A.P. Møller–Maersk raised its 2026 EBITDA guidance to $8bn–$10bn—up from $4.5bn–$7bn just weeks earlier—amid surging freight rates tied to Strait of Hormuz disruptions. Shippers report opaque surcharges and reduced contract allocations, with industry analyst James Hookham of the Global Shippers Forum warning that lack of transparency risks long-term trust. Analysts estimate Q2–Q4 40ft container rates may rise $400–$467 above prior forecasts. Maersk’s updated 4% global container growth forecast and $1bn–$4bn EBIT projection signal a dramatic turnaround from its $1.5bn loss forecast in May.
According to theloadstar.com, A.P. Møller–Maersk has upgraded its full-year 2026 EBITDA guidance to $8 billion–$10 billion, a sharp increase from its prior range of $4.5 billion–$7 billion issued on 7 May 2026.
Revised financial outlook reflects freight rate surge
The Danish carrier also revised its EBIT forecast from a projected loss of $1.5 billion to a profit range of $1 billion–$4 billion, while lifting its global container market growth projection to 4% — up from an earlier estimate of 2%–4%. The group is scheduled to report its second-quarter results on 13 August 2026.
Industry consultant Lars Jensen noted the magnitude of the shift implies average freight rates for a 40-foot container are now expected to be $300–$350 higher for the full year than previously anticipated — with the bulk of that increase concentrated in quarters two through four. He estimated the implied quarterly average rate uplift for Q2–Q4 at $400–$467 per 40ft unit.
Alphaliner observed that the top end of Maersk’s new guidance could exceed its $3.5 billion EBITDA result from 2025 — a notable reversal from early-year expectations of flat or declining performance.
Shippers cite opaque surcharges and reduced allocations
Multiple shippers told theloadstar.com they are experiencing “opaque surcharges” and diminished space allocations under long-term contracts with Maersk. One shipper reported being approached by several companies over the past few weeks confirming similar allocation cuts — indicating a non-isolated pattern.
A second shipper, speaking anonymously due to concerns about retaliation, criticized Maersk’s continued application of emergency bunker surcharges even after indexed bunker cost adjustments had caught up with market reality:
“Seems like a total cash grab… Even worse, we have our allocations cut ‘due to high demand’, but if we pay more – miraculously, space becomes available.”
The director of the Global Shippers Forum, James Hookham, acknowledged carriers’ improved earnings were predictable given ongoing disruptions — particularly those linked to the Strait of Hormuz — but stressed that lack of transparency undermined trust. He drew parallels to the pandemic era, saying:
“It’s beginning to sound a lot like Covid. Shippers will not be surprised that carrier revenues have increased off the back of service disruption, delays, and diversions – we’ve been here before!”
Four interlocking market dynamics at play
James Hookham identified four concurrent forces shaping current ocean freight conditions: (1) recovery of genuine additional costs on disrupted routes; (2) recovery of higher fuel costs generally; (3) broad-based general rate increases applied without clear cost linkage; and (4) deliberate management of excess vessel capacity to restrict bookable slots despite acknowledged oversupply.
To counterbalance carrier pricing power, the GSF advised shippers to track “non-discretionary surcharges” separately each accounting period — calculating both their share of total shipping costs and the erosion of gross margin on goods shipped. This data, Hookham said, helps explain budget overruns to finance directors:
“Shippers that have done this have surprised themselves at the size of the numbers, especially over time. At the very least they will be able to explain to their FD why they are overbudget … again.”
Hookham warned that repeated use of surcharges and capacity management risks damaging Maersk’s stated commitment to long-term customer relationships — central to its integrated logistics strategy. He concluded:
“Maersk’s joyous announcement of higher profits as the customers suffer poorer service seems to trade a short-term gain for its stated future ambitions.”
Broader industry context
While Maersk’s guidance revision attracted scrutiny due to its public reporting obligations as a listed company, privately owned competitors face identical market pressures — including elevated spot rates and the application of peak season surcharges (PSS) to long-term contracts. As one shipper noted:
“It’s not the shippers’ first rodeo, they’ve seen this situation almost annually since 2019 as ocean pricing increases in line with market situations.”
Maersk’s June 2026 press release confirmed the guidance upgrade was driven by “continued strong demand in the container market,” though it did not specify regional drivers. However, the timing aligns with heightened volatility in Middle East shipping lanes and rerouting around the Strait of Hormuz, which began escalating in early 2026.
Source: The Loadstar
Compiled from international media by the SCI.AI editorial team.
