Category Archives: governance

The 30-Day Gate for AI

I was unaware of this shift in US policy from reading general media accounts of what’s going on. Gwanhoo Lee identifies clearly the effect on firms playing in the AI marketplace.

As new and better models become available, both China and the US are now going to screen them for national security impact and decide whether to allow sales. The US can no longer claim to be different through allowing competition to determine the best available product.

It’s not surprising as we drift toward a totalitarian government here in the US. First, the national government has taken ownership stakes in high-tech companies such as Intel. Now the government is exercising control over what can be sold in the AI marketplace, so the consumer, particularly the international consumer, no longer determines what’s best through their money choice. It’s national socialism.

Furthermore, the way is now opened for AI decisions by the government to be bought. Back the government position and policies, or you can’t sell your product. If money changes hands to lubricate the decisions, say by support of a White House remodeling or a reflecting Pool redo, we’ve become a third-world country, no different from Angola or Mozambique. (These countries might argue with my characterization, and I agree, it’s egregious of me to make examples of them– but there are lots of examples around the world now.)

While the US leaders can talk the talk, they can’t walk it any more.

The situation is more complicated with AI than with earlier technologies such as relational databases or ERP or TMS/WMS. In those cases, once you purchased, you relied on the vendor to supply maintenance and support. They did it more or less well, and engendered many howls of fury about its quality.

AI is a bit different, because of the learning or training component. An AI product becomes more valuable over time because it trains on a larger and larger set of inputs. The software may improve somewhat, with better algorithms, but also the training set becomes larger, so more refined conclusions can be drawn. You now have two motivations for making a new purchase, or upgrading your subscription.

For users of AI technology purchased from the behemoths, it’s time to focus on exactly what job you want done, and whether some technology will accomplish it. Chasing the latest new version may not serve your specific goals. Your experts need to be able to tell you why results, financial or business, will be measurably better with a new model. Mostly this has nothing to do with the perceived security risks to the US tech environment. but corporate execs can control it much more closely than by following the AI news.

Gwanhoo Lee July 22, 2026

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/30-day-gate-gwanhoo-lee-xvlue

Latest Flag State Registries for shadow fleet

The shadow fleet consists of ships that are sanctioned by governments, or who are associated with sanctioned entities, such as shippers or brokers or owners. They’ve needed to be able to show a registration to get insurance or to enter ports.

But they need a flag state that isn’t going to ask very many questions. And that is not going to enforce the nation’s rules on your ship. And that isn’t going to care about how you maintain the ship or take care of the crew, or handle potential pollution problems. Most of the shadow fleet consists of older ships that can be expected to need more frequent maintenance.

Recently some flag states, such as Panama, have tightened their regulations substantially, and are committed to greater oversight. However, others still operate simply as rubber stamps for a fee.

The maritime intelligence firm Windward has reported that Nicaragua and Equatorial Guinea have started taking on shadow vessels in their flag registries.

There are also many cases of false-flag registries, which purport to be associated with a nation, but in fact are simply paper-shuffling offices set up to mislead those who rely on flag identification for activities such as port entry.

Some registries are often seen as “rubber stamps.” While they technically require “proof of insurance” and “non-sanctioned port” letters, the recent case of the tanker Apple (flying the Equatorial Guinea flag) shows that these vessels often ignore reporting requirements and operate under opaque ownership despite these formal rules.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) recently approved new guidelines aimed at improving transparency in ship registration and cracking down on the growing misuse of flags.

We need to see how much the IMO actions actually affect the picture. But past history is not promising. The effect the IMO can bring to bear is at the nation level.

It’s unrealistic to expect nations to police external private firms that produce false-flagging documents. However, nations can have an effect by announcing their rejection of false-flag firms, by name and location.

Nations can have a substantial effect if they choose, like Panama, to announce and follow up on their enforcement of the rules. That would mean tracking possible use of their flag papers and striking off ships that are not using them legally, or are violating national and IMO rules, such as insurance and crew treatment.

I’m a skeptic that nations will stand up and do this. But recent actions by some flag states are good signs, and some stiffness on the part of the IMO may be rewarded.

Sam Chambers April 22, 2026

https://splash247.com/nicaragua-and-equatorial-guinea-emerge-as-latest-homes-for-sprawling-shadow-fleet/

Atle Staalesen

https://www.arctictoday.com/shadow-tanker-sailed-outside-200-mile-zone-to-avoid-norwegian-scrutiny/

Corporate governance in shipping

This article features an interview with Michael Webber, who has been tracking corporate governance in ocean shipping firms since 2016. He produces an annual corporate governance scorecard for shipping, now at his own firm, Michael Webber Research and Advisory.

One significant issue in shipping is the constantly changing mosaic of companies. Firms are constantly merging in companies and creating new spinoff firms, some containing only a single ship. It’s a chore to keep track of it all, let alone try to rate how well the firms are looking after shareholders. The ratings Michael provides are simply to inform readers of the practices the firms engage in. This helps investors and traders to understand whether the firm is practicing good corporate governance or engaging in bad practices.

Webber claims that companies that score low on his rating have trouble raising capital using equity. He thinks investors are becoming more selective. It’s not only affecting stocks on the market; IPOS are failing due to governance issues as well.

There are a lot of related party transactions in shipping. Some benefit public investors and some don’t. Because no one was looking very hard in the past, it can be complicated for an older firm, say from the 2000’s, to unwind old structures that were not examples of good governance. Some firms have been successful doing this, but Webber says shareholders are at an informational disadvantage when these transactions are proposed. His rankings try to shed light on the corporate governance of the actors, for the benefit of the shareholders.

Webber thinks governance is improving overall, and shipping has improved its image on Wall Street. His ratings help public shipping companies find opportunities to conform to best practices in governance, and that improves the image and reality.

The scorecard rankings for 2023 are shown below.

Image of Webber corporate governance ratings
(Source: Chart: Webber Research & Advisory)

The stock symbols of each firm are given. Webber has marked the firms that make no carbon disclosures.

Greg Miller· Thursday, July 27, 2023

Corporate governance in shipping: Who’s been naughty or nice?

Update: The University of Plymouth and the National and Kapodistrian University of Greece have announced a new ESG index to be revealed September 11th. It will be interesting to compare their work against Michael Webber’s.

Sam Chambers July 31, 2023

Maritime gets an ESG index