Analysis
Search Cement News
Update on HeidelbergCement takeover of Italcementi
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
17 February 2016
HeidelbergCement has finally provided a little more detail about its acquisition of Italcementi with the releases of its preliminary results for 2015. The key message is that all is well. Expected savings from the takeover are growing, less borrowing is required to make the purchase and the approvals from competition commissions around the world are rolling in.
Looking at the cost savings first, the potential for synergies or operational savings was first estimated at Euro175m at the time of the takeover announcement in late July 2015. At that time HeidelbergCement hoped to be able to deliver almost 30% of this figure in 2016. If it goes ahead this will sweeten the honeymoon period considerably following the completion of the deal. The largest savings were expected to come from the commercial area and in purchasing.
This figure then grew to Euro300m at the time of HeidelbergCement’s third quarter results in November 2015. Now, the effects of financing costs and taxes were included. At this point some more strategy about how HeidelbergCement was planning to use Italcementi’s resources started to emerge in the synergy calculations. HeidelbergCement intends to use its global trading business with Italcementi’s ‘export orientated’ cement plants. Import demand, for example in North America or Africa, that used to be bought from third party sources previously, can now be supplied by Italcementi’s plants after the merger, meeting demand and holding capacity utilisation rates up. With the publication of the preliminary results for 2015 the savings figure has grown to Euro400m with little explanation. If only it were that easy to find Euro100m down the back of my sofa.
The financing has also been proceeding smoothly. The loan value required for the takeover has fallen from Euro4.4bn to Euro2bn. Reasons for this include the exclusion of the risk of a mandatory takeover offer to minority shareholders in Morocco, some of Italcementi’s creditor banks agreeing to waive their change of control clauses and the issuance of a Euro625m bond in January 2016. The bridge financing, available initially from Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, remains at Euro2.7bn.
Finally, competition commission approval has been granted in India, Canada, Morocco and Kazakhstan. Despite holding a cement product capacity of 10.5Mt/yr in India with 4.1Mt/yr additional capacity in development, this was unlikely to be a problem in India, with its total national capacity of 280Mt/yr. The commission implemented the Elzinga Hogarty Test and concluded that there is sufficient competition.
This leaves the possibly trickier approvals outstanding in Europe and the US. Belgium is likely to be the main issue in Europe given that the two companies run 73% or 4.5Mt/yr of the market in production capacity. Divestments are expected here.
In the US, precedent should save HeidelbergCement from interference. HeidelbergCement’s and Italcementi’s combined cement production assets will give it a production capacity of 16.4Mt/yr or around 14% or market share. This will make it the second biggest producer in the country after LafargeHolcim which had its merger approved in 2015. There are no obvious overlaps in their clinker production assets except for a minor one in Pennsylvania which holds both the 2Mt/yr Ordinary Portland Cement Essroc (Italcementi) Nazareth Plant and the 0.13Mt/yr Lehigh White Cement (HeidelbergCement). These two plants are unlikely to be considered in competition with each other.
So, continued smooth sailing is expected for the takeover. Since most of the information regarding the acquisition has come directly from HeidelbergCement it was unlikely to appear otherwise. Let’s see whether this remains the case when Italcementi releases its financial results for 2015 later in the week on 19 February 2016.
Cemex: wrong place, wrong time?
Written by Global Cement staff
10 February 2016
Cemex trumpeted last week that it had returned to positive net income for the first time in six years in its fourth quarter results for 2015. In effect the multinational building materials company was saying it is putting its house in order following taking on too much debt in the late 2000s. Similar reassuring noises have repeatedly been made as it has cut its debts down since that time.
The figure Cemex was shouting about this time was its controlling interest net income or the net income attributable to the controlling shareholder. It has risen to a gain of US$75m after being negative, or in loss, since 2010. In that year the sting from the financial crash in 2008 caused havoc and net sales for the company hit a low of US$14bn, having been at over US$20bn in the boom times of 2007 and 2008.
Meanwhile, the company has been steadily whittling away at its total debt reducing it down to just US$15.3bn in 2015. This is a massive figure given that its total equity was US$9.5bn in 2015.
By comparison, Lafarge was reporting a net debt of Euro9.3bn in 2014 compared to a total equity of Euro17.3bn. Its debt-to-equity ratio was far smaller than Cemex’s despite being perceived as the weaker partner financially going into the merger with Holcim in 2015. Unsurprisingly, it was news in August 2015 when Cemex refinanced a bank loan agreement for a US$15bn debt that was previously renegotiated in 2009. Everyone is watching Cemex’s debts keenly.
Against this financial backdrop Cemex’s cement business has been steadily producing fairly static levels of cement since 2009. It 2015 it has reported that it produced 66Mt. However, net sales fell in 2015 by 8% year-on-year to US$14bn, a disappointing result following sales growth since 2012. Fernando A Gonzalez, Cemex’s Chief Executive Officer, blamed it on a ‘challenging’ macroeconomic environment.
Notably overall net sales have been down in Mexico, Northern Europe and Central and South America in 2015. Although Cemex hasn’t released cement sales volumes, volumes fell by 3% in Northern Europe, 2% in its Mediterranean region and 4% in Central and South America in 2015. Thankfully, growth continued to pick up the US, bolstered by housing and infrastructure spending. The Philippines has remained a powerhouse in cement consumption in Asia.
Reviewing Cemex’s expansion projects in 2015 suggest muted capital expenditure with a focus on upgrades and side projects rather than clinker production growth. Such announcements included projects in Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Colombia and Mexico. The exception was in the Philippines where a full-on US$300m project including a new 1.5Mt/yr plant was announced in May 2015. Given the surging cement volume sales in the country this is likely a safe investment.
As discussed previously in this column and elsewhere Cemex has suffered from high debts at exactly the time its major international rivals have started to merge. At the same time its Chinese rivals in terms of production capacity have undergone similar capacity consolidation as part of state mandated capacity reduction initiatives. This has left Cemex between the mega-cement producers like LafargeHoclim and HeidelbergCement and the up-and-comers such as Eurocement or Votorantim.
Now, its reliance on markets in the Americas it hitting a roadblock from reducing growth south of the US as global commodity prices tumble and economies suffer. It couldn’t have happened at a worse time for the company. Bar the odd bright spot such as the US and the Philippines it seems that all Cemex can do is wait it out.
Russia cement industry reacts to 2015
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
03 February 2016
LafargeHolcim has stopped clinker production at its Voskresenskcement plant in the Moscow region of Russia. The move is part of reorganisation of the company's structure in Russia following market contraction. LafargeHolcim warned of declining cement volumes in its third quarter report for 2015 blaming a 'volatile' economic situation and low oil and gas prices negatively affecting construction activity.
Lafarge, before the merger with Holcim, reported that its cement volumes in Russia grew by 9% in 2014 compared to 2013 owing to the opening of its 2Mt/yr Ferzikovo plant in the Kaluga region in May 2014. It noted at that time that the construction market had slowed down in the fourth quarter of 2014. The Voskresenskcement plant had a Euro5m FLSmidth electrostatic precipitator fitted on one of its kilns in June 2014. This was part of a Euro60m upgrade project on Lafarge Russia's cement plants between 2008 and 2013. Also, in the run-up to the merger Lafarge Holcim sold its UralCement plant in Korkino to Buzzi Unicem.
LafargeHolcim is a relatively small player in the Russian cement industry but its experiences may be symbolic. Eurocement, the Russian market leader with 33% of cement production capacity, forecast that cement consumption in the country might fall by 5 – 10% in 2015. At that time, in June 2015, Eurocement president Mikhail Skorokhod blamed the high cost of borrowing and its effects on slowing new construction projects. Previously, the Russian Cement Association predicted that it expected domestic cement consumption to fall by 15% in 2015.
Unfortunately, it looks like the most pessimistic end of Eurocement's forecast may be correct. CMPRO data shows that cement consumption fell by 9.4% year-on-year to 49Mt in the first nine months of 2015. Data is yet to be publicly released for December 2015 but the cumulative totals for the first eleven months of 2015 hold with that decrease in cement consumption. Prior to this Russian cement production and consumption had been growing annually since 2009.
Particular declines in cement consumption for the first nine months of 2015 have been reported in the Volga Federal District, the Siberian Federal District, the Ural Federal district and the Northwestern Federal District of Russia. However, it should be noted that these regions had all had a production deficit of cement for most of 2010 to 2013 according to EY analysis. These regions all had cement oversupply problems during the boom years of growth and are now suffering even more as the market contracts. The three biggest cement producing regions in Russia are the Central Federal District followed by the Volga Federal District and then the Siberian Federal District.
Alongside all of this, Eurocement planned to sign US$280m of contracts with Sinoma in November 2014 to build new clinker production lines at three plants. This followed an earlier US$580m set of deals with CNBM and Sinoma to build new plants. On 1 February 2016 Rolt Company announced that it had started project development on four power plants for Eurocement.
Eurocement's financial status is unknown but it may now be regretting all that spending. Last week, on 25 January 2016, Sherbank CIB announced that it held 6% of LafargeHolcim's shares following a repurchase deal with Eurocement. This follows a request for a US$634m loan from Sherbank in mid-2015. Unless growth resumes in the construction market it may have paid over US$850m to build new cement plants at the peak of the Russian market. Add in currency exchange effects and 2016 may be a bumpy year for Eurocement and the Russian cement market as a whole.
Sudan cement industry update
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
27 January 2016
Sudan made a rare mention in the cement news this week when state plans to increase production capacity were revealed. Minister of Investment Mudathir Abdul-Ghani commented on a visit to a cement plant in River Nile State that the government wants to increase production capacity from 3Mt/yr to 5Mt/yr.
It's likely that the minister meant cement production as opposed to production capacity and that something was lost in translation from the original source via the Sudan News Agency. Global Cement Directory 2016 data places the country's cement production capacity at just under 7Mt/yr from six plants. ASEC and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have cited similar figures in recent years too. A Global Cement contact reported in June 2015 that only three of the six cement plants were generally operational. These were Atbara Cement, Alshamal Cement and Al Takamol Cement (ASEC). The last available figures from the Bank of Sudan reported cement production was 2.9Mt in 2013, excluding data from one plant.
Regardless, the focus on Sudan is worth attention. The usual African demographic factors and rebuilding potential following the secession of South Sudan in 2011 suggest that the country is ready for increases in cement consumption. In 2009 per capita cement consumption was placed at 65kg/capita, an extremely low figure. After this point cement production leapt up from 0.6Mt/yr in 2009 to 2.91Mt/yr in 2013. This was due to expansion projects and new plant builds such as the Al Takamol (ASEC) cement plant. Using the current 2015 estimate for population this would still keep the country's per capita consumption below 100kg/capita.
Back in its 2012 annual report ASEC described the Sudanese market as one 'plagued' by oversupply and fuel shortages, creating a difficult environment to operate within. Transportation challenges, political instability, economic sanctions and the separation with South Sudan were all mentioned as problems to the local cement industry, hitting utilisation rates. ASEC's stated plan at the time was to reduce costs to stay in business. This all chimes with direct reports to Global Cement placing the utilisation rate at 50%. Demand for cement reportedly fell in January 2016 due to high inflation rates, at about 35%, and a poor economy.
With these kinds of conditions it would take a brave investor to spend their money in Sudan despite the golden demographic trends. State investment or incentives could be instrumental. This makes the Minister of Investment's comments noteworthy. Despite all the problems ASEC reported a 'marked' rise in sales revenue in 2013 to US$70m for its subsidiary Al-Takamol in Sudan.
Has China’s cement production peaked?
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
20 January 2016
Even the Chinese premier doesn't trust his country's GDP figures. Li Keqiang reportedly told a US ambassador this in 2007. He described Chinese GDP figures as 'man-made' and unreliable. Wikileaks then made the diplomatic report public a few years later. This anecdote has been much reported this week due to the latest gloomy economic figures from China. Its economy officially grew by 6.9% in 2015, its slowest rate in 25 years.
So what can a jittery world trust? Keqiang was reported to focus on three data samples to compensate for an unreliable GDP: electricity consumption, rail cargo volume and bank lending. Global Cement Magazine suggests that he should have followed one more: cement. What can cement tell us about the Chinese economy in recent years?
Chinese cement production fell by 4.9% to 2.35Bt/yr in 2015 according to newly published figures by the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). This is significant. Firstly, whether it is a true reflection of actual production or not, it is an admission by a Chinese state body that cement production is declining. Secondly, it signals the end of the rapid growth of the country's heavy industries through the 1990s and 2000s.
Figure 1 – Chinese cement production by quarter, 2014 – 2015
Figure 1 shows Chinese cement production by quarter in 2014 and 2015 using NBSC data. Two years are insufficient to pick out any major trends other than seasonal trends throughout each year. However, remove the slow winter months in the first quarter of each year and a steady decrease in production throughout 2014 and 2015 is apparent.
Figure 2 – Chinese cement production by year, 2005 – 2015
Figure 2 offers the context that Figure 1 lacked by comparing cement production from 2005 to 2015. Notable trends to point out are a slow down in growth in 2008, around the time of the global financial crash. Then production peaked in 2014 before falling in 2015. This data comes from the United States Geological Survey and then latterly the NBSC.
Figure 3 – Chinese cement production by year and GDP/capita, 2005 – 2015
Figure 3 shows annual growth in cement production against growth in GDP. The similarity of each line here, or the rate of growth, and where they diverge is what is interesting here. Up until the late 2000s the trend is similar until GDP/capita starts to grow faster than cement production. At this point either the Chinese economy has started to acknowledge that it can build all the infrastructure and housing it needs or perhaps the slowing growth in cement production has started to point to slowing GDP/capita growth.
2015 could be a blip if growth resumes in 2016. Yet the other heavy industry metrics suggest otherwise. Electric power and steel production also fell for the first time in 2015. Coal production dropped for the second year in a row. The Chinese housing market started to slow noticeably in 2014, cement production followed by slowing down and now the country's GDP growth has also slowed. Alongside this the industry's capacity reduction programme officially started in late 2013. Cement consumption per capita for China has long suggested that Chinese growth was due to slow. It is reassuring to finally see the official production figures reflect this. The real question though is what happens next.