Freight Derivative Handover: Preserve the Exposure Logic

Key takeaways

• Distinguish analysis, approval, execution and current position status.
• Carry forward the exposure objective and remaining mismatch, not merely the latest result.
• Identify immediate funding or information tasks separately from market judgement.
• Define the recipient's authority and the conditions that require escalation.

The memo framework below is an original educational workflow. It does not create trading authority, determine contractual rights or replace qualified review of the actual instrument and account arrangements.

Separate the four states that are easily confused

An analysis can be complete without a transaction being approved. An approved proposal can remain unexecuted. An executed arrangement can subsequently change. The current position therefore needs its own evidence rather than being inferred from the most recent presentation.

State the status in plain language. The recipient should not need to deduce it from a filename containing the word final or from a message saying that the team agreed. Identify what was agreed, by whom and whether the relevant action actually occurred.

This distinction matters because each state creates a different next task. An analytical gap may require more evidence. An unexecuted proposal may require confirmation of current terms within the actual mandate. An existing arrangement may require review of exposure or funding obligations.

Do not transfer an obsolete proposal as though it described the present position. Reconcile the handover against the applicable transaction and account records before the recipient relies on it.

Preserve the commercial objective in a usable sentence

The handover should identify whose physical price exposure the arrangement concerns and how that exposure is defined. Include the relevant programme, quantity basis and pricing period. A broad statement that the position hedges freight is insufficient for deciding whether it remains appropriate after a change.

Then explain the intended relationship with the financial reference. If the analysis relied on an assumed connection between physical and reference prices, preserve that assumption and its limits. Do not let the existence of a transaction make the relationship appear more certain than the evidence supports.

The recipient also needs to know what was deliberately left unrepresented. A partial amount or period may have been intentional. Without that explanation, a new reviewer may mistake the residual for an error or assume that the arrangement covers more than it does.

Preserve the decisive commercial logic without reproducing every research note.

Use a decision memo that distinguishes action types

The table below is a proposed handover structure. Populate it from the actual records and organisation's procedures, preserving unresolved matters explicitly.

A task to obtain information should be labelled differently from an instruction to transact or make a payment. The handover should not bundle these actions under a vague request to manage the position.

Where an immediate issue exists, place it early in the memo. The recipient should not have to read a long market narrative before discovering a time-sensitive requirement. At the same time, urgency does not remove the need to verify the instruction and its authority.

Carry the model's limits with its result

If the handover includes a calculation, state its formula, included costs and omitted items. Identify which inputs are confirmed and which remain assumptions. A polished output can otherwise look more definitive than the underlying evidence.

Preserve the distinction between final economics and cash timing. A modelled combined benefit does not establish that the necessary funds are available at the relevant date. The funding task should rely on applicable account and treasury information, not merely the final model total.

The recipient should also know whether the physical result is final or estimated. A final financial amount paired with a forecast physical outcome needs an explanation of that mixed status. Do not describe it as a completed combined result merely because one component has settled.

When a material input changes, identify which part of the model must be revisited. A focused instruction is more useful than asking the recipient to rebuild every calculation without knowing the reason.

Fictional case: a reduced cargo and an unchanged position

Imagine a fictional team that arranged a financial amount against an anticipated cargo programme. Before the next desk takes over, the cargo planner reduces the expected shipment. The financial amount has not changed, and no authorised decision has yet been made about the resulting mismatch.

The outgoing analyst initially prepares a handover saying that the freight exposure is covered and attaches the original model. That description is no longer adequate. It conceals the reduced physical programme and implies that the earlier relationship remains intact.

The corrected memo states the current physical amount's status, the unchanged financial arrangement and the unresolved mismatch. It assigns the recipient to obtain the remaining programme confirmation and refer the revised exposure to the authorised decision-maker. It also identifies any separate funding information that must be checked.

The recipient is not told to make an automatic adjustment. The proper response depends on the actual instrument, terms and mandate. The memo's value is that it transfers the changed facts and decision question accurately, allowing the responsible function to assess them.

Define the trigger that reopens the analysis

A useful trigger names a change capable of affecting the exposure relationship. Examples include a revised physical quantity, a different pricing period, changed physical pricing terms or evidence that an assumed reference relationship no longer supports the model.

Distinguish those triggers from routine information updates. A new market observation may require updating a result without changing the original objective. A physical cancellation may require a more fundamental review even if the reference is unchanged.

The recipient should know who assesses materiality and where to refer uncertainty. A handover that merely instructs the team to monitor risk leaves the most consequential judgement undefined.

Retain the earlier rationale when updating the analysis. Do not make the historical record appear to have anticipated later changes.

Confirm understanding before treating the transfer as complete

Ask whether the receiving desk can explain the objective, current state, immediate tasks and authority boundary without relying on unstated context. If it cannot, the handover needs clarification.

Resolve inconsistent descriptions before action. The commercial programme, position record and memo should not describe different amounts or periods without explaining why. Where a discrepancy remains, identify its owner and the conclusion that cannot yet be drawn.

The handover is complete when responsibility for the next defined task is clear, not merely when a document has been sent. The recipient should know what evidence will close the task and what requires a new authorised decision.

Common mistakes

Treating approval as proof of execution. Verify the actual state and reconcile it with the relevant records.

Transferring a result without its objective. Preserve the physical exposure and the intended relationship with the financial arrangement.

Calling a changed exposure covered without reassessment. Identify the mismatch and refer it to the authorised reviewer.

Combining information, payment and trading tasks. State each action and its authority boundary separately.

Where Zeaclub fits

Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.

Zeaclub provides 24/7 operating systems and worldwide coverage.

Explore Zeaclub

Learn about Zeaclub