Analysis
Search Cement News
‘Continuity and change’ at the top for LafargeHolcim
Written by Global Cement staff
24 May 2017
The changeover at the top of LafargeHolcim, with Eric Olsen standing down and with the appointment of Jan Jenisch (CEO of Sika AG), is worthy of note for a number of reasons. American/French Eric Olsen has been in charge of the merged company since its inception and has made a good job of bringing together two very different companies, while at the same time battling uneven economic growth worldwide which has seen some patchy results over the last two years. Given more time, he would undoubtedly have presided over more robust results as yet more synergies are discovered in the newly-lean company.
In fact, lean-ness is one of the four ‘strategic pillars’ that are now governing LafargeHolcim, according to the recent fascinating 2016 annual report. Alongside ‘commercial transformation,’ ‘cost leadership’ and ‘sustainability,’ the report stipulates that the company will be ‘asset light.’ The report goes on to explain that LafargeHolcim ‘will optimise our current asset base, better leveraging our industrial footprint, reducing our capital expenditure and exploring new growth opportunities with lower capital expenditure.’ It says that ‘Future growth will be focussed on low-capital intensive business models that enable us to access more of the value chain.’ Putting numbers to the words, LafargeHolcim’s capex in 2016-2017 was CHF3.5bn (Euro3.21bn), but it will plummet to CHF2bn (Euro1.83bn) from then on. As CEO, Eric Olsen’s prints are all over this plan.
The company plans to use its ‘know-how in preventative maintenance and capacity optimisation’ to reduce its ongoing capex in the cement industry, and says that ‘we outsource our fleet management whenever possible and develop alternative logistics offers to reduce capital expenditure.’ So, out with its own fleets of vehicles, and in with contractors, freeing-up capital (but possibly leading to lower retained profits). The company also says that ‘the leveraging of our global trading platform enables us to serve some markets without the need to invest in local clinker capacity.’ Alongside various statements in the annual report that suggest that the company has quite enough clinker production capacity already, we can see that it intends to stop building any new greenfield plants, and to potentially invest in clinker grinding facilities in markets where it does not have a presence, supplied by its currently under-utilised clinker-producing plants. It plans to expand into low-capital concrete markets, stating that ‘we are implementing franchise models in the ready-mix and retail segments, enabling us to reach customers in a differentiated way while keeping capital expenditure low.’
Eric Olsen’s plan is/was a sensible one: stop sending money out the door, make the current assets work a lot harder, and get into businesses with a good margin but which don’t cost a lot in which to become established. This is a plan that will take time to come to fruition, but unfortunately, Eric Olsen will not be at the helm of the company to see the benefits. He resigned at the end of April after an internal investigation at the company showed that managers at the company’s cement plant in Syria had paid-off local militias in order to stay open. As Eric Olsen stated at the time, “While I was absolutely not involved in, nor even aware of, any wrongdoing I believe my departure will contribute to bringing back serenity to a company that has been exposed for months on this case.” It seems that the chairman and the board of directors owe Mr Olsen a few beers - at least - for taking the heat off the company.
German national Jan Jenisch steps into Eric Olsen’s shoes at an interesting time then. He is coming from a company, Sika AG, that has also seen some tumultuous events in the last few years. The company’s controlling family wish to sell its 16% stake (including 53% voting rights) to multi-national building materials group Saint-Gobain, which is eager to buy, against the wishes of the company’s board, senior managers and other shareholders. So far the sale has been foiled by Mr Jenisch, but a crucial court case decision is due later in the year. Who knows, in the meantime maybe another building materials company might step-in to try to take over Sika’s attractive business? Mr Jenisch managed to increase Sika’s profit by 22% in the last full year of operation of the company, and the board of LafargeHolcim will be hoping that he can repeat the magic with his new company. If he manages it though, just remember that he has inherited Eric Olsen’s ‘cunning plan that might just work.’
Show US the infrastructure
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
17 May 2017
2017 has started more uncertainly for the US cement industry than 2016 did according to the latest data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Cement shipment data from just two months, January and February 2017, can only present a limited impression of the state of the industry. Yet the key trend to look for in Graph 1 is the growth in Midwestern US states against a decline in the Western ones. Previously in 2016 this region’s shipments sunk below those in the West in December and didn’t overtake them until the spring. This time round they’ve stuck closely and overtaken them already in February 2017.
Graph 1: Portland and blended cement shipments by US Census Bureau region for 2016 to February 2017. Source: USGS.
The Midwest’s cement shipments jumped by 21% year-on-year to 2.2Mt for those first two months. Buzzi Unicem concurred with this picture in the Midwest with its first quarter financial results this week, reporting a boost in deliveries in the region. HeidelbergCement agreed, reporting sales volumes increases in the north of the country and a decrease in the West. In that region the USGS data shows an 8% fall in shipments to 2.2Mt. HeidelbergCement blamed heavy rain and flooding in California and Oregon as the cause of the problems. Another potential reason that the USGS hints at are increasing imports of cement that it says have been rising faster than sales. For example, imports of cement to the US as a whole grew by 23.9% year-on-year to 0.81Mt in February 2017.
Overall though the situation for the larger cement producers has been subdued. Many of them blamed good weather in the first quarter of 2016 giving them a hard quarter to measure against in 2017. For example, LafargeHolcim’s sales volumes of cement fell by 4.5% in North America although it did report sales growth off the back of cement pricing and cost controls. HeidelbergCement may have looked good on paper following its integration of the Italcementi/Essroc assets but its cement volumes only grew by 1% in the period. Cemex too reported a similar scenario with falling sales volumes of 5% but growing sales revenue.
To put this in perspective, as the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) chief economist Ed Sullivan says in the May 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine, cement production in the US grew in 2016 and it is expected to continue growing in 2017 and 2018. Just like the start of 2016 (see GCW251) the potential for US construction growth in the year ahead is a quietly confident one but it isn’t assured.
Cemex points out that housing starts rose by 8% in the first quarter of 2017, as did construction spending in the industrial and commercial sector. However, it says that infrastructure spending fell by 9% in February 2017. Indeed this last point is an important one given that one of the major Trump campaign pledges in the 2016 presidential campaign was to build more infrastructure. As commentators in Washington DC including the PCA have asked: where is the Bill? Rightly, the PCA are not letting the lawmakers forget this during ‘Infrastructure week’ as the issue is discussed. The US cement industry needs this.
For further information on the US cement industry take a look at the May 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine
First quarter 2017 multinational cement producer roundup
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
10 May 2017
Today HeidelbergCement publishes its financial results for the first quarter of 2017, giving us an idea of how the year is shaping out for the major cement producers outside of China. Looking at graphs 1 and 2 below of cement production volumes and sales revenue gives the initial impression of a reversal of fortunes for the two leading multinational companies. LafargeHolcim’s production and sales are declining as HeidelbergCement races to catch up, boosted by its acquisition of Italcementi in 2016.
This interpretation would be misleading, however, given that LafargeHolcim has been steadily whittling down its assets to become more profitable and because HeidelbergCement has just taken on a raft of production units. The real figures to look at might be the like-for-like changes with adjustments made for currency, consolidation effects and suchlike. Under these conditions each of the three leading cement producers, with the addition of Cemex, have reported stagnant cement sales in the period. Yet the surprise comes from an analogous look at sales. LafargeHocim and Cemex both reported sales revenue increases of 5 – 6% on a like-for-like basis, whilst HeidelbergCement reported no change. This is further backed up by operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) figures that rose significantly on a like-for-like basis for LafargeHolcim at 8.8%, more modestly at 2% for Cemex but fell by 3% for HeidelbergCement.
Graph 1: Cement sales volumes at selected multinational producers in Q1 2016 and Q1 2017. Sources: company reports.
Graph 2: Sales revenue at selected multinational producers in Q1 2016 and Q1 2017. Sources: company reports.
The tragedy of the picture above appears to be that Eric Olsen, the chief executive officer of LafargeHolcim, has started to turn the company around following the merger between Lafarge and Holcim in 2015, just as he is leaving the company. This week Olsen denied that his departure was related to the Syria scandal but that it was related to ‘tensions’ at the group. The lesson that HeidlebergCement can take from this is that enlarging a building materials company in a supressed global market requires decisive action to maintain profitability. Certainly, if it doesn’t go HeidelbergCement’s way in future months and years then the stability of its management and major shareholders may become apparent. Although it doesn’t mention internal matters, HeidelbergCement does flag up higher geopolitical and macroeconomic risks in its outlook for 2017 as well as a ‘shift of political measures towards protectionism.’ That last one is potentially bad news for a multinational cement producer looking to move excess clinker around as it downsizes towards profitability.
Of the rest of the producers included in the graphs above Dangote Cement is worth some attention. The production and sales figures show a company evolving from a national player into an international one. Challenged by economic problems and a market contraction at home in Nigeria the company is exploding internationally in sub-Saharan Africa. Roughly, it sold a third of its cement outside of Nigeria in the period but only made a quarter of its revenue outside of its home turf. This has interesting implications for the international future of the company. However, it will be a big moment for the firm once it finally builds a plant in Nepal outside of Africa.
Italy’s Buzzi Unicem and the Brazilian operators Votorantim and InterCement are due to release their first quarter results in the coming weeks which will flesh out the international picture. Already there are lots of fascinating regional trends emerging that require discussion, such as the Philippines that we looked at last week and a ‘back to business’ feeling in China. Next week in the run up the IEEE/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference in Calgary, Canada we’ll look at the US.
Brand matters in the Philippines
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
03 May 2017
The Philippines has been messing up the balance sheets of cement producers so far in 2017. Over the last week Holcim Philippines, CRH and Cemex have each reported lacklustre first quarter results dragged down by poor performance in the country. CRH’s chief executive officer Albert Manifold seemed to receive the worst kicking when analysts in a conference call refused to let it pass that the company’s sales had dropped by 12% year-on-year in Asia. Although to be fair to him the group’s Asian division only represented 2% of global sales at Euro0.5bn…
CRH’s quarterly financial reports tend to be in the form of sparse trading updates. So this lack of detail and CRH’s plans to invest over Euro300m in the market may have prompted Manifold’s grilling. According to the Irish Times he blamed the situation on cheap imports from south-east Asia pulling down the price. He then defended the investment on the grounds that local producers would have an advantage as they increase production capacity due to constant production and ‘guaranteed’ regulation and certification.
CRH isn’t the only organisation that has been burned by the Philippines. Before Christmas this column was praising the local industry for being in a boom. Cement sales had risen by 10.1% year-on-year to 20.1Mt according to CEMAP data in the first nine months of 2016 and the Duterte Infrastructure Plan was starting to target hundreds of billions of US dollars towards infrastructure spending. In the end cement sales rose by 6.6% to 26Mt for the full year in 2016 and this was a solid performance despite being brought down by the fourth quarter.
From the cement producers mentioned above, Cemex reported that its Ordinary Portland Cement sales volumes fell by 9% in the first quarter. It blamed the fall on bad weather and a tough quarter to compare against in 2015. Holcim Philippines said that its net sales fell by 12% to US$176m and it attributed it to lower public infrastructure spending, tighter industry competition and higher production expenses. Eagle Cement meanwhile, the fourth of the country’s major producers, is preparing to float on the local stock market in May 2017 to fund an expansion drive. The poor results of the other three cement producers may dent its proceeds from the initial public offering (IPO).
The words CRH’s Albert Manifold used in his defence were that, “Brand matters over there.” Funnily enough the other big Philippines cement industry news story that has been rumbling away for the last few months is an investigation by the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) into the conduct of the Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CEMAP) and some of the leading cement producers. Naturally this includes CRH’s joint venture Republic Cement. The enquiry was prompted in mid-2016 by the accusation of anti-competitive agreements by a former trade official. He also made direct allegations against Ernesto Ordonez, the head of CEMAP. The investigation is on-going and perhaps it will find out exactly how much ‘brand matters’ in the Philippines.
Serenity when? LafargeHolcim and Syria
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
26 April 2017
LafargeHolcim’s investigation into its conduct in Syria claimed its biggest scalp so far this week with the shock resignation of chief executive officer (CEO) Eric Olsen. His decision landed with the publication of the group’s investigation into the conduct of the legacy Lafarge operations in the country in 2013 and 2014. As per the initial findings of the investigation that were released in March 2017, it confirmed that selected personnel had engaged in dealings with terrorists in connection to one of its cement plants in the country during 2013 until the unit closed in September 2014. The board decided that Olsen had no connection or even awareness of the misconduct. However, he decided to quit anyway in order to restore ‘serenity’ to the company.
In its latest public statement on the investigation, LafargeHolcim outlines five weaknesses with its compliance led by improper payments related to Lafarge Syria’s security and supply chain. It then goes on to list a failure of line management, inadequate controls over expenses and a failure to detect improper payments and improperly recorded payments. It’s all presented as ‘chaos reigned’ or wayward staff in tough circumstances trying to do their muddled best for the company. Unfortunately for this narrative, selected members of group management were aware of the situation and appeared to have done nothing about it. This then begs the question: who knew what when?
Olsen may have been exonerated by the board on his departure but he was Lafarge’s Executive Vice-President of Operations for Lafarge in 2014. If he didn’t know what was going on in Syria during his watch then he wasn’t doing his job properly or it was being hidden from him. The head of Lafarge itself at the time, Bruno Lafont, might also have been a viable target for discipline but he decided to stand down from the board of LafargeHolcim in early April 2017. No doubt other former members of the Lafarge management team may bear more responsibility. LafargeHolcim’s implementation of its remedial measures may turn up more culprits, as may the on-going criminal complaints process continues in France.
French newspaper Le Monde, the newspaper that originally broke the story, is probably on the money with its assessment that Olsen’s departure is actually the continuation of the boardroom battle between the board and its shareholders that has raged since before Lafarge and Holcim formally merged. Bruno Lafont was originally lined up to become the CEO of the new company until Lafarge’s worsening financial position compared to Holcim’s prompted a backlash from Holcim shareholders. Le Monde describes how LafargeHolcim’s shareholders include four prominent billionaires: Switzerland’s Thomas Schmidheiny, Belgium’s Albert Frère, Canada’s Paul Desmarais and Egypt’s Nassef Sawiris. Schmidheiny, readers may remember, was one of the principal actors who sunk Lafont’s bid to be CEO back in early 2015.
Placed in this context, Olsen’s departure might seem forced, especially if he had no connection to the debacle in Syria. LafargeHolcim has faced a tough couple of years following its formation with consistently falling sales revenue. Asset divestments and cuts have been the cure as the group struggled to find its new size. Yet, the group saw its adjusted operating earning before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) start to rise in 2016 suggesting that the remedial action was starting to work. LafargeHolcim’s management and shareholders will be acutely aware of its performance so far in 2017 ahead of the public release of its first quarter results in early May 2017. Under these circumstances it seems unlikely that serenity will be restored to the upper echelons of LafargeHolcim any time soon.