Dan-Bunkering can join the long line of bunker companies which have booked growth in recent months.
Although the carriers have been under pressure in 2016, the Danish bunker company has increased both revenue and the result in the fiscal year 2016/2017, shows the just-released financial report.
The performance is satisfactory as the company is still operating in a volatile shipping market, where bunker companies lowered their margins dramatically during the year"
Revenue rose to USD 717.4 million, which corresponds to growth of 40 percent, compared to the revenue in 2015/2016 of USD 518.3 million.
"This was a result of a moderate increase in volume and a significant increase in bunker prices," the executive team writes in the report, adding a comment on the bottom line:
"The performance is satisfactory as the company is still operating in a volatile shipping market, where bunker companies lowered their margins dramatically during the year," Dan-Bunkering writes.
More sales ahead
This spring, Dan-Bunkering appointed a new CEO Christoffer Berg (pictured).
The former Chief Exec, Henrik Zederkof, is still with the company and will head the development of a new business concept which has yet to be announced.
Executive management of Dan-Bunkering expects the coming fiscal year to see further growth in sold volumes and a moderate increase in earnings.
Parent company Bunker Holding recently presented a financial report showing a negative impact on the bottom line from the tough competition also mentioned by Dan-Bunkering.
In the fiscal year 2016/2017, Bunker Holding's result after taxes dropped significantly to DKK 186 million from DKK 316 million (USD 48 million), shows the company's report. Despite the setback, Keld R. Demant is pleased with the result, he explained in an interview with ShippingWatch.
"If you look at the development of the bunker industry and my colleagues' results, I'm very pleased with this result. Our customers have struggled because fewer volumes needed to be freighted, ships were idled and so on. This simply meant an obvious imbalance. So there has been more product available than was needed and since everyone wanted their piece, it put pressure on prices. It's natural," he explained.
English Edit: Gretchen Deverell Pedersen