Displaying items by tag: LafargeHolcim
Is the LafargeHolcim merger doomed?
18 March 2015In the UK there is an expression, coined by former Prime Minister Harold Wilson, that a 'week is a long time in politics.' While the week he was referring to has long since been forgotten, this refrain has since been repeated to the point of cliché by the mainstream media and is often used in the context of rapidly-changing political news stories. Regardless of its origin, this expression could well be used to accurately describe the current situation in France and Switzerland, where the past week has seen a number of serious and unpredictable developments in the preparation of the anticipated LafargeHolcim mega-merger.
Disgruntlement from 'those close to the deal' first surfaced as a 'wild rumour' a few weeks back but, in the past seven days, several of Holcim's shareholders, including the influential Thomas Schmidheiny, have questioned the contribution that can now be made by Lafarge. Holcim shareholders claim that the group has out-performed Lafarge in the 12 months since the deal was announced and they feel that this should be recognised financially. The abandonment of the Euro1.20 cap on the Swiss Franc by the Swiss National Bank (SNB) on 15 January 2015 has loaded the dice even further in Holcim's favour.
This is how the situation has deteriorated in the past seven days. Late last week, we had confirmation that Holcim was seeking to renegotiate the terms of the merger. On Monday we heard what at least part of those terms were, including an assertion that each Lafarge share was now worth just 0.875 of a Holcim share. Lafarge's main shareholders, accepting that their position was compromised to an extent, suggested that each Lafarge share was worth 0.93 of a Holcim share. Since then, it has become apparent that Bruno Lafont, the proposed leader of LafargeHolcim, has also put Holcim in a spin, as he is perceived to have presided over Lafarge's poorer performance.
Then, just yesterday, it was announced that the two current group boards had met separately in an attempt to arrive at new conditions with which to re-start negotiations. Commentators think that Holcim is holding all of the Aces but Lafarge has made it clear that it cannot accept a lower valuation and a CEO from Holcim. Discussions that take place 'in the dark' like this will do little to build confidence between the merging parties and infers that communication has become strained. There are twinges of antagonism in the releases that are not going to be solved by the boards sitting in separate rooms and whipping themselves into a frenzy.
Also caught up in this, like the child of a divorcing couple, is CRH. It only announced its purchase of Holcim and Lafarge divestments in February 2015. It stands to gain a joint Euro158m from Lafarge and Holcim if they fail to merge, but this will not make up for the loss of the many high-quality cement assets it otherwise stands to gain.
What will happen in the coming weeks? You have to be brave to predict how this will turn out, but our LinkedIn Group is a great place to discuss this rapidly-changing story. One thing we can be sure of is that there will be a lot to write about in another seven days. After all, a week is a long time in the cement industry!
Europe: The boards of Lafarge and Holcim met separately on 17 March 2015 to try and salvage their merger.
According to Reuters, one source said ahead of the Lafarge board meeting that Lafarge would not accept renegotiations on the governance of LafargeHolcim. The original merger agreement designated a board made up of seven members from each company and Lafarge boss Bruno Lafont as CEO. "The board cannot give satisfaction to Holcim on all points," the source said. "It cannot accept both a change of parity and a taking of control."
On 15 March 2015, Holcim said that it wanted to open talks on the exchange ratio and on 'governance issues' because the original merger terms were no longer acceptable to its board. Lafarge said on 16 March 2015 that it would consider revising the share exchange ratio, but nothing else. According to another source, Holcim has proposed changing the previously-agreed 1:1 exchange ratio to 0.875 Holcim shares for each Lafarge share, but Lafarge wants a 0.93:1 ratio.
One Holcim shareholder who opposes the deal reportedly said that the appointment of Lafarge's Lafont as head of LafargeHolcim has become a bone of contention, with some questioning his ability to deliver promised cost savings of Euro1.4bn/yr.
Ireland's CRH, which planned to buy a large portion of Lafarge and Holcim's assets to appease competition authorities, could experience collateral damage if the merger is cancelled. According to Reuters, if the merger fails, CRH is still liable for a break-up fee of Euro158m.
Europe: A conflict between Lafarge and Holcim has deepened as both groups have acknowledged that the terms of their proposed 'merger of equals' may have to be revised to reflect diverging valuations, according to Reuters.
The merger 'Can no longer be pursued in its present form,' said Holcim said in a statement on 16 March 2015. It has proposed a renegotiation of the share exchange ratio and 'governance issues.' Lafarge is willing to consider revising the share-exchange ratio in the merger, but not other aspects of the deal, it said in a separate statement.
The deal announced in April 2014 was intended to combine Lafarge and Holcim on an equal basis, but diverging results, share prices and fluctuations in the Euro and Swiss Franc have led Holcim to seek a revision of the terms. Holcim has proposed changing a proposed 1-1 share exchange ratio to 0.875 Holcim shares for each Lafarge share, according to news reports. Lafarge is said to be planning a counter proposal that would trim its weighting to 0.93 to complete the deal.
Lafarge and Holcim in talks to renegotiate merger
12 March 2015Europe: Holcim and Lafarge are in talks to renegotiate the terms of their Euro41bn merger after a divergence in the value of the two companies over the past year. The two sides are holding discussions that might result in changes to the terms of the one-for-one share deal announced last April 2015, according to The Financial Times.
It in unclear how the renegotiation might affect CRH, which agreed in February 2015 to pay Euro6.5bn for assets being sold by the two companies as they sought to address potential competition concerns over the deal.
In recent weeks Holcim shareholders have raised concerns over the terms of the deal, most vocally a representative for the Schmidheiny family, which is Holcim's largest investor. Thomas Schmidheiny, head of the family and a former Holcim chairman, wanted the terms of the deal renegotiated. Holcim's second largest shareholder, Eurocement, which is owned by Russian Filaret Galchev and holds 10% of the shares, has not publicly supported the deal.
Europe: Holcim's largest stakeholder, Thomas Schmidheiny, wants a better deal for the Holcim's shareholders in its planned merger with Lafarge, according to Swiss Newspaper SonntagsZeitung, which cited people close to Schmidheiny.
The merger with France's Lafarge to create the world's biggest cement company was agreed on 7 April 2015, but analysts have since flagged a potential divergence between the two companies' earnings prospects, raising the possibility of a renegotiation of terms.
SonntagsZeitung said that Holcim board member Schmidheiny, who owns 20.1% of the company according to Thomson Reuters data, sees two possible solutions. One is to weigh the exchange ratio of shares in favour of Holcim investors. Another is a special dividend. The paper also quoted another board member as saying the deal will not work in its current form, which includes each Lafarge share being swapped for one Holcim share.
SonntagsZeitung has also reported that Swiss shareholder group Ethos, which represents around 200 pension funds, is against the deal as it stands and will tell Holcim's board that it will advise members to vote against the merger unless there is a change to the exchange ratio.
Lafarge and Holcim forge ahead with LafargeHolcim merger
09 March 2015Europe: As announced on 7 April 2014, Holcim and Lafarge have entered into a business combination agreement on terms previously agreed, subject to various closing conditions. The transaction must be approved by 66% of Holcim's shareholders in an extraordinary general meeting, while 66% of Lafarge's shareholders will need to accept Holcim's exchange offer launched pursuant to French takeover rules.
On the face of it this week's 'news' that CRH expects to receive the regulatory decisions it needs on its Euro6.5bn purchase of Lafarge and Holcim's joint divestments without significant delay is not particularly ground-breaking. However, the press release helpfully suggests that the deal will proceed according to CRH's desired outcome and only needs to be rubber-stamped. This is not strictly the case, with approval required in the EU, Philippines, Brazil, Canada and Serbia.
So... this story could just be incidental 'puffery' and the timing irrelevant. However, if read in the context of the letter concerning the acquisition from CRH Chairman Nicholas Hartery to company shareholders, it makes for a far more interesting read. Issued on 20 February 2015, the letter notifies shareholders of CRH's planned Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) on 19 March 2015 and it starts fairly innocuously. The Chairman recommends that shareholders approve CRH's resolution to proceed with the acquisition of the LafargeHolcim assets. He describes the strong overlap between the divestments and CRH's existing portfolio, as well as the financial reasons behind the move. So far, as expected.
However, later in the document, the language gets fairly heated, bordering on bizarre in places. Hartery says that CRH has given 'hell or high-water' commitments to Lafarge and Holcim regarding the purchase This language indicates the importance of the deal to the board and possibly the level of personal involvement in the process to this point.
'What has CRH done?' we are supposed to ask. Are we led to believe that CRH has, in poker parlance, gone 'all in?' Any shareholders that are in doubt as to the board's position need look no further than the section concerning 'break fees.' If CRH backs away from the deal for any reason, for example by failing to approve the resolution at the EGM, the company will have to give a combined Euro158m to Lafarge and Holcim. This would be a sizeable headache and CRH can take no chances.
Returning to CRH's press release, its timing is even more intriguing when we consider reports out of Switzerland this week. Swiss newspaper Sonntagszeitung reports that Holcim has considered offering its shareholders a 'sweetener' to win their approval for the merger. It says that this could involve 'creative methods' to sway its shareholders into backing the deal, including a generous special dividend or a share buyback. The paper reports that Holcim is wary of not securing investor approval for a capital increase for financing, which is required for it to satisfy its side of the deal.
Holcim's actions may in turn be motivated by Reuters reports from 23 February 2015, which state that analysts have seen a potential divergence in earnings outlooks between Lafarge and Holcim as a potential 'spanner in the works' of the deal. This is in response to Lafarge's apparent poor performance relative to Holcim in the fourth quarter of 2014. Reuters even refers to analysts' rumblings that the terms of the whole mega-merger may be up for renegotiation in light of this.
CRH has said that it is prepared to move hell and high water to buy the LafargeHolcim divestments, but will it be able to if there is no LafargeHolcim from which to divest?
The full letter to CRH shareholders and associated information about the proposed CRH acquisition of Lafarge and Holcim's proposed divestments can be seen here.
Europe: Holcim is considering offering its shareholders a sweetener to win their approval for a planned merger with Lafarge, according to Swiss newspaper Sonntagszeitung.
Sonntagszeitung said that Holcim was looking at several 'creative methods' to sway its shareholders into backing the deal, including a generous special dividend or a share buyback, instead of trying to alter the terms of the deal, which involves a one-to-one share swap. However, Holcim's chief executive Bernard Fontana said that the merger agreement did not contain any mechanisms by which the terms could be automatically adjusted. Sonntagszeitung said that Holcim was considering the sweetener in response to opposition from its shareholders to the deal, which hinges on investor approval for a capital increase for financing.
Ireland: CRH expects to receive regulatory decisions on a Euro6.5bn purchase Holcim and Lafarge operations as soon as March 2015. CRH chief executive Albert Manifold said that the acquired facilities would help CRH to expand in both North America and Europe, where it sees opportunities to expand its business.
"There are significant building needs and funding going to countries like Poland, Slovakia and Romania," said Manifold. He added that construction growth in those countries could be as high as 4%/yr over the next 10 years. Manifold said that CRH had already begun discussions with regulators in the various markets and expected decisions in March and April 2015. The acquisitions require the approval of CRH shareholders and an extraordinary shareholders meeting has been scheduled for 19 March 2015 for this purpose. Manifold said that CRH would continue to trim its portfolio and make further acquisitions.
Did LafargeHolcim overprice its sale to CRH?
25 February 2015One of the compelling issues to emerge from the Global CemFuels conference last week in Dubai was how alternative fuel (AF) use by cement producers might change while oil prices are low. Dirk Lechtenberg, of MVW Lechtenberg hinged his overview talk on both low energy prices and the on-going Lafarge-Holcim merger. The unspoken implication was that Holcim and Lafarge are offloading cement plants that use increasingly unprofitable AF. Cement plants are increasingly being out-bid for AF by energy-from-waste plants and 'gate fees' are dwindling accordingly.
Here's how it works. CRH is buying nine plants from Lafarge and Holcim in western Europe and five in eastern Europe. These are plants with high AF substitution rates. For example, Holcim's plants in France and Belgium have a substitution rate of 50% using around 250,000t/yr of waste fuels. Similarly, the Lafarge Zement Wössingen cement plant has permits for a 60% AF rate.
Globally, Lafarge and Holcim had substitution rates of 17.2% and 12.8% in 2013. CRH had a substitution rate of 21.2% in the same year. Post merger LafargeHolcim is estimated to have a substitution rate of below 10% in 2015. Meanwhile CRH is estimated to have a rate over 30%. After establishing this, Lechtenberg demonstrated how a thermal substitution model might be affected by fluctuating coal prices whilst using a refuse-derived fuels (RDF) rate of 35%. Put the price of coal below US$55/t and the savings of using RDF vanish.
Other delegates at the conference pointed out various limitations in Lechtenberg's methodology and figures. External legislation such as a carbon tax can disrupt this model for example. However, once coal becomes cheap and abundant enough it will displace most AF on economic grounds due to its high calorific value. Very few waste fuels can beat it.
At the time of writing the Brent crude oil price is just below US$60/barrel following a steep decline since mid-2014. The Australian coal price, the world's biggest export hub, has seen a steady fall since 2011 hitting just over US$60/t in January 2015. However, how interconnected are the oil and coal price?
This is difficult to link because bulk energy consumers switch supply according to price and other variables such as which fuels they can actually use. That last point is important in this discussion because preparing a cement plant to use AF requires an investment cost. Meanwhile, energy producers vary production depending on how much profit they want to make. Throw in new energy sources such as waste fuels and fracking and the overall picture becomes messy as all of these factors and others (OPEC policy, legislation etc) interact. Low oil prices do not necessarily mean low coal prices. For example, one analyst looking at BP's Statistical Review of World Energy in 2014 concluded that oil and coal consumption hold an inverse relationship to each other. When the proportion used of one rises, the proportion used of the other falls, and vice versa.
With all of this in mind there is ambiguity over whether CRH has been handed a time bomb in terms of its new cement plants' energy policies. Given that widely assumed production costs for the major oil producing nations are mostly above the current cost of crude oil, if the producers are controlling the price, then it seems likely that the price can't stay this low on a sustained basis. However, the cost of coal is on a five year low also. Is this the new normal or a market blip?
Cement plants using AF have a capital expenditure cushion against changing their fuels mix in the short to medium term but it can only last so long. The longer fossil fuel energy prices remain low the longer CRH will make less money from the fuel strategy it will inherit at its new plants.