What does this paragraph mean to you?

[BetterThanLife]

I am not suggesting that a paid off Jump-2+ ship can't make a profit. I am saying they can't pay their loan.

I do think my forays into trade and spec, mostly in CT, tend to color my judgement. Trade and Spec in LBB2 is one roll on the chart per week. You can't sit on a planet forever looking for the right load. (Same effect as flying with cargo at standard rates, your mortgage doesn't get paid.) And you could end up for example with a roll on a Industrial world with a roll of Radioactives. and your only target worlds are Rich, Non-Industrial, Agricultural and Poor. If you roll a 7+ (58% chance) on the value chart, even with your Broker-4 skill you are screwed. (Especially when it comes time to sell you roll low.) I hit that once too often to take Trade and Spec seriously.
Now if you limit yourself to travelling between NI and I worlds you aren't likely to get hurt, but it is still possible.

My favorite gambit was to get a wharehouse and a hotel suite on a Rich World and engage in Trade and Spec. Wharehouse it for a week and sell it. (And if the wharehouse is big enough you can sit on something for a week if the price bites and keep buying.) But that was the only way I could consistently make the Trade and Spec chart work for me. Then you aren't a merchant you are a commodities broker, and you aren't doing any travelling.

MT was the same chances to purchase cargo as haul freight. And the loads actually made sense based on what planet you were on to make the trip. (But I will admit with the new combat rules in MT I never ran a Merchant campaign or played in one we spent most of our efforts running Mercenary tickets and/or running off on some patron's errand, and by that time we were using the Passage per distance concept on a regular basis. So I am not sure how it would all work out but looking at the charts it looks like you can make a living at it. However with the lesser Jumpfuel requirements you can make a profit anyway.)

T20 does give you multiple rolls, based on world pop, on the, what's available table, but it is still a random chance, and unlike MT the available cargo has no bearing on what planet you are standing on. You could still end up having to buy high instead of low.

Most importantly it does require capital to engage in Trade and Spec in the first place, and most players, especially starting players, making payments on a non-profitable ship, don't tend to have a serious surplus of capital. (Free Traders and Fat Traders are another matter of course.)

Originally posted by Aramis:
Bhoins:

long-range jump craft can make money enough to fill a market niche, even at book rates.

Base rule of technology: If it can be done, then someone will do it.
Corollary: if it makes a profit, someone will keep doing it, even if it isn't the most profitable way to get it done.

We see this in high-performance autos and aircraft already. The margin for flying CEO's in a Cesna prop pusher is far more efficient than doing so in Lear Jets; for some people, the extra time is worth the hassles and/or expenses.

That being said, J2 merchants will exists specifically becuase there are those who will wait for the J2 rather than buy two J1 passages... and there are those that will provide same in order to make the trip, even tho they could make far more with a jump 1 vessel.

Likewise, speculation is aided immensely by J3 vs J1, or even J2. A J1 ship has 6 targets maximum
A J2 has 18 targets maximum
a J3 has 36 mmaximum targets.

Add the effects of Broker 4, and the CT tables become quite profitable... add Trader 3+, and they become a money mill.

 

[Simone]

far-trader

"...Assuming such a subsidized route exists..."

I think that may be the key to the enigma. The routes are imperially subsidized, which creates an economic stress; it is logical to subsidize traffic to ports which might be economically undesirable in and of themselves, but this causes an economic inequality - the "sub-merchants" do get subsidized routes which can be handled by J1 boats, period.

Player characters chafe at the idea of visiting perhaps an 8 star route, and do not merch around such long contracts, boring - but this is precisely the fantasy run for an indie 18 wheel trucker, a "milk run" (nearest equivalent, IMTU, and imho).

Analogies are often poor tools for argument,

 

[Simone]

Originally posted by Wolfman:
My quick fix to the problem was to change the cost of starships (and construction of ships) in MTU to 10% of listed price. This had the side effect of making monthly payments substantially smaller and putting the economics into the background of game play and not the reason for game play.

Sir

Yes, Yes, Right on point:

- and the good rationale/justification is depreciation on a diminishing value asset

- which means one can only sell used components for a fraction of their new price.

IMTU I use a ship's combat and damage system based on reliability ('REL13-' ), a value which is modified:

1)with time 2)with damage 3)situationally

bigger drives get more hits before losing a rel, (the computer system already uses this in CT)

Old tubs are lower reliability, a high skill PC might take one and make it purr like a kitten, but it is not practical for the average skill (read competent) NPC crew to maintain - and a misjump due to loss of REL on the jump is ugly - "Philadelphia Project" in worst case scenario - called a "fuzz" - there are homes for fuzzed out spacers, ech -

So, companies sell off their older hulls (or coerce retiring merchants to take one in lieue of their retirement benefits!) at your suggested price - 40 year old hull, 10% of book price. Getting multiple "benefits" gains a progressively "newer/more valuable" hull - owned outright, though.

It is FUN for the players to maintain an old jalopy, btw - a cause of misadventures - teh heh -
and if they REALLY want too, they can "cherry up" an old hull, full restore, part at a time - as they can afford to (do you want a new tape, or a more reliable jump?). It is a simple bookeeping matter to keep up with, (REL13-), with simple fail reliability tests (the old CT computer system, actually, uses this).

If anyone wants a more complete description, message me and I will send a write up.

To have players fly ships, you gotta have loans, to maintain them, you'v gotta have profits. It is a means of providing the ships, not an end in itself.

Ye gods, how I enjoy this stuff - it's not as fun as sitting cross the table, and playing, but nice to be able to ramble, with folks who might see the value (even if they disagree!)- I look forward to getting ripped on this one, _BIG_ smile.

- musings of the sojourner

 

[aramis]

Bhoins: You the same fatal error in your logic train...

You assume most J2+ boats will be bought on loans.

I would say that most J2 and J33 merchantmen are in fact, bought cash outright by people who've successfully outgrown the challenge of the J1 financed boats...

A few good runs can generate, even under Bk7 rules, sufficient capital to allow for buying outright a J2 or J3 merchant. No yard will turn down cash outright in advance for someone already owning a ship with clear papers. I've had players set up escrow accounts to make their payments on the first ship, buy a longer legged ship, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY hire an NPC captain to run the ship for them as a subbie.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually I assume most ships will be bought with financing. Though Players, with good luck and some creative investing, will be the exception and occasionally buy a ship for cash. Corporations, will tend, like they do today, to leverage their assets. The average independent Merchant will also not have tens of millions of Credits lying around. The average person with MCr40 or so would retire. At a simple 5% interest rate that amounts to MCr2 per year income, living off the interest, forever. There will be exceptions but in general major purchases like that are financed. People can and do buy cars outright. People can and do buy homes outright. But they are the exceptions, not the rule. Corporations can build factories and install equipment in them for cash, but they don't.

Why build one ship and service one route, when for the same capital outlay, you can build 5. In Traveller it is simple, because the loan isn't servicable. Because the pricing system/finance system is broken above J-1, you can't finance. So if this was happeneing for real, either there will be very few J-2+ ships outside of government or someone will fix the system. (Either by restructuring the finance system or restructuring the pricing system.)

Major corporations don't have much in the way of liquid assets. (Microslop being the exception.) If you have lots of cash lying around the shareholders want dividends. They feel, rightly so IMHO, that the money belongs to them. And after a reasonable amount of recapitalization, they get their portion of their money.

It isn't a fatal flaw in my logic, it is a fatal flaw in the pricing/finance system of Traveller when compared to how real systems work. I know it is just a game. It isn't reality. But it is hard science Sci-Fi roleplaying. And Economics is supposed to be a science. (At least according to my college economics porfessor years ago.)

Charging by distance, regardless of speed, actually fixes the finance system, generally pays out proportional profits based on the capital outlay in the first place, and if still not according to the old adage, time is money, a lot closer.

FedEx gets to charge quite a bit more than the Post Office for overnight mail because FedEx is for "when it absolutely, positively has to get there overnight," and Express Mail will probably get there tomorrow but will definitely be there the day after tomorrow.

If I need an exec there to fix something or negotiate something then I will send him on the fastest available boat. Matter of fact, depending on the circumstances charter a courier to take him. And I would certainly pay a premium to get him there sooner. But the charter prices don't pay the finance costs of a ship unless it is priced per distance the jump drive is capable of.

As your Jump-3 ship illustrated, I still believe it is a sweet design, under the current system there is no margin in high jump ships. You will make a profit, beginning 34.5 years after you purchase the ship outright. (Because that is how long it takes to pay for itself, with the addition of a handful of high passengers, and at canon operational tempo.) It isn't profit until you recover your initial investment. And you can't finance it unless you bend different canon rules. (35 jumps a year vs the canon 25.)

Originally posted by Aramis:
Bhoins: You the same fatal error in your logic train...

You assume most J2+ boats will be bought on loans.

I would say that most J2 and J33 merchantmen are in fact, bought cash outright by people who've successfully outgrown the challenge of the J1 financed boats...

A few good runs can generate, even under Bk7 rules, sufficient capital to allow for buying outright a J2 or J3 merchant. No yard will turn down cash outright in advance for someone already owning a ship with clear papers. I've had players set up escrow accounts to make their payments on the first ship, buy a longer legged ship, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY hire an NPC captain to run the ship for them as a subbie.

 

[Simone]

Bhoins

Good stuff.

I take from you, for IMTU, (with permission?) the idea of the range multiple for cargo price, perhaps a mod premium for ticket price, too.

sojourner

 

[TheEngineer]

I would not dare to set up a economic system even for a game.
This may be functional for some specific purposes, but never for the need of a universe economy. I could give GT:FT to my wife (profession: mighty controller..) and she would mess it up almost instantly

Actually real life shows again and again, that economic systems are understood as well as jump space, leading them away from science to religion.

So, Bhoins, You're are sales man and quite sensitive for economical glitches I guess.
But I guess too, that this rules gap (I call it that way, not a broken rule or fatal flaw) is neglegtable in the overall scheme, where anybody does anything with the rules anyway

.
Perhaps most of the people actually never had gameplay problems caused by that problem.
My players run well with their J3 corsair and some speculative trade.

If its really about revising things I surely would fix that, too, but even here just a simple sentence like "the standard passage prices are <we know that> but these may be subject to modifications caused by local conditions, ships performance or just politics" might do the job.

 

[BetterThanLife]

In MTU, with much experimentation over the years, I have found that charging both freight and passenger on a per parsec, regardless of jump capability of starship, works, keeps things fairly balanced and is simple. It also seems to cover the intent of the paragraph quoted at the beginning of the thread. It is apparently also the GT/Far-Trader, simplified version of commerce converted to the CT-MT-TNE-T4-T20 universe, without being OTU of course.

I know I am not alone in its use and of course you are more than welcome to use it as well.

I do not charge a premium for faster ships. I haven't found a simple way to do it and keep the financial proportions correct. I do throw out Priority Cargo in this method as well. Perhaps using the same construction as Priority cargo, for priority passengers and add a 10% premium to the passage price? Nothing I have messed with, but perhaps it would work fairly well. (I personally don't see it as neccessary.)

The one drawback is the passages received as mustering out benefits. I have personally IMTU resolved this as, you can cash it in for 90% of lowest passage price, 1 parsec, or take one hop at the desiginated level, (High, Mid, or Low) and the Government, organization, etc will pay the actual cost of passage to the carrier. (the same would work for those passages handed out by TAS.)

Originally posted by Soldiurnare:
Bhoins

Good stuff.

I take from you, for IMTU, (with permission?) the idea of the range multiple for cargo price, perhaps a mod premium for ticket price, too.

sojourner

 

[aramis]

No, not every sod who makes MCr50 will retire... in fact, MCr50 might not be enough to support the requisite lifestyle costs of a soc 9+ individual for more than a decade.

I don't see PC's as exceptions, at least not in traveller. I do see them as unusually motivated, but otherwise terrifically normal folk.

The economic model derived from Bk2/Bk7/MT is one where many ship operators can wind up with multi-million credit bankrolls, where financing anything more than J1 is dicey, and J3 is not goign to happen.

And, while it may take 40 years to pay off in the sense of having made as much as it costs, it is just as likely, given a crew competent enough to have made that much money in the first place, to pay off in under a year.

The key element is having a Broker 3+ with Trader 3+ (Bk7 or MT), as that allows spec trade on a grand and very profitable scale.

Many merchants won't care if the ship makes back, either... provided they have enough left to run on, and pay the crew, the ship is more home than work... so when they do get a score, they are likely to set the cash aside for hard times.

In most mechantile games I've run, under CT, MT, and T20, the crew usually wind up keeping about MCr30 in a cash reserve.

Which brings the related issue of hijackings... A hijack is only really profitable if there is some quickly disposable means of converting the ship to value... these large sum cash wads encouraged by the Bk2 and Bk7 systems will be a major source. Watch for the ship with the big score, then get aboard, and take 'em... The ship itself is often worth far less than the cargo and/or cash reserves aboard. (Hijackinngs for travel are another conversion to value, but are NOT likely to be the prime motivator. Cash is.)

 

[Falkayn]

Putting a T20 spin on things, it looks to me like that from small (200-tons) to large (5000-tons) freight-only vessels will need to raise Cr20,000-Cr50,000 per cargo ton per month in order to meet mortgage payments (assuming flat 5% rate for life of ship) and routine maintenance costs. Higher Jump numbers need more per ton.

That does NOT cover annual maintenance costs, berthing costs, fuel, crew salaries or owner profit.

Charging Cr1000/ton will NOT work in T20. For that matter the going rate for High and medium Passages is probably too low, I'd figire increasing them tenfold to be truly representative of the cost (or at least charge by the parsec).

Speculative trade obviously allows for a lot more than Cr1000/ton profit, possible even Cr50,000/ton if your Broker/Trader skill is good enough, however it does not answer the main problem of how to charge for transport between star systems.

So for T20 I would suggest that standard freight charges would be something more like Cr10,000/ton/parsec. Higher Jump ships can do more parsecs per month, and thus pay for their higher costs that way (if local astrography allows).

In terms of High/Medium Passages it might be mroe reasonable to charge something akin to double the freight charge for the tonnage of cargo the rooms take up. The doubling is there because you need to have a steward and put up with painful passengers, put up with extra security versus hijackers and probably have more costly insurance.

 

[TheEngineer]

Taking these pricing considerations, I ask myself if travelling as a passenger or freight transport is affordable anymore ?
Are there any customers left, who are able to pay for this ?

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Taking these pricing considerations, I ask myself if travelling as a passenger or freight transport is affordable anymore ?
Are there any customers left, who are able to pay for this ?

It's a good question but then I wonder who can afford to pay for 1st Class air travel too.

Perhaps the problem is the cost of starships, they may need to be made more affordable as a result of the starship design process.

OTOH, perhaps the mortgage for a starship is for 100 years, and not 40 years. That would knock the costs down a fair way too.

 

[BetterThanLife]

With a T20 spin on things a Free Trader can, without trade and spec, with two jumps per month, provided it sticks to higher pop worlds, can make its payments. The profit margin is between KCr30 and KCr50 per month. Or roughly KCr375 to KCr625 per year. Not nearly the margin it had under CT when the ship cost almost half as much. I am not a big believer in Trade and Spec so for me the litmus test for starships is can it theoretically make its payments on full loads jumping at 2 jumps per month and how likely is it to be able to carry a full load. The Free Trader passes this test. (Life support is cheaper in T20 than it is in CT, which doesn't make up for the higher cost of the ship, but it helps.)

The Far Trader has the same problems that its forebearers always had. It can't make payments under the per jump rule but if you ammend it to per parsec it also makes its payments.

Again the margin is smaller because the standard designs are more expensive in T20 than they were under LBB2. But it does make it. As does the Liner and the Fat Trader. Though the later two, to ensure full loads, are more dependent on higher pop worlds.

If you cut the payments to 1/260th (as there are 13 months in a standard year) you pay the ship off in 40 years with the total amount of 220% of the cost of the ship, including your 20% down, then you can make your mortgage payments easier. (Yes I set aside 1/12 of the mortgage payment, like I set aside 1/12th of the maintenance cost each month so I don't miss a month.) Or you can charge 1/240th per month but not charge a payment during maintenance month. (Same difference per year and equals the 220% over 40 years.)

So while the margins are smaller they still work about the same as CT. They just have smaller profit margins. And under the per parsec model, the higher jump ships still work as well.

T20 doesn't really need any different changes.

 

[BetterThanLife]

MCr50 at just 5% interest is 2.5 million per year or KCr192.367 per month, without ever touching the capital. For living the high life, at Cr250 per point of social class per month, that amounts to a Soc of 769. Taking MCr50, stuffing it in a mattress, collecting 0% interest, at Soc-26, living the high life, would last for 7692.3 months or 591.7 years. (13 months in a year.) I would say that if you have MCr50 you could rather comfortably retire.

As far as making multi-million bankrolls with a ship, sure you can. (Though the ship in question only had 2 tons of cargo so it isn't likely with that ship.) You can also lose your shirt with trade and spec. Which is why it is speculation. You must have money to make money, the trade and spec tables show that. If you can't afford the commodity then you can't buy it. If you are stuck buying high and selling low, which is possible even with high skill numbers, you may have to deadhead instead. You can reduce the risk but you can't eliminate it. I never saw Book 7 on the shelves so I never purchased it. (We rolled Merchants based on a Dragon Magazine article back then.)

I am not saying you can't have successes. And those will definitely be memorable. But you can also have failures. It makes for interesting adventures. However, and this is the most important part, as far as I am concerned, the ship finance and cost should be a struggle but it should be part of the background not the main focus. So the ship should be inherently profitable.

As for Merchants not caring if their investment in the ship is paid back? I seriously doubt that. Businesses are set up to make a profit. (Unless the business is a loss leader to balance another business that is making too much money.) If all you want to do is travel the space lanes and you have MCr100 lying around then invest a quarter of it and then buy a yacht. Carry enough incidental cargo to pay maintenance and relax and see the Galaxy. But if you are going into business you better be concerned about making your investment back and making a profit.

Originally posted by Aramis:
No, not every sod who makes MCr50 will retire... in fact, MCr50 might not be enough to support the requisite lifestyle costs of a soc 9+ individual for more than a decade.

I don't see PC's as exceptions, at least not in traveller. I do see them as unusually motivated, but otherwise terrifically normal folk.

The economic model derived from Bk2/Bk7/MT is one where many ship operators can wind up with multi-million credit bankrolls, where financing anything more than J1 is dicey, and J3 is not goign to happen.

And, while it may take 40 years to pay off in the sense of having made as much as it costs, it is just as likely, given a crew competent enough to have made that much money in the first place, to pay off in under a year.

The key element is having a Broker 3+ with Trader 3+ (Bk7 or MT), as that allows spec trade on a grand and very profitable scale.

Many merchants won't care if the ship makes back, either... provided they have enough left to run on, and pay the crew, the ship is more home than work... so when they do get a score, they are likely to set the cash aside for hard times.

In most mechantile games I've run, under CT, MT, and T20, the crew usually wind up keeping about MCr30 in a cash reserve.

Which brings the related issue of hijackings... A hijack is only really profitable if there is some quickly disposable means of converting the ship to value... these large sum cash wads encouraged by the Bk2 and Bk7 systems will be a major source. Watch for the ship with the big score, then get aboard, and take 'em... The ship itself is often worth far less than the cargo and/or cash reserves aboard. (Hijackinngs for travel are another conversion to value, but are NOT likely to be the prime motivator. Cash is.)

 

[TheEngineer]

It really funny to see effects of some timy assumptions like travel costs on the overall configuration of a universe

Bhoins fixed his economical system by using per parsec prices, which is a good approach but perhaps as unrealistic as those "standard" prices per jump presented in the basic rules.
But it surely works well.

At least its not that complicate to patch a system here and there, but what would be a challange too, is to detail the situation with untouched rules.
We discovered, that long jump or larger ships are hardly profitable and normally cannot be financed the way presented in the rules.
Its just like using a Ferrari for UPS logistics.
Thats actually not a broken rule but just a definition of circumstances.

Basically its not about right or wrong or good or bad of a rule, but just about the like/dislike of an assumption/consequences given by a rule.
Thats the reason, why we surely will not be able to synhronize thoughts in this thread.
But thats not bad

What I would like, is to work out the "look and feel" differences of th TU dealing with classical rules and the revised rules a la Bhoins.

E.g.
Classical way:
- standard prices -> government directive ?
- increased mobility / transport
- short jumps most profitable
- long jump ships rare, perhaps mainly
subsidized, part of public transport systems,
or subject of special contracts between
government/companies
....

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
A few good runs can generate, even under Bk7 rules, sufficient capital to allow for buying outright a J2 or J3 merchant.

You make the fatal mistake of assuming that any trade system that allows a few good runs to generate sufficient capital to buy a multi-million credit ship outright is a plausible one. I assure you, it isn't. If someone can make a huge return on investment on a route, someone else will very soon show up and undercut him. It's that simple. Huge money-making trade routes are temporary abberations. You can't base a sensible economic system on them.

The only reasonable way to calculate shipping rates is to figure out the true costs, add on a reasonable profit, and divide by the number of passengers/tons of cargo shipped.

After wou've done that you can add on factors like price wars, monopolies, dream trade routes, temporary shortages, etc.


Hans

 

[BetterThanLife]

Following up on TheEngineer's comments on various assumptions with rule sets.

Per Distance regardless of jump drive. (Per Parsec)
-Standard Prices.
-Mortgages for merchant ships work, regardless of Jumpdrive capacity.
-Profit margins tend to be fairly uniform. More invested more earned.
-Jump-2 and Jump-3 ships more abundant.
-Vastly increased mobility as Jump-2 and Jump-3 ships are profitable so are more common.
-Because Jump-2+ ships are more common commercial traffic moves off the Mains and backwater status is due to local market or envirnomental conditions instead of not being situated along the main.
-Commercial traffic works in Gateway Domain, which doesn't include a long Main in any of the Sectors.
-It costs the same, though on longer trips it may cost less because a longed leg ship might be able to cut the corner, to get someone or something to a destination regardless of time, instead of universally costing less to get there faster. (Definitely counter intuitive.)
-Subsidies will still be used for Market expansion and regular service especially for larger ships that can't fill capacity under standard rules.
-You can look at a map and calculate cost for getting a person someplace or goods to market. (Instead of vagarities of finding the right high jump ship to take your goods and increasing your profits.)
-The change doesn't effect how a Jump-1 ship works.

 

[TheEngineer]

Bhoins, that sounds quite reasonable !

The hidden assumption is, that there are still enough people able to pay for higher ticket prices.
So we get the missing profit of the classical system from the customer market here, which is a kind of "unknown", but sort of "drainable" variable.

Would you regard the prices as government enforced ?

 

[aramis]

Hans: It doesn't take a steady stream of good runs; it takes but one or two excellent runs (not routes, but specific runs) to make scads of money.

The same can be said for certain other elements: those persons who bought large ammounts of MTG Cards at the right times, and then sold them at the right times made HUGE profits (In my case, over 300% ROI in 6 months). Having the right thing at the right time is the power. and, in CT (Bk2 or 7), or MT, or TNE, or T20, or T4, one really good run can generate in excess of 50 MCr profit. Assuming, of course said item has a base value above Cr1000, and buy low and sell high, and have the 1MCr on hand to max out your load.

I've seen it happen all too often under each of the various eccon rules mentioned above. it's not even terrifically unrealistic... far more common than it should be, but not unrealistic.

And, under CT, MT, TNE, T4, or T20, all you need is that really high broker. A high trader skill helps.

It is the old tramp steamer's wish: One good run, Lord, give me just one really good run!

Bhoins: by lifestyle costs, I'm assuming more than the minimum REQUIRED to maintain ones' soc. Like maintaining a Yacht (which will eat MCr1 per year, roughly), and an estate for a soc 11+ individual. They won't loose apparent soce by spending less than KCr2.75 per month, but then again, that is rock bottom fo r that Soc... (read MT's comments on it.. PM). And lets not forget other real assets needed; property ona backwater might be Cr10 per hectare, but a condo in Regni (captial of Regina) is probably over a million, plus at least a 5% per annumm tax...

Compare the disparity of backwater alaska (Less than US$1000 per acre) to NYC (US$1M for a good family sized condo in a good area). I'm paying $300 a month to rent a chunk of property 80' long and 30' wide, on to which I have a $20K relocatable residence upon (which I am purchasing).

No, MCr50 is, as a cash blot, not sufficient for many to retire to an IDEAL situation, and many will not retire even if they suddenly get same.

Why would people be merchants on Tramps anyway? Wanderlust.
Are they likely to settle down just because they can? not all of them.
Would some move to a bigger ship for the challenges it provides? Absolutely.
Would enough do so to provide for the J2 & J3 route needs? Maybe.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
With a T20 spin on things a Free Trader can, without trade and spec, with two jumps per month, provided it sticks to higher pop worlds, can make its payments. The profit margin is between KCr30 and KCr50 per month. Or roughly KCr375 to KCr625 per year. Not nearly the margin it had under CT when the ship cost almost half as much. I am not a big believer in Trade and Spec so for me the litmus test for starships is can it theoretically make its payments on full loads jumping at 2 jumps per month and how likely is it to be able to carry a full load. The Free Trader passes this test. (Life support is cheaper in T20 than it is in CT, which doesn't make up for the higher cost of the ship, but it helps.)

OK, I found an error in my calculations, I was taking 12 payments per year, and 5% interest per month. Taking the interest to a yearly rate makes the figures seem a lot nicer.

Making a cargo only version of the Free Trader from the Standard Designs errata:
Jump-1, 1G, 134 tons cargo, 3 staterooms (crew only), MCr47.76 (with discount).

Assuming a 5% fixed interest loan over 40 years (no compound interest) with 13 periods a year. Repayments of capital + interest, and 4 weekly maintenance works out to be 0.21MCr/4 weeks. Add 0.199KCr per 4 weeks you set aside for annual maintenance and you have to find 210.199KCr per 4 weeks (I'm fudging those maintenance figures from 12 periods to 13, but they are pretty insignificant, and this is only a game).

Looking at Profession/Technical skills and assuming the crew is paid as 1xManager, 1xSupervisor, 1xGeneral Employee, the weekly salaries would then be Cr1000 + Cr750 + Cr500 = Cr2250. That is KCr9 per 4 weeks.

However, using the crew payments from the Travelling section gves them as Cr9000(?) + Cr5000 + Cr4000 per month = KCr16.615 per 4 weeks. That's probably a lot more reasonable.

Life support costs around KCr3 per week, or KCr12 per 4 weeks.

Fuel is used up at the rate of 2 tons per 4 weeks (powerplant) and 20 tons per jump. Assuming 2 jumps per 4 weeks (which is ambitious, unless you have brokers in each port) and a per ton cost of Cr600 (refined fule delivered to the ship at a Class A/B starport .. hmmm, what happens at class C starports?) that will cost KCr25.2 per 4 weeks.

Starport fees vary a LOT, but we could assume something like KCr1 for landing and berthing fees per 4 weeks and that all cargo handling is done in the 3-4 days allowed by the ship's schedule by the crew.

OK, so where are we per 4 weeks? We have KCr265.014 of costs to cover every 4 weeks.

We have 134 tons of cargo space, and we're assuming 2 jumps per 4 weeks. That means we want to earn at least KCr0.989 per ton to break even. That is impressively close to the KCr1 per ton that standard cargoes pay.

Taking on slightly more hazardous or higher priority (that pay per parsec) cargoes that pay as much as Cr10,000 per ton could really help the profit margin. Getting into trouble and needing combat repairs, or paying for missiles could really hurt the bottom line.

OK, I must withdraw any complaint about those trading rules, they do make sense for T20, at least for Jump-1 cargo vessels.