Analysis

Both HeidelbergCement and Italcementi released their third quarter financial results for 2015 this week. The results are worth comparing given the impending acquisition of Italcementi by HeidelbergCement.

HeidelbergCement has reported a rise in revenue of 8% to Euro10.1bn for the first nine months of 2015. Its net profit rose by 27% to Euro762m from Euro599m. Its earnings before interest and income taxes (EBIT) rose by 17% to Euro1.4bn. By region, growth in revenue was reported everywhere except for the group's Eastern Europe-Central Asia region. Notably growth in the group's Asian region is slowing, growth is growing in Africa and markets are recovering in North America and the UK. It is also worth noting that the group's cement and clinker sales volumes fell by 1.1% to 60.6Mt in the first nine months of the year.

Italcementi has reported a rise in revenue of 3% to Euro3.2bn for the first nine months of 2015. It reported a loss of Euro8.1m, down from a loss of Euro63.8m in the previous period. Its EBIT fell slightly to Euro166m. By region the group reported that 'positive' trends in North America, India and Morocco, together with reducing operating expenses in Europe, would be insufficient to counteract revenue losses in France and Egypt. Overall cement and clinker sales fell by 1.4% to 32.1Mt.

Compared to its 2014 results, HeidelbergCement seems set to recover some of its revenue and profit growth after fluctuating income since 2008. Meanwhile, Italcementi has been continuing to cut costs, rebuild its business and profitability. So there are no obvious shocks to the apparent value of either company at this stage. It is also worth noting that the good geographical complementarity of each company's assets could make any potential renegotiation less likely. Everybody looks set to gain something should the purchase go through.

The deal in late July 2015 announced that HeidelbergCement would be purchasing 45% of Italcementi's shares at a price of Euro10.60 per Italcementi share for a total price of Euro1.67bn. The only clause mentioned so far has been 'subject to contractual purchase price reductions'. The deal is still expected to be completed in the first half of 2016 following approval from competition authorities. Approval from the Competition Commission of India was announced in September 2015.

The diverging values of Lafarge and Holcim before their merger in mid-2015 had consequences that led to haggling over the deal and the removal of Bruno Lafont as the proposed CEO of LafargeHolcim. The difference here is that HeidelbergCement is buying Italcementi as opposed to merging with it. However, the performances of both companies remain paramount. Now as then the question will be: is the cost worth it?

For more information read Global Cement's article on the HeidelbergCement purchase of Italcementi in our September 2015 issue.

The past week has seen several quarterly financial results from producers in the world's second-largest cement industry: India. So far, they do not make for a great read from an economic perspective, although some players, including Birla Group and Sanghi Cement are yet to show their hands.

So let's kick off. For the quarter that ended on 30 September 2015, LafargeHolcim subsidiary Ambuja Cements saw its net profit slide by 36% year-on-year to US$23.6m compared to the same period of 2014. Its income fell by 4% to US$324m as it battled a one-off charge. ACC, LafargeHolcim's other Indian subsidiary, saw a profit of US$17.5m for the quarter, a year-on-year fall of 40% compared to 2014. Not great for the global number one player.

Other players to announce so far have included JK Cements, which reported a 58% fall in consolidated net profit to US$2.1m. Meanwhile, Century Textiles, which owns Century Cement, fared even worse. It actually posted a loss compared to a marginal profit in 2014, despite an increase in total income.

It has not been all doom and gloom however. UltraTech Cement, while it reported a drop in profit, was not as badly affected as the firms listed above. It recorded a 3.9% fall to a net profit of US$59.7m for the quarter, down from US$62.3m in the same period of 2014. This was reported as being better than expected according to a senior research analyst at Angel Broking, perhaps hinting at shaky ground under even these results.

So far, the exception to the lower profits and losses has been India Cements Ltd (ICL), which posted an almost five-fold growth in its net profit. It profit grew from US$1.14m to US$6.26m, which it said stemmed mainly from improved operating parameters and substantial reductions in its variable costs. Its operating profit grew to US$35.4m from US$27.9m. It expects performance to improve as it increases its capacity utilisation rate up, currently languishing at just 60%.

Does the company provide a model for other producers to follow? Perhaps. The company's managing director and vice-chairman of ICL, N Srinivasan, said that the company was poised for improved conditions in its markets. In the company's results he said, "Going forward, we see better times ahead. We had a tough time for two years and have achieved a turnaround by cutting costs and maintaining a healthy cement price." The fact that ICL has managed to 'maintain a healthy cement price' in times of low requires scrutiny in a separate column.

However, a possible take-away from the results released so far is that the larger producers seem to have greater immunity to the problems surrounding over-supply in India. Economies-of-scale and the ability to spread risk around different Indian markets tends to favour larger players like UltraTech. Conversely, a smaller player that finds itself 'stuck' in one of the weaker regional markets, must just sit tight and weather the storm. Either that or it can make itself into a strategic acquisition target for one of the larger groups.

We are still awaiting results from other players in the Indian market, but with low demand, it would be foolish to expect them to be significantly different from the above. Given this, two key factors will help determine whether the decline in profits continues or not. Firstly, India's Modi government is promising large-scale infrastructure projects, which would help boost demand for cement. The industry has heard such promises in the past, however, and may chose to be skeptical. Secondly, it is important to remember that lower profits are being seen at the moment, even despite lower coal costs. Any upward change in these costs and the pace may become too fast for some of the country's smaller producers.

A common refrain in the notes accompanying multinational corporate balance sheets are the adverse effects of currency exchange rates. So it goes this week with separate complaints from the Cement and Concrete Association of Malaysia and ARM Cement in Kenya. In Malaysia its local currency, the Ringgit, has fallen in value by 24% against the US Dollar since January 2015. The fall has been blamed on low prices for crude oil and for other commodities such as palm oil.

For the cement industry this is creating problems due to imported key inputs such as a coal and gypsum that are paid for in US Dollars. Similarly, clinker imports have risen by 20% as part of the same effect. The government hopes that infrastructure projects will prop up the construction sector for the time being. Local market leader Lafarge Malaysia has concurred with this cautiously. However, it is right to be realistic about the situation, as the problems with the falling value of the Ringgit seem to be reflected in its financial results.

Lafarge Malaysia has seen its revenue fall by 2.5% year-on-year to US$318m for the first six months of 2015 from US$326m for the same period in 2014. Net profit has fallen by 9% to US$32m. This follows a 3.8% year-on-year fall to US$640m for 2014 as a whole compared to US$666m in 2013. The drop in revenue was partly blamed on lower cement prices, aggravated by higher operating costs arising mainly from the increase in input and delivery costs. It also fits with the start of the fall in value of the Ringgit compared to the US Dollar since around the middle of 2014. Lafarge Malaysia's first half-year results in 2014 saw rises in revenue and net profit.

Lafarge Malaysia is far and away the market leader in cement production capacity in the country with a production capacity of 12Mt/yr, giving it a market share of nearly half the country's total capacity of around 25Mt/yr. However, it isn't the only cement producer struggling at present. YTL Corporation reported a 12.7% drop in revenue to US$3.85bn for its financial year that ended on 30 June 2015. Net profit fell by 31% to US$257m. Although the company operates across many business sectors, it too partly blamed the losses on its cement sector. This followed gains in profit, bolstered by its cement business, in the financial year that ended on 30 June 2014.

By contrast Cahya Mata Sarawak (CMS) Cement has benefitted from a construction boom in Sarawak state on the island of Borneo, a region separate from the rest of the country. On-going work on the Pan Borneo Highway has helped sales with other projects on the way. The sole producer with an integrated cement plant in the state ordered a cement grinding plant from Christian Pfeiffer in 2014 with commissioning planned for early 2016. It will be the company's third grinding plant in the state.

The effects of currency depreciation can be seen starkly in the financial results of Lafarge Malaysia and YTL Corporation. Infrastructure spending offers one route out of this as Lafarge are hoping and CMS Cement are experiencing in the relative isolation of Sarawak. However, a sustained low price of oil will test this even for a diversifying economy like Malaysia's. Cement producers in other oil producing nations should take note.

Gorazdze Cement has been approved this week by the local authorities to buy Duda Kruszywa and Duda Beton. Aggregate and concrete acquisitions are outside the remit of this column, but Poland still deserves attention as a European country that has seen construction growth in recent years.

Approval by the Polish Competition and Consumer Protection Office (UOKiK) for the Gorazdze purchase is relevant due to cartel fines that were issued to seven cement companies, including Gorazdze Cement, in 2013. At that time Lafarge had its fine absolved, Gorazdze's was reduced but the other producers had to pay 10% of their annual turnover. As part of the Duda purchase, Gorazdze is expected to sell a concrete unit in Olszowa to avoid market overlap.

Polish cement production hit a high of 18.6Mt in 2011 according to Polish Cement Association (SPC) data. In its annual report for 2011, Lafarge attributed the surge to European Union (EU) funding for infrastructure projects and a deficit in housing. The multinational cement producer reported a 27% increase in domestic sales that year. Since then production fell to a low of 14.5Mt in 2013 before picking up. Cement production for the first nine months of 2015 is a little ahead of 2014 year-on-year.

Poland's cement production capacity is 16.8Mt/yr. The industry comprises 11 cement plants that are run by eight producers. As mentioned in the Global Cement Lafarge-Holcim Merger report, the country already has two cement plants from a CRH subsidiary, Grupa Ożarów. This is pertinent because the country offers a view of how LafargeHolcim might act in competition with CRH in a national environment.

In 2014 CRH noted that cement volumes grew by 6% in the country and its Europe Heavyside sales increased by 4% year-on-year to Euro3.93bn. In the first half of 2015 CRH reported selling 'non-core' businesses from its Europe Heavyside division in Poland amongst other territories. It also reported that whilst a solid general economy and construction growth helped sales, it was under price pressure in all of its main product lines.

Interestingly, LafargeHolcim announced in late September 2015 that it was implementing a new three-year strategy in Poland. The plan is to offer its clients logistic, design and consulting services in addition to cement, concrete and aggregate sales. The choice of Poland to test this strategy in with its clear competition from CRH is instructive as this situation is now duplicated in several markets throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Lafarge too reported a 'competitive' environment in its first quarter results for 2015 before the merger with Holcim completed. Yet it noted that its cement volumes had contracted compared to the same period in 2014. This is in contrast to the SPC data for the first quarter of 2015 that suggests that cement production rose slightly compared to the same period in 2014. However, Lafarge did expect construction activity to pick up for the rest of 2015 due to infrastructure tenders based on a new EU infrastructure plan. SPC data on cement production suggests that this may be correct. LafargeHolcim's and CRH's cement plants are in slightly different parts of the country which may also explain reported differences in sales volumes in 2015.

So, we have a picture of CRH streamlining its business in Poland to help grow profits. LafargeHolcim, meanwhile, is broadening its offer with 'soft' businesses to complement its heavy divisions. The results will be worth watching.

Change draws nearer this week in the Ecuadorian cement industry with the announcement of further details on a new integrated cement plant. Union Cementera Nacional (UCEM) plans to build its third cement plant. The part-government owned group will build its new 2200t/day facility in the country's central Chimborazo province. The move will expand the group's domestic production from 1600t/day to 3800t/day, adding to its existing 650t/day of plant in Chimborazo and its 950t/day plant in Azogues. The expansion was supported by a US$230m investment agreement agreed in September 2015 between UCEM and Casaracra.

The timing is interesting here given that cement sales have reportedly fallen year-on-year by 7% for the first seven months of 2015, according to Ecuadorian Institute of Cement and Concrete (INECYC) data. Holcim, in its financial report for the first half of 2015, attributed its lower cement volumes to effects on the local economy by lower oil prices and poor weather. This also followed a declining year for volumes in 2014 after Holcim reported a record year in 2013.

Holcim also reported continuing to export clinker to its Ecuador unit in 2014 despite the drop in volumes. To that end it completed the second phase of its own expansion project at its Guayaquil cement plant back in March 2015. It increased its clinker production capacity to 4500t/day at the site at a cost US$400m.

Also of note, but on a smaller scale, was the announcement by the North American subsidiary of Gebr. Pfeiffer in September 2015 that it was supplying a new MPS swing mill for an existing grinding station at a clinker plant run by Hormicreto. Published details are sketchy on this plant but A TEC Greco refers to supplying a burner to the company for a cement kiln in 2013. The mountainous location and ownership by a concrete producer suggest that this may be a mini-cement plant.

Following the departure of Lafarge from the market at the end of 2014, Ecuador now has three main cement producers: LafargeHolcim (inheriting the Holcim assets), UCEM and Union Andina de Cementos (UNACEM). UCEM's expansion plans will increase its share of the industry by production capacity making it the second largest producer in the country. MCPEC - INECYC estimates projected that cement demand would reach 9Mt/yr in 2018. Meanwhile Manuel Román Moreno, general manager of the Empresa Pública Cementera del Ecuador (EPCE), estimated that the country imported around 1Mt/yr of clinker in 2014.

The question then for UCEM is whether the country will want 9Mt/yr of cement in 2018 with a depressed price of crude oil. As an Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Ecuador's economy is, no doubt, feeling the pinch from the low price of crude oil after a period of growth. In its expansion announcement UCEM reported the reliance of the new plant on bunker oil. This will be trucked in from the Amazonas (Shushufindi) refinery in Sucumbios province and purchased at a subsidised price. Cheap oil can be used to run the plants but it may be needed more to run the country's infrastructure demand for building materials such as a cement.