Analysis

Persistence has paid off for UltraTech Cement this week. Although the deal is not complete, all the signs are pointing towards India’s largest cement producer buying Binani Cement despite losing an auction for it last month. Here’s a recap of what has happened so far.

In July 2017 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Kolkata, a semi-judicial body that rules on issues relating to companies, started insolvency proceedings for Binani Cement. It followed a plea by one of the cement company’s creditors, the Bank of Baroda, that had an outstanding claim of around US$15m. The Kolkata bench of the NCLT rejected Binani Cement’s argument that the debt was tiny compared to the assets of its parent company Binani Industries of US$2.15bn. It then appointed an administrator, or resolution professional, called Vijaykumar Iyer, a partner at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India. More on him later on.

The subsequent auction of Binani Cement raised lots of interest both internationally and locally due to its production base. The company operates a 4.9Mt/yr plant at Binanigram in Rajasthan with two kilns and four mills. It also runs a 1.4Mt/yr cement grinding plant at Sirohi in the same state. Unusually though for an Indian producer it also runs a 2Mt/yr grinding plant at Jebel Ali, Dubai in the UAE and a 0.5Mt/yr integrated plant, Shandong Cement, in China.

Its products domestically in India include 43 and 53 grades Ordinary Portland Cement and Portland Pozzolana Cement, with the Bollywood film star Amitabh Bachchan as its brand ambassador. On that last point the Indian Supreme Court chastised Binani Cement in 2014 for not paying sales tax in Rajasthan whilst being able to hire Bachchan! However, given the ferocity of the struggle to buy Binani Cement maybe all that marketing of the brand paid off, giving the producer a much higher profile than it might otherwise have had.

Anyway, lots of companies showed interest in Binani Cement in the first round of bidding in late 2017. CRH, LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, India Cement, Orient Cement, Ramco Cement, Shree Cement, UltraTech Cement and Piramal Group were all linked to the auction. Eventually UltraTech Cement, JSW Cement, Ramco Cement, HeidelbergCement India, Dalmia Bharat and a pair of Indian investors all submitted bids and JSW Cement emerged as the winner with a bid of US$919m. However the emergence of an additional liability of around US$250m scuppered that auction when it turned out that Binani Cement had offered a corporate guarantee for the acquisition of a fibreglass asset in Europe known as 3B in 2012 by Binani Industries. By February 2018 the next auction was in progress and this time Dalmia Bharat Cement and UltraTech Cement led the race. Dalmia Bharat won the second auction with a bid of around US$1.03bn made in a consortium with Bain Capital’s India Resurgent Fund and Piramal Enterprises.

At this point the situation might have conceivably slowed down. Instead, UltraTech Cement kept on fighting and queried the entire bidding process. It then made a direct offer of US$1.11bn to Binani Cement in the form of a so-called ‘comfort letter’ that Binani Industries used to stop the insolvency process. At the same time it received approval from the Competition Commission of India in its bid for Binani Cement, the previous absence of which was one of the reasons its bid against Dalmia Bharat was rejected.

Indian company law now faced a dilemma over how a bankruptcy works given that the NCLT was meant to be in charge. A way out was found though when the NCLT in Kolkata and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal both allowed the bidders to settle the dispute ‘amicably.’ To add further confusion the administrator Vijaykumar Iyer also alleged right in the middle of the final tussle between Dalmia Bharat and UltraTech Cement that fraudulent transactions had been made by Binani Cement! Whether this has any further implications remains to be seen.

At this stage nobody is likely to declare UltraTech Cement the winner of Binani Cement until it actually picks up the keys to the cement plants. Perhaps not even then in case of any lingering legal issues! UltraTech Cement clearly views Rajasthan as a growth area given the tenacity with which it has gone after Binani Cement. It operates two integrated plants in the state and is building two more of its own. After its long journey in buying plants from Jaiprakash Associates in 2017, UltraTech Cement is starting to look like the cement producer that simply won’t take no for an answer.

Many of the Chinese cement producers have released their annual results for 2017 over the last week, giving us plenty to consider. The first takeaway is the stabilisation of cement sales since 2014. As can be seen in Graph 1, National Bureau of Statistics data shows that cement sales grew year-on-year from 2008 to 2014. This trend stopped in 2015 and then government mandated measures to control production overcapacity kicked-in such as a industry consolidation, shutting ‘obsolete’ plants and seasonal closures. Although it’s not shown here, that last measure, also known as peak shifting, cans be seen in quarterly sales data, with an 8% year-on-year fall in cement sales to 578Mt in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Graph 1: Cement sales in China, 2007 – 2017. Source: National Bureau of Statistics.

Looking at the sales revenue from the larger producers in 2017 doesn’t show a great deal except for the massive lead the two largest producers – CNBM and Anhui Conch – hold over their rivals. CNBM reported sales roughly twice as large as Anhui Conch, which in turn reported sales twice as large as China Resources Cement (CRC). With everything set for the merger between CNBM and Sinoma to complete at some point in the second quarter of 2018, that leader’s advantage can only get bigger.

Graph 2: Sales revenue of selected Chinese cement producers. Source: Company reports.

What’s more interesting here is how all of these companies are growing their sales at over 15% in a market where cement sales volumes appear to have fallen by 1.67% to 2.31Bnt in 2017. CNBM explained that its sale growth arose from improving cement prices in the wake of the government’s supply side changes. It added that national cement production fell by 3.1% to 2.34Bnt. CNBM’s annual results also suggested that the cement production capacity utilisation rate was 63% in 2017.

Anhui Conch’s results were notable for its large number of overseas projects as it followed the state’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ overseas industrial expansion strategy. Projects in Indonesia and Cambodia were finished in 2017 with production set for 2018. Further plants are in various states of development in Laos, Russia and Myanmar. The other point of interest was that Anhui Conch is developing a 50,000t CO₂ capture and purification pilot project at its Baimashan cement plant. Given the way the Chinese government has been able to direct the local industry, should it decide to promote CO₂ capture at cement plants in the way it has pushed for waste heat recovery units or co-processing, then the results could be enormous.

CRC reported its continued focus on alternative fuels. Municipal waste co-processing projects in Tianyang County, Guangxi and Midu County, Yunnan are under construction and are expected to be completed in the first half of 2018. Construction of its hazardous waste co-processing project in Changjiang, Hainan was completed in February 2018.

As ever with the Chinese cement industry, the worry is what happens once the production overcapacity kicks in. The state–published figures and state-owned cement companies suggest that the industry is in the early stages of coping with this. In February 2018 Reuters reported that the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) had banned new cement production capacity in 2018. The detail here is that new capacity is allowed but that it has to follow specific rules designed to decrease capacity overall. This followed an announcement by the China Cement Association that it would eliminate 393Mt of capacity and shut down 540 cement grinding companies by 2020. The aim here is to hold capacity utilisation rates at 80% and 70% for clinker and cement respectively and to consolidate clinker and cement production within the top ten producers by 70% and 60%. If the utilisation rate from CNBM is accurate then the industry has a way to go yet.

Lots of facts stuck out from the inaugural Global GypSupply Conference that took place in Brussels last week. One was that Spain exported 1.49Mt of raw gypsum to West Africa in 2016. The data point from Spanish customs popped up in a presentation by Mohamed El Moustapha, the managing director of a gypsum mining company based in Mauritania. He was using the figures to reinforce the opportunities for his company to supply the growing cement industry in West Africa. Yet the size of the market has implications for the oft-repeated claims of cement sector self-sufficiency that various countries in the region have cried out for.

Gypsum is used as a retarding agent to control the setting time of cement. It gets added whilst clinker is ground into cement. Roughly speaking, cement production requires about 5% of gypsum. So a 1Mt/yr cement plant would require around 50,000t/yr of gypsum. The crucial question for cement producers in West Africa is where is this gypsum coming from. Given that the Global Cement Directory 2018 places cement production capacity at just under 100Mt/yr in the region, this requires around just under 5Mt/yr of gypsum.

El Moustapha made out that there were no gypsum deposits in West Africa. This contradicts a study on Nigerian gypsum mining published in Global Gypsum Magazine in March 2016 estimated local reserves to be around 150Mt although to be fair to El Moustapha these appear to be relatively underused. This also doesn’t take into account sources of synthetic gypsum produced at coal-power plants although this is likely to be negligible at present.

Reserves in Mauritania appear to be much larger at 1.7Bnt. Instead, the problem here appears to be assisting the exploitation of mined gypsum by improving infrastructure and supply chain issues. El Moustapha’s company Samia reported that it exported 170,00t of gypsum to cement plants in West Africa, mainly via ship, but with a significant minority via truck overland to Mali. Another speaker at the conference from the Moroccan gypsum trader Cultura presented a snapshot of a more mature market with exports of 210,000t in 2017. However, similar issues with port infrastructure were also present. To this end the company was keenly looking forward to an upgrade project the Port of Safi due for commissioning in 2020 – 2022 that would allow larger ships to berth.

A market report on the gypsum and anhydrite market by Roskill in 2014 placed Egypt, Algeria and South Africa as Africa’s leading gypsum producers. In particular it singled out South Africa as the only sub-Saharan country producing more than 100,000t/yr of gypsum. In terms of usage of gypsum Roskill estimated that just over half of the world’s gypsum was used to make cement, followed by 38% for wallboard and plaster production and then 18% for agricultural usage. Although this compares to just over a quarter for cement production and most of the rest for wallboard production in the US, with its more developed wallboard market than the rest of the world, according to recent United States Geological Survey (USGS) data.

As the Global GypSupply Conference demonstrated plenty of raw gypsum is available around the world. However, since supply and price can vary considerably in the short term, cement producers are keen to secure steady sources. Developing gypsum sources in northern Africa are necessary to help build the West African cement industry, but the regions need to work together.

The 2nd Global GypSupply Conference will take place in spring 2020

The latest data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows that cement shipments rose by 2.4% year-on-year to 95.5Mt in 2017. Readers with elephantine memories may remember that the Portland Cement Association (PCA) revised its forecast for 2017 down to 3.1% from 4.2% in a release made in late 2016. Shipments and consumption are different metrics but the PCA was heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, however ebullient the PCA’s chief economist Ed Sullivan was at the IEEE-PCA in 2017 about growth in the US in 2018 and 2019, the necessary rise required seems quite steep. President Donald Trump may have handed the major cement producers a tax break but until his infrastructure spending materializes the US construction industry is on its own.

Graph 1: Clinker production in the US, 2013 – 2017. Source: USGS.

Viewing the US as a whole is a little unfair given its wide regional variation. As can be seen in Graph 1 clinker production jumped up from 2013 to a high of 76.5Mt in 2015 before taking a dip in 2016 and then rising again to 76.9Mt in 2017. Cement shipments of Ordinary Portland and blended cement show a similar trend over the same timescale except without the decrease in 2016. Interestingly, imports of cement and clinker rose by 18% to 13.6Mt in that year. The major exporters to the US were Canada, Greece, China and Turkey, in that order.

Graph 2: Cement and clinker imported for consumption to the US in 2017 by country. Source: USGS.

From a producer perspective LafargeHolcim described 2017 as a ‘disappointing’ year, with overall net sales down slightly on a like-for-like basis. The group remained optimistic for 2018 though, with its hopes pinned on rising employment and housing construction. HeidelbergCement rode high on its acquisition of Italcementi’s local subsidiary Essroc, which enabled it to grow its business in the northeast and midwest. Its cement sales volumes rose by 2.3% to 4.1Mt. CRH noted similar cement sales volume growth of 3% and attributed this to stronger demand. Its business also benefited from the acquisition of Suwannee American Cement with its 1Mt/yr cement plant in Florida. Further growth to its production base is also expected soon as it completes its acquisition of Ash Grove Cement.

By contrast Buzzi Unicem reported a tougher year with its net sales barely increasing from 2016 to 2017. It blamed a tough first half of the year for this as well as weather-related issues due to Hurricane Harvey and then snow in December 2017. Cemex too reported harder conditions in the US, with cement sales volumes down by 6% for the year. Although on a like-for-like basis with plant sales excluded it reported this as a rise of 2%. Again, it blamed the weather but it did note an increase in residential housing construction as the year progressed.

In this kind of mixed environment for cement producers no wonder the PCA backed or, perhaps more accurately, reminded the President of his pledge to spend US$1.5tn to be invested in infrastructure. As per usual the PCA forecasts fair weather ahead for the US industry once the latest roadblock is overcome. At the last assessment it was inflationary pressure. As ever the government opening its cheque book to build things is exactly what the industry needs to build on its promise. Until then expect more of the same. One more thing to consider though is that the Trump administration is also trying to change the ratio of federal-to-state funding for cross-state infrastructure projects. If the states end up having to pay more money for these kinds of projects these may end up running out of funds, delaying or cancelling them. Counting on that infrastructure spend may be unwise until if or when the cement orders come piling in.

HeidelbergCement’s acquisition of Italcementi really sticks out in a comparison of the major multinational cement producers in 2017. Both its sales revenue and cement sales volumes jumped up by more than 10% year-on-year from 2016 to 2017. It still puts HeidelbergCement behind LafargeHolcim and CRH in revenue terms but the gap is shortening. Although, as we reported at the time of its preliminary results in late February 2018, on a like-for-like basis its sales and volumes only rose by 2.1% and 1.1% respectively.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from multinational cement producers in 2016 and 2017 (Euro billions). Source: Company financial reports.

The European markets may be back on their feet but serious growth came from mergers and acquisitions. Along the same lines, India’s UltraTech Cement is set to reap the reward of its US$2.5bn acquisition of six integrated cement plants and five grinding plants from Jaiprakash Associates in mid-2017. Although as can be seen in graphs 1 and 2 it had been doing fairly well even before this.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from multinational cement producers in 2016 and 2017 (Mt). Source: Company financial reports.

We’ve included Ireland’s CRH this year to present the scale of the company. When it says that it is the world’s biggest building materials company, it means it! CRH doesn’t publish its cement sales volumes, which makes it hard to compare it to other cement producers. In part this may be due to the company’s regional-focused structure and its approach to the construction industry. In Global Cement Magazine’s Top 100 Report 2017 – 2018 feature, CRH was placed as the seventh largest cement producer by installed capacity with 50.5Mt/yr. The major story with CRH in recent years has been its steady stream of acquisitions, notably Ash Grove Cement in the US in 2017.

LafargeHolcim may remain the biggest cement producer in the world outside of China but it made an income loss of Euro1.46bn in 2017. At face value its cement sales volumes fell by 10.2% to 210Mt in 2017 from 233Mt in 2016 but this was mainly due to divestments in China, Vietnam and Chile. On a like-for-for-like basis its volumes rose by 3.3%. To this kind of mood music the emphasis on the release of its 2017 results this week was the announcement of a five-year plan to refocus the company. However, reports of overcapacity in Algeria that also emerged this week suggest the group may have its work cut out.

Cemex described 2017 as a ‘challenging year’ as its operating earnings fell due to a lower contribution from the US and South America despite growth in Mexico and Europe. Hurricanes in Florida had a negative impact in the US and the Colombian market suffered from falling production in 2017. UltraTech Cement uses a different financial year to the other companies detailed here, which makes comparisons a little harder. However, its profit after tax fell in the third quarter that ended on 31 December 2017 due to rising costs of petcoke and coal. Undeterred though, its expansion drive continues this week with its continued efforts to try and win the bid for Binani Cement. Vicat, meanwhile, reported falling earnings in part due to the poor market in Egypt. Yet overall its sales and volumes rose in 2017 aided by recovery in France. Finally, Buzzi Unicem rode out the Italian market with its acquisition of Zillo Group delivering a rise in sales and cement volumes.

Wider trends are hard to call given the differing geographical spreads of these cement producers. Europe has been recovering from a decade of stagnation and Asian markets are no longer reliable. South America is mixed with places like Brazil, and now Colombia, underperforming. Yet Argentina is proving one of the fastest growing construction markets at the moment with local plants unable to meet demand. Africa remains profitable and promising as ever but divided between the north and the Sub-Saharan region.

Once the effects from mergers and acquisition activity by the larger cement producers start to fade then the actual situation may become clearer. In the meantime, the effects of the recent cold snap in Europe on the first quarter results for 2018 could be pretty varied. The Financial Times newspaper, for example, quoted one pundit from the Construction Products Association who estimated the industry lost 1% of its annual output to the bad weather in the UK. This may not be great news for any company relying on the European market.