4.2 years or 2.1 years: Two numbers don’t add up in an order book report

Conclusion first: BIMCO gave two production capacity coverage years in the October 2026 "weekly figures"——
The order books held by Chinese shipyards are equivalent to 4.2 years and 2.1 years of production capacity respectively. The first half of the sentence can be calculated, but the second half cannot be calculated.
The poor half of capacity happens to be the part that the report itself warns has “not yet been built.”

It's not a number written wrong. It's aProve a hypothesis with a hypothesisThe structural issues must be known when reading.

1. What does the report say?

October 21, 2026, BIMCO official website "Shipping number of the week" column
Published a short article by Chief Shipping Analyst Niels Rasmussen titled
《Global shipyard order book grows 13%, strengthening China's lead》.

There is only one core fact:

September 1, 2026, global shipyards have approximately 203.2 million corrected gross tons (CGT) , +13% year-on-year
(180 million in the same period last year). Slightly lower than the historical peak of 210.4 million in May, but higher than the old record of 195.4 million in 2008.

Superimposed on top of this are three observations:

• Share: In the past year, China accounted for 74% of global CGT contracts; 64% of orders were held in China, 19% in South Korea, and 6% in Japan.
• Ship type: The six major cargo ship types (containers, oil tankers, gas ships, dry bulk cargo, other dry cargo, ro-ro) all account for more than 72% of the total in China.

Container ships accounted for the highest number, 81%. The six major sectors together accounted for 88% of the global order book.

• Capacity: If the production capacity is calculated based on the maximum annual output from 2021 to 2025, China's on-hand orders are equivalent to 4.2 years of production capacity.

South Korea 1.9 years, Japan 1.7 years.

Finally, a warning: Chinese shipyards are scheduled to deliver 44 million CGT in 2028, nearly twice the 22.7 million in 2025.
"The capacity expansion required to achieve this goal may increase the risk of idle capacity if new ship signings weaken in the future."

2. The first trap: the two "production capacities of several years" are not the same thing

The report also gave another set of figures in the same paragraph:

If the current production capacity is regarded as the highest annual CGT for actual delivery or planned delivery between 2021 and 2030,
The average coverage years dropped toChina 2.1 years, South Korea and Japan are both 1.6 years.

4.2 and 2.1, look like "conservative estimates" and "optimistic estimates". No.

two digitsThe denominators are fundamentally different:

The denominator of caliber two containsDelivery plans that haven’t happened yet. The planned figures are naturally greater than the historical reality.
The larger the denominator is, the shorter the service life will be. Therefore, Caliber 2 calculates "more generous coverage", not because the shipyard's production capacity is really greater.
But becauseIt first wrote in the assumption that "production capacity will be expanded to the planned size".

Using the conclusion of Caliber 2 to argue that "China's production capacity is not tight and there is no need to expand production" is a circular argument.

3. Recalculation: 4.2 years can match, 2.1 years cannot match

Plug in the public figures and do the math. China’s handheld orders are calculated as 64% × 203.2 million = 130 million CGT.

Caliber one: 130 million ÷ 4.2 years = 31 million CGT/year.
This magnitude is reasonable - China actually delivered 22.7 million CGT in 2025, which is consistent with the historical highest output higher than that delivered in that year.

Caliber two: 130 million ÷ 2.1 years = 61.9 million CGT/year.

Here’s the problem. According to the report’s own definition, the production capacity of Caliber 2 should be the “highest value of actual or planned delivery from 2021 to 2030”.
The report clearly states that China’s highest planned delivery is 44 million CGT in 2028.

44 million ≠ 61.9 million. Using 44 million as the denominator, the coverage period is 2.95 years, not 2.1 years.

That is to say: The three figures given in the report - 64% share, 44 million planned delivery, 2.1 years of coverage - cannot be true at the same time.

To make 2.1 years stand, Chinese shipyards' scheduled deliveries for 2029 or 2030 must exceed 61.9 million CGT.
That's 2.7x actual deliveries in 2025, two years not mentioned in the full report.

The method of falsification is very straightforward: If you get BIMCO’s complete methodology or original data sheet, just see
China's scheduled delivery in 2029-2030 indeed exceeds 61.9 million CGT, so this section of this article does not hold true.
Before getting it, this can only be recorded as "cannot be reproduced according to public standards", and it cannot be concluded that the report is wrong.

Fourth, the bad half is the part that the report says "has not been built yet"

31 million → 61.9 million, exactly double.

The core warning of the report is: Chinese shipyards must raise their annual output to a record high in order to complete the scheduled deliveries in 2028;
This part of the capacity expansion "will increase the risk of idleness if contract signings weaken."

So this report stands in an awkward position logically:

• it saysProduction capacity is not enough, must be expanded;
• When calculating the coverage period, It is also assumed that production capacity has been expanded to the planned level..

The two statements are true independently, but when put together they cancel each other out. If the reader only remembers "2.1 years, it is much more prosperous than South Korea and Japan",
This will lead to a conclusion that is contrary to the original intention of the report - and this is precisely the sentence that is most likely to be paraphrased out of shape.

5. The Chinese translation changed 2027 to 2026

There is another flaw in the domestic version of this report, which is more direct than the issue of caliber.

BIMCO original English text:

Combined deliveries from China, South Korea and Japan peaked at 40.1m CGT in 2025,
but 55.9m CGT and 60.0m CGT are currently scheduled for delivery in 2027 and 2028.

That is: 55.9 million corresponds to 2027 , 60 million corresponds to 2028.

A Chinese public account version reads "The planned delivery volume in 2026 is as high as 55.9 million CGT".

One year difference. This deviation will directly change the direction of the conclusion:

• According to the original text, 55.9 million is in 2027, indicating that there is still a two-year buffer between 2026 and 2027;
• To paraphrase, 55.9 million in 2026, equal to saySo much will be delivered next year, the pressure on production capacity immediately became urgent.

Calculating the production capacity gap, arranging the delivery pace, and judging the inflection point of ship prices, if used incorrectly in this year, the results will be completely different.
When quoting this table, be sure to go back to the original English text and check the year.

6. How can this report be used?

Can be quoted directly (Clear caliber, single source):

• Global backlog of orders 203.2 million CGT, +13% year-on-year, September 1, 2026.
• China’s share of new orders is 74%, and its share of orders on hand is 64%.
• Container ships accounted for 30% of the order book and contributed 68% of the increase in the past year.
• China 2028 scheduled deliveries of 44 million CGT, 1.94x for 2025 22.7 million.

Caliber must be indicated when quoting:

• "4.2 years" - the denominator is the highest actual production in 2021-2025, which can be used as "order backlog based on existing production capacity".
• "2.1 years" - the denominator includes future planned deliveries, which is a sensitive assumption and cannot be regarded as ready-made production capacity.

Not suitable for citation alone:

• Any expression that juxtaposes 4.2 and 2.1 implies a "range".
• Any statement that "double delivery by 2028" means "production capacity has doubled" - that is a delivery task, not the current status of production capacity.

7. The general significance of this matter

Common pronunciation problems that everyone will encounter: When a report gives both "what is" and "what if",
When the conclusions obtained by the two calculations are opposite, first look at which number is put into the denominator.

The denominators of the two years of this report are "existing production capacity" and "planned production capacity."
The former answered "How much is the backlog now?" and the latter answered "If everything goes as planned, is the backlog still high?"
Both are good questions, but they are not the same question.

If we regard the second answer as the first answer, we will come to the conclusion that "the production capacity is ample and there is no need to expand production"——
The person who wrote this report wanted to say exactly the opposite.

References

[1] RASMUSSEN N. Global shipyard order book grows 13%, strengthening China's lead[EB/OL]. BIMCO, Shipping number of the week, (2026-10-21)[2026-11-03]. https://www.bimco.org/news-insights/market-analysis/shipping-number-of-the-week/2026/1021-snow/.

[2] Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide. Global shipyard order book grows 13%, strengthening China's lead[EB/OL]. (2026-10-23)[2026-11-03]. https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/global-shipyard-order-book-grows-13-strengthening-chinas-lead/.

[3] Long de Shipman. China’s shipbuilding production capacity, doubled in 2028 [EB/OL]. WeChat public account, (2026-11-03)[2026-11-03]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SBw53QsRccOJIXYOi28Jiw.

Data and Recalculation Process

Recalculation instructions: China’s orders on hand of 130 million CGT are calculated based on 64% × 203.2 million. The report does not directly give the country’s absolute value.
If the actual China handheld order base used in the report deviates from the estimated value, the gap in Caliber 2 may narrow;
But for 2.1 years to be established, the required production capacity must still be significantly higher than the highest disclosed planned delivery volume of 44 million CGT.

*All figures in this article are marked with sources. If they are estimated, they are written in the table; if they cannot be reproduced, they are marked "cannot be reproduced according to public standards" and no assertion is made. *