Empty repositioning is one of the most expensive and hidden cost items in global logistics. According to Drewry Maritime Research, $16–20 billion is spent annually on moving empty containers, and 22% of all global container movements are empty voyages. For an individual logistics company or cargo owner, these costs can consume 15–25% of the total container shipping budget (Sea-Intelligence estimate).
The problem is that these costs are "dissolved" in freight rates, terminal charges, and hidden carrier fees. Most market participants do not even see this line item in their financial reports.
The My-Market.MG global depot network allows you to cut these costs by 40–70% by optimizing empty repositioning. Let’s break down exactly how.
What is Empty Repositioning and Why is it Problem in Container Logistics?
Definition
Empty repositioning is the movement of an empty container from a location where it is not needed to a location where it is required for loading. This movement generates no revenue but incurs significant costs for freight and terminal handling.
Why Empty Repositioning Occurs
The root cause is global trade imbalance.
Examples of imbalance:
China → Russia: Imports are 3–4 times higher than exports (imbalance reaches 4:1, per Portnews).
Australia → Asia: Iron ore moves in bulk, while finished goods return in containers.
South America → China: Soybeans and meat are exported, while equipment and electronics are imported.
Russia → CIS: Finished goods are exported, while empty containers return.
Who Pays for Empty Repositioning?
In the classic shipping line model, the end client (cargo owner or freight forwarder) pays for empty repositioning, often without seeing this line item on the invoice.
How it works:
The shipping line delivers a laden container from Shanghai to Vladivostok.
The client unloads the cargo.
The container must be returned to Shanghai (the line cannot abandon it in Vladivostok).
The cost of this empty return is baked into the freight rate for the next client.
Example: You pay $3,500 for freight, although the actual cost of moving the laden container is $2,500. The remaining $1,000 is hidden empty repositioning cost.
Result: You pay for empty repositioning without even realizing it.
Cost Structure of Empty Repositioning
(Note: The prices in this table are for illustrative calculation purposes only and do not constitute a public offer.)
For a single 40ft HC container, empty repositioning expenses include:
Cost Item | Average Cost |
Ocean freight (empty) | $400 – $800 |
Terminal Handling Charges (THC) at drop-off port | $150 – $300 |
Terminal Handling Charges (THC) at pickup port | $150 – $300 |
Trucking to depot | $200 – $500 |
Port storage (if delayed) | $5 – $15 / day |
Documentation | $50 – $100 |
Total per container | $950 – $2,000 |
Why Traditional Solutions Do Not Work
Companies try to reduce empty repositioning through various methods, but most fail to deliver systemic results.
Solution 1: Negotiations with Shipping Lines
Essence: Asking lines to lower freight rates to reduce hidden empty repositioning costs.
Why it fails: Lines suffer from the same imbalance and bake these costs into their rates. They have no economic incentive to reduce this component. During peak seasons, they withhold equipment entirely. You cannot see the rate structure to verify the empty repositioning portion.
Result: Maximum 3–5% savings. The problem remains unsolved.
Solution 2: Backhaul (Return Cargo)
Essence: Finding cargo for the return leg so the container does not travel empty.
Why it fails: On many routes (e.g., China → Russia, Australia → Asia), there is insufficient export volume in containers. Finding backhaul requires significant time and resources. Container utilization rates rarely exceed 30–40% even with aggressive efforts.
Result: 10–20% reduction in empty moves, but with high operational costs for cargo sourcing.
Solution 3: Swap Operations with Other Operators
Essence: Exchanging containers with other companies (you drop one off at Point A, they give you one at Point B).
Why it fails: Requires a reliable partner with matching volume and geography. Difficult to agree on terms (container class, timelines, liability). High legal and insurance risks. Only viable for large operators with massive fleets.
Result: Spot reduction in empty moves, but high transaction costs.
Solution 4: Purchasing a Proprietary Fleet
Essence: Buying containers to become independent of shipping lines.
Why it fails: Requires massive capital expenditure ($300K+ for 100 containers). The empty repositioning problem does not disappear—you still must move containers to where they are needed. Adds storage, repair, and fleet management costs. If cargo volume drops, idle containers generate losses.
Result: Control over equipment, but the repositioning problem persists.
General Conclusion: All traditional solutions either fail to address the problem systemically, require unjustifiably high costs, or simply shift the problem to another expense line. A fundamentally different approach is needed.
A Fundamentally New Solution: The My-Market.MG Global Depot Network
The Core Approach
My-Market.MG is not a shipping line or a classic lessor. We are a container equipment operator with a global depot network that radically reduces empty repositioning through three key mechanisms:
Drop-off at the nearest depot: No need to haul the container across half a continent.
One-Way Lease: The container moves only with cargo; empty repositioning is minimized.
Internal network flow balancing: We optimize container movements ourselves at scale.
How It Works in Practice
Classic Scheme (Shipping Line):
Container is loaded in Shanghai.
Transported laden to Vladivostok.
Unloaded in Moscow.
Transported empty back to Vladivostok (800 km).
Transported empty by sea to Shanghai (1,500 km).
Total client empty repositioning: 2,300 km.
Total cost: $1,200 – $1,800.
My-Market.MG Scheme:
You take a One-Way Lease container in Shanghai.
Transport it laden to Moscow.
Unload the cargo.
Drop off the empty container at the My-Market.MG depot in Moscow (0 km).
We decide where to move this container next within our network.
Total client empty repositioning: 0 km.
Total client cost for empty repositioning: $0.
Key Difference: The client does not pay for empty repositioning at all. As a global network operator, we take on this task and optimize it through scale and flow balancing.
The My-Market.MG Global Network: Geography and Capabilities
Network Structure
We provide container rental and sales at key global trade hubs:
Asia:
China: Shanghai, Ningbo, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Xiamen, Tianjin, Dalian
Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh City, Haiphong
Southeast Asia: Bangkok, Singapore
Russia:
Far East: Vladivostok, Vostochny, Nakhodka
Central: Moscow, St. Petersburg
South: Novorossiysk
Urals & Siberia: Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk
CIS:
Belarus: Minsk
Middle East:
UAE: Dubai
Turkey: Istanbul, Mersin
Africa:
Egypt: Alexandria
When the My-Market.MG Global Network Does NOT Solve the Empty Repositioning Problem
We are transparent about where our approach is not the optimal fit:
Strictly One-Way Cargo Flows: If you only import from China with zero export backhaul, a One-Way Lease will not solve the long-term equipment need. A Master Lease with long-term rental is more effective here.
Single-Region Operations: If your routes are strictly local (e.g., only Russia-Kazakhstan), a global network offers no advantage. Local operators will serve you better.
Volumes Under 10 Containers per Month: The administrative overhead of utilizing a global network will not be cost-effective. For sporadic shipments, standard shipping line solutions are simpler.
Unwillingness to Adapt Logistics Processes: Optimizing empty repositioning requires route restructuring. If you are not ready to adapt your processes, the results will be minimal.
*The information in this article does not a constitute public offer.