The second article explains nicely the difference between a truck freight broker and a truck dispatcher.
Dispatchers work for and represent owner-operator truck drivers, trying to get loads for them at a higher price. Shippers pay the trucker, and dispatchers get a commission from the trucker.
Truck Brokers work for shippers, trying to get them a lower price. They bill the shippers and pay the truckers directly.
Currently, only brokers need to get a license from FMCSA and obtain a $75,000 bond, ostensibly to protect shippers from being paid if there is non-performance or damage. Dispatchers are not covered by the federal bonding requirement.
Dispatchers claim the additional regulation is unnecessary, but they have not been able to attract any political attention to their cause. Various approaches have been tried, including the latest one from the first article.
While the STB has been mandated by Congress to make a clear definition of a broker, there’s no timeline for that happening. Dispatchers would like to have clarity that their status is legitimate, and without a bond. They claim that by representing the trucker herself, they are definitely not brokers.
Some dispatchers may be a bit shady, perhaps overcharging truckers and not providing definitive paperwork to the trucker. Clearly, shady business practices shouldn’t be tolerated, but requiring a bond isn’t going to weed out cheating dispatchers.
John Gallagher, Washington Correspondent Wednesday, December 15, 2021
I keep updating this story as more information becomes available. In the first article Mike Wackett quotes actual evidence that Maersk is going to reject forwarder and broker business soon. We’ve been expecting this for some time, as Maersk has been touting their new software for door-to-door shipping arrangements.
The second article provides more actual evidence, and indicates that some other liner firms are making offers to forwarders.
The forwarders and brokers are right to be annoyed. Many of them have served customers well for years, and their customers won’t necessarily be happy.
But Maersk has a point. The system of the past 20 years or so, where brokers bought large blocks of space from the ocean carriers, hasn’t worked too well either. That system seems to have penalized ocean carriers too much. It’s not clear it rewarded brokers too much, however. Shippers may have got the best deals from the old system. They seem to have been in a position to keep prices low.
There’s a lot of modeling that’s been done in the Operations Research field regarding multilevel supply chains. One thing studied is the effect of pooling, namely selling in blocks, to distributors, while allowing retailers to purchase resold units as they wish. These models are always fraught with assumptions; the type of demand distribution, the pricing conditions at each level, the number of distributors (brokers or wholesalers), and the number and type of retailers (shippers). Most have a product inventory setting, and so are not a direct analogue with the liner industry. However, it’s clear from these studies that relatively small changes in parameters can change the character of who profits most from the contractual arrangement.
So it’s not a surprise that Maersk, or someone, would try to change the nature of the system, to see if they could make one that worked better.
In this type of model, liner firms continue to handicap themselves by building bigger and bigger ships— their lot size, the number of slots they have to sell for one voyage, grows larger and larger. With a larger lot size, you need to sell and fill more and more slots at a time, or else be able to blank a sailing— withdraw an entire lot from the delivery cycle. That causes the service level to fail catastrophically, and for more cargo and for more customers. All the customers that bought that voyage will be angry at once.
Whether this strategy will work as Maersk thinks is up for grabs at this point. I think it’s likely that many will be bent out of shape by the new deal, brokers and shippers alike, and the behavioral consequences of the change may sink it, or at least require reworking over time. And I think it tends to feed the rationale of degrading service whenever you want to. I don’t think most shippers will see that as a good thing.
Whatever happened to keeping customers happy? We teach that goal in supply chain management.
This article shows the extreme confusion generated by the extra charges and rapidly fluctuating shipping rates with ocean carriers. Everyone is annoyed to say the least. The essence of contracting is being disrupted by these surcharges. Brokers are caught in the middle.
As many ofthecharges are not realized till after the shipment, it is hard to know how they could possibly bill for them in advance or even give notice to shippers. The result is they always look bad to their customers, even if they have given a good effort to get a successful shipment for the cargo owner.
The FMC should not create more confusion and unintended consequences. I’m not a fan of brokers particularly– they are just one player in supply chains– but they have a useful role by securing capacity in advance and making it available to shippers. In fact, they secure a large portion of ocean carrier capacity themselves and resell it., they also play a role by making sure extra services, such as end point delivery, are also made available, when shippers would have more trouble handling the details working directly with carriers. We should not write rules that make it hard to keep the market functioning.
American Shipper logo
John Gallagher, Washington Correspondent Follow on TwitterThursday, June 17, 2021