Displaying items by tag: Hanson

UK: Hanson has appointed Paul Lacey as the general manager of its packed products business. Lacey, who was previously head of sustainability and marketing for Hanson, has also worked for Ronseal and Crown Paints and has extensive experience in commercial and business development. He will be responsible for sites across the country producing packed cementitious products such as Postfix, as well as decorative and construction aggregates.

UK: Hanson Cement has made two senior appointments within its bulk division as part of the company’s drive to improve customer service. Phil Matthew has joined as field sales manager and John Doolan has been promoted to key account manager. Phil and John will work together to strengthen new and existing customer relationships, reporting to Mark Hickingbottom, national commercial director – bulk products.

Phil Matthew was previously at AB InBev, where he held account and sales management roles. He will manage a team of six district sales managers and carry out internal training sessions in order to enhance customer service.

John Doolan, who has 27 years’ experience in the construction industry, will work in conjunction with Hanson’s key account customers to set and deliver strategic plans.

Commenting on the appointments, Mark Hickingbottom, said, “Phil and John’s combined experience and knowledge of the company will allow them to place Hanson’s values at the core of their work, helping to deliver our goals of being the most customer focused, responsible and reliable construction products supplier in the UK.”

The end of 2014 proved a good time to tidy up outstanding business for various organisations with links to the cement industry. Lafarge and Holcim received clearance from the European Commission for their proposed merger and they announced their executive committee, Holcim and Cemex concluded their transactions in Europe, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced regulations for coal ash, HeidelbergCement found a buyer for its Hanson Building Products business and even PPC managed to appoint a new CEO.

The HeidelbergCement sale is of interest because the company has said it is using the proceeds to pay off debt rather than to make purchases. CEO Bernd Scheifele said in the press release that the intention was to improve the company's 'credit-worthiness.' This isn't directly related to the cement industry because Hanson Building Products produces concrete gravity pipe, concrete and steel pressure pipe and clay bricks in the US, UK and eastern Canada. Yet the potential cash bonanza is relevant. Remember, this is happening at the same time that Lafarge and Holcim have been offloading lots of their own assets to meet competition regulations in various territories.

When the initial public offering was made for Hanson Building Products in September 2014, analysts assumed that HeidelbergCement was positioning itself for a spending spree. The purchase price for Hanson Building Products agreed with a private equity firm was US$1.4bn. This could be used to buy five 1 Mt/yr cement plants at an average price of US$250/t for cement production capacity!

Unfortunately for HeidelbergCement its net debt rose from Euro7bn in 2012 to Euro7.5bn in 2013. This was the first time it had risen since 2007 when it hit a peak of Euro14.6bn. That year was when it agreed to purchase Hanson. It also marked the start of the 2007 – 2008 financial crisis. Similarly, ratios such as net debt to operating income before depreciation (OIBD) also rose in 2013. Although it looks from interim financial reports that HeidelbergCement's debt may have decreased again in 2014, it is probably not doing so at any great speed. Hence the Hanson Building Products sale.

For comparison with debt held by the other European-based cement producers, Lafarge's net debt stood at Euro10.3bn at the end of 2013, Holcim's net debt was Euro7.9bn, Italcementi's net debt was Euro1.9bn and Mexico-based Cemex's net debt was Euro14.8bn. Compared to most of these their operating incomes these company's have net debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) ratios (net debt/EBITDA) of between two and three-and-a half suggesting that they can pay back their debts within a few years if absolutely necessary. The outlier here is Cemex with a ratio of over six following previous acquisition bursts.

The implication here is that Lafarge and Holcim have chosen to sell their wares at a time when their European competitors are weakened. Meanwhile their Chinese competitors have only just started to directly expand outside of mainland China. Smart move.

Well, it seems like they were serious.

The UK Competition Commission has provisionally decided that Lafarge Tarmac should sell off one of its cement plants in the Midlands. The Commission also wants the sale to exclude buyers from any pre-existing UK cement producer. The door is open from Holcim or CRH downwards to enter the UK market. Although if the enforced Lafarge sale of Hope to Mittal Investments in 2012 is indicative, it may well be to an industry outsider.

If the move goes ahead it will open up the Midlands and north of England from four cement producers - Hope Cement, Lafarge Tarmac, Hanson and Cemex - to five. Lafarge Tarmac's cement production capacity lead of nearly 4Mt/yr will be knocked down to nearer 3Mt/yr, putting it level with Hanson Cement's production capacity.

Unsurprisingly Lafarge Tarmac is not best pleased, putting out the following in response to the commission's announcement. "The Commission's assumptions and reasoning have serious flaws and the biggest loser in this process will be the customer. There is strong evidence to demonstrate there is effective competition in the sector – with new players having recently entered the marketplace."

The Commission also wants to increase competition in the supply chain for ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). According to the Commission findings Hanson dominates the UK GGBS market and Lafarge Tarmac controls the market for its precursor, granulated blast furnace slag (GBS). So production facilities may need to be sold by both Hanson and Lafarge Tarmac.

As an aside it's worth noting that the Belgian Competition Council recently imposed fines due to anti-competitive practices also related to GGBS. Also, elsewhere in the news this week Irish GGBS cement producer Ecocem is aligning itself with the EU carbon roadmap to 2050, partly at least because its product produces less CO₂ per tonne of cement. Whoever or whatever controls the supply of GGBS in the UK has implications for how emissions are lowered in the cement sector.

Other suggested measures from the Commission such as restricting the publication of UK cement market data seem problematic. Although it may make it more difficult for UK cement producers to collude it will also make it harder for related businesses (including press and industry analysts like Global Cement) to understand what is happening at any given time.

Finally, we have to ask what the effects of the Commission's suggestions might be at the start of an uncertain recovery in the UK construction market might be. According to the Minerals Production Association cement production fell from 8.5Mt in 2011 to 8Mt in 2012, the first decrease since 2009. 2013 seems set for modest growth on 2012. The implications of Commission's plans - if they happen – could be huge.

Back in November 2012 this column asked whether the UK cement market had become more competitive following the sale of the Hope cement plant. Broadly, we thought it had. Half a year later though and it seems that the UK Competition Commission doesn't think so. On 21 May 2013 it released provisional findings that the UK's three major cement producers were failing to compete on price with each other.

Its three main points of evidence included increases in average cement prices between 2007 and 2011, rising profitability for UK producers between 2007 and 2011 and only small changes in annual market share of sales. All of these market outcomes occurred despite a 'significant' slump in demand for cement from 2007 to 2009.

The problem here is that the Competition Commission's data refers to the UK market before it took action. In 2012 it forced the sale of Lafarge's Hope cement plant as a condition of the joint-venture between Lafarge and Tarmac. Subsequently, Lafarge and Tarmac's combined cement production capacity in the UK fell from 5.15Mt/yr to 3.85Mt/yr. However, the Competition Commission has modelled Hope Construction Materials as an effective replacement of Tarmac's previous market share in its analysis. With no major change to the status quo in the UK cement industry, it feels that competition is unlikely to improve. Hence the need for further action.

It must be emphasised that the Competition Commission did not find any evidence of explicit coordination between the producers. Professor Martin Cave, Competition Commission Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Inquiry Group, summed it up as follows: "In a highly concentrated market where the product doesn't vary, the established producers know too much about each other's businesses and have concentrated on retaining their respective market shares rather than competing to the full."

To look at just one example, it should be noted that most of the management team of Hope Construction Materials came originally from jobs at either Lafarge or Tarmac. However in Hope's defence, who else would the new company hire except seasoned industry personnel. Naturally they would want the best people possible!

With the revival of the UK construction industry hanging in the balance the Competition Commission has a tough job ahead to ensure increased competition in the future.