VLCC owners face an almost absurd problem: their ships may be worth more than ever, but the same market creating those record asset prices is also producing extraordinary daily earnings. Selling today locks the valuation but gives away tomorrow’s freight. A forward sale tries to keep both.
Imagine owning a VLCC worth $235 million.
A buyer is ready to pay the price today. In an ordinary market, that sounds like the moment to take the money.
But this is not an ordinary market.
The latest one-year VLCC time-charter indication is around $273,500 per day. DHT has already booked roughly half its available fourth-quarter spot days at more than $500,000 per day. Baltic’s Middle East Gulf–China route assessment recently exceeded $1.3 million per day on its standard round-trip TCE calculation.
The seller therefore faces a strange choice: monetize an extraordinary ship valuation now—or keep an extraordinary earning machine.
Poten & Partners has suggested a third route: agree the sale price now, but deliver the ship perhaps six months later.
That sounds like the best of both worlds. It can be. It can also create a six-month battle over who owns every risk between signing and delivery.
A forward sale is not the same thing as selling today and keeping the ship.
Under the basic structure, the parties sign a binding sale agreement and fix the purchase price now, but title and physical delivery occur later. Until delivery, the seller normally continues owning, operating, insuring and earning from the vessel—while remaining responsible for delivering it in the contractual condition at the agreed time.
Why the forward-sale idea suddenly matters
The normal VLCC depreciation curve has effectively broken.
Poten describes the premium for immediate availability as “extreme.”
A buyer paying $235 million instead of ordering new steel for about $130 million is not paying $105 million for a better hull.
The buyer is paying for time—the ability to earn today.
The three choices
The basic risk transfer is completely different
| Issue | Sell Today | 6-Month Forward Sale | Keep Trading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Today’s asset price | Locked + received | Locked | Not locked |
| Next six months’ freight | Buyer | Seller | Seller |
| Asset-price upside | Buyer | Buyer after price fixed | Seller |
| Asset-price downside | Buyer | Primarily buyer economically | Seller |
| Operational risk before month 6 | Buyer | Seller | Seller |
| Closing certainty today | Highest | Contractual only | None |
| Capital received today | Yes | Normally no | No |
| Market optionality | Low | Split between parties | Highest |
How much could six more months of trading be worth?
This is the number that explains why an owner might accept a forward sale instead of handing the vessel over today.
The examples below use a purely illustrative $25,000/day cash-cost assumption. It is not a market estimate for every VLCC.
Lock a $200M-plus asset price while potentially collecting another $20M, $40M or much more of operating contribution before delivery. The forward sale monetizes today’s asset market without immediately surrendering today’s freight market.
But the buyer is making a six-month asset-price bet
Assume the parties agree today on a price of $235 million.
The buyer does not receive the ship for six months. What happens if VLCC values move dramatically before delivery?
The forward sale therefore behaves partly like an asset-price hedge.
The seller eliminates the risk that today’s $235 million vessel becomes a $180 million vessel before exit.
The buyer accepts that downside in exchange for knowing it has secured the ship—and captures the benefit if the same vessel becomes worth $260 million or $300 million.
Why a seller might prefer forward delivery
Lock today’s extraordinary valuation
The owner no longer needs to guess whether the current asset-price inversion survives another six months.
Keep today’s extraordinary earnings
The vessel can continue generating spot or period income until the contractual delivery window.
Plan the fleet exit
A known delivery date gives the seller time to refinance, order replacement tonnage, redeploy capital or prepare another ship.
But cash comes later
Fixing the price is not the same thing as receiving $235 million. The seller still has capital tied up in the vessel until closing.
Why a buyer might accept waiting six months
Secure scarce tonnage
If very few owners are willing to sell prompt ships, a future-delivery commitment may be the only way to secure the specific vessel.
Lock the asset before it rises further
If today’s $235 million price becomes $275 million, the six-month wait looks extremely inexpensive.
Match future transport needs
An oil producer that needs owned VLCC capacity beginning next spring may not need immediate possession today.
But the buyer misses six months of freight
The purchase price may reflect today’s prompt-delivery premium even though the buyer does not actually receive prompt delivery.
This is where the price negotiation gets interesting
A $235 million prompt ship and a $235 million six-month-forward ship are not economically identical.
“I am paying today’s record asset price but I do not receive today’s record earning opportunity. The forward price should therefore be discounted.”
“You are getting six months of price protection in a rising asset market. If VLCCs appreciate another $40 million, that upside belongs to you.”
The agreed forward price therefore becomes a negotiation over the value of six months of freight versus six months of asset-price protection.
The seller cannot trade as if no sale agreement exists
This is where a six-month forward sale becomes much more complicated than an ordinary several-week S&P closing.
A traditional Saleform transaction already anticipates some continued employment before delivery. Maritime lawyers note that cancelling dates have often been set two to four months after signing specifically so that sellers can finish cargo or charter commitments.
Six months is long enough for much more to go wrong.
The final voyage may become the most expensive voyage
Sellers naturally want to keep earning until the last possible day.
That creates a powerful incentive to squeeze in one more voyage before delivery.
Watson Farley & Williams has specifically highlighted this S&P problem: in a peak market, sellers often want to maximize pre-delivery employment but can put themselves at risk if the final voyage cannot reasonably be completed before the cancelling date.
SALEFORM 2025 makes delivery timing more explicit.
The revised form clarifies that the seller cannot validly tender notice of readiness until the vessel is at the delivery location and physically ready in accordance with the MOA. Where seller negligence causes failure to deliver properly by the cancelling date, buyer remedies can include loss-of-bargain damages.
When the locked sale price is $235 million and the market value has moved another $50 million during the six-month wait, the right to cancel can suddenly become extraordinarily valuable.
Condition at delivery becomes much more important
A vessel operating for another six months may experience:
Machinery damage
Main-engine, auxiliary-engine, cargo-pump or steering problems can arise between inspection and delivery.
Steel or class findings
A casualty, Port State inspection or class survey can produce new recommendations or repair requirements.
Cargo-system damage
Pumps, inert-gas equipment, valves and tank coatings continue being used.
Sanctions exposure
Six additional months of trading create six additional months of counterparties, ports, cargoes and regulatory risk.
Standard Saleform-style condition language generally keeps the vessel at the seller’s risk until delivery and requires delivery broadly in the same condition as at inspection, subject to fair wear and tear and specified class requirements.
For a six-month delay, sophisticated buyers should consider whether that generic standard is precise enough.
The 16 clauses that matter more in a six-month forward sale
The deposit creates its own six-month economics
Ship sales commonly use a deposit as security for buyer performance.
Assume, purely for illustration, that the parties agree on a 10% deposit against a $235 million purchase price.
That is not enormous relative to a $235 million ship, but it is another reason the forward price and deposit terms should be negotiated together.
There is also counterparty exposure. The buyer has committed a large deposit today while depending on the seller to preserve and deliver the asset months later.
There is a fourth structure: close now and charter it back
A forward sale is not the only way to separate ownership from immediate use of the vessel.
An actual 2026 transaction illustrates the reverse structure. Teekay Tankers acquired three 2016-built Aframax/LR2 tankers and, immediately after acquisition, bareboat-chartered them back to the sellers for periods of roughly four to eight months.
The buyer can take title today and eliminate future asset-price and seller-delivery risk, while the former seller retains temporary use of the vessel under a leaseback.
| Structure | Who Owns Ship Today? | Who Uses Ship? | Asset Price Locked? | Main Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate Sale | Buyer | Buyer | Yes | Seller gives up freight immediately |
| Forward Sale | Seller until delivery | Seller | Yes | Six-month delivery / condition exposure |
| Sale + Leaseback | Buyer | Former seller temporarily | Yes | Charter credit / redelivery risk |
| Keep Trading | Seller | Seller | No | Seller retains entire market risk |
What if VLCC rates normalize before delivery?
This is the scenario that makes the forward structure most valuable to the seller.
Imagine today’s $235 million prompt ship falls to $180 million because freight normalizes.
Under an immediate sale, the seller already received $235 million and has no problem.
Under a properly binding forward sale, the seller still expects $235 million at delivery—and has collected six months of earnings in the interim.
Under “keep trading,” the seller has collected the earnings but now owns an asset worth $55 million less.
Forward sale = today’s asset price + tomorrow’s freight. That is exactly why the structure is so attractive at the top of a freight-driven asset cycle.
What if the market gets even hotter?
Then the psychology reverses.
If the same VLCC is worth $300 million six months later, the seller has locked away $65 million of potential asset-value upside.
The seller will still have enjoyed six months of freight earnings—but may deeply regret the $235 million sale.
The buyer, meanwhile, has secured a $300 million asset at a contractual price of $235 million.
This is when delivery clauses become litigation clauses.
A buyer sitting on a $65 million bargain will insist on timely delivery. A seller who believes the ship is now dramatically underpriced has every incentive to scrutinize contractual rights, delivery timing and buyer performance. Precise MOA drafting matters far more when the market moves violently.
Eight warning signs in a forward VLCC sale
Which strategy fits which owner?
| Owner’s View | Strategy That Deserves the Hardest Look | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| “Today’s asset value is too good to risk.” | Sell Today | Maximum certainty. Converts the ship into cash immediately. |
| “I want today’s value and six more months of freight.” | Forward Sale | Locks valuation while retaining near-term operating earnings. |
| “Freight and ship values are going even higher.” | Keep Trading | Retains maximum upside—and maximum downside. |
| “Buyer wants title now but I need six months’ use.” | Sale + Leaseback | Separates ownership transfer from temporary operating control. |
In today’s VLCC market, time itself has become an asset.
Poten’s forward-sale suggestion makes sense because the market has created an unusual conflict between two forms of value.
The ship itself may be worth $200 million-plus today.
But the right to operate that ship for another six months may also be worth tens of millions of dollars.
An immediate sale monetizes the first value and gives away the second. Keeping the ship preserves the second but leaves the owner exposed to a violent reversal in the first.
A forward sale sits between them: lock the ship price today, keep the freight temporarily, deliver later.
For the seller, that can be extraordinarily attractive.
For the buyer, the question is whether six months of asset-price certainty is valuable enough to justify paying today’s price for a vessel it cannot use today.
And that is why the most important number in a forward VLCC sale may not be the purchase price at all.
It may be the value of the 182 days between signing and delivery.
Research basis
[1] Poten & Partners / Seatrade Maritime News — October 18–19, 2026. $235M prompt VLCC resale indication versus approximately $130M newbuild, extreme prompt-delivery premium and suggestion of a six-month forward sale.
[2] Korea Ocean Business Corporation — October 29, 2026. 320k-dwt VLCC indications: $226.38M resale, $210.54M five-year and $185.33M ten-year.
[3] AXIA Shipping Intelligence — Week 44, October 26–30, 2026. One-year VLCC time-charter benchmark approximately $273,500/day and current reported VLCC S&P transactions.
[4] Baltic Exchange — Tanker Report Week 44, October 30, 2026. TD3C Middle East Gulf/China round-trip TCE approximately $1.346M/day, with other VLCC routes also at exceptionally elevated levels.
[5] DHT Holdings — October 12, 2026. Approximately half of available Q4 VLCC spot days booked at an average $509,100/day.
[6] BIMCO / Norwegian Shipbrokers’ Association — SALEFORM 2025. Updated delivery, notice of readiness, cancelling-date, payment, sanctions and seller-default provisions.
[7] Watson Farley & Williams — 2026 Lila Lisbon analysis. Seller exposure when attempting to fit final employment before a ship-sale cancelling date and market-value consequences of late delivery.
[8] Teekay Tankers — 2026 SEC filings. Current example of acquiring vessels and then bareboat-chartering them back to the seller for four-to-eight-month periods.
VLCC Sell-Now vs Forward-Sale Calculator
Estimate whether locking the ship price today while retaining several months of freight could outperform an immediate sale—or whether simply keeping the vessel provides more upside. All market assumptions are editable.
