Displaying items by tag: Acquisition

Poland: BWF Envirotec Group has purchased Orwat Filtertechnik. Based in Mysłowice, Silesia, the company has been producing and distributing filter bags and filter pockets for dedusting and flue gas cleaning technology as well as pockets, cartridges and compact filters for air conditioning and ventilation technology since 1995. The company also has a sales office in Warendorf, North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany giving it a European presence. No value for the acquisition has been disclosed.

"Orwat Filtertechnik, with its technologically outstanding equipment, is an excellent addition to our line-up with a high level of benefit for our customers, particularly for plant builders and operators of flue gas cleaning systems,” said Stefan Offermann and Philipp von Waldenfels, managing partners of BWF Group. They added that the acquisition also strengthens its Offingen-based headquarters.

India’s Economic Times (ET) has run a story today that really illustrates the heart of the current oversupply issues surrounding the cement sector in India. It reports that Binani Cement, one of the country’s many medium-sized domestic players, is circling the drain ahead of full bankruptcy proceedings. According to ‘senior officials,’ who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the company has already attracted interest from LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and CRH, as well as a plethora of domestic players. There are a total of 15 interested parties so far: the three multinationals, nine domestic cement producers and three investment firms.

With 11.3Mt/yr of capacity, Binani Cement is not a small player by international standards. Unusually for an Indian producer, it even has capacity elsewhere, in China and Dubai. It is part of the larger BRAJ Binani Group, which is involved in glass fibre, energy, IT and more. The fact that the cement company is now up for sale really underscores the extent to which India doesn’t need the 100Mt/yr of extra capacity that was highlighted by the Cement Manufacturers Association in September 2017. India could lose 10 Binani Cements overnight and still have enough capacity to meet domestic demand!

Binani’s issues are, at least in part, geographic. It has assets exclusively in the north of India, which has seen weakened homebuilding and infrastructure activities since the implementation of the government’s demonetisation policy, as well as the highest impacts from rising imported fossil fuel prices. The implementation of India’s new Goods and Services Tax (GST), which has increased cement prices, has not helped. The bulk of Binani’s operations are in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, both states far from the coast. When even UltraTech Cement’s profit is down, the squeeze for some smaller producers is becoming too much. On its own Binani cannot handle the heat, but its assets would certainly make a nice addition for a larger player.

In this way, the consolidating Indian cement sector represents a microcosm of the global situation. Binani’s troubles highlight how much better large companies are at spreading the risks of operating in different markets. As discussed in our forthcoming December 2017 issue, the advantages of being a multinational player with a large number of geographical markets appears to be gradually returning once again, with smaller regional players once again suffering from geographical disadvantages.

Of course, in an environment ripe for consolidation it is very interesting to note that CRH is among the international players linked to Binani. It clearly wants the benefits of being a fully-fledged multinational and is going full-steam ahead to get there. It has spent Euro1.34bn on 27 acquisitions of various sizes in 2017, most notably the on-going purchase of Ash Grove Cement in the US. It is making a strong case to purchase PPC in Africa and a larger Indian base makes sense for the company in the longer term. It lost out on Lafarge India’s assets to Nirma in 2016.

We can be sure that the pace of mergers and acquisitions will continue to grow in the rest of 2017 and into 2018 in India and elsewhere. Would you bet against CRH pulling off an Ash Grove, PPC and Binani ‘triple?’ With the group finance director Senan Murphy stating that there was additional room for expansion in 2018, its intent certainly can’t be faulted.

We said to expect more consolidation in Italy. Well, today it happened. Last time Global Cement Weekly covered the country, in June 2017, it reported upon the Buzzi Unicem deal to buy Cementizillo. Today, HeidelbergCement announced that it is going to buy Cementir Italia from Cementir Holding for Euro315m.

Our first reaction is that the deal seems cheap. The agreement covers five integrated cement plants and two cement grinding plants with a total capacity of 5.5Mt/yr, as well as the network of terminals and concrete plants. HeidelbergCement is buying all of this for Euro57/t. This suggests a downward trend given that Buzzi Unicem paid Euro80/t for the Cementizillo units in mid-2017. Although, Cementir only paid Euro38/t when it purchased Sacci in mid-2016.

Cementir’s acquisition of Compagnie des Ciments Belges (CCB) boosted its sales revenue, volume and operating profit in 2016 and in the first half of 2017. However these figures suffered on a like-for-like basis due to falling revenue in Turkey and Malaysia. Overall revenue rose in Italy for the company in 2016 due to a growing ready mix concrete business. However, with this removed, its sales revenue would have fallen by 14% year-on-year due to a 13.5% decrease in the sales volumes of cement.

Cementir Holding chief executive officer (CEO) Francesco Caltagirone has framed the sale of Cementir Italia in terms of improved financial leverage. He’s placed it at close to 0.5x by the end of 2018. This, he says, will allow the group to “…take the opportunities arising in the future, as it has happened during the last twelve months.” By this he likely means the purchase of CCB. Given the low cost for what Cementir picked up the bankrupt Sacci, it makes one wonder whether their plan all along was to leave Italy and they just happened to pick up a bargain along the way.

Meanwhile, HeidelbergCement has framed its acquisition in terms of preparing its presence in the Italian market for the future when the recovery kicks in. The usual talk about synergies is also there and Italian workers for both Italcementi and Cementir Italia will be wondering what this means for their jobs. Given that the group’s overall sales have struggled to grow so far in 2017, the company may be telling the truth when it says it’s banking on the medium to long term in Italy. After all, in its half-year report for 2017, it described the Italian economy as subdued and reported cement sales volumes as ‘stable.’

Once the deal completes, Cementir Holding will be an Italian-based cement company without any production facilities in Italy. Unless the group is planning to re-enter its home market at a later date, it does suggest a certain lack of confidence at home. Let’s see if HeidelbergCement has the nerve to stick it out.

Sad news this week from the Talcahuano cement plant in Chile that is to stop producing clinker. Local media reports that the Cementos Bío Bío unit has decided to import clinker from Asia instead, which will reduce its production costs. At the same time it has laid off a third of its workforce. The plant has been producing cement since 1961.

The decision carries echoes of Holcim New Zealand’s closure of its Westport cement plant in 2016, another unit in a country on the Pacific Rim. However, in that country LafargeHolcim has purposely moved towards becoming a distribution company by opening import terminals and depots. Plus the local subsidiary benefits from the cement-trading arm of a multinational company. By contrast, local producer Cementos Bío Bío still retains two integrated plants and a grinding plant in Chile. Following the closure its production share from integrated plants will drop to 2.4Mt/yr (39%) from 3.2Mt/yr (45%). The country will retain a total production capacity of 6.2Mt/yr from its clinker producing plants.

The timing of Cementos Bío Bío’s decision is also interesting given that the Chilean competition authority (TDLC) approved Hurtado Vicuña Group to buy a controlling stake in Cemento Polpaico from LafargeHolcim in early July 2017. The deal was originally announced in October 2016 to sell LafargeHolcim’s 54.3% stake in Cemento Polpaico for US$225m. The sale includes one integrated plant with a cement production capacity of 2.3Mt/yr and two grinding plants. Hurtado Vicuña has not been required by the regulator to sell any of its cement units but it has been asked to sell parts of its concrete business and to abide to a ban on repurchasing the assets within 10 years. Hurtado Vicuña owns Cementos BSA, a subsidiary that runs the El Bosque cement grinding plant in Santiago and it has just started-up production at a new 0.95Mt/yr grinding plant at Quilicura, also near the capital.

In its 2016 annual report LafargeHolcim reported that cement sales volumes of cement fell in Chile due to a fall in the residential construction market in the second half of the year. However it did manage to raise its operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBTIDA) off the back of higher prices and lower production costs compared to the previous year. Cementos Bío Bío concurred with this assessment of the market in its 2016 report, lamenting the country’s poor economic growth since 2015 and declines in the mining and construction sectors. Despite this its cement despatches rose very slightly to 1.56Mt in 2016. The big drop in its sales occurred in 2014 when its sales fell by 10% year-on-year to 1.51Mt. More recently, Bío Bío noted a 37% decrease in its operating profit for its cement, concrete and lime division for the first quarter of 2017 due to falling sales volumes and margins in cement and lime. However, it did benefit from falling costs for energy and petcoke inputs. The group also announced plans to sell a minority stake in itself in February 2017.

These stories show another country that is realigning its cement industry to a clinker-rich world market. Chile appears to retain a ‘big three’ group of local clinker producers that has shifted with the rise of Cementos BSA and the departure of LafargeHolcim. However, the market share in the cement grinding business has changed significantly as Cementos BSA has gained both an integrated plant and a more national profile, away from the capital, with its grinding plants. Once the local market picks up it will be interesting to see whether this trend towards clinker import and local grinding continues.

Congratulations are due to India’s UltraTech Cement this week for finally completing its US$2.5bn asset purchase from Jaiprakash Associates. The deal has been around in some form or another since at least 2014 when UltraTech arranged to buy two cement plants in Madhya Pradesh for around US$750m. That deal, publicly at least, became a victim of the 2015 amendment to India’s Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act. The Bombay High Court eventually rejected it in early 2016 after a period of delays. However, the deal bounced back in a much larger form around the same time and since then everything has gone relatively smoothly.

As chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla put it in his letter to shareholders in the company’s 2016 – 2017 annual report the, “move is essentially for geographic market expansion.” He then went on to mention all the usual keywords like ‘synergy’ and ‘economies of scale’ that you expect from an acquisition. Quite rightly he finished with, “It is with great pride that I record, that UltraTech is the largest cement player in India and the fifth largest on the world stage.” On that last point he meant outside of China but UltraTech does have a small number of assets outside of India, notably in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Bangladesh, hinting at an international future for the cement producer.

Map 1: UltraTech Cement’s plants in India. Source: UltraTech Cement Corporate Dossier, January 2017.

To give a scale of the deal, UltraTech has increased its number of integrated cement plants in India to 18 from 12 and its cement grinding plants to 21 from 16. Its overall cement production capacity will increase by nearly 40% to 91.4Mt/yr from 66.3Mt/yr. The new assets are in Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. The main regions that will benefit are the North, Central and South zones. In particular the Central Zone will see its capacity jump to 21.1Mt/yr from 6.2Mt/yr. This area also includes a new 3.5Mt/yr plant at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh that is scheduled for commercial production in late 2019.

The completion of the Jaiprakash Associates deal was followed by the introduction at the start of July 2017 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), a rationalisation of some of the country’s central and state taxes. UltraTech promptly said it had reduced its product prices by 2 – 3% in light of tax reductions under the new regime. Some producers were warning of a rise in cement prices in the run-up to the introduction of the GST and the Cement Manufactures’ Association said that the new tax rate was insufficient. However, UltraTech said that the new tax rate of 28% was better than 30 – 31% previously. Other Indian producers also reduced their prices this week following the introduction of the GST.

UltraTech’s expansion and the start of the new tax scheme auger well for the Indian cement industry in 2017. Demonetisation knocked cement production at the start of the year and it may have lowered UltraTech’s capacity utilisation rate as well as reducing domestic sales by cutting housing demand. However, sector rationalisation and a simpler tax approach should help to remedy this. Not all government interaction has been helpful to the cement industry in recent years as the MMDR amendment and demonetisation show but the signs are promising.
Roll on the next set of financial reports.

Buzzi Unicem strengthened its position in Italy this week with a deal to buy Cementizillo. The agreement included Zillo Group’s two integrated cement plants at Fanna and Este in the northeast with a combined production capacity of 1.4Mt/yr. The sale price appeared to be low at a maximum of Euro104m plus 450,000 shares in Buzzi. However, the interesting part of this transaction is a variable portion of zero to Euro21m based on the average price of cement achieved by Buzzi in Italy between 2017 and 2020.

Buzzi hammered home the point in its acquisition statement that the local cement sector suffers from, “…significant surplus of production capacity coupled with permanently reduced sales volumes.” No doubt this was a prominent part of the deal negotiations given that, with a rough calculation of Euro10m for the shares, Buzzi has picked up the new cement production capacity at about Euro80/t or US$91/t. In July 2016 this column commented that Cementir’s purchase of Compagnie des Ciments Belges’ assets for Euro125/t seemed fairly low globally. Yet even this seemed high when Cementir picked up Sacci’s cement business, including five cement plants, for Euro125m or Euro38/t. Although it should be noted that Sacci was bankrupt at the time and being run by its liquidators.

As ever all these transactions were complicated by assets other than clinker production lines but the problems facing the Italian cement industry are clear. Following on from last week’s column about changing patterns of cement consumption in southern Europe, the cement intensity of the construction sectors in Italy and Spain has dropped significantly since 2000 suggesting that the mode of construction has moved from new projects to patching up old ones. Throw in the financial crash in 2007 and, strikingly, cement production in Italy fell from 49Mt in 2006 to 21Mt in 2015. Anecdotally, looking through the Global Cement Directory 2017, 13 of the country’s 56 integrated cement plants were listed as idled, mothballed or closed at the start of the year. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, reckons that consumption fell year-on-year by 4.7% in 2016 with a further drop of 3% forecast for 2017. Surprisingly though estimates from the Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica Cemento (AITEC) suggest that cement exports have not increased dramatically since 2007. Since hitting a low of 1.6Mt in 2011 they rose to 2.5Mt, a similar figure to that of before the crash.

This kind of environment suggests consolidation and that’s exactly what has happened with Buzzi buying Cementizillo this week, Germany’s HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi in 2016 and Cementir’s purchase of Sacci in the same year. Earlier in 2014 Austria's Wietersdorfer & Peggauer picked up a plant in Cadola from Buzzi.

Financially, the story is in line with what the declining production and consumption figures suggest. Buzzi reported that its net sales in Italy fell by 16% to Euro375m in 2016 and Cementir said that its sales would have fallen by 14% had it not benefitted from the new revenue from Sacci.

HeidelbergCement presented Italy as a territory ripe for ‘substantial’ recovery potential at a shareholders event in the autumn of 2016. It highlighted opportunities in further rationalisation of the industry, recovery in cement consumption from a low base and optimisation of the country’s distribution and depot network. It probably will not be publicly released but if Buzzi Unicem pays out the full amount of its variable payment to Cementizillo then the industry may be picking up again. Until then expect more acquisitions.

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.

In early 2014 the top of the global cement producer charts looked very different to how it does today. The big four multinationals, Lafarge, Holcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex, were clearly out in front and ahead of the rest of the global top 10. While there was discrepancy in their sizes, the largest, Lafarge (224Mt/yr) had just over twice the cement capacity of fourth-placed Cemex (95Mt/yr), with Holcim (218Mt/yr) and HeidelbergCement (122Mt/yr) between these extremes.¹ With an impressive 659Mt/yr of capacity between them, these four accounted for just shy of half of global cement capacity outside of China.

However, as those with even a passing interest in the cement sector will know, this is no longer the case. The merger between Lafarge and Holcim and the subsequent acquisition of Italcementi by HeidelbergCement has stretched out the range of the top producers significantly. Today LafargeHolcim has around 340Mt/yr of installed capacity and HeidelbergCement 200Mt/yr. Meanwhile Cemex is still 'stuck in the 90s,' with a capacity of around 92Mt/yr following the sale of its Croatian cement assets last week. The Mexican 'giant' is now almost a quarter of the size of LafargeHolcim. What does this mean for the world's number three (excluding Chinese producers) and what might the future hold?

Well... the old adage goes that you have to move forward to stand still. However, Cemex has not moved forward over the past two years, meaning that is hasn't kept up the pace with its immediate rivals. It hasn't been able to, hemmed in by the debt that it took on from its poorly-timed acquisition of Rinker in 2007. Indeed, Cemex is looking to contract further, with aims to shed a further Euro600 - 1100m of non-core assets in 2015.² Against improved positions at LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement, Cemex increasingly looks like an 'Americas specialist' rather than a full-blown multinational. A stake in Cemex LatAm Holdings is up for sale, but the sale of more cement plants may also be on the way. This is all being done to improve Cemex's investment grade rating from B-plus, four grades below investment grade.

If Cemex does have to shed further physical assets on the ground, it is very unlikely that it would chose to do so in the Americas, where it is a very major player. It is number one in Mexico, third in the US and well-postitioned in numerous growth markets in Central America. If push comes to shove, it is far more likely that it would sell assets that are further from home. These are in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.

Cemex has 43% of its production capacity outside the Americas. Certain assets, such as those in Thailand, Bangladesh and the Philippines, may be appealing to CRH, which is already set to acquire LafargeHolcim divestments there and is known to be considering other purchases in the region.³ Cemex also owns several cement plants in better-performing EU economies like Germany and the UK. In Germany, the company has already completed a small downsizing exercise by selling its Kollenbach plant to Holcim (LafargeHolcim). Meanwhile, Cemex UK is a major player in the UK, where the Competition Commission has recently been very keen to increase the number of producers. Elsewhere, Cemex's share in Assuit Cement in Egypt could provide much needed revenue, as could its small stake in the Emirati markets.

Thinking more radically, and in keeping with the current trend of mega-mergers and large-scale acquisitions, could Cemex find itself the target of the next global cement mega-merger / acquisition? Certainly, its strength in Central and South America completely complements HeidelbergCement's lack of coverage here, making a future 'HeidelbergCemex' a potential winner.

The other option, if/when Cemex regains its investment rating, would be for Cemex to acquire or merge with a company further down the list of global cement produers. Africa is an obvious target, with rapid growth and a lack of Cemex assets at present. A foreigner buying up Dangote is probably out of the question, but PPC would be an interesting target, as would increasingly isolated Brazilian producers that could help shore up Cemex's South American position.

If the past 18 months in the global cement industry have shown anything, it is that we should expect the unexpected. It will be very interesting to see how all players, both large and small, will react to the recent goings on in the rest of 2015 and beyond.

1. 1. Saunders A.; 'Top 75 Cement Producers,' in Global Cement Magazine – December 2013. Epsom, UK, December 2013.

1. 2. Reuters website, 'Mexico's Cemex could sell part of business to pay down debt: CEO,' 10 February 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/11/us-mexico-cemex-idUSKBN0LF05320150211.

1. 3. Global Cement website, 'CRH investment spend set to pass Euro7bn with South Korea cement deal,' 12 June 2015, http://www.globalcement.com/news/item/3721-crh-investment-spend-set-to-pass-euro7bn-with-south-korea-cement-deal.

CRH has made good on its intentions. This week it stumped up Euro6.5bn to buy assets from Lafarge and Holcim in four continents. The move follows preparation since at least May 2014 when the Irish building materials group announced a divestment programme. In October 2014 it announced that it would sell its brickwork division.

CRH is finding the cash through a mix of existing cash, debt and equity placing. Interestingly, back in 2012 an Irish stockbroking analyst who was interviewed reckoned that the company could spend up to Euro3.5bn on acquisitions whilst remaining within its banking agreements. Throw in the recent sales and planned divestments and the planned acquisition from LafargeHolcim doesn't seem like too much of a stretch for CRH.

If completed, the purchase will see CRH take on 24 cement plants with a production capacity of 36Mt/yr. As a back of the envelope calculation suggests the sale price of Euro6.5bn isn't far off the occasionally used price of US$200/t for western cement production. The deal also includes aggregates, ready mixed concrete and asphalt assets.

The purchase marks a change in CRH's buying strategy both in terms of scale and distribution. Much of CRH's previous acquisitions have been minority shareholdings that make it difficult to accurately report the company's position in the cement industry. For example, in our Top 100 Report CRH was reported to have a production capacity of 6.49Mt/yr for majority shareholdings with another 19.9Mt/yr for minority shareholdings. The new cement capacity being purchased blows this away because it more than doubles CRH's total capacity and it appears to be all majority owned. CRH thinks that this will propel it to become the world's third biggest building materials manufacturer after LafargeHolcim and Saint-Gobain, leapfrogging Cemex and HeidelbergCement in the process. Strangely there is no mention of the huge Chinese players in the top five manufacturers in CRH's acquisition presentation.

CRH has avoided buying plants in southern Europe but it is relying on the slowly improving growing UK market, where CRH will pick up four plants, to balance the risk. Elsewhere in Europe, the three Holcim plants in France have been suffering from continued low construction rates in that country and the two Lafarge cement plants in Romania are unlikely to have recovered from a production fall in 2013. Outside of Europe growth has been poor in Quebec in 2013 and 2014, where CRH is buying two plants from Holcim. Both Lafarge and Holcim have also seen a slowdown in Brazil. However, the Philippines does seem like a better bet for CRH, with solid cement volumes growth seen by Lafarge in 2013 and the first three quarters of 2014.

With CRH now looking like a company that wants to produce cement rather than one that owns parts of companies that produce cement, all eyes are on the construction markets. 14 of the 24 cement plants CRH are buying are in Europe. Buying at the bottom of a sustained production slump makes sense because the asking price will be low. However, has the bottom been reached yet?

Step forward UltraTech Cement into the vertical rumour mill! The Indian cement producer is the latest company reported as wanting to buy Jaypee Group's cement business in Gujarat. It follows Italcementi, Aditya Birla and CRH, who announced in October 2012 that negotiations had been 'terminated' as the parties had been unable to agree terms.

This time the asking price has risen, with Ultratech allegedly offering US$160-165/t and Jaypee holding out for US$180-185/t. Whilst UltraTech hasn't publicly confirmed the move, it pointedly hasn't denied it either. The Aditya Birla Group subsidiary only commented to the Bombay Stock Exchange that it had not issued any press releases on the subject. Aditya Birla Group itself was reported in October 2012 as pursing interest at US$130/t for Jaypee's 9.8Mt/yr operations in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh.

Given the number of rumours and cash-rich CRH's very public failure to strike a deal it seems likely that Jaypee has a specific price in mind and it's sticking to it. Prasad Baji of Edelweiss Securities stated in a television interview with CNBC-TV18 that he thought that the cement industry cycle was starting to look up. Crucially he predicted that India's capacity utilisation was set to rise from its current level of 78% to 82% despite price declines in the current quarter.

This is in sharp contrast with Fitch Ratings which rated the Indian cement industry with a negative outlook at the start of 2012 and reports in late May 2012 that capacity ultilisation had actually fallen from 76% to 71%. Since then ICRA Research reported in late September 2012 that it expected Indian capacity ultilisation to stick to 76% for 2012 with prices showing 'resistance' in some regions to cost increases due to rising input costs.

With all this in mind it seems likely that UltraTech will join the growing list of Jaypee's spurned buyers when it fails to reach terms or when the rumours simply fizzle out. However if UltraTech does strike a deal the Indian industry will be the one to watch in 2013. According to data in the Global Cement Directory 2013, an acquisition of nearly 10Mt/yr production capacity would boost UltraTech's capacity to 62Mt/yr making it the 12th largest cement company in the world.