Analysis

LafargeHolcim’s first quarter results last week bore all the signs of a prizefighter on the receiving end of a punch. It’s taking pain now but it’s likely to be temporary. A volley of market disruption caused by coronavirus-related government lockdowns can be seen wreaking havoc steadily across its different geographical reporting areas. Asia Pacific region has been most affected so far, followed by its Middle East Africa, Europe, South America and North America regions. That last one didn’t show any top-line financial effects from health control measures, although they are surely coming. The worst is yet to come as chief executive officer (CEO) Jan Jenisch said, “The biggest impact from Covid-19 is expected in Q2. The full impact of the crisis on the company’s 2020 results cannot be assessed at this point.”

Depending on how easing the lockdowns plays out, LafargeHocim’s multinational nature may cushion it from the worst effects. Despite the group’s cement sales volumes falling in the first quarter in most regions on a like-for-like basis, it performed strongly in North America with an 8% rise year-on-year to 3.6Mt. Aggregate and concrete volumes were also up, as well as net sales and earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA). Sadly, this is about to change. Most of Europe brought in its lockdown measures in early to mid-March but the US enacted its own lockdown later. The group was quick to point out that it had found the April 2020 data on the rebound of activity in China ‘encouraging.’ If this is the pattern for all regions and second waves are suppressed without resorting to more lockdowns then the group’s wide geographical presence may help it.

As discussed a few weeks ago the major multinational building materials producer is actually in a better position for the unexpected given its success in reducing its debt levels in recent years, notably following divestments in South-East Asia in 2018 and 2019As discussed a few weeks ago the major multinational building materials producer is actually in a better position for the unexpected given its success in reducing its debt levels in recent years, notably following divestments in South-East Asia in 2018 and 2019. Naturally, it was keen to point this out in its press release with talk of its net financial debt to recurring EBITDA of 1.5x as at the end 2019, liquidity of Euro7.5bn in cash and credit lines and a Baa2/outlook stable credit rating from Moody’s in late April 2020. That sense of confidence was later reinforced with, “The building industry is resilient and expected to benefit from future recovery plans from governments and central banks.” This last point is important given that most economic recovery plans tend to involve building things.

HeidelbergCement’s financial results for the first quarter of 2020 are due out on 7 May 2020. Once these come in, some sort of comparison between the larger multinational cement producers, including Cemex and CRH, will be possible. However, the different geographical footprint of each of these companies will hinder this kind of analysis given the progressive way the coronavirus outbreak has spread. In the meantime check out Global Cement Magazine’s feature on the North American cement market (written before the lockdowns) and be sure to register for Global Cement Live this week, which includes an update on the US from consultant John Kline.

The headline from the cement section of FLSmidth’s first quarter results summed up what may be the current situation for many companies supplying the sector: “service relatively stable – cautious on capex.” The general picture across both its mining and cement businesses was ‘significantly’ increased demand for local resources, remote support and digital products. On the mining side FLSmidth pointed out that it was impossible to assess the impact of coronavirus on its business because of the difference between government policies. Some places continue lockdowns or impose additional restrictions but others are starting to ease them. This point has ramifications for multinational cement producers and other suppliers too. It seems likely to continue during the coming months as lockdowns ease at different rates in different countries.

On cement specifically, FLSmidth provided a good global view of what the pandemic and government responses are actually doing to the industry. It reports that around 80% of the world's cement plants (excluding China) are currently in operation with some operating at reduced capacity. It described the market for services as ‘relatively stable’ in the first quarter but that cement consumption was being reduced by lower construction activity, plant shutdowns and restricted access to sites leading to reduced demand for technical services and commissioning. By region it identified the biggest impact to its business from coronavirus in India and the Middle East. Generally, it says that cement producers are suspending capital investments until the impact of coronavirus on economies is clearer. There has been some good news though, with the supplier noting that several of its customers have been looking for services that can reduce their operational costs.

The European Commission tackled this pervading sense of uncertainty in its roadmap towards lifting coronavirus containment measures that was published on 15 April 2020. The Committee for European Construction Equipment (CECE) was keen to share this with its members this week, pointing out how the European Union (EU) plans to lift border controls and re-start economic activity.

The plan is to ease travel restrictions between border regions for cross-border and seasonal workers, and then between European areas with low coronavirus infection rates. External borders can later be reopened with access by non-EU residents to the EU scheduled for a second stage. To re-start economic activity the EU recommends, again, a phased approach focusing on sectors that are ‘essential’ to facilitate economic activity such as transport. The commission says it will also create a rapid alert function to identify supply and value chain disruptions, relying on existing networks such as Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), clusters, chambers of commerce and trade associations, small and medium enterprise (SME) envoys and more. Whether the EU can actually coordinate a return to normality following its poor response in aiding Italy at the start of the European outbreak of coronavirus remains to be seen. Yet, its historical roots as an economic community dating back to the Treaty of Rome in 1957 suggests it may be more successful when coordinating technical aspects of trade.

Detailed above are the views and plans of just one supplier and one continental organisation, although they are both prominent. The takeaway from this is that uncertainty is a major problem so far for the cement industry in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak. Companies have faced a cash crunch in the short term as economies slowed down and they are reluctant to release cash until the future becomes clearer. Large parts of the cement industry and its suppliers are very international, which exposes it to even more uncertainty. Different countries enforcing different restrictions and different easing strategies at different times create a major headache for everyone and a block to investment. Making cement is undeniably an essential industry and this realisation by legislators can be seen in some countries that at first shut down their plants before understanding that they needed them open after all! Suppliers should benefit from this too, although at reduced activity levels. We don’t know what kind of recovery will come – hopefully one releasing plenty of pent up demand. Yet one thing is certain. The work of the regional cement associations and those representing suppliers is going to be crucial in the coming months.

Data is starting to emerge about how the Chinese cement industry has coped with the economic effects of government action regarding the coronavirus. National cement industry output fell by 29% year-on-year to 150Mt in the combined months of January and February 2020. Output then picked up to 149Mt in March 2020, a drop of 17% compared to March 2019. These are massive figures, larger than the annual output of most countries, but they give some idea of what shutting down economies does to demand for cement and concrete.

Graph 1: Year-on-year change in cement output in China, April 2018 - March 2020. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Note that accumulated data is issued for January and February each year so these months show a mean figure.

Graph 1 above gives the general picture of changes in cement output in China over the last couple of years. Growth fell in early 2018 as the government implemented its supply-side reforms, including measures such as industry consolidation and peak shifting. This improved in the second half of the year and throughout 2019. January and February output has been steady for the last few years, possibly due to peak shifting, but this year the trend was massively more pronounced. In March 2020, meanwhile, output fell by 17% compared to a rise of 17% in 2019. On the demand side, reporting from the Chinese Cement Association reveals that national infrastructure investment (excluding electricity) decreased by 19.7% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2020. National real estate development investment fell by 7.7% to US$310bn.

The figures above are for the whole of China whilst the outbreak was centered in Wuhan in Hubei province. The government implemented its toughest public health measures in this city and the surrounding Hubei province, with other regions using social distancing and tracking methods to various degrees. The Chinese Cement Association explains that, once other cities in Hubei province were released from lockdown, construction projects were allowed to resume but that progress was limited due to a lack of workers. Three weeks after measures were relaxed, the average shipping rate for cement producers was only 60% in these outer regions. In Wuhan the situation was more stark with demand for cement at only 20% of expected levels at the time the lockdown ended on 8 April 2020. Data from the Hubei Cement Association reports that on 30 March 2020 only half of Hubei province’s 57 clinker production lines were producing cement. The rest were suspended. To compound the problems here once logistics networks started to reopen imports of cement from other provinces flooded in taking advantage of price differences.

Few if any of the larger domestic producers have released their first quarter financial results for the first quarter of 2020. Huaxin Cement has said that its sales fell by 36% and that this is expected to cause a profit drop of 46% year-on-year to US$100m. Shanshui Cement has said likewise, although it has not released any forecasts. In its annual report for 2019 released in early April 2020, Anhui Conch said that the coronavirus had exerted a ‘short-term negative impact’ on the group’s business due to the slowdown in supply and demand in the construction materials industry. CNBM also acknowledged the situation in its 2019 report saying that it would, ‘impact on economic activity.’ CNBM’s subsidiary BNBM, a gypsum wallboard manufacturer, has released a forecast for the first quarter predicting a 90% drop in net profit due to poor sale volumes.

How this can inform the cement industries of other countries around the world that have enacted restrictions on their populations is unclear. China, as ever, is an exceptional outlier both economically and as a cement producer. Plus, the severity of how a country enacts a lockdown is crucial here. If the early reports above are indicative then half of Hubei’s clinker lines were forced to suspend production, demand for cement fell by 80% at the time the lockdown ended and imports headed in once transport networks were reopened. Issues were also noticed with labour shortages. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. The next point of focus will be how fast the Hubei and Chinese cement industry recovers from this shock. More on this as we have it.

Yesterday, on 14 April 2020, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast a 3% gross domestic product (GDP) growth contraction in 2020 due to negative economic effects from the coronavirus outbreak and its containment. Most regions around the world may experience negative growth in 2020 with exceptions only in so-called Emerging and Developing Asia and Low-income Developing Countries. This is just one projection among many coming out at the moment but the prognosis is downward. This begs the questions: how will cement companies cope?

Markets for building materials are not going to disappear in these conditions but demand looks likely to be reduced. Added to this, an industry that’s been facing increasing production overcapacity over the years may be challenged by additional competition effects. Here we will look at the debt profile of some of the major multinational cement producers outside of China. Please note that this is a cursory examination of corporate debt that only looks at simple financial indicators. Company financial officers want to present themselves in best possible light and will have alternatives that point to their strengths. For a detailed view we refer readers to the credit rating agencies and the companies’ published financial information directly.

Graph 1: Net debt and EBITDA for selected multinational cement companies in 2019. Source: Company financial reports and investor presentations. Note, Conversion for reporting currencies to US$, HeidelbergCement uses Result from Current Operations Before Depreciation and Amortisation (RCOBD) and UltraTech Cement results from 2018 – 2019 financial year.

Graph 1 presents a comparison between net debt and earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) in real terms. The bigger the gap between debt and earnings then the more one starts to wonder how it can be repaid. One feature to note in this graph is the size of the debt of the three largest producers – LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex – despite the fact that the companies are of different sizes. Cemex’s high debt to earnings ratio has been much commented on previously following its acquisition of Rinker just before the financial crash in 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately though, despite strenuous mitigation efforts, it remains prominent. Other positions to note are those of Buzzi Unicem and Dangote Cement, which have higher earnings than debts. These are envious positions to be in.

Graph 2: Net debt/EBITDA and EBITDA Margin for selected multinational cement companies in 2019. Source and notes as in Graph 1.

Graph 2 shows the ratio of net debt and EBITDA and the EBITDA Margin, a company’s earnings divided by its revenue. This graph better shows the relationship between debt and earnings. This can be seen well in a comparison between LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement. The latter has higher debts with respect to its earnings. Its debt jumped in 2016 following its acquisition of Italcementi. LafargeHolcim’s debts ballooned followed its formation by merger in 2015 but this was in line with the jump in its equity. Where it struggled was with slow earnings in the years afterwards. However, bold divestments in South-East Asia in 2018 and 2019 appear to have fixed this.

Other companies to watch in the higher Net debt/EBITDA category include India’s UltraTech Cement and both of the large Brazilian multinationals, Votorantim and InterCement. In recent years UltraTech Cement has been busy buying up other cement producers in India. The difference between the Brazilian companies may reflect the fallout from their fight to buy Cimpor back in 2012. InterCement and its parent company Camargo Corrêa won the battle to acquire the Portuguese company but Votorantim was given selected international assets outside of Brazil. Unfortunately, the Brazilian market then collapsed and Camargo Corrêa has reportedly been trying to sell some or all of its cement assets ever since.

The other financial indicator in Graph 2 is EBITDA margin or earnings/operating profit as a percentage of revenue. Higher is generally seen as better here in comparison to other companies in the same sector. Note how LafargeHolcim is ahead of HeidelbergCement and Cemex, possibly due to its cost cutting and synergies since the merger. InterCement also has a relatively high EBITDA margin, boosted by a pickup by the Brazilian economy in 2019. Again, Buzzi Unicem and Dangote Cement stand out. Both of these are public companies but are associated with family or individual ownership, although in very different markets. Neither has really indulged in any large-scale acquisitions in recent years. Dangote Cement has been steadily expanding but through building its own plants and distribution networks.

We’ve not mentioned CRH as its figures seem ‘average’ compared to the other cement producers discussed here. Average is of course relative for one of the world’s biggest building materials manufacturers with a net of debt of US$7.4bn in 2019! Yet, despite battles with activist investors over board member pay aside, CRH might be the rare producer that knows when to stop expanding. Notably in 2018 after an expansion phase, including acquisitions of Ash Grove Cement and LafargeHolcim assets previously, it publicly decided in 2018 to take a pause. There may be weaknesses in the company’s balance sheets yet to be revealed but they are not apparent using these metrics.

In summary, we’ve focused on corporate acquisitions here as the main source of debt in cement producers. This is simplistic but timing is everything when taking on a large amount of debt. Cemex is still carrying the scars from buying Rinker over a decade ago and InterCement and HeidelbergCement, to a lesser extent, are ones to watch through the next bad patch. Other things to consider are a general move to a more regional model for these producers away from a global one. UltraTech Cement’s focus on the Indian sub-continent or Dangote Cement’s work in Africa are examples of this. This approach could go wrong if the sole regions they operate in suffer disproportionately from the economic fallout from coronavirus. Or, if any producer, even one with high debts, has the good fortune to be present in a territory that suffers less from the downturn it may benefit. On a final note, it is worth mentioning that government data reports that China’s domestic cement production capacity utilisation in the two-week period ending on 10 April 2020 bounced back to 95% following the relaxation of the lockdown.

As India reaches two weeks into its 21 day lockdown to combat coronavirus, the financial analysts are starting to publish their forecasts as to what the effects will be for the cement industry. The results are gloomy, with demand predicted to drop by up to 25% in the financial year to March 2021 by one analyst and 40% in March 2020 alone by another.

Graph 1: Indian cement production, rolling annual by month, January 2018 – February 2020. Source: Indian Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

The graph above sets the scene for what may be to come by showing the state of production in India in recent years. From early 2018 it picked up by 17% to 337Mt by March 2019 and stayed around there through the rest of year before breeching 340Mt in January and February 2020. The (relative) lull in production growth in 2019 was blamed by some analysts on the general election in mid-2019 and then the monsoon rains. In summary the market was improving and seemed set for further growth in 2020. Alas, this does not now seem to be the case.

Looking ahead, Rating’s agency CRISIL has published a research paper on the topic and here are some of the highlights. They break the damage down into two separate scenarios. The first, where the social distancing measures last until the end of April, cause a 10 – 15% fall in cement demand with the pain limited to the first quarter of the Indian financial year, which starts on 1 April. The second, where distancing measures last until June, cause a 20 – 25% decrease in demand, with the problems extended into the second quarter. Salient points that it makes about the anticipated recovery include a delay in infrastructure spending due to the government diverting funds to healthcare, reduced private and real estate markets and a divide between state-led affordable housing schemes in urban and rural areas. It pins its hopes on rural housing to grab demand first, followed by key infrastructure projects, especially transport schemes.

Examining the cement producers directly, CRISIL reckons that prices will fall in the face of dropping demand but that power, fuel and freight costs are all expected to fall also. Profit margins are forecast to drop compared to the 2019 – 2020 financial year but still remain higher than the two previous ones. Finally, it looked at the credit profiles of 23 companies, representing over 70% of installed production capacity. Together they had a total debt of US$7bn. It flagged up four of these companies as having high debt/earnings ratios and five with low interest coverage. The latter were described as ‘small regional firms with weak cash balances.’

That’s one view on what may happen but two recent general industry news stories offer snapshots on what may be to come for the Indian market. The first is an immediate consequence of a nationwide lockdown in a country with a population of 1.3bn and a low cost of labour. 400 construction workers at a grinding plant build for Ramco Cements in Haridaspur, Odisha, were stranded at the site when the quarantine restrictions stopped them travelling home to Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal. They took up residence at the building site and then protested when the food ran out. This point about migrant labour is noteworthy because how the Indian government relaxes the lockdown could have massive consequences upon how the construction industry recovers. A possible parallel from elsewhere in the world is the slowdown effect the Saudi Arabian cement industry suffered in late 2013 when the government took action against illegal foreign workers in the construction industry.

The second news story to keep in mind is the annual results from refractory manufacturer RHI Magnesita this week. It reported growing revenue from its cement and lime customers in 2019 but it blamed a weaker market in Europe on producers stockpiling product due to tightening magnesite and dolomite raw material availability. The takeaway here is that if supply chains supporting the cement sector and the rest of the construction industry in India at the moment are affected by the coronavirus outbreak, and government action to stop it, then there may be consequences later on. So far Global Cement hasn’t seen anything like this but the preparation for coronavirus advice from industry expert John Kilne has been to indentify and secure medium term needs, including refractory and critical spare parts and to consider potential disruption to supply chains.

In terms of what happens next once the lockdown ends in India (and other countries), one media commentator has described the response to coronavrius as the ‘hammer and the dance.’ The hammer is the economy-busting measures many governments have implemented to stop local epidemics. The dance is/are the measures that countries are using before and after an outbreak to keep it suppressed until a vaccine is developed. The worry for building material producers is how much the ‘dance’ disrupts business over the next year. All eyes will be on the East Asian producer market figures for the first quarter to see how this plays out.