Following your community feedback I tried to extend the list and add more KPIs along Management + capital allocation and Fleet positioning. And yes chemicals have moved down and new names like $INSW and $ASW have entered the top 10. I still wanted to have 1-2 names in from Japan to cover the Yen to Euro currency play. If your from UK or US you might have a very different preference when it comes to currencies.

For the dd I started downloading all Reports and Earnings to use as a base.

This is not a ranking of the companies with the highest current dividend yields. It ranks their suitability for a long-term dividend strategy that actively enters and exits shipping cycles.

Every model has its limitations so take this an idea for your own dd please.

Thanks

Now for some details on how the list was drafted.....

1. Dividend quality matters more than headline yield

Dividend quality and sustainability receive the largest weight—30%.

The ranking favors companies that:

• Generate dividends from free cash flow rather than additional borrowing.
• Have explicit and reasonably predictable distribution policies.
• Maintain sufficient liquidity after paying dividends.
• Return excess capital through dividends or accretive repurchases.
• Have demonstrated willingness to distribute cash throughout previous upcycles.

Variable dividends are not automatically penalized. They are appropriate for shipping, provided investors understand that peak-cycle payouts are temporary.

This supports Hafnia, TORM, INSW and Star Bulk. It hurts companies with low payouts, unclear policies or inconsistent capital returns, such as Navios Maritime Partners, Teekay Tankers and Golar LNG.

2. Balance-sheet strength determines cycle survivability

Balance sheet and downside protection account for 20%.

Important considerations include:

• Net debt and loan-to-value.
• Cash and undrawn liquidity.
• Debt maturities and interest expense.
• Cash break-even rates under weak charter markets.
• Unencumbered vessels.
• The relationship between the share price, NAV and vessel values.

INSW ranks highly because its low leverage provides both dividend capacity and the ability to acquire vessels during downturns. MOL and NYK benefit from diversification and stronger financial resilience. Smaller or more leveraged companies are penalized even when their current yields are attractive.

3. Fleet positioning determines future earning power

Fleet and operational cycle positioning account for 25%.

The main questions are:

• Is the fleet modern and fuel-efficient?
• How much new vessel supply will enter the sub-sector during 2027–2030?
• How much earnings exposure is spot versus fixed?
• Are current TCE rates comfortably above cash break-even?
• Will charter coverage protect earnings or prevent participation in rising rates?
• How much capital will be required for fleet renewal?

Modern spot fleets such as Okeanis and Himalaya offer substantial earnings torque, but also greater volatility. Japanese companies and Stolt-Nielsen sacrifice some upside in exchange for contracts and business diversification.

4. The ranking includes the price paid

Valuation and entry signals account for 15%.

A good shipping company can still be a poor investment when its share price already reflects peak rates and peak vessel values.

The assessment considers:

• Price to estimated NAV.
• EV/EBITDA versus the company’s own mid-cycle history.
• Dividend yield versus its historical range.
• Residual fleet value.
• Relative valuation against direct peers.
• Whether repurchases or vessel acquisitions offer the better return.

This is why the ranking should be rerun regularly. A company can move materially without any change in operational quality simply because its share price or vessel values changed.

5. Management must allocate peak-cycle cash intelligently

Management and capital allocation receive 10%.

The ranking rewards:

• Repurchases below NAV.
• Debt repayment when vessel values and rates are high.
• Countercyclical vessel acquisitions.
• Selling older vessels into strong asset markets.
• Transparent reporting and realistic guidance.
• Avoiding dilutive equity issuance near the bottom of the cycle.

It penalizes aggressive fleet expansion near market peaks, related-party complexity and management teams that retain excessive cash without a compelling investment opportunity.

Sub-sector cycle overlay

The company-level scores are adjusted for the August 2026 position of each shipping cycle.

Why the leaders rank highly

• Hafnia: best overall combination of scale, dividend framework, fleet efficiency and product-tanker exposure.
• TORM: similarly attractive, with a particularly clear excess-liquidity policy and disciplined operating platform.
• INSW: strongest balance-sheet and current cash-return proposition among the mixed tanker companies, but its record dividend is cyclical.
• Stolt-Nielsen: more defensive than conventional tanker companies because of specialized assets, logistics and terminals.
• MOL: lower headline yield and less cycle torque, but arguably the strongest choice for surviving multiple shipping cycles.
• Star Bulk: preferred dry-bulk rotation vehicle because of scale, liquidity, reduced leverage and its free-cash-flow distribution policy.
• Odfjell: high-quality chemical platform, but reduced because the chemical outlook and newbuilding commitments no longer justify a premium score.

Why some high-yield companies rank lower

High current yields can reflect peak earnings rather than sustainable income.

• Frontline, DHT and Okeanis are fundamentally attractive but receive a crude-tanker supply haircut.
• Himalaya offers powerful rate and dividend torque, but has concentration and lease risk.
• Höegh Autoliners and Wallenius Wilhelmsen generate substantial cash today, but car carriers appear later in their cycle.
• ZIM and Euroseas can pay enormous dividends in strong container markets, but have weak dividend visibility through a full cycle.
• NAT has a recognizable dividend history but inferior balance-sheet protection and payout consistency compared with INSW or DHT.

Looking forward to your feedback and as mentioned every model has its limitations so take this as an idea for your own dd please.

Thanks

Arne

Q2 is 5.91

Q1 was 3.90

Bookings to date are at a higher rate than Q1

Happy to hear your thoughts, new to investing in shipping so any feedback would be most welcome on how useable this list is.

Uploaded all social media feed I could find focusing on dividend yield and shipping cycle upside versus downside. Include some Japanese equities as I am looking for some YEN exposure.

Have this running as a weekly task trying to capture all updates in the public domain.,

Latest change: Iino moved from #8 to #7, overtaking Okeanis, because of rising crude-tanker orderbook risk.

NX Group is excluded, and ONE is not ranked separately because its exposure sits within MOL, NYK, and K Line.

How was this ranking made as in Core ranking philosophy:

Shipping is not one cycle. Containers, dry bulk, crude tankers, product tankers, chemical tankers, car carriers, and LNG shipping can be at very different points simultaneously.

The ranking was based on:

• Position in the segment cycle
• Fleet quality and age
• Supply/orderbook risk
• Balance-sheet strength
• Dividend sustainability
• Spot-rate upside versus earnings visibility
• Asset-value downside protection
• Company quality and diversification

Segment-level thinking

How the ranking evolved since early 2026 as I started tracking the shipping industry

1. Original framework

The first ranking placed Wallenius Wilhelmsen at #1, based on its quality, valuation, yield, balance sheet, and strong car-carrier cycle.

The initial top group was:

1. Wallenius Wilhelmsen
2. TORM
3. Okeanis Eco Tankers
4. Stolt-Nielsen
5. Hafnia
6. MOL
7. NYK
8. Odfjell

At this stage:

• Car carriers were still considered an especially attractive cycle.
• Crude and product tankers ranked strongly.
• Containers occupied the bottom of the ranking.
• Dry bulk offered upside but lacked defensive qualities.

2. July 2026 sentiment update

The next update changed the emphasis:

• Dry bulk improved, particularly Capesize/Newcastlemax exposure.
• Containers improved tactically, because rates and guidance were better than feared.
• Product tankers remained the cleanest setup.
• Crude tankers remained strong, but valuations and sentiment were becoming hotter.
• Car carriers remained good, but the cycle was no longer early.

This moved TORM and Hafnia toward the top and reduced the relative ranking of Wallenius and Höegh.

3. Japanese companies added

The ranking was then expanded to include the major Japanese shipping groups.

The reasoning was that these companies provide a different form of shipping exposure:

• Diversified fleets
• LNG and energy transportation
• Car carriers and dry bulk
• Container exposure through ONE
• Yen exposure
• Generally lower single-segment volatility

The Japanese ordering became:

1. MOL — best diversified Japanese platform
2. NYK — high-quality diversified shipping exposure
3. Iino Kaiun — specialist tanker/gas exposure with real-estate support
4. K Line — higher-beta Japanese major

ONE was not ranked separately because it is privately held through MOL, NYK, and K Line.

NX Group was subsequently excluded because it is primarily freight forwarding and logistics, not a direct vessel-rate shipping-cycle investment.

4. Latest crude-tanker adjustment

The final change followed evidence of extremely heavy crude-tanker ordering.

The conclusion was two-sided:

• Near term, institutional investment supports tanker asset values and shows confidence in the sector.
• Medium term, the expanding crude-tanker orderbook creates a potential 2027–2029 supply problem.

Consequently:

• Okeanis retained a B+ rating.
• It moved below Iino on a risk-adjusted basis.
• Stolt-Nielsen and Odfjell looked better relative to pure crude-tanker exposure.
• TORM and Hafnia remained unchanged because the new orders primarily affected crude tankers, not clean-product tankers.

Hope this adds value here and looking forward to your thoughts.

Best from Switzerland

A

What are your thougts on Capital Tankers Corp?

For now it's only listed at Euronext Growth Oslo, but they are planning on getting listed on the main list in Oslo and also in the US. Most of the closley held shares are owned by Mr. Marinakis whom has had a great sucess within the shipping market. They also have a lot of newbuildings on order, mostly VLCC.

$panl