufacturers havehad difficulty resuming normal production after morethan a year of inactivity. The majority of factories havetaken six months or greater to re-establish a semblance ofdouble-shift operation, with many plants still working oneshift or little better during third quarter 2010. Many haveencountered difficulties rehiring, and then retaining,skilled staff. This had already put a curb on production –and resulted in lengthening delivery lead-times and a rapidrise in prices as buyers (mainly leasing companies) rushedto secure factory space. It further explains why containeroutput has been unable to keep pace with the rate of slotdeliveries and trade growth more generally.

By mid-2010, the dry freight market appeared to beclose to overheating, with the 20ft headline price soaringabove USD2,750 and order backlog running beyondthree months.

This price level had not been witnessed even in 2008,when Corten Steel and other material prices were over20% higher and market strength appeared to be moresustained, having already continued high for several years.In comparison to the more stable USD800-850 beingpaid per tonne for Corten Steel during the summermonths of 2010, its average had peaked at overUSD1,050 two years earlier. However, the average 20ftprice had only just touched USD2,600 during this sameearlier period.

Instead, it is apparent that many container factoriesare looking to recover losses incurred in 2009 (and inearlier years) by maximising profits in 2010. For thisreason, 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 15.8Florens Container Leasing 1,601.5 14.4 1,048.5 14.4 1,603.5 11.9 3,127.0 11.9Triton Container 1,423.5 12.8 883.0 12.1 1,483.5 11.0 2,893.0 11.0TAL International 1,049.0 9.4 641.0 8.8 1,181.5 8.8 2,304.0 8.8GESeaCo 960.0 8.6 619.5 8.5 1,438.0 10.7 2,804.0 10.7CAI International 751.0 6.7 500.0 6.8 701.5 5.2 1,368.0 5.2Gold Container 501.0 4.5 355.5 4.9 453.5 3.4 884.5 3.4UES International HK 493.0 4.4 299.5 4.1 493.5 3.6 962.5 3.6Seacastle Container Leasing 427.5 3.8 271.5 3.7 793.5 5.9 1,547.0 5.9Cronos Group 421.0 3.8 303.5 4.2 612.0 4.5 1,193.0 4.5Dong Fang International 348.0 3.1 219.0 3.0 328.0 2.4 639.5 2.4Beacon Intermodal Leasing 123.5 1.1 89.0 1.2 149.0 1.1 291.0 1.1Blue Sky Intermodal 93.5 0.9 66.0 0.9 86.5 0.6 169.0 0.6CARU 90.0 0.8 69.0 0.9 85.5 0.6 167.0 0.6Waterfront Leasing 67.5 0.6 45.0 0.6 62.0 0.5 120.5 0.5Other 511.5 4.6 371.5 5.1 1,888.0 14.0 3,681.5 14.0Total 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

later in 2010, even if some downward adjustment wasanticipated by the final quarter.

Given that lessors had already committed to aroundtwo thirds of all dry freight purchases made during thefirst eight months of 2010, due to the relative absence ofshipping company investment, rental firms might appearto be taking on a big share of the risk associated withpaying so high a premium.

However, they too have been able to build in someprotection in order safeguard profitability by securingrecord-high per diem rates and a better level of initial cashinvestment return (ICIR) than seen in many years.

Rate levels as high as USD1.10 have been reportedfor the highest priced equipment, exceeding USD2,700per 20ft (and due for August delivery), which are yieldingan ICIR in excess of 14.5%. This compares veryfavourably with the 11.5-12.5% averaged throughout2007-09, when (20ft) equipment costing aroundUSD2,000 had typically attracted a daily rate of nearerUSD0.65, and also halted a much longer term downwardslide in dry freight ICIR levels, which has been occurringsince the 1990s.

Of course, the higher returns of recent months mayyet prove to be ephemeral, as they are a natural conse-quence of the strengthening market and pressures beingexerted on those shipping lines still unable to commit toany container procurement of their own.

Most lessors already expect ICIR levels to fall againonce demand and pricing return to a more normal state,although the recent high is continuing, at least for

the moment, to draw in yet more investment for theleasing side.

The lessors’ recent headlong rush back into the pur-chasing market has already helped restore their collectiveposition – albeit by only a small margin. The rental fleetstood at 11.34 million TEU by mid-2010 and, althoughthis was still about 1% down on its peak size at mid-2008,it had recovered from the larger dip that occurred in 2009when a far greater emphasis had been placed on disposal.By comparison, the global container fleet amounted to27.5 million TEU by mid-2010, which as mentioned wasvirtually unchanged on its size one year earlier, in mid-2009, but also down slightly (by 1.3%) on the 27.85 millionTEU returned at mid-2008.

The lessors’ collective share of TEU thus experienceda further small loss during 2009, as they controlled just40.6% at the mid-year. This was their lowest level afterseveral years of systemic decline. It subsequently recov-ered again to over 41% by mid-2010, which was the samelevel as in mid-2008, but was still down on the 43.3%returned in mid-2007 and 44.5% at mid-2006.

Although many top firms are hoping that the smallrevival of the past year could mark a reversal of the trendof the past decade, during which the leasing side has shedaround 7% in terms of its global TEU holding, mostagain concede that this can only occur if the ongoingdemand for rental equipment stays very high as in recentmonths.

However, this is far from guaranteed, as the improv-ing financial position of some leading ocean crriers,


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* TotalStandard High Cube Special Reefer

Textainer Group 1,211.0 1,013.0 41.5 18.5 - 1.0 2,285.0Florens Container Leasing 799.0 747.0 11.0 44.5 - - 1,601.5Triton Container 693.0 637.0 32.5 61.0 - - 1,423.5TAL International 480.5 427.5 84.3 55.5 1.2 - 1,049.0GESeaCo 353.0 413.0 52.0 115.5 10.0 16.5 960.0CAI International 416.5 310.5 9.5 5.5 - 9.0 751.0Gold Container 295.0 205.0 1.0 - - - 501.0UES International HK 212.0 251.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 23.5 493.0Seacastle Container Leasing 156.5 157.0 - 114.0 - - 427.5Cronos Group 212.5 128.0 48.2 21.8 9.5 1.0 421.0Dong Fang International 192.0 149.0 1.0 6.0 - - 348.0Beacon Intermodal Leasing 68.0 45.0 - 10.5 - - 123.5Blue Sky Intermodal 53.5 37.5 2.5 - - - 93.5CARU 71.5 17.5 0.5 0.5 - - 90.0Waterfront Leasing 43.5 23.5 0.3 0.2 - - 67.5Other 149.5 51.5 48.2 8.0 94.8 159.5 511.5Grand 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

company review

coupled with a greater market confidence, could yetencourage a greater resumption of their own direct con-tainer investment. This, should it not occur later in 2010,is certain to be more prominent again by 2011.

Prior to 2009, shipping companies had committed tothe majority (over 60%) of container purchasing forseveral years in succession – and they could do so againonce the conditions are right.

By mid-2010, the 10 largest leasing companies hadalso increased their proportional holding, having finallygained control of a fleet exceeding 10 million TEU for thefirst time. This amounted to 89% of all leased TEU, withthis share last attained in 2007 (when the 10 marketleaders controlled almost 90% of rental equipment).

It slumped a little during 2008-09, when some largecompanies were more intent of retiring or reselling olderunits. This dented their overall growth rate, and certainsmaller newcomers – typified by Beacon IntermodalLeasing – stole a march in expansion terms. Nevertheless,the top hierarchy has proven relatively resistant to changein recent years, whilst there has been little activity on themergers and acquisitions front.

The only takeover of significance to have occurred inearly 2010 concerned Cronos Container and UESInternational, currently ranked in seventh and (joint) 11thplace, respectively, and this only covered a partial transferof managed assets between the two firms.

Cronos took control of around a half of the existingUES operating fleet in January 2010, leaving the lattercompany mostly with newer equipment (largely financed

since the original takeover of Unit Equipment Services AGby Grand View Container Leasing in 2006) and its sizeablespecials’ component intact. This merger was explained byCronos’ more developed involvement in the master leasesector, as compared to UES, which afforded a better after-market from older, returned UES equipment.

The master of these takeovers is Textainer, which hasnow held on to its top position for almost five years andadded over 1.2 million TEU by way of merger along theway, thereby more than doubling its original fleet size.Managed assets have been acquired from four majorcompanies since 2006, resulting in the disappearance ofGateway Container, Capital Lease, Amficon Leasing andCapital Intermodal (including XINES).

Textainer gained a further boost in 2007 when thecompany went public, which prompted its subsequententry into the reefer lease sector and takeover in 2009 ofthe predominantly specialised fleets from CapitalIntermodal and Amficon.

Textainer currently controls a fleet of more than 2.2million TEU, with an estimated new-for-old replacementcost exceeding USD5 billion. This makes up almost 20%of the entire rental TEU fleet, equivalent to 15% in costterms.

A majority of the total is managed. Newbuild orderscovering 110,000TEU of standard had already been con-firmed by August 2010, with space secured for up toanother 100,000TEU to be delivered in the year shoulddemand warrant it.

The company’s annual rate of container disposal is


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 2,215.0Triton Container 1,490.0 35.0 85.0 - - 1,610.0Florens Container Leasing 1,527.0 10.0 43.0 - - 1,580.0TAL International 959.0 82.0 57.5 1.5 - 1,100.0GESeaCo 707.0 56.0 110.0 10.5 16.5 900.0CAI International 755.0 10.0 5.5 - 9.5 780.0Cronos Group 554.0 47.0 22.5 9.5 2.0 635.0Gold Container 499.0 1.0 - - - 500.0Seacastle Container Leasing 306.0 - 114.0 - - 420.0Dong Fang International 348.0 2.0 10.0 - - 360.0Beacon Intermodal Leasing 218.0 - 22.0 - - 240.0UES International HK 210.0 1.5 3.0 2.5 23.0 240.0Blue Sky Intermodal 109.0 3.0 - - - 112.0CARU 94.0 0.5 0.5 - - 95.0Waterfront Leasing 64.5 0.3 0.2 - - 65.0Other 195.5 50.7 7.8 94.0 140.0 488.0Grand 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

company review

now running at almost 200,000TEU, as it strives to furtherdrive down its fleet age from the present average of aboutsix years. This age is, however, the approximate norm formost of the established mainstream companies.

Textainer’s two main rival are Triton Container andFlorens Leasing, each with around 1.6 million TEU.

Triton manages its equipment on behalf of a numberof large private shareholders and has long preferred toexpand exclusively by way of newbuild purchase. Itsgrowth rate has slowed in recent years, as the majority ofpurchases have been made to cover replacement (its fleetis also calculated at around six years’ average age),although some fleet addition has been made during 2010.

Triton was one of the few leasing companies to makeany investment during 2009, when it received 55,000TEUas standards and reefers, and has subsequently commit-ted much more heavily in 2010. Its purchase had alreadytopped 150,000TEU by July, with more in prospect.

Florens continues to operate two rental divisions, oneserving the international (or third party) market and theother the in-house needs of its affiliate, CoscoContainerlines.

The latter business accounts for a stable third of the

Chinese lessor’s fleet, or 515,000TEU at mid-2010. The balance of ‘internationally-leased’ equipment

amounted to 1,065,000TEU, and orders covering at least50,000TEU of standard equipment had been placedduring the opening half of 2010 – mainly destined for theinternational fleet. A similar quantity is due for delivery inthe closing six months of the year, whilst Florens is due todispose of at least 50,000TEU of older equipment thisyear.

Its overall fleet age is significantly below five years.Florens is owned by Cosco Pacific Group, listed on theHong Kong stock exchange, but two thirds of thecompany’s international fleet is currently managed onbehalf of KG or similar syndicates.

This equipment has been resold, and then taken backby Florens under management, during the past four yearsin order to raise funds for further expansion. It is anotherto have pursued newbuild growth, in favour of anytakeover of smaller rivals, and been the largest single pur-chaser of containers amongst leasing firms in recent years.It received 600,000TEU during 2006-07 – the company’stwo most active years to date.

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 2,215.0Gateway 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 1,580.0Triton Container 1,327.0 1,392.5 1,379.5 1,424.5 1,477.5 1,423.5 1,610.0TAL International 1,003.5 993.0 946.5 994.5 1,033.5 1,049.0 1,100.0GESeaCo 1,001.5 1,014.5 935.0 945.5 946.0 960.0 900.0CAI International 560.0 612.0 623.5 688.5 785.5 751.0 780.0Gold Container 236.0 280.0 324.0 400.0 480.0 501.0 500.0UES international HK*** - - - - 491.0 493.0 240.0Grand 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**** - - - - 566.0 427.5 420.0Interpool Group 837.0 830.5 704.0 767.0 - - -Carlisle Leasing 104.5 120.0 121.0 171.0 - - -Cronos Group 412.5 407.5 404.5 413.0 446.0 421.0 635.0Dong Fang International - - - - 331.5 348.0 360.0Beacon Intermodal Leasing - - - - 75.5 123.5 240.0Blue Sky Intermodal 7.5 39.5 49.0 66.0 92.0 93.5 112.0Waterfront Leasing 92.0 90.5 88.0 84.0 73.5 67.5 65.0Other 476.0 510.5 562.5 646.0 622.0 601.5 583.0Grand 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 2010is TAL International.

This firm has an established track record in the busi-ness stretching back four decades, and is the only one leftof the original ‘Big Seven’ US-based companies thatdominated the earliest days of the box rental industryduring the 1970s and early 1980s.

TAL acquired a public listing in 2005, which hasamply financed the company’s subsequent investmentprogramme of fleet renewal and expansion, and provideda further USD425 million for expenditure in 2010.

The operating fleet stood close to 1.1 million TEU bymid-2010, with TAL also controlling a further120,000TEU on finance lease. Its total purchase for theoperating fleet amounted to at least 100,000TEU (includ-ing standard and reefer) during first half 2010, with afurther 75,000TEU or greater due later in the year. Thecorresponding disposal figure is again expected to top80,000TEU in 2010.

The above four ‘TEU millionaire’ companies headthe ranking and each control a broadly similar mix ofstandard, special and reefer equipment (with TAL nowalso offering tank containers).

GESeaCo, positioned fifth with a fleet of900,000TEU, remains altogether more specialised. Thisboosts the current replacement cost of its fleet to aroundUSD3 billion giving it a fourth ranking overall.GESeaCo, together with TAL, control marginally olderfleets – of nearer 6.5 years average age – which explainstheir continued focus on renewal and relative lack ofexpansion, in recent years.

The GESeaCo fleet has been falling in size over thelonger term, although investment has stayed strong, withalmost 50,000TEU supplied during the opening half of2010. In addition to controlling dry freightstandards/specials, reefers and tanks, the company alsoprovide a wide range of regional box equipment.

GESeaCo was originally established as a jointventure between GE (the former owner of GenstarCorp) and Sea Containers – another of the Big Sevenoriginals – but control has been steadily transferred toGE following Sea Containers’ entry into bankruptcy in2006 and its subsequent attempts at refinancing.

A further three lessors can claim fleets in excess of500,000TEU.

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

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

Textainer Group*** 992.5 1,060.5 1,347.0 1,820.5 1,863.5 2,129.0 2,066.5Gateway 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 1,531.5Triton Container 1,366.0 1,400.0 1,410.5 1,470.5 1,490.5 1,483.5 1,644.0GESeaCo 1,551.5 1,455.0 1,423.5 1,474.5 1,392.0 1,438.0 1,219.0TAL International 1,193.0 1,123.0 1,082.5 1,121.0 1,148.5 1,181.5 1,172.5Seacastle Container Leasing**** - - - - 918.5 793.5 666.5Interpool Group 812.5 799.0 696.5 753.0 - - -Carlisle Leasing 547.0 536.0 604.5 705.0 - - -CAI International 495.0 540.0 551.0 612.5 719.5 701.5 721.0Cronos Group 475.0 489.0 530.0 579.0 629.5 612.0 745.5UES international HK***** - - - - 480.0 493.5 258.5Grand View Container Leasing 65.5 107.0 132.5 160.5 - - -Unit Equipment Services 167.5 246.5 272.5 292.5 - - -Gold Container 209.5 250.0 290.0 360.0 435.0 453.5 453.5Dong Fang International - - - - 311.0 328.0 341.5Beacon Intermodal Leasing - - - - 81.5 149.0 273.0Blue Sky Intermodal 7.5 36.5 45.5 61.5 85.5 86.5 103.5Waterfront Leasing 85.0 82.5 80.5 76.5 67.5 62.0 59.5Other 1,736.0 1,737.5 2,010.0 2,332.5 1,970.5 1,973.5 1,553.5Grand 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 Gatewayfleet 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-tenders and the increasingly more specialised ranksbelow.

Headed by CAI International, with 780,000TEU,they also include Gold Container, France’s sole survivingentrant, and the newly enlarged Cronos Container. Thelatter has also opted for a more specialised fleet mix, andcurrently offers standard, special, reefer, tank and pallet-wide containers. The total count was 635,000TEU at mid-2010, following the earlier addition of 220,000TEU fromUES.

Cronos is funded by private equity capital, followingthe company’s delisting in 2007 when private interests(including its own management) bought out its entireshareholding. The company has since increased its invest-ment, although the recent taking of containers from UESwas understood to have dampened its appetite for new-build in early 2010.

Gold has similarly made only a minimal new con-tainer purchase since end-2008, before which thecompany had been expanding aggressively for severalyears. It acquired a small fleet from C&ContainerLeasing (of South Korea) late in 2008, as the recession

was looming, and further equipment through sale andlease-back earlier more recently in early 2010.

This has been sufficient to maintain its existing500,000TEU-size, net of a rising disposal figure.However, its fleet remains relatively young, with an esti-mated average age of 4.5 years, and still almost entirelycomprising dry freight standard containers.

The company is a subsidiary of Touax Group, whichis publicly quoted in France and the US.

CAI has a comparable mix of standard and spe-cialised equipment to its largest rivals, with the specials’component boosted by an earlier takeover of ConsentLeasing (of Sweden) in 2008.

CAI too has since acquired additional equipmentby way of sale and lease-back, including 40,000TEUreceived from Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM) inearly 2010. The company is also stepping up its new-build investment, with at least 25,000TEU deliveredduring first half 2010.

CAI is yet another publicly listed name, also achiev-ing its flotation in 2007. As with Textainer, the majorityof CAI’s operating fleet is managed on behalf ofinvestors.

TABLE 8:

TOP RANKING CONTAINER LEASE COMPANIES* AND THEIR TOTAL OPERATING FLEETS, CALCULATED AS CASHREPLACEMENT COST** (USD MILLION), FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010

Mid-2004 Mid-2005 Mid-2006 Mid-2007 Mid-2008 Mid-2009 Mid-2010Textainer Group*** 1,836.0 2,227.5 2,492.0 3,549.5 4,379.0 4,151.5 5,166.5Gateway 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 3,829.5Triton Container 2,527.0 2,939.5 2,610.0 2,868.0 3,502.0 2,893.0 4,110.0GESeaCo 2,870.5 3,055.0 2,633.0 2,875.0 3,271.5 2,804.0 3,047.5TAL International 2,207.0 2,358.0 2,002.5 2,185.5 2,698.5 2,304.0 2,931.5Seacastle Container Leasing**** - - - - 2,159.0 1,547.0 1,666.5Interpool 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 1,802.5Cronos Group 878.5 1,026.5 980.5 1,129.0 1,479.5 1,193.0 1,863.5UES international HK***** - - - - 1,128.0 962.5 646.0Grand View Container Leasing 121.0 225.0 245.5 313.5 - - -Unit Equipment Services 310.5 517.5 504.5 570.0 - - -Gold Container 387.5 525.0 536.5 702.0 1,021.5 884.5 1,133.0Dong Fang International - - - - 731.5 639.5 854.0Beacon Intermodal Leasing - - - - 192.0 291.0 682.5Blue Sky Intermodal 13.5 76.5 84.5 119.5 201.0 169.0 258.5Waterfront Leasing 157.0 173.5 148.5 149.0 158.5 120.5 148.5Other 3,212.5 3,648.5 3,718.0 4,547.5 4,630.5 3,848.5 3,883.5Grand 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


Beacon was relatively active in 2009 when it received45,000TEU, and currently on track to take up to threetimes this quantity in 2010 – with 90,000TEU already sup-plied by July. Its operating fleet, of standard and reeferequipment, was already close to 250,000TEU at the mid-year (with another 25,000TEU fixed on finance lease)after just 2.5 years of existence.

The raising of funds poses little problem for thecompany, given its ownership by BTMU Capital Corp,which is owned by one of the largest banking interest inJapan (Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi).

Meanwhile, DFIL has the resources of the ChinaShipping Group (CSG) to draw on. This company – aCSG subsidiary – properly entered the third partyrental market in 2007, having previous leased contain-ers in-house to China Shipping Container Lines(CSCL) for several years.

It has followed much the same model asFlorens/Cosco.

DFIL is continuing with this operation, again inparallel with Florens’ earlier development, and cur-rently has around 60% (215,000TEU) of its entirerental fleet on hire to CSCL. This left around 40%(145,000TEU) on ‘international’ lease at mid-2010.

Seacastle Container Leasing – which has recentlybeen restyled as SeaCube, was planning its own flotationlater in 2010, to take advantage of the much improvedmarket conditions.

The company is a subsidiary of the FortressInvestment Group, and manages box (and chassis) equip-ment on behalf of several major investor pools/syndicates.Its operating fleet has been pared back in recent years, inthe aftermath of the company’s formation in 2007 from amerger between Interpool (another Big Seven original)and reefer lease specialists, Carlisle Leasing and MagnumLease. Currently, it stands at about 420,000TEU. Overthe quarter of this total is reefer.

A similar 400,000TEU is held by the company onfinance lease, giving an overall quoted fleet in excess of800,000TEU.

Seacastle/SeaCube has tentatively re-entered thepurchasing market in 2010, after a virtual two-yearabsence, and its delivery rate is expected to rise againduring the second half of this year.

Fast growth is being anticipated each for Dong FangInternational Leasing (DFIL) and Beacon IntermodalLeasing, as these are still the two newest entrants ofrecent years.

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 2010-1HTextainer Group** 150 80 95 140 115 10 70Gateway 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 50Triton Container 290 55 110 115 155 55 150TAL International 115 60 75 125 135 10 100GESeaCo 130 65 70 95 110 20 40Seacastle Container Leasing*** - - - - 25 - 15Interpool Group 90 100 80 110 - - -Carlisle Leasing 13 15 35 20 - - -CAI International 65 45 115 120 65 10 25UES 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 15Beacon Intermodal Leasing - - - - 108 45 90Blue Sky Intermodal 25 15 15 20 18 3 15Other 70 40 68 159 167 22 60Grand total 1,385 900 1,250 1,600 1,300 240 630Total resold or scrapped -495 -525 -520 -610 -585 -685 -360Other loss or gain from leased fleet***** -150 -80 -185 90 -545 -140 110Total 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, Amficonand Capital Intermodal-XINES fleets in 2009 *** = created from merger of Interpool and Carlisle Leasing in 2007 **** = created from merger of Grand View ContainerLeasing and Unit Equipment Services in 2007 ***** = includes transfers from operating to finance lease or sale and lease-back agreements



Most growth is being targeted at the smaller thirdparty rental fleet, with up to 100,000TEU due for pur-chase in 2010. Over 30,000TEU of this had alreadybeen delivered by July.

DFIL has longer term plans to grow its fleet by at

least 100,000TEU per annum in order to reach the onemillion TEU mark within six years.

DFIL had managed to gain 10th place within thelessors’ ranking by mid-2010, with Beacon and thereduced-size UES taking joint 11th. The only other

TABLE 10: CONTAINER FLEET MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS CONCLUDED BETWEEN LEASING (AND SHIPPING)

COMPANIES FOR 1985-99Acquiring company From Status Type TEU (x1000)

1985 Catu Holdings SA Landless Container Ltd managed Dry Freight 5.01985 Catu Holdings SA ARTU Container SA managed Dry Freight 5.01985 Transamerica Leasing NIC Leasing (Japan) owned/managed Dry Freight 35.01985 Trans Ocean Ltd Tank Cargo Container managed Dry Freight 20.01986 Textainer Group Cross County Leasing managed Dry Freight 20.01987 CLOU Container Acugreen Container managed Dry Freight 3.01987 CLOU Container Ideal Container Srl managed Dry Freight 7.01987 CLOU Container ICCU Group managed Dry Freight 47.01987 Trans Ocean Ltd Nautilus Leasing managed Dry Freight 10.01987 Trans Ocean Ltd Traco Container managed Dry Freight 5.01987 Textainer Group InterOcean Leasing managed Dry Freight 12.01987 Itel Containers Flexi-Van Corp owned Dry Freight, Reefer 180.01987 Genstar Container Gelco-CTI owned Dry Freight 300.01988 Itel Containers Intl Xtra Inc owned Dry Freight 120.01988 Trans Ocean Ltd Showa Line owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer 20.01989 Trans Ocean Ltd Intl Container Leasing managed Dry Freight, Tank 7.01990 Tiphook Container Rental Sea Containers owned Dry Freight, Tank 200.01990 Genstar Container Itel Containers owned Dry Freight, Reefer, Regional 430.01991 Textainer Group Maxu Containers SA managed Dry Freight 12.01991 Transamerica Leasing First Tank Container owned Tank 0.51991 Trans Ocean Ltd Redcliffe International owned/managed Reefer 5.01991 Trans Ocean Ltd Trans Container Leasing managed Dry Freight 10.01991 Trans Ocean Ltd Nippon Liner Systems owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer 18.01991 Cronos Group IEA/Leasing Partners Intl managed Dry Freight, Reefer 90.01992 United Container Systems CIS Continent-Israel GmbH owned Dry Freight 1.01992 Trans Ocean Ltd Dolphin AB managed Dry Freight 35.01993 Textainer Group World Container Leasing owned Dry Freight 20.01993 Sea Containers East Med Tanks owned Tank 0.51993 Sea Containers CLOU Container owned Dry Freight 56.01994 Sea Containers SCAC Delmas Vieljeux owned (lease-back) Dry Freight, Reefer 20.01994 Genstar Container various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight, Reefer 50.01994 Transamerica Leasing Tiphook Container Rental owned Dry Freight, Tank 480.01995 Xtra Corp Matson Leasing owned Dry Freight 165.01995 Catu Holdings SA Maritainer SA managed Dry Freight 10.01996 Transamerica Leasing Trans Ocean Ltd owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Tank 280.01997 Sea Containers Wreckair Cont Service owned Dry Freight, Regional 5.01997 GE-TIP Intermodal Services Genstar Container owned (internal) Regional 43.01997 Interpool Group Hanjin Shipping owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 50.01998 Container Leasing Bell Lines owned Dry Freight 5.01998 Textainer Group PrimeSource Holdings managed Dry Freight 55.01998 GESeaCo Genstar/Sea Containers owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Tank, Regional 1,130.01998 Interpool Group CAI International managed Dry Freight 240.01999 Transamerica Leasing Stolt-Nielsen Leasing owned Tank 3.01999 Textainer Group Xtra International owned/managed Dry Freight 225.0Total 4,435.0



TABLE 11: CONTAINER FLEET MERGERS AND ACQUISTIONS CONCLUDED BETWEEN LEASING (AND SHIPPING)

COMPANIES FROM YEAR 2000 ONWARDSAcquiring company From Status Type TEU (x1000)

2000 Eurotainer CCR Group managed Tank 10.02000 Exsif Worldwide Transamerica Leasing owned Tank 20.02000 Interpool Group Transamerica Leasing owned Regional 45.02001 GE-TIP Intermodal Services Interpool Group owned Regional 58.02002 Exsif Worldwide Tank Partners International managed Tank 3.52002 Textainer Group various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 17.52004 Unit Equipment Services United Container Systems managed Dry Freight 25.02004 CARU Maritrade managed Dry Freight 5.02005 CARU Catu Container managed Dry Freight 40.02006 Textainer Group Gateway Container managed Dry Freight 315.02007 Textainer Group Capital Lease managed Dry Freight 505.02007 Seacastle Cont Leasing Interpool/Carlisle Leasing owned/managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Regional 970.02007 UES International GVC/UES* managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Tank, Regional 465.02007 VGT Group Tankspan Leasing managed Tank 3.02008 CARU Schouten Cont Services owned Dry Freight 3.52008 Seacastle Cont Leasing Magnum Lease managed Reefer 3.52008 CAI International Consent Equipment owned Regional 12.52008 Unitas Leasing Bond International owned Tank 1.52008 Capital Intermodal XINES Ltd managed Dry Freight 155.02008 Gold Container C&Container Leasing managed Dry Freight 16.52008 TAL International various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 55.02009 Textainer Group Amficon Leasing managed Dry Freight 147.02009 Textainer Group Capital Intermodal managed Dry Freight, Reefer, Tank, Regional 155.02009 Textainer Group various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 85.02010 Cronos Group UES International managed Dry Freight 220.02010 CAI International various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 45.02010 Gold Container various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 35.02010 various (leasing company) various (shipping line) owned (lease-back) Dry Freight 80.0Total 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 SkyIntermodal, which controlled around 110,000TEU ofmanaged equipment at mid-2010.

Below this are Waterfront Leasing and BridgeheadContainer Services, with around 65,000TEU and55,000TEU respectively.

A further glance down the ranking reveals companiesof increasingly specialised character. Many of these havelong been focussed on more ‘niche-type’ tank or regionalcontainer sectors, although their smaller TEU holdingoften belies a greater importance in CEU and replace-ment cost terms.

The ever-widening gulf that exists between box leasecompanies of the largest, mid-range and smallest sizes isa natural consequence of industry’s inexorable scaling-up

process and rising barrier of entry facing new compa-nies. The only way to bridge this, and stand any real-istic chance of entering the big time, is through a full-on assault of the type being pursued by Beacon andDFIL, which necessitates a very robust line of financ-ing. Otherwise growth towards the all-important mid-rank area is impossible to contemplate, with would-beentrants either forced to limit their aspirations and godown more specialised routes or remain on themargins. The least favoured tended to fall by thewayside, and usually because of their vulnerability totakeover.

Recent examples include XINES, CapitalIntermodal, Amficon, C&Container Leasing (andpossibly even UES), which provide warning enough.

equipment review


Equipment reviewThe recent meteoric rise in new container pricing has greatly boostedthe 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 inTEU terms has been more modest, with some shrinkage occurring forthe calculated CEU size. Once again, the lessors’ standard/reeferhigh-cube fleets have tended to expand to the detriment of othersizes/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

MID-2004 MID-2005 MID-2006 MID-20075 MID-2008 MID-2009 MID-2010Leasing companyUnit 5,903.5 6,355.0 6,422.0 7,042.5 7,499.0 7,297.0 7,421.5TEU 9,115.0 9,837.5 9,914.0 10,789.5 11,461.0 11,146.5 11,340.0CEU* 11,398.5 11,797.0 12,314.5 13,528.5 13,556.5 13,488.5 12,809.5Cash replacement cost** 21,087.5 24,773.5 22,781.5 26,380.5 31,858.0 26,303.0 32,023.5Shipping company***Unit 6,546.0 7,388.0 8,129.0 9,193.5 10,640.5 10,572.5 10,473.0TEU 9,835.0 11,174.5 12,370.0 14,090.0 16,393.5 16,308.0 16,160.0CEU* 14,563.0 15,398.0 17,695.0 19,806.0 21,291.5 21,893.0 19,903.5Cash replacement cost** 26,941.5 32,336.0 32,736.0 38,621.5 50,035.0 42,691.5 49,759.5Global totalUnit 12,449.5 13,743.0 14,551.0 16,236.0 18,139.5 17,869.5 17,894.5TEU 18,950.0 21,012.0 22,284.0 24,879.5 27,854.5 27,454.5 27,500.0CEU* 25,961.5 27,195.0 30,009.5 33,334.5 34,848.0 35,381.5 32,713.0Cash replacement cost** 48,029.0 57,109.5 55,517.5 65,002.0 81,893.0 68,994.5 81,783.0* = 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

MID-2004 MID-2005 MID-2006 MID-2007 MID-2008 MID-2009 MID-2010Maritime - dry freight standard20ft 2,464.0 2,648.0 2,707.5 3,069.5 3,300.5 3,206.0 3,260.040ft 2,619.0 2,633.0 2,496.0 2,422.0 2,392.5 2,201.0 2,045.040ft high cube 2,967.5 3,453.0 3,603.5 4,124.5 4,558.5 4,529.0 4,792.045ft high cube 62.0 65.5 67.0 69.5 82.0 84.0 89.0Subtotal 8,112.5 8,799.5 8,874.0 9,685.5 10,333.5 10,020.0 10,186.0Maritime - dry freight specialCellular pallet-wide 71.3 70.3 67.4 74.8 75.0 73.0 78.3Open-top - 20ft 44.7 41.6 38.9 36.9 35.9 34.3 33.0Open-top - 40ft 92.5 84.4 81.0 85.4 91.8 94.7 94.0Collapsible flatrack - 20ft 13.8 13.5 13.6 14.3 16.6 17.0 17.0Collapsible flatrack - 40ft 72.2 75.8 77.5 87.9 98.2 103.5 104.5Fixed flatrack and platform 3.3 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.5Other* 15.2 12.7 9.4 7.7 8.0 9.8 9.7Subtotal 313.0 301.0 290.0 309.0 327.0 334.0 338.0Maritime - integral reefer20ft 53.1 50.0 47.5 43.0 42.0 38.5 38.040ft 41.4 37.5 27.5 20.5 16.5 12.0 8.040ft high cube 292.0 316.5 322.5 374.5 402.0 414.0 460.0Subtotal 386.5 404.0 397.5 438.0 460.5 464.5 506.0Maritime - tank (liquid bulk)Subtotal 90.5 97.0 101.0 107.5 114.0 117.5 118.0Regional - 8ft 6in widthUS domestic - 48ft 90.5 83.8 76.2 65.0 39.5 18.6 3.6US domestic - 53ft 50.5 68.2 76.8 80.0 72.5 70.4 66.4Subtotal 141.0 152.0 153.0 145.0 112.0 89.0 70.0Regional - 2.5m widthConventional pallet-wide 24.0 34.5 43.5 52.0 62.0 69.5 71.5Swapbody - 20-25ft (6-8m) 29.0 31.5 37.0 39.0 41.2 42.0 41.2Swapbody - 40-45ft (12-14m) 9.5 9.0 9.0 4.5 3.3 2.2 1.5Swap-tank (liquid bulk) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 7.5 7.8 7.8Subtotal 71.5 84.0 98.5 104.5 114.0 121.5 122.0Total - maritime 8,902.5 9,601.5 9,662.5 10,540.0 11,235.0 10,936.0 11,148.0Total - regional 212.5 236.0 251.5 249.5 226.0 210.5 192.0Grand 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), FOR 2004-09 AND PROJECTED 2010

MID-2004 MID-2005 MID-2006 MID-2007 MID-2008 MID-2009 MID-2010Maritime - dry freight standard20ft 2,464.0 2,648.0 2,707.5 3,069.5 3,300.5 3,206.0 3,260.040ft 2,095.0 2,106.5 1,997.0 1,937.5 1,914.0 1,761.0 1,636.040ft high cube 2,522.5 2,935.0 3,063.0 3,506.0 3,875.0 3,849.5 4,073.045ft high cube 68.0 65.5 67.0 69.5 82.0 84.0 89.0Subtotal 7,149.5 7,755.0 7,834.5 8,582.5 9,171.5 8,900.5 9,058.0Maritime - dry freight specialCellular pallet-wide 88.0 86.5 84.0 93.5 93.0 92.0 97.5Open-top - 20ft 71.5 66.5 62.0 59.0 57.4 54.5 53.0Open-top - 40ft 120.5 110.0 105.5 111.0 119.4 123.0 121.8Collapsible flatrack - 20ft 27.5 27.0 27.2 28.6 41.8 42.5 43.0Collapsible flatrack - 40ft 123.0 129.0 131.8 149.4 166.7 176.0 176.7Fixed flatrack and platform 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.2 1.7 1.8 1.8Other*** 45.0 39.5 36.0 34.8 34.0 36.7 33.2Subtotal 479.0 461.5 449.0 478.5 514.0 526.5 527.0Maritime - integral reefer20ft 425.0 342.7 366.7 322.5 263.7 265.8 202.540ft 206.0 161.0 131.8 97.8 65.0 51.2 26.540ft high cube 1,459.0 1,360.8 1,546.0 1,760.2 1,607.3 1,781.5 1,518.0Subtotal 2,090.0 1,864.5 2,044.5 2,180.5 1,936.0 2,098.5 1,747.0Maritime - tank (liquid bulk)Subtotal 1,131.0 1,162.5 1,364.5 1,667.0 1,427.0 1,469.0 1,062.5Regional - 8ft 6in widthUS domestic - 48ft 199.4 168.0 159.8 130.0 75.0 36.3 6.8US domestic - 53ft 105.8 129.5 153.7 152.5 130.5 130.0 119.2Subtotal 305.2 297.5 313.5 282.5 205.5 166.3 126.0Regional - 2.5m widthConventional pallet-wide 35.8 49.5 68.0 84.5 94.3 109.5 108.5Swapbody - 20-25ft (6-8m) 79.0 82.5 103.8 109.0 108.5 117.3 108.2Swapbody - 40-45ft (12-14m) 16.5 15.0 17.2 8.5 6.0 4.7 3.0Swap-tank (liquid bulk) 112.5 109.0 119.5 135.5 93.7 96.2 69.3Subtotal 243.8 256.0 308.5 337.5 302.5 327.7 289.0Total - maritime 10,849.5 11,243.5 11,692.5 12,908.5 13,048.5 12,994.5 12,394.5Total - regional 549.0 553.5 622.0 620.0 508.0 494.0 415.0Grand total 11,398.5 11,797.0 12,314.5 13,528.5 13,556.5 13,488.5 12,809.5Total - 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

TEU % UNIT % CEU* % COST** %MaritimeStandard - 20ft 3,206.0 29.3 3,206.0 44.7 3,206.0 24.7 6,252.0 24.7Standard - 40ft 2,201.0 20.1 1,100.5 15.3 1,761.0 13.6 3,434.0 13.6Standard - 40ft high cube 4,529.0 41.4 2,264.5 31.6 3,849.5 29.6 7,506.5 29.6Standard - 45ft high cube 84.0 0.8 37.5 0.5 84.0 0.6 163.7 0.6Cellular pallet-wide 73.0 0.7 43.0 0.6 92.0 0.7 179.5 0.7Open-top 129.0 1.2 81.5 1.1 177.5 1.4 346.0 1.4Collapsible flatrack 120.5 1.1 68.7 1.0 218.5 1.7 426.0 1.7Other special*** 11.5 0.1 9.3 0.1 38.5 0.3 75.0 0.3Integral reefer - 20ft 38.5 0.3 38.5 0.5 265.8 2.0 518.5 2.0Integral reefer - 40ft 12.0 0.1 6.0 0.1 51.2 0.4 99.8 0.4Integral reefer - 40ft high cube 414.0 3.8 207.0 2.9 1,781.5 13.7 3,474.0 13.7Tank (liquid bulk) 117.5 1.1 117.0 1.6 1,469.0 11.3 2,864.5 11.3Subtotal 10,936.0 100.0 7,179.5 100.0 12,994.5 100.0 25,339.5 100.0RegionalUS domestic (8ft 6in width) 89.0 42.3 34.5 29.4 166.3 33.6 324.5 33.6Conventional pallet-wide (2.5m width) 69.5 33.0 40.5 34.5 109.5 22.2 213.5 22.2Swapbody (2.5m width) 44.2 21.0 36.0 30.6 122.0 24.7 238.0 24.7Swap-tank (2.5m width) 7.8 3.7 6.5 5.5 96.2 19.5 187.5 19.5Subtotal 210.5 100.0 117.5 100.0 494.0 100.0 963.5 100.0Grand 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 2010Maritime - dry freight standardStandard - 20ft 380.0 280.0 425.0 580.0 535.0 50.0 275.0Standard - 40ft 260.0 145.0 275.0 140.0 160.0 15.0 75.0Standard - 40ft high cube 654.0 385.0 445.0 725.0 463.0 67.0 655.0Standard - 45ft high cube 3.0 5.0 4.0 8.0 12.5 2.5 12.0Subtotal 1,297.0 815.0 1,149.0 1,453.0 1,170.5 134.5 1,017.0Maritime - dry freight specialCellular pallet-wide 7.5 4.5 4.5 8.0 7.0 9.5 7.5Open-top 2.5 1.0 5.0 13.0 11.0 14.0 9.0Flatrack and platform 4.0 9.0 8.0 15.0 17.0 9.5 8.0Other* 2.0 1.5 - - 1.5 1.5 0.5Subtotal 16.0 16.0 17.5 36.0 36.5 34.5 25.0Maritime - integral reefer20ft 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.5 3.5 2.0 2.540ft high cube 37.0 33.0 45.5 70.5 62.5 51.0 87.5Subtotal 40.0 36.0 50.5 76.0 66.0 53.0 90.0Maritime - tank (liquid bulk)Subtotal 6.5 8.0 7.5 10.0 10.0 6.0 7.0Regional - 8ft 6in width (US domestic)Subtotal 14.5 11.0 8.0 10.0 - - -Regional - 2.5m widthConventional pallet-wide 8.5 10.5 11.0 8.5 10.5 8.5 7.0Swapbody/swap-tank 2.5 3.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 3.5 4.0Subtotal 11.0 14.0 17.5 15.0 17.0 12.0 11.0Total - maritime 1,359.5 875.0 1,224.5 1,575.0 1,283.0 228.0 1,139.0Total - regional 25.5 25.0 25.5 25.0 17.0 12.0 11.0Grand 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 2010Maritime - dry freight standard20ft 380.0 280.0 425.0 580.0 535.0 50.0 275.040ft 208.0 116.0 220.0 112.0 128.0 12.0 60.040ft high cube 556.0 327.5 378.0 616.5 393.5 57.0 557.045ft high cube 3.0 5.0 4.0 8.0 12.5 2.5 12.0Subtotal 1,147.0 728.5 1,027.0 1,316.5 1,069.0 121.5 904.0Maritime - dry freight specialCellular pallet-wide 9.4 5.6 5.8 10.2 9.0 12.0 9.0Open-top 3.6 1.5 6.7 17.3 14.8 19.3 13.0Flatrack and platform 7.0 16.0 14.0 26.0 31.2 17.4 14.0Other** 5.0 3.4 - - 4.0 3.8 1.0Subtotal 25.0 26.5 26.5 53.5 59.0 52.5 37.0Maritime - integral reefer20ft 24.0 20.5 38.5 41.2 22.0 13.8 13.340ft highcube 185.0 142.0 218.5 331.3 250.0 219.2 288.7Subtotal 209.0 162.5 257.0 372.5 272.0 233.0 302.0Maritime - tank (liquid bulk)Subtotal 81.5 96.0 101.5 155.0 125.0 75.0 63.0Regional - 8ft 6in width (US domestic)Subtotal 30.5 21.0 16.0 19.5 - - -Regional - 2.5m widthConventional pallet-wide 13.2 15.0 18.2 15.0 15.0 12.3 10.0Swapbody/swap-tank 16.3 13.5 22.8 24.0 26.0 19.2 16.5Subtotal 29.5 28.5 41.0 39.0 41.0 31.5 26.5Total - maritime 1,462.5 1,013.5 1,412.0 1,897.5 1,525.0 482.0 1,306.0Total - regional 60.0 49.5 57.0 58.5 41.0 31.5 26.5Grand total 1,522.5 1,063.0 1,469.0 1,956.0 1,566.0 513.5 1,332.5Total - 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 UNITFLEETS IN THOUSANDS, COST IS USD MILLION

TEU % UNIT % CEU* % COST** %MaritimeStandard - 20ft 50.0 21.9 50.0 34.3 50.0 10.4 97.5 10.4Standard - 40ft 15.0 6.6 7.5 5.1 12.0 2.5 23.5 2.5Standard - 40ft high cube 67.0 29.4 33.5 22.9 57.0 11.8 111.2 11.8Standard - 45ft high cube 2.5 1.1 1.1 0.8 2.5 0.5 5.0 0.5Cellular pallet-wide 9.5 4.2 5.0 3.4 12.0 2.5 23.4 2.5Open-top 14.0 6.1 8.8 6.0 19.3 4.0 37.5 4.0Collapsible flatrack 9.5 4.2 5.5 3.8 17.4 3.6 34.0 3.6Bulk/silo 1.5 0.7 1.1 0.8 3.8 0.8 7.4 0.8Integral reefer 53.0 23.2 27.5 18.8 233.0 48.3 454.5 48.3Tank (liquid bulk) 6.0 2.6 6.0 4.1 75.0 15.6 146.0 15.6Subtotal 228.0 100.0 146.0 100.0 482.0 100.0 940.0 100.0RegionalConventional pallet-wide (2.5m width) 8.5 70.8 4.0 57.1 12.3 39.0 24.0 39.0Swapbody/swap-tank (2.5m width) 3.5 29.2 3.0 42.9 19.2 61.0 37.5 61.0Subtotal 12.0 100.0 7.0 100.0 31.5 100.0 61.5 100.0Grand 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

MID-2003 MID-2004 MID-2005 MID-2006 MID-2007 MID-2008 MID-2009Maritime - dry freight standard20ft 48.1 48.0 46.8 45.1 45.4 43.5 43.040ft 50.1 48.6 46.5 43.6 40.7 38.6 37.840ft high cube 57.7 58.1 56.0 52.7 50.3 46.6 46.045ft high cube 20.3 19.8 19.0 18.0 17.6 19.5 20.3Maritime - dry freight specialCellular pallet-wide 61.7 63.0 58.0 51.8 52.0 50.1 48.5Open-top 54.2 51.6 49.1 47.1 44.7 43.4 43.4Collapsible flatrack 55.9 54.2 54.2 51.9 52.7 51.4 47.9Fixed-end flatrack and platform 6.3 4.5 3.9 3.5 3.5 2.7 3.2Other* 9.4 8.6 6.9 4.9 3.9 4.0 4.9Maritime - integral reefer20ft 36.2 34.6 32.1 30.2 27.8 26.7 25.840ft 45.5 43.7 45.3 44.2 43.0 42.0 35.740ft high cube 32.0 33.2 31.7 29.3 30.2 28.0 27.6Maritime - tank (liquid bulk)20ft (and 30ft) 55.9 55.4 56.3 56.0 55.8 56.7 56.9Regional - all typesUS domestic (8ft 6in width) 36.9 36.3 36.4 34.2 30.7 23.1 18.8Conventional pallet-wide (2.5m width) 13.4 14.5 17.9 20.1 21.3 23.3 25.5Swapbody/swap-tank (2.5m width) 14.0 13.7 13.9 15.2 14.7 14.8 15.2Maritime - dry freight standard 51.0 50.9 49.4 46.9 45.5 43.1 42.6Maritime - dry freight special 41.2 39.8 37.8 35.5 35.6 35.4 35.1Maritime - integral reefer 34.1 34.2 32.7 30.1 30.3 28.2 27.6Maritime - total 49.5 49.3 47.9 45.5 44.3 42.0 41.5Regional - total 23.9 23.6 24.4 24.5 23.2 20.5 19.3Grand 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 reviewThe operational outlook for the lease industry vastly improved in2010, with utilisation, rental rates and cash returns all rising fast –and overheads falling. This has been a consequence of the strongrecovery in demand, and a shipping industry still short of funds forinvestment. Equipment prices are at a 20-year high as well, bringinga 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 unitNewbuild Ex-factory Initial cash Newbuild Ex-factory Initial cash Newbuild Ex-factory Initial cashLTL – per price investment LTL – per price investment LTL – per return investment

diem return diem return diem returnUSD USD % USD USD % USD USD %

1990 1.80 2,700 24.3 2.90 4,350 24.3 3.10 4,600 24.61991 1.75 2,700 23.7 2.80 4,300 23.8 3.00 4,600 23.81992 1.45 2,350 22.6 2.30 3,750 22.4 2.50 4,000 22.91993 1.30 2,200 21.6 2.05 3,500 21.4 2.20 3,750 21.41994 1.35 2,300 21.4 2.15 3,700 21.2 2.30 3,900 21.51995 1.35 2,400 20.5 2.15 3,850 20.4 2.30 4,075 20.61996 1.10 2,100 19.2 1.75 3,350 19.1 1.85 3,550 19.11997 0.95 1,850 18.7 1.50 2,950 18.6 1.60 3,125 18.71998 0.85 1,700 18.3 1.35 2,720 18.1 1.45 2,850 18.61999 0.70 1,400 18.3 1.15 2,250 18.7 1.20 2,350 18.62000 0.75 1,500 18.3 1.20 2,400 18.3 1.30 2,520 18.92001 0.70 1,450 17.6 1.10 2,320 17.3 1.20 2,450 17.92002 0.60 1,350 16.2 0.95 2,160 16.1 1.00 2,275 16.02003 0.60 1,400 15.6 0.95 2,240 15.5 1.00 2,350 15.52004 0.80 1,850 15.8 1.25 2,960 15.5 1.35 3,150 15.72005 0.85 2,100 14.8 1.35 3,360 14.7 1.45 3,550 14.92006 0.65 1,850 12.8 1.05 2,960 12.9 1.10 3,150 12.72007 0.65 1,950 12.2 1.05 3,120 12.3 1.10 3,300 12.22008 0.75 2,350 11.7 1.20 3,760 11.7 1.25 4,000 11.42009 0.65 1,950 12.2 1.05 3,120 12.3 1.10 3,300 12.22010 0.95 2,500 13.9 1.55 4,000 14.1 1.65 4,250 14.2LTL = 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 unitNewbuild 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 investmentdiem return diem return diem returnUSD USD % USD USD % USD USD %

1990 2.25 2,700 30.4 3.65 4,350 30.6 3.85 4,600 30.51991 2.20 2,700 29.7 3.50 4,300 29.7 3.75 4,600 29.81992 1.80 2,350 28.0 2.85 3,750 27.8 3.10 4,000 28.41993 1.65 2,200 27.4 2.60 3,500 27.1 2.80 3,750 27.31994 1.70 2,300 27.0 2.70 3,700 26.6 2.90 3,900 27.11995 1.70 2,400 25.9 2.70 3,850 25.6 2.90 4,075 26.01996 1.40 2,100 24.4 2.25 3,350 24.6 2.40 3,550 24.71997 1.25 1,850 24.7 2.00 2,950 24.7 2.15 3,125 25.11998 1.20 1,700 25.8 1.90 2,720 25.5 2.05 2,850 26.31999 1.15 1,400 30.0 1.85 2,250 30.0 1.95 2,350 30.32000 1.15 1,500 28.1 1.85 2,400 28.2 1.95 2,520 28.32001 1.10 1,450 27.7 1.75 2,320 27.5 1.90 2,450 28.32002 1.05 1,350 28.4 1.65 2,160 27.9 1.80 2,275 28.92003 1.05 1,400 27.4 1.65 2,240 26.9 1.80 2,350 28.02004 1.20 1,850 23.7 1.90 2,960 23.5 2.05 3,150 23.82005 1.20 2,100 20.9 1.90 3,360 20.6 2.00 3,550 20.62006 1.10 1,850 21.7 1.75 2,960 21.6 1.85 3,150 21.42007 1.10 1,950 20.6 1.75 3,120 20.5 1.85 3,300 20.52008 1.20 2,350 18.7 1.90 3,760 18.5 2.05 4,000 18.82009 0.90 1,950 16.8 1.45 3,120 17.0 1.50 3,300 16.62010 1.20 2,500 17.5 1.90 4,000 17.3 2.05 4,250 17.6MLA = 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 revenuerate per utilised CEU utilisation rate generated per CEU

LTL MLA LTL MLA LTL MLA1990 1.55 1.95 98 85 554.4 605.01991 1.55 1.95 98 85 554.4 605.01992 1.45 1.80 95 80 504.2 527.01993 1.30 1.65 96 75 455.5 451.71994 1.22 1.63 98 81 436.4 481.91995 1.20 1.65 98 77 429.2 463.71996 1.15 1.40 97 71 408.3 363.81997 1.07 1.25 97 72 378.8 328.51998 1.00 1.23 97 68 354.1 305.31999 0.85 1.20 98 63 304.0 275.92000 0.75 1.17 97 69 266.3 295.52001 0.73 1.10 95 56 253.1 224.82002 0.68 0.90 97 65 240.8 213.52003 0.65 0.88 98 75 232.5 240.92004 0.65 0.88 98 82 233.1 264.12005 0.67 0.87 95 82 232.3 260.42006 0.67 0.83 97 82 237.2 248.42007 0.67 0.80 97 82 237.2 239.42008 0.67 0.80 97 81 237.9 237.22009 0.65 0.80 94 67 223.0 195.6LTL = 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 % Totallease* agreement**

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


Maritime - tankMid-1994 29.9 64.3 10.6 22.8 6.0 12.9 46.5Mid-1995 32.8 64.9 12.4 24.6 5.3 10.5 50.5Mid-1996 36.3 62.6 14.0 24.1 7.7 13.3 58.0Mid-1997 41.4 63.7 14.6 22.5 9.0 13.8 65.0Mid-1998 44.1 60.8 17.0 23.5 11.4 15.7 72.5Mid-1999 45.6 59.6 17.3 22.6 13.6 17.8 76.5Mid-2000 45.2 57.6 19.4 24.7 13.9 17.7 78.5Mid-2001 43.9 54.9 21.1 26.4 15.0 18.7 80.0Mid-2002 46.0 55.4 24.0 28.9 13.0 15.7 83.0Mid-2003 49.6 57.0 26.4 30.4 11.0 12.6 87.0Mid-2004 54.3 60.0 26.7 29.5 9.5 10.5 90.5Mid-2005 61.3 63.2 27.7 28.6 8.0 8.2 97.0Mid-2006 65.1 64.5 26.9 26.6 9.0 8.9 101.0Mid-2007 69.4 64.6 28.7 26.7 9.4 8.7 107.5Mid-2008 74.2 65.1 29.8 26.1 10.0 8.8 114.0Mid-2009 75.9 64.6 28.1 23.9 13.5 11.5 117.5Regional*** - all typesMid-1994 84.7 78.1 12.9 11.9 10.9 10.0 108.5Mid-1995 101.8 77.1 13.4 10.2 16.8 12.7 132.0Mid-1996 103.3 74.6 16.2 11.7 19.0 13.7 138.5Mid-1997 106.4 70.9 23.7 15.8 19.9 13.3 150.0Mid-1998 117.4 70.7 30.4 18.3 18.2 11.0 166.0Mid-1999 125.1 70.3 33.5 18.8 19.4 10.9 178.0Mid-2000 123.8 69.9 34.3 19.4 18.9 10.7 177.0Mid-2001 117.0 66.3 39.4 22.3 20.1 11.4 176.5Mid-2002 113.3 63.8 44.7 25.2 19.5 11.0 177.5Mid-2003 132.5 65.6 51.7 25.6 17.8 8.8 202.0Mid-2004 138.5 65.2 57.0 26.8 17.0 8.0 212.5Mid-2005 157.3 66.6 60.4 25.6 18.3 7.8 236.0Mid-2006 165.4 65.8 69.8 27.7 16.3 6.5 251.5Mid-2007 170.9 68.5 62.9 25.2 15.7 6.3 249.5Mid-2008 155.9 69.0 55.0 24.3 15.1 6.7 226.0Mid-2009 151.4 71.9 37.4 17.8 21.7 10.3 210.5* = 3-10 years duration ** = up to three-year duration*** = 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


Mid-1994 1,456.0 36.9 1,973.0 50.0 519.0 13.1 3,948.0Mid-1995 1,777.5 40.3 1,979.0 44.9 654.0 14.8 4,410.5Mid-1996 2,281.0 45.4 1,902.5 37.8 846.0 16.8 5,029.5Mid-1997 2,587.0 46.8 2,055.0 37.2 885.0 16.0 5,527.0Mid-1998 2,797.5 46.9 2,090.0 35.1 1,075.0 18.0 5,962.5Mid-1999 3,111.0 48.3 2,063.0 32.0 1,269.0 19.7 6,443.0Mid-2000 3,594.5 50.7 2,346.0 33.1 1,152.0 16.2 7,092.5Mid-2001 3,887.0 52.8 1,867.0 25.4 1,602.0 21.8 7,356.0Mid-2002 4,406.5 56.8 2,121.0 27.4 1,229.0 15.8 7,756.5Mid-2003 5,104.0 60.7 2,411.0 28.6 900.0 10.7 8,415.0Mid-2004 5,888.0 64.6 2,542.0 27.9 685.0 7.5 9,115.0Mid-2005 6,562.5 66.7 2,421.0 24.6 854.0 8.7 9,837.5Mid-2006 6,901.5 69.6 2,303.0 23.2 709.5 7.2 9,914.0Mid-2007 7,662.5 71.0 2,382.0 22.1 745.0 6.9 10,789.5Mid-2008 8,465.0 73.9 2,206.0 19.2 790.0 6.9 11,461.0Mid-2009 8,204.0 73.6 1,637.5 14.7 1,305.0 11.7 11,146.5

* = 3-10 years duration ** = up to three-year duration

TABLE 26:

TOTAL GLOBAL CONTAINER FLEET ON OPERATING LEASE BY RENTAL AGREEMENT TYPE, CALCULATED AS CEU* (X 1000), FOR 1994-2009

Long-term % Master lease % Off-hire % Totallease** agreement***

Mid-1994 2,478.0 47.4 2,066.0 39.5 681.5 13.1 5,225.5Mid-1995 2,876.5 49.3 2,147.5 36.8 810.0 13.9 5,834.0Mid-1996 3,463.5 51.8 2,171.0 32.4 1,056.0 15.8 6,690.5Mid-1997 3,831.0 52.2 2,371.0 32.3 1,137.5 15.5 7,339.5Mid-1998 4,083.5 51.5 2,503.5 31.6 1,341.5 16.9 7,928.5Mid-1999 4,609.5 52.0 2,656.0 29.9 1,602.0 18.1 8,867.5Mid-2000 5,052.0 53.0 3,013.5 31.6 1,462.5 15.4 9,528.0Mid-2001 5,279.5 54.0 2,635.5 26.9 1,864.5 19.1 9,779.5Mid-2002 5,871.5 56.5 3,034.5 29.2 1,489.0 14.3 10,395.0Mid-2003 6,715.5 59.9 3,365.5 30.0 1,133.5 10.1 11,214.5Mid-2004 7,221.0 63.3 3,291.5 28.9 886.0 7.8 11,398.5Mid-2005 7,737.0 65.6 3,068.0 26.0 992.0 8.4 11,797.0Mid-2006 8,399.5 68.2 3,009.5 24.4 905.5 7.4 12,314.5Mid-2007 9,436.5 69.8 3,126.0 23.1 966.0 7.1 13,528.5Mid-2008 9,816.0 72.4 2,776.5 20.5 964.0 7.1 13,556.5Mid-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** % Total1994 1,105.0 49.3 1,135.0 50.7 2,240.01995 1,265.0 52.0 1,170.0 48.0 2,435.01996 1,465.0 59.3 1,005.0 40.7 2,470.01997 1,520.0 60.7 985.0 39.3 2,505.01998 1,495.0 60.3 985.0 39.7 2,480.01999 1,415.0 59.6 960.0 40.4 2,375.02000 1,460.0 57.5 1,080.0 42.5 2,540.02001 1,460.0 62.9 860.0 37.1 2,320.02002 1,495.0 64.3 830.0 35.7 2,325.02003 1,600.0 63.4 925.0 36.6 2,525.02004 1,795.0 65.2 960.0 34.8 2,755.02005 1,990.0 68.5 915.0 31.5 2,905.02006 2,080.0 71.6 825.0 28.4 2,905.02007 2,280.0 73.3 830.0 26.7 3,110.02008 2,535.0 76.6 775.0 23.4 3,310.02009 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 445.9 549.4 493.0 428.71995 439.8 544.8 484.7 417.41996 423.0 462.9 438.4 369.21997 396.8 415.4 403.9 341.31998 366.1 393.4 376.5 312.81999 307.0 361.4 326.9 267.82000 289.0 358.4 314.9 266.62001 276.5 326.3 293.1 237.22002 254.6 273.5 261.1 223.72003 238.3 274.8 250.5 225.22004 248.6 291.7 262.1 241.72005 257.2 298.2 268.9 246.22006 247.6 274.1 254.6 235.92007 241.6 265.5 247.6 229.92008 258.3 279.1 262.9 244.22009 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 unitOriginal year Averaged age Original newbuild Calculated Original newbuild Calculated Original newbuild Calculatedof 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 4,6002009 1.0 1,950 1,835 3,120 2,935 3,300 3,1002008 2.0 2,350 2,070 3,760 3,310 4,000 3,5202007 3.0 1,950 1,600 3,120 2,560 3,300 2,7052006 4.0 1,850 1,405 2,960 2,250 3,150 2,3952005 5.0 2,100 1,470 3,360 2,350 3,550 2,4852004 6.0 1,850 1,185 2,960 1,895 3,150 2,0152003 7.0 1,400 810 2,240 1,300 2,350 1,3652002 8.0 1,350 700 2,160 1,125 2,275 1,1852001 9.0 1,450 665 2,320 1,065 2,440 1,1202000 10.0 1,500 600 2,400 960 2,520 1,0101999 11.0 1,400 475 2,250 765 2,350 8001998 12.0 1,700 475 2,720 760 2,850 8001997 13.0 1,850 405 2,950 650 3,125 6901996 14.0 2,100 335 3,350 535 3,550 5701995 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 unitOriginal year Averaged age Averaged % of ex-factory Averaged % of ex-factory Averaged % of ex-factoryof 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 4,600 100.02009 1.0 2,510 93.0 4,010 92.8 4,280 93.02008 2.0 2,320 85.9 3,700 85.6 3,960 86.12007 3.0 2,130 78.9 3,395 78.6 3,640 79.12006 4.0 1,945 72.0 3,090 71.5 3,320 72.22005 5.0 1,760 65.2 2,790 64.6 3,005 65.32004 6.0 1,575 58.3 2,495 57.8 2,690 58.52003 7.0 1,400 51.9 2,200 50.9 2,385 51.82002 8.0 1,255 46.5 1,920 44.4 2,095 45.52001 9.0 1,150 42.6 1,670 38.7 1,885 41.02000 10.0 1,100 40.7 1,500 34.7 1,710 37.21999 11.0 1,060 39.3 1,380 31.9 1,580 34.31998 12.0 1,020 37.8 1,320 30.6 1,520 33.01997 13.0 985 36.5 1,255 29.1 1,450 31.51996 14.0 945 35.0 1,180 27.3 1,365 29.71995 15.0 905 33.5 1,090 25.2 1,265 27.5Scrap - 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 cubeEnd-1995 1,000 1,550 1,640End-1996 875 1,370 1,420End-1997 800 1,220 1,280End-1998 750 1,160 1,220End-1999 700 1,120 1,160End-2000 680 1,050 1,080End-2001 570 870 900End-2002 620 850 880End-2003 660 920 950End-2004 900 1,100 1,150End-2005 750 930 950End-2006 920 1,120 1,170End-2007 930 1,100 1,150End-2008 1,000 1,280 1,450End-2009 880 1,150 1,280Mid-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 reviewAlthough the global container leasing industry is certain to purchasethe majority (up to 60%) of TEU built in 2010, this will hardly do muchto reverse the long-term erosion in its market share. To influence thelatter, the sector would have buy in this proportion for much of thenext decade. Instead, shipping line investment is expected toreassert its dominance once normal business is resumed

TABLE 32:

CALCULATED AVERAGE AGE IN YEARS OF GLOBAL CONTAINER TEU FLEET BY OWNER CATEGORY FOR 1994-2009Leasing 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 originalcompany company operator* total % production**

2009 240 2.2 130 0.9 80 5.1 450 1.7 4302008 1,320 12.1 1,775 12.2 155 9.8 3,250 12.0 3,2502007 1,690 15.4 2,340 16.1 220 14.0 4,250 15.7 4,2502006 1,245 11.4 1,715 11.8 140 8.9 3,100 11.4 3,1002005 915 8.4 1,565 10.8 120 7.6 2,600 9.6 2,6002004 1,330 12.1 1,485 10.2 145 9.2 2,960 10.9 2,9602003 960 8.8 1,330 9.1 95 6.0 2,385 8.8 2,4002002 810 7.4 800 5.5 110 7.0 1,720 6.4 1,7402001 420 3.8 705 4.8 110 7.0 1,235 4.6 1,2802000 695 6.3 1,015 7.0 145 9.2 1,855 6.8 1,9301999 475 4.3 665 4.6 115 7.3 1,255 4.6 1,5401998 385 3.5 545 3.7 105 6.7 1,035 3.8 1,480Pre-1998 475 4.3 480 3.3 35 2.2 990 3.7 17,385Total 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 1990-2009AND PROJECTED 2010-15

Fleet addition %* Fleet Replaced %* Total output End-year fleet sizeHistoric profilepre-1990 2,585,000 - 1,080,000 - 3,665,000 2,585,0001990 170,000 6.6 145,000 5.6 315,000 2,755,0001991 275,000 10.0 155,000 5.6 430,000 3,030,0001992 450,000 14.9 160,000 5.3 610,000 3,480,0001993 160,000 4.6 225,000 6.5 385,000 3,640,0001994 490,000 13.5 200,000 5.5 690,000 4,130,0001995 430,000 10.4 220,000 5.3 650,000 4,560,0001996 580,000 12.7 235,000 5.2 815,000 5,140,0001997 580,000 11.3 295,000 5.7 875,000 5,720,0001998 470,000 8.2 285,000 5.0 755,000 6,190,0001999 535,000 8.6 250,000 4.0 785,000 6,725,0002000 570,000 8.5 260,000 3.9 830,000 7,295,0002001 120,000 1.6 305,000 4.2 425,000 7,415,0002002 595,000 8.0 370,000 5.0 965,000 8,010,0002003 705,000 8.8 375,000 4.7 1,080,000 8,715,0002004 740,000 8.5 495,000 5.7 1,235,000 9,455,0002005 295,000 3.1 525,000 5.6 820,000 9,750,0002006 545,000 5.6 520,000 5.3 1,065,000 10,295,0002007 1,080,000 10.5 610,000 5.9 1,690,000 11,375,0002008 170,000 1.5 585,000 5.1 755,000 11,545,0002009 -585,000 -5.1 685,000 5.9 100,000 10,960,000Projected profile2010 650,000 5.9 620,000 5.7 1,270,000 11,610,0002011 1,020,000 8.8 630,000 5.4 1,650,000 12,630,0002012 1,300,000 10.3 660,000 5.2 1,960,000 13,930,0002013 1,150,000 8.3 550,000 3.9 1,700,000 15,080,0002014 1,200,000 8.0 780,000 5.2 1,980,000 16,280,0002015 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 sizeHistoric profilepre-1990 3,375,000 - 1,195,000 - 4,570,000 3,375,0001990 245,000 7.3 245,000 7.3 490,000 3,620,0001991 255,000 7.0 235,000 6.5 490,000 3,875,0001992 275,000 7.1 250,000 6.5 525,000 4,150,0001993 320,000 7.7 270,000 6.5 590,000 4,470,0001994 200,000 4.5 260,000 5.8 460,000 4,670,0001995 500,000 10.7 245,000 5.2 745,000 5,170,0001996 240,000 4.6 235,000 4.5 475,000 5,410,0001997 355,000 6.6 250,000 4.6 605,000 5,765,0001998 490,000 8.5 235,000 4.1 725,000 6,255,0001999 490,000 7.8 265,000 4.2 755,000 6,745,0002000 835,000 12.4 265,000 3.9 1,100,000 7,580,0002001 535,000 7.1 320,000 4.2 855,000 8,115,0002002 435,000 5.4 340,000 4.2 775,000 8,550,0002003 820,000 9.6 500,000 5.8 1,320,000 9,370,0002004 1,140,000 12.2 585,000 6.2 1,725,000 10,510,0002005 1,155,000 11.0 625,000 5.9 1,780,000 11,665,0002006 1,375,000 11.8 660,000 5.7 2,035,000 13,040,0002007 1,820,000 14.0 740,000 5.7 2,560,000 14,860,0002008 1,730,000 11.6 765,000 5.1 2,495,000 16,590,0002009 -465,000 -2.8 815,000 4.9 350,000 16,125,000Projected profile2010 -100,000 -0.6 830,000 5.1 730,000 16,025,0002011 830,000 5.2 920,000 5.7 1,750,000 16,855,0002012 1,400,000 8.3 940,000 5.6 2,340,000 18,255,0002013 1,600,000 8.8 1,100,000 6.0 2,700,000 19,855,0002014 1,500,000 7.6 1,020,000 5.1 2,520,000 21,355,0002015 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 sizeHistoric profilepre-1990 5,960,000 - 2,275,000 - 8,235,000 5,960,0001990 415,000 7.0 390,000 6.5 805,000 6,375,0001991 530,000 8.3 390,000 6.1 920,000 6,905,0001992 725,000 10.5 410,000 5.9 1,135,000 7,630,0001993 480,000 6.3 495,000 6.5 975,000 8,110,0001994 690,000 8.5 460,000 5.7 1,150,000 8,800,0001995 930,000 10.6 465,000 5.3 1,395,000 9,730,0001996 820,000 8.4 470,000 4.8 1,290,000 10,550,0001997 935,000 8.9 545,000 5.2 1,480,000 11,485,0001998 960,000 8.4 520,000 4.5 1,480,000 12,445,0001999 1,025,000 8.2 515,000 4.1 1,540,000 13,470,0002000 1,405,000 10.4 525,000 3.9 1,930,000 14,875,0002001 655,000 4.4 625,000 4.2 1,280,000 15,530,0002002 1,030,000 6.6 710,000 4.6 1,740,000 16,560,0002003 1,525,000 9.2 875,000 5.3 2,400,000 18,085,0002004 1,880,000 10.4 1,080,000 6.0 2,960,000 19,965,0002005 1,450,000 7.3 1,150,000 5.8 2,600,000 21,415,0002006 1,920,000 9.0 1,180,000 5.5 3,100,000 23,335,0002007 2,900,000 12.4 1,350,000 5.8 4,250,000 26,235,0002008 1,900,000 7.2 1,350,000 5.1 3,250,000 28,135,0002009 -1,050,000 -3.7 1,500,000 5.3 450,000 27,085,000Projected profile2010 550,000 2.0 1,450,000 5.4 2,000,000 27,635,0002011 1,850,000 6.7 1,550,000 5.6 3,400,000 29,485,0002012 2,700,000 9.2 1,600,000 5.4 4,300,000 32,185,0002013 2,750,000 8.5 1,650,000 5.1 4,400,000 34,935,0002014 2,700,000 7.7 1,800,000 5.2 4,500,000 37,635,0002015 3,000,000 8.0 2,000,000 5.3 5,000,000 40,635,000* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size

fleet change review


TABLE 37:

OCEAN-BORNE CONTAINER TEU DEPLOYMENT FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15, GIVING SPLIT BY OWNERCATEGORY 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 operatingfleet* fleet* increase increase ratio

increase increase (%)** (%)**(%)** (%)**

Historic profileEnd-1989 2,535 3,030 5,565 3,050 1.821990 addition 160 6.3 240 7.9 400 7.2 160 5.2End-1990 2,695 3,270 5,965 3,210 1.861991 addition 265 9.8 240 7.3 505 8.5 215 6.7End-1991 2,960 3,510 6,470 3,425 1.891992 addition 440 14.9 265 7.5 705 10.9 235 6.9End-1992 3,400 3,775 7,175 3,660 1.961993 addition 135 4.0 300 7.9 435 6.1 115 3.1End-1993 3,535 4,075 7,610 3,775 2.021994 addition 465 13.2 180 4.4 645 8.5 385 10.2End-1994 4,000 4,255 8,255 4,160 1.981995 addition 405 10.1 480 11.3 885 10.7 300 7.2End-1995 4,405 4,735 9,140 4,460 2.051996 addition 570 12.9 195 4.1 765 8.4 500 11.2End-1996 4,975 4,930 9,905 4,960 2.001997 addition 575 11.6 255 5.2 830 8.4 515 10.4End-1997 5,550 5,185 10,735 5,475 1.961998 addition 450 8.1 380 7.3 830 7.7 405 7.4End-1998 6,000 5,565 11,565 5,880 1.971999 addition 530 8.8 405 7.3 935 8.1 170 2.9End-1999 6,530 5,970 12,500 6,050 2.072000 addition 565 8.7 740 12.4 1,305 10.4 600 9.9End-2000 7,095 6,710 13,805 6,650 2.082001 addition 115 1.6 440 6.6 555 4.0 710 10.7End-2001 7,210 7,150 14,360 7,360 1.952002 addition 590 8.2 380 5.3 970 6.8 575 7.8End-2002 7,800 7,530 15,330 7,935 1.932003 addition 675 8.7 770 10.2 1,445 9.4 485 6.1End-2003 8,475 8,300 16,775 8,420 1.992004 addition 730 8.6 1,075 13.0 1,805 10.8 680 8.1End-2004 9,205 9,375 18,580 9,100 2.042005 addition 275 3.0 1,080 11.5 1,355 7.3 875 9.6End-2005 9,480 10,455 19,935 9,975 2.002006 addition 535 5.6 1,290 12.3 1,825 9.2 1,405 14.1End-2006 10,015 11,745 21,760 11,380 1.912007 addition 1,075 10.7 1,720 14.6 2,795 12.8 1,345 11.8End-2007 11,090 13,465 24,555 12,725 1.932008 addition 200 1.8 1,630 12.1 1,830 7.5 1,375 10.8End-2008 11,290 15,095 26,385 14,100 1.872009 addition -570 -5.0 -475 -3.1 -1,045 -4.0 900 6.4End-2009 10,720 14,620 25,340 15,000 1.69Projected profile2010 addition 665 6.2 -145 -1.0 520 2.1 500 3.3End-2010 11,385 14,475 25,860 15,500 1.672011 addition 1,035 9.1 765 5.3 1,800 7.0 500 3.2End-2011 12,420 15,240 27,660 16,000 1.732012 addition 1,310 10.5 1,300 8.5 2,610 9.4 500 3.1End-2012 13,730 16,540 30,270 16,500 1.832013 addition 1,155 8.4 1,480 8.9 2,635 8.7 1,000 6.1End-2013 14,885 18,020 32,905 17,500 1.882014 addition 1,190 8.0 1,420 7.9 2,610 7.9 1,500 8.6End-2014 16,075 19,440 35,515 19,000 1.872015 addition 1,240 7.7 1,620 8.3 2,860 8.1 1,500 7.9End-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 onprevious year

Historic profilepre-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 6.61991 415,000 45.1 505,000 54.9 920,000 14.31992 610,000 53.7 525,000 46.3 1,135,000 23.41993 395,000 40.5 580,000 59.5 975,000 -14.11994 620,000 53.9 530,000 46.1 1,150,000 17.91995 650,000 46.6 745,000 53.4 1,395,000 21.31996 530,000 41.1 760,000 58.9 1,290,000 -7.51997 830,000 56.1 650,000 43.9 1,480,000 14.71998 755,000 51.0 725,000 49.0 1,480,000 0.01999 815,000 52.9 725,000 47.1 1,540,000 4.12000 910,000 47.2 1,020,000 52.8 1,930,000 25.32001 540,000 42.2 740,000 57.8 1,280,000 -33.72002 985,000 56.6 755,000 43.4 1,740,000 35.92003 1,160,000 48.3 1,240,000 51.7 2,400,000 37.92004 1,385,000 46.8 1,575,000 53.2 2,960,000 23.32005 900,000 34.6 1,700,000 65.4 2,600,000 -12.22006 1,250,000 40.3 1,850,000 59.7 3,100,000 19.22007 1,600,000 37.6 2,650,000 62.4 4,250,000 37.12008 1,300,000 40.0 1,950,000 60.0 3,250,000 -23.52009 240,000 53.3 210,000 46.7 450,000 -86.2Projected profile2010 1,150,000 57.5 850,000 42.5 2,000,000 344.42011 1,650,000 48.5 1,750,000 51.5 3,400,000 70.02012 1,960,000 45.6 2,340,000 54.4 4,300,000 26.52013 1,700,000 38.6 2,700,000 61.4 4,400,000 2.32014 1,980,000 44.0 2,520,000 56.0 4,500,000 2.32015 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 onprevious year

Historic profileEnd-1989 2,585,000 43.4 3,375,000 56.6 5,960,000 7.2End-1990 2,755,000 43.2 3,620,000 56.8 6,375,000 7.0End-1991 3,030,000 43.9 3,875,000 56.1 6,905,000 8.3End-1992 3,480,000 45.6 4,150,000 54.4 7,630,000 10.5End-1993 3,640,000 44.9 4,470,000 55.1 8,110,000 6.3End-1994 4,130,000 46.9 4,670,000 53.1 8,800,000 8.5End-1995 4,560,000 46.9 5,170,000 53.1 9,730,000 10.6End-1996 5,140,000 48.7 5,410,000 51.3 10,550,000 8.4End-1997 5,720,000 49.8 5,765,000 50.2 11,485,000 8.9End-1998 6,190,000 49.7 6,255,000 50.3 12,445,000 8.4End-1999 6,725,000 49.9 6,745,000 50.1 13,470,000 8.2End-2000 7,295,000 49.0 7,580,000 51.0 14,875,000 10.4End-2001 7,415,000 47.7 8,115,000 52.3 15,530,000 4.4End-2002 8,010,000 48.4 8,550,000 51.6 16,560,000 6.6End-2003 8,715,000 48.2 9,370,000 51.8 18,085,000 9.2End-2004 9,455,000 47.4 10,510,000 52.6 19,965,000 10.4End-2005 9,750,000 45.5 11,665,000 54.5 21,415,000 7.3End-2006 10,295,000 44.1 13,040,000 55.9 23,335,000 9.0End-2007 11,375,000 43.4 14,860,000 56.6 26,235,000 12.4End-2008 11,545,000 41.0 16,590,000 59.0 28,135,000 7.2End-2009 10,960,000 40.5 16,125,000 59.5 27,085,000 -3.7Projected profileEnd-2010 11,610,000 42.0 16,025,000 58.0 27,635,000 2.0End-2011 12,630,000 42.8 16,855,000 57.2 29,485,000 6.7End-2012 13,930,000 43.3 18,255,000 56.7 32,185,000 9.2End-2013 15,080,000 43.2 19,855,000 56.8 34,935,000 8.5End-2014 16,280,000 43.3 21,355,000 56.7 37,635,000 7.7End-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 reviewThe reefer lease sector has so far experienced a smoother ride (thandry freight) since the market downturn of late 2008, with companiessuffering less of a drop in 2009, but then a smaller recovery during2010. New prices, rental rates and cash returns have all stayedrelatively flat, although investment has held up strongly for lessorsduring 2009-10, and resulted in sizeable fleet growth for the latteryear

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 unitNewbuild 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 investmentreturn return return

USD USD % USD USD % USD USD %1990 12.00 18,900 23.2 15.80 24,300 23.7 16.50 25,600 23.51991 11.50 18,900 22.2 15.00 24,300 22.5 15.70 25,600 22.41992 11.00 18,800 21.4 14.50 24,500 21.7 15.20 25,600 21.71993 10.80 18,700 21.1 14.00 24,200 21.1 14.75 25,300 21.31994 10.50 19,500 19.7 13.50 25,300 19.5 14.50 26,500 20.01995 10.50 20,400 18.8 13.20 26,400 18.3 14.50 27,600 19.21996 9.50 17,800 19.5 11.60 23,000 18.5 13.00 24,200 19.71997 8.80 15,700 20.5 10.50 20,400 18.8 11.80 21,300 20.21998 8.50 15,300 20.3 9.50 19,000 18.3 10.80 19,500 20.21999 7.70 14,000 20.1 - 17,500 - 9.75 17,700 20.12000 8.00 15,000 19.5 - 19,200 - 10.25 19,200 19.52001 7.30 14,500 18.4 - 18,500 - 9.30 18,500 18.32002 6.50 14,200 16.7 - 17,800 - 8.00 17,800 16.42003 6.50 14,600 16.3 - 18,200 - 8.00 18,200 16.02004 6.40 14,800 15.8 - 18,500 - 7.80 18,500 15.42005 6.00 14,400 15.2 - 18,000 - 7.25 18,000 14.72006 5.60 14,250 14.3 - 17,750 - 6.70 17,750 13.82007 5.50 14,600 13.8 - 18,350 - 6.60 18,350 13.12008 5.20 14,800 12.9 - 18,800 - 6.40 18,800 12.52009 4.70 13,450 12.8 - 16,800 - 5.70 16,800 12.42010 4.70 13,250 12.9 - 16,500 - 5.70 16,500 12.6LTL = long-term lease (averaged five year duration) * = no 40ft standard reefer containers purchased by leasing companies since 1999



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)

20ft standard unit 40ft standard unit* 40ft high cube unitOriginal year Averaged Original newbuild Calculated Original newbuild Calculated Original newbuild Calculatedof build age (years) cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost cost (ex-factory) depreciated cost

USD USD USD USD USD USDMid-2010 newbuild 13,200 13,200 16,500 - 16,500 16,5002009 1.0 13,450 12,510 16,800 - 16,800 15,6252008 2.0 14,800 12,730 18,800 - 18,800 16,1702007 3.0 14,600 11,535 18,350 - 18,350 14,4952006 4.0 14,250 10,260 17,800 - 17,800 12,8152005 5.0 14,400 9,360 18,000 - 18,000 11,7002004 6.0 14,800 8,585 18,500 - 18,500 10,7302003 7.0 14,600 7,445 18,200 - 18,200 9,2802002 8.0 14,200 6,250 17,800 - 17,800 7,8302001 9.0 14,500 5,365 18,500 - 18,500 6,8452000 10.0 15,000 4,500 19,200 - 19,200 5,7601999 11.0 14,000 3,220 17,500 4,025 17,700 4,0701998 12.0 15,300 2,450 19,000 3,040 19,500 3,1201997 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 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 revenueper utilised unit rate (%) per unit*

20ft 40ft 40ft high cube 20ft 40ft 40ft high cube 20ft 40ft 40ft high cube1994 9.90 12.90 13.75 85.5 84.5 92.5 3,089.5 3,978.7 4,642.31995 9.50 12.25 13.25 87.0 85.0 91.5 3,016.7 3,800.6 4,425.21996 9.25 11.95 12.90 83.5 83.0 92.0 2,826.9 3,630.2 4,343.71997 8.95 11.10 12.40 82.0 79.5 93.0 2,678.7 3,220.9 4,209.21998 8.55 10.40 11.75 81.0 77.0 95.0 2,527.8 2,922.9 4,074.31999 7.75 9.75 10.55 80.5 78.0 95.0 2,277.1 2,775.8 3,658.22000 7.35 8.85 10.25 81.5 78.0 96.0 2,192.4 2,526.5 3,601.42001 7.30 8.50 9.75 81.5 78.0 95.5 2,171.6 2,420.0 3,398.62002 6.75 7.95 9.40 85.5 79.5 96.0 2,106.5 2,306.9 3,293.82003 6.50 7.60 8.80 90.5 86.5 95.0 2,147.1 2,399.5 3,051.42004 6.40 6.95 8.25 89.5 85.5 95.0 2,096.4 2,174.9 2,868.52005 6.15 6.75 7.65 91.0 87.0 94.5 2,042.7 2,143.5 2,638.72006 5.70 6.10 7.45 91.5 87.5 93.5 1,903.7 1,948.2 2,542.52007 5.60 6.05 6.90 92.5 86.5 93.0 1,890.7 1,910.1 2,342.22008 5.35 5.70 6.65 92.0 86.5 93.0 1,801.5 1,804.6 2,263.52009 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 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

20ft standard unit 40ft standard unit* 40ft high cube unitOriginal year Averaged Averaged USd % of ex-factory Averaged % of ex-factory Averaged % of ex-factoryof build age (years) resale price price resale price price resale price price

Mid-2010 newbuild 13,200 100.0 16,500 100.0 16,500 100.02009 1.0 12,090 91.6 - - 15,100 91.52008 2.0 11,010 83.4 - - 13,745 83.32007 3.0 9,950 75.4 - - 12,440 75.42006 4.0 8,925 67.6 - - 11,170 67.72005 5.0 7,930 60.1 - - 9,935 60.22004 6.0 7,030 53.3 - - 8,730 52.92003 7.0 6,165 46.7 - - 7,555 45.82002 8.0 5,305 40.2 - - 6,435 39.02001 9.0 4,460 33.8 - - 5,380 32.62000 10.0 3,645 27.6 - - 4,405 26.71999 11.0 2,880 21.8 3,430 20.8 3,500 21.21998 12.0 2,375 18.0 2,740 16.6 2,770 16.81997 13.0 1,915 14.5 2,230 13.5 2,245 13.61996 14.0 1,740 13.2 2,015 12.2 2,045 12.41995 15.0 1,545 11.7 1,780 10.8 1,815 11.0Scrap - 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 AND PROJECTED 2010-15

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

Historic profilepre-1990 85,000 - 9,000 - 94,000 85,0001990 7,000 8.2 2,000 2.4 9,000 92,0001991 5,000 5.4 1,000 1.1 6,000 97,0001992 23,000 23.7 2,000 2.1 25,000 120,0001993 35,000 29.2 1,000 0.8 36,000 155,0001994 20,000 12.9 5,000 3.2 25,000 175,0001995 25,000 14.3 5,000 2.9 30,000 200,0001996 39,000 19.5 5,000 2.5 44,000 239,0001997 11,000 4.6 7,000 2.9 18,000 250,0001998 12,000 4.8 7,000 2.8 19,000 262,0001999 23,000 8.8 9,000 3.4 32,000 285,0002000 22,500 7.9 10,000 3.5 32,500 307,5002001 14,500 4.7 9,000 2.9 23,500 322,0002002 24,500 7.6 11,500 3.6 36,000 346,5002003 23,500 6.8 31,500 9.1 55,000 370,0002004 20,500 5.5 19,500 5.3 40,000 390,5002005 17,000 4.4 19,000 4.9 36,000 407,5002006 7,500 1.8 43,000 10.6 50,500 415,0002007 47,000 11.3 33,500 8.1 80,500 462,0002008 -3,000 -0.6 29,000 6.3 26,000 459,0002009 13,500 2.9 29,500 6.4 43,000 472,500Projected profile2010 70,000 14.8 20,000 4.2 90,000 542,5002011 70,000 12.9 20,000 3.7 90,000 612,5002012 50,000 8.2 20,000 3.3 70,000 662,5002013 45,000 6.8 15,000 2.3 60,000 707,5002014 50,000 7.1 20,000 2.8 70,000 757,5002015 50,000 6.6 50,000 6.6 100,000 807,500* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size



TABLE 45:

GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF INTEGRAL (AND INSULATED) REEFER TEU FLEET OWNED BY SHIPPING COMPANIES** FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15


Historic profilepre-1990 255,000 - 86,500 - 341,500 255,0001990 28,000 11.0 10,000 3.9 38,000 283,0001991 17,000 6.0 10,500 3.7 27,500 300,0001992 23,000 7.7 14,000 4.7 37,000 323,0001993 13,000 4.0 9,000 2.8 22,000 336,0001994 32,000 9.5 9,000 2.7 41,000 368,0001995 33,000 9.0 18,000 4.9 51,000 401,0001996 9,000 2.2 26,000 6.5 35,000 410,0001997 51,000 12.4 22,000 5.4 73,000 461,0001998 50,000 10.8 25,000 5.4 75,000 511,0001999 35,000 6.8 23,000 4.5 58,000 546,0002000 44,500 8.2 24,000 4.4 68,500 590,5002001 47,500 8.0 24,000 4.1 71,500 638,0002002 42,500 6.7 36,500 5.7 79,000 680,5002003 43,500 6.4 33,500 4.9 77,000 724,0002004 68,500 9.5 39,500 5.5 108,000 792,5002005 90,000 11.4 44,000 5.6 134,000 882,5002006 79,500 9.0 46,000 5.2 125,500 962,0002007 98,000 10.2 45,500 4.7 143,500 1,060,0002008 151,000 14.2 46,000 4.3 197,000 1,211,0002009 12,500 1.0 46,500 3.8 59,000 1,223,500Projected profile2010 20,000 1.6 65,000 5.3 85,000 1,243,5002011 65,000 5.2 75,000 6.0 140,000 1,308,5002012 105,000 8.0 80,000 6.1 185,000 1,413,5002013 120,000 8.5 85,000 6.0 205,000 1,533,5002014 130,000 8.5 90,000 5.9 220,000 1,663,5002015 150,000 9.0 80,000 4.8 230,000 1,813,500* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size



TABLE 46:

GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF GLOBAL INTEGRAL (AND INSULATED) REEFER TEU FLEET FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15


Historic profilepre-1990 340,000 - 95,500 - 435,500 340,0001990 35,000 10.3 12,000 3.5 47,000 375,0001991 22,000 5.9 11,500 3.1 33,500 397,0001992 46,000 11.6 16,000 4.0 62,000 443,0001993 48,000 10.8 10,000 2.3 58,000 491,0001994 52,000 10.6 14,000 2.9 66,000 543,0001995 58,000 10.7 23,000 4.2 81,000 601,0001996 48,000 8.0 31,000 5.2 79,000 649,0001997 62,000 9.6 29,000 4.5 91,000 711,0001998 62,000 8.7 32,000 4.5 94,000 773,0001999 58,000 7.5 32,000 4.1 90,000 831,0002000 67,000 8.1 34,000 4.1 101,000 898,0002001 62,000 6.9 33,000 3.7 95,000 960,0002002 67,000 7.0 48,000 5.0 115,000 1,027,0002003 67,000 6.5 65,000 6.3 132,000 1,094,0002004 89,000 8.1 59,000 5.4 148,000 1,183,0002005 107,000 9.0 63,000 5.3 170,000 1,290,0002006 87,000 6.7 89,000 6.9 176,000 1,377,0002007 145,000 10.5 79,000 5.7 224,000 1,522,0002008 148,000 9.7 75,000 4.9 223,000 1,670,0002009 26,000 1.6 76,000 4.6 102,000 1,696,000Projected profile2010 90,000 5.3 85,000 5.0 175,000 1,786,0002011 135,000 7.6 95,000 5.3 230,000 1,921,0002012 155,000 8.1 100,000 5.2 255,000 2,076,0002013 165,000 7.9 100,000 4.8 265,000 2,241,0002014 180,000 8.0 110,000 4.9 290,000 2,421,0002015 200,000 8.3 130,000 5.4 330,000 2,621,000* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size



TABLE 47:

GLOBAL INTEGRAL REEFER (AND INSULATED) TEU CONTAINER FLEET BY OWNER CATEGORY FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15

Global fleet – Shipping company* – Shipping company* – Leasing company – Leasing companyintegral reefer and insulated integral reefer integral reefer share** (%)

insulatedHistoric profileEnd-1989 340,000 80,000 175,000 85,000 25.0End-1990 375,000 78,000 205,000 92,000 24.5End-1991 397,000 75,000 225,000 97,000 24.4End-1992 443,000 75,000 248,000 120,000 27.1End-1993 491,000 75,000 261,000 155,000 31.6End-1994 543,000 72,000 296,000 175,000 32.2End-1995 601,000 70,000 331,000 200,000 33.3End-1996 649,000 66,000 344,000 239,000 36.8End-1997 711,000 60,000 401,000 250,000 35.2End-1998 773,000 54,000 457,000 262,000 33.9End-1999 831,000 47,000 499,000 285,000 34.3End-2000 898,000 44,000 546,500 307,500 34.2End-2001 960,000 39,000 599,000 322,000 33.5End-2002 1,027,000 35,000 645,500 346,500 33.7End-2003 1,094,000 25,000 699,000 370,000 33.8End-2004 1,183,000 19,500 773,000 390,500 33.0End-2005 1,290,000 10,500 872,000 407,500 31.6End-2006 1,377,000 3,500 958,500 415,000 30.1End-2007 1,522,000 2,000 1,058,000 462,000 30.4End-2008 1,670,000 1,000 1,210,000 459,000 27.5End-2009 1,696,000 500 1,223,000 472,500 27.9Projected profileEnd-2010 1,786,000 500 1,243,000 542,500 30.4End-2011 1,921,000 500 1,308,000 612,500 31.9End-2012 2,076,000 500 1,413,000 662,500 31.9End-2013 2,241,000 500 1,533,000 707,500 31.6End-2014 2,421,000 500 1,663,000 757,500 31.3End-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 21.7Seacastle Container Leasing** - - 124,500 27.0 114,000 24.5 114,000 22.5Carlisle 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 16.8TAL International 52,250 11.9 58,200 12.7 55,500 11.9 57,500 11.4Florens Group 40,300 9.2 42,500 9.2 44,500 9.6 43,000 8.5Cronos Group 19,750 4.5 25,500 5.5 21,800 4.7 22,500 4.4Textainer Group 150 0.0 5,000 1.1 18,500 4.0 25,000 4.9Beacon Intermodal - - 3,600 0.8 10,500 2.3 22,000 4.4Dong Fang International - - 6,000 1.3 6,000 1.3 10,000 2.0CAI International - - 3,200 0.7 5,500 1.2 5,500 1.1UES International 1,950 0.5 2,000 0.4 3,000 0.6 3,000 0.6Other 8,000 1.8 17,000 3.7 8,700 1.9 8,500 1.7Grand 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 201020ft 40ft 40ft high cube Total % change on previous year-end

Historical profileEnd-1989 28,000 50,000 7,000 85,000 25.0End-1990 30,000 52,000 10,000 92,000 8.2End-1991 32,000 53,000 12,000 97,000 5.4End-1992 36,000 64,000 20,000 120,000 23.7End-1993 46,000 71,000 38,000 155,000 29.2End-1994 53,000 72,000 50,000 175,000 12.9End-1995 55,000 78,000 67,000 200,000 14.3End-1996 59,000 85,500 94,500 239,000 19.5End-1997 58,000 84,500 107,500 250,000 4.6End-1998 57,000 81,500 123,500 262,000 4.8End-1999 57,000 75,500 152,500 285,000 8.8End-2000 56,000 71,000 180,500 307,500 7.9End-2001 58,000 66,000 198,000 322,000 4.7End-2002 57,500 60,500 228,500 346,500 7.6End-2003 53,500 49,000 267,500 370,000 6.8End-2004 51,000 40,500 299,000 390,500 5.5End-2005 49,500 36,000 322,000 407,500 4.4End-2006 45,000 24,000 346,000 415,000 1.8End-2007 42,000 18,000 402,000 462,000 11.3End-2008 40,000 14,000 405,000 459,000 -0.6End-2009 38,500 9,000 425,000 472,500 2.9Projected profileEnd-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 1990-2009AND PROJECTED 2010

20ft 40ft 40ft high cube Other length** Total % change on previous year-end

Historic profileEnd-1989 42,500 87,000 40,000 5,500 175,000 20.7End-1990 48,500 97,500 51,000 8,000 205,000 17.1End-1991 50,500 102,000 64,000 8,500 225,000 9.8End-1992 54,500 103,500 79,000 11,000 248,000 10.2End-1993 55,500 105,000 89,000 11,500 261,000 5.2End-1994 56,500 112,000 116,000 11,500 296,000 13.4End-1995 61,500 110,000 148,000 11,500 331,000 11.8End-1996 58,500 99,000 175,500 11,000 344,000 3.9End-1997 59,500 97,000 233,500 11,000 401,000 16.6End-1998 65,500 91,000 289,500 11,000 457,000 14.0End-1999 73,500 87,500 327,500 10,500 499,000 9.2End-2000 80,500 77,000 378,500 10,500 546,500 9.5End-2001 85,500 67,000 436,000 10,500 599,000 9.6End-2002 92,000 54,500 488,500 10,500 645,500 7.8End-2003 98,500 47,000 544,500 9,000 699,000 8.3End-2004 102,000 41,000 623,000 7,000 773,000 10.6End-2005 105,000 34,500 728,000 4,500 872,000 12.8End-2006 110,500 31,000 816,000 1,000 958,500 9.9End-2007 113,000 25,000 918,500 1,500 1,058,000 10.4End-2008 114,000 22,000 1,072,000 2,000 1,210,000 14.4End-2009 104,000 24,000 1,093,000 2,000 1,223,000 1.1Projected profileEnd-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 profileEnd-1989 70,500 137,000 47,000 5,500 260,000 22.1End-1990 78,500 149,500 61,000 8,000 297,000 14.2End-1991 82,500 155,000 76,000 8,500 322,000 8.4End-1992 90,500 167,500 99,000 11,000 368,000 14.3End-1993 101,500 176,000 127,000 11,500 416,000 13.0End-1994 109,500 184,000 166,000 11,500 471,000 13.2End-1995 116,500 188,000 215,000 11,500 531,000 12.7End-1996 117,500 184,500 270,000 11,000 583,000 9.8End-1997 117,500 181,500 341,000 11,000 651,000 11.7End-1998 122,500 172,500 413,000 11,000 719,000 10.4End-1999 130,500 163,000 480,000 10,500 784,000 9.0End-2000 136,500 148,000 559,000 10,500 854,000 8.9End-2001 143,500 133,000 634,000 10,500 921,000 7.8End-2002 149,500 115,000 717,000 10,500 992,000 7.7End-2003 152,000 96,000 812,000 9,000 1,069,000 7.8End-2004 153,000 81,500 922,000 7,000 1,163,500 8.8End-2005 154,500 70,500 1,050,000 4,500 1,279,500 10.0End-2006 155,500 55,000 1,162,000 1,000 1,373,500 7.3End-2007 155,000 43,000 1,320,500 1,500 1,520,000 10.7End-2008 154,000 36,000 1,477,000 2,000 1,669,000 9.8End-2009 142,500 33,000 1,518,000 2,000 1,695,500 1.6Projected profileEnd-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 6.0 102,0002008 66,000 14.0 157,000 12.8 223,000 13.1 223,0002007 78,500 16.6 145,500 11.9 224,000 13.2 224,0002006 52,500 11.1 123,500 10.1 176,000 10.4 176,0002005 33,000 7.0 137,000 11.2 170,000 10.0 170,0002004 40,000 8.5 108,000 8.8 148,000 8.7 148,0002003 52,000 11.0 80,000 6.5 132,000 7.8 132,0002002 27,000 5.7 88,000 7.2 115,000 6.8 115,0002001 18,500 3.9 76,500 6.3 95,000 5.6 95,0002000 22,500 4.8 77,500 6.3 100,000 5.9 101,0001999 14,000 3.0 72,000 5.9 86,000 5.1 90,0001998 3,500 0.7 82,500 6.8 86,000 5.1 94,000Pre-1998 12,000 2.5 26,500 2.2 38,500 2.3 807,500Total 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 RefrigerantCFC12, 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 0.3End-2005 8,750 14,500 3.6 218,750 391,000 95.9 1,000 2,000 0.5End-2006 3,250 5,250 1.2 221,250 398,750 96.1 5,500 11,000 2.7End-2007 500 1,000 0.2 243,250 444,500 96.2 8,250 16,500 3.6End-2008 500 1,000 0.2 233,750 428,000 93.3 15,250 30,000 6.5End-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 86.1HFC404a 36,500 7.7 168,000 13.7 204,500 12.1HCFC22 1,000 0.2 30,000 2.5 31,000 1.8Total 472,500 100.0 1,223,000 100.0 1,695,500 100.0* = includes other transport operator

tank market review


Tank market reviewLessors of (bulk liquid) tank containers suffered during 2009, asdemand plummeted, but the outlook is improving in 2010. New pricesare down significantly on two years earlier, and investment alreadyset to be stronger in 2010. However, the sector remains highlyspecialised and operates to a different model, as well as servingdifferent 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 MARITIME20FT TANK CONTAINER* PLACED ON LONG-TERM LEASE (LTL) FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010

Newbuild LTL - per diem Ex-factory price Initial cash investment returnUSD USD %

1990 16.50 28,000 21.51991 16.00 27,500 21.21992 15.20 26,500 21.01993 14.00 24,500 20.91994 14.50 26,000 20.41995 14.00 25,000 20.41996 12.50 23,500 19.51997 11.00 21,000 19.11998 9.80 19,000 18.81999 9.50 18,500 18.72000 8.50 17,500 17.82001 7.50 15,500 17.72002 7.00 15,000 17.02003 8.00 17,000 17.22004 10.00 22,000 16.62005 10.50 24,000 16.02006 10.50 24,000 16.02007 12.50 29,000 15.72008 12.00 28,000 15.72009 10.00 23,500 15.52010 9.50 22,500 15.4LTL = 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) costUSD USD USD USD

Mid-2010 newbuild 22,500 22,500 22,500 100.02009 1.0 22,500 21,375 21,060 93.62008 2.0 28,000 25,200 19,690 87.52007 3.0 29,000 24,650 18,340 81.52006 4.0 24,000 19,200 17,010 75.62005 5.0 24,000 18,000 15,680 69.72004 6.0 22,000 15,400 14,400 64.02003 7.0 17,000 11,050 13,165 58.52002 8.0 15,000 9,000 11,950 53.12001 9.0 15,500 8,525 10,845 48.22000 10.0 17,500 8,750 9,790 43.51999 11.0 18,500 8,325 8,750 38.91998 12.0 19,000 7,600 7,760 34.51997 13.0 21,000 7,350 6,975 31.01996 14.0 23,500 7,050 6,250 27.81995 15.0 25,000 6,250 5,625 25.01994 16.0 26,000 5,200 5,080 22.61993 17.0 24,500 3,675 4,590 20.41992 18.0 26,500 2,650 4,140 18.41991 19.0 27,500 1,375 3,713 16.51990 20.0 28,000 0 3,375 15.0Scrap - - - 3,320 14.8

TABLE 57:

TOP RANKING LESSORS* OF MARITIME TANK AND SWAP-TANK CONTAINERS AND THEIR OPERATING TEU FLEETS FOR 2007-09 AND PROJECTED 2010

Mid-2007 % Mid-2008 % Mid-2009 % Mid-2010 %

Exsif Worldwide 35,000 30.1 35,000 28.8 35,000 27.9 34,500 27.4Eurotainer Group 20,650 17.7 21,000 17.3 21,750 17.4 21,800 17.3GESeaCo 8,900 7.7 9,600 7.9 10,000 8.0 10,400 8.3Cronos Group 6,200 5.3 8,500 7.0 9,250 7.4 9,500 7.5Trifleet Leasing 8,500 7.3 8,650 7.1 8,700 6.9 8,750 7.0Taylor Minster Leasing 4,200 3.6 4,550 3.8 4,800 3.8 5,000 4.0Multistar Leasing 4,700 4.0 4,500 3.7 4,500 3.6 4,500 3.6NRS Corp 4,000 3.4 4,000 3.3 4,000 3.2 4,000 3.2Tankspan Leasing 3,000 2.6 3,300 2.7 3,300 2.6 3,300 2.6UES International 2,100 1.8 2,300 1.9 2,250 1.8 2,500 2.0Unitas Leasing 150 0.1 1,500 1.2 1,950 1.6 2,000 1.6TAL International - - 750 0.6 1,250 1.0 1,500 1.2Capital Intermodal 100 0.1 600 0.5 550 0.4 550 0.4Other 19,000 16.3 17,250 14.2 18,000 14.4 17,500 13.90* = 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 AND PROJECTED 2010-15

Fleet addition %* Fleet Replaced %* Total output End-year fleet sizeHistoric profilepre-1990 27,300 - 1,500 - 28,800 27,3001990 4,000 14.7 300 1.1 4,300 31,3001991 4,000 12.8 300 1.0 4,300 35,3001992 4,200 11.9 200 0.6 4,400 39,5001993 4,800 12.2 500 1.3 5,300 44,3001994 6,500 14.7 500 1.1 7,000 50,8001995 4,500 8.9 500 1.0 5,000 55,3001996 10,500 19.0 200 0.4 10,700 65,8001997 7,000 10.6 2,000 3.0 9,000 72,8001998 7,000 9.6 2,500 3.4 9,500 79,8001999 3,100 3.9 4,000 5.0 7,100 82,9002000 2,400 2.9 3,000 3.6 5,400 85,3002001 500 0.6 2,500 2.9 3,000 85,8002002 4,700 5.5 1,500 1.7 6,200 90,5002003 6,000 6.6 1,000 1.1 7,000 96,5002004 5,000 5.2 2,500 2.6 7,500 101,5002005 6,000 5.9 2,500 2.5 8,500 107,5002006 4,500 4.2 3,500 3.3 8,000 112,0002007 7,000 6.3 3,500 3.1 10,500 119,0002008 4,000 3.4 7,000 5.9 11,000 123,0002009 3,000 2.4 4,000 3.3 7,000 126,000Projected profile2010 1,000 0.8 6,000 4.8 7,000 127,0002011 5,000 3.9 4,000 3.1 9,000 132,0002012 7,500 5.7 4,000 3.0 11,500 139,5002013 6,000 4.3 5,000 3.6 11,000 145,5002014 8,000 5.5 4,000 2.7 12,000 153,5002015 10,000 6.5 4,000 2.6 14,000 163,500* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size

tank market review


TABLE 59: GROWTH AND REPLACEMENT OF MARITIME TANK AND SWAP-TANK TEU FLEET OWNED BY TRANSPORT OPERATOR**

FOR 1990-2009 AND PROJECTED 2010-15Fleet addition %* Fleet Replaced %* Total output End-year fleet size

Historic profilepre-1990 26,200 - 3,500 - 29,700 26,2001990 2,500 9.5 700 2.7 3,200 28,7001991 2,000 7.0 700 2.4 2,700 30,7001992 2,800 9.1 300 1.0 3,100 33,5001993 1,700 5.1 1,500 4.5 3,200 35,2001994 2,500 7.1 1,000 2.8 3,500 37,7001995 8,000 21.2 500 1.3 8,500 45,7001996 4,000 8.8 300 0.7 4,300 49,7001997 6,000 12.1 1,000 2.0 7,000 55,7001998 6,000 10.8 1,500 2.7 7,500 61,7001999 6,400 10.4 1,000 1.6 7,400 68,1002000 4,600 6.8 1,500 2.2 6,100 72,7002001 7,000 9.6 1,500 2.1 8,500 79,7002002 4,800 6.0 1,000 1.3 5,800 84,5002003 4,000 4.7 500 0.6 4,500 88,5002004 5,500 6.2 500 0.6 6,000 94,0002005 3,000 3.2 3,500 3.7 6,500 97,0002006 5,500 5.7 3,500 3.6 9,000 102,5002007 6,500 6.3 2,500 2.4 9,000 109,0002008 4,000 3.7 7,000 6.4 11,000 113,0002009 1,500 1.3 2,500 2.2 4,000 114,500Projected profile2010 3,000 2.9 2,000 2.0 5,000 117,5002011 5,000 4.3 5,500 4.7 10,500 122,5002012 4,000 3.3 5,500 4.5 9,500 126,5002013 7,500 5.9 4,500 3.6 12,000 134,0002014 6,000 4.5 4,500 3.4 10,500 140,0002015 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

AND PROJECTED 2010-15 Fleet addition %* Fleet Replaced %* Total output End-year fleet size

Historic profilepre-1990 53,500 - 5,000 - 58,500 53,5001990 6,500 12.1 1,000 1.9 7,500 60,0001991 6,000 10.0 1,000 1.7 7,000 66,0001992 7,000 10.6 500 0.8 7,500 73,0001993 6,500 8.9 2,000 2.7 8,500 79,5001994 9,000 11.3 1,500 1.9 10,500 88,5001995 12,500 14.1 1,000 1.1 13,500 101,0001996 14,500 14.4 500 0.5 15,000 115,5001997 13,000 11.3 3,000 2.6 16,000 128,5001998 13,000 10.1 4,000 3.1 17,000 141,5001999 9,500 6.7 5,000 3.5 14,500 151,0002000 7,000 4.6 4,500 3.0 11,500 158,0002001 7,500 4.7 4,000 2.5 11,500 165,5002002 9,500 5.7 2,500 1.5 12,000 175,0002003 10,000 5.7 1,500 0.9 11,500 185,0002004 10,500 5.7 3,000 1.6 13,500 195,5002005 9,000 4.6 6,000 3.1 15,000 204,5002006 10,000 4.9 7,000 3.4 17,000 214,5002007 13,500 6.3 6,000 2.8 19,500 228,0002008 8,000 3.5 14,000 6.1 22,000 236,0002009 4,500 1.9 6,500 2.8 11,000 240,500Projected profile2010 4,000 1.7 8,000 3.3 12,000 244,5002011 10,000 4.1 9,500 3.9 19,500 254,5002012 11,500 4.5 9,500 3.7 21,000 266,0002013 13,500 5.1 9,500 3.6 23,000 279,5002014 14,000 5.0 8,500 3.0 22,500 293,5002015 17,500 6.0 8,000 2.7 25,500 311,000* = percentage of preceding end-year fleet size

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 11,0002008 11,000 8.7 11,000 9.6 22,000 9.1 22,0002007 10,500 8.3 9,000 7.9 19,500 8.1 19,5002006 8,000 6.4 9,000 7.9 17,000 7.1 17,0002005 8,500 6.7 6,500 5.7 15,000 6.2 15,0002004 7,500 6.0 6,000 5.2 13,500 5.6 13,5002003 7,000 5.6 4,500 3.9 11,500 4.8 11,5002002 6,200 4.9 5,800 5.1 12,000 5.0 12,0002001 3,000 2.4 8,500 7.4 11,500 4.8 11,5002000 5,400 4.3 6,100 5.3 11,500 4.8 11,5001999 7,100 5.6 7,400 6.5 14,500 6.0 14,5001998 9,500 7.5 7,500 6.5 17,000 7.1 17,0001997 9,000 7.1 7,000 6.1 16,000 6.7 16,0001996 10,500 8.3 4,000 3.5 14,500 6.0 15,0001995 4,500 3.6 8,000 7.0 12,500 5.2 13,500Pre-1995 11,300 9.0 10,200 8.9 21,500 8.9 99,500Total 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

Documents