Displaying items by tag: AfriSam

The merger between South Africa’s larger cement producers, PPC and AfriSam, is back on this week. PPC issued a statement advising its shareholders that the board of directors of both companies were about to enter formal talks to thrash out a potential deal. Issues such as the merger ratio, black economic empowerment and local competition concerns are all on the agenda.

The resumption of merger talks follows the cancellation of the previous round in mid-2015. No reason for the breakdown was publicly released but possible factors may have included the fallout at PPC from the resignation of its chief executive officer (CEO) Ketso Gordhan and competition concerns. Given the investigations by the South African Competition Commission from around 2008 to 2012 these may have been very real concerns. At this time the two companies held about a 60% share of the country’s cement production capacity.

Events have changed since then with the opening and ramp-up of Sephaku Cement’s cement plant at Aganang and its grinding plant at Delmas since late 2014. Today, PPC and AfriSam control just under 50% of the cement production capacity in South Africa and PPC’s current CEO Daryll Castle remains in post since early 2014. What a difference a year or so can make.

PPC moved its financial year end from September to March in 2016 making it hard to compare like with like. However, its revenue appears to have grown by 10% year-on-year to US$396m for the six months to 30 September 2016. Its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA), a measure of operating performance, fell by 7.5% to US$80m at the same time. Since then PPC notified markets with a trading statement saying that its sales volumes in South Africa had risen by 4% in the nine months to the end of December 2016 but that its prices had fallen by 4%. It also noted that its local cement sales volumes declined marginally when compared to the same quarter in the previous year, with the exception of the Western Cape region.

PPC also has various projects underway in sub-Saharan Africa, including plant builds in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Ethiopia. Of note to any potential merger with AfriSam are its plans to build a new 3000t/day production line at its Slurry plant in Lichtenburg. The project was reported 54% complete in early February 2017 with first clinker production scheduled for the first half of 2018. CBMI Construction, a subsidiary of China’s Sinoma, is the main contractor for the upgrade project. Once complete the new line will add about 1Mt/yr to the plant’s cement production capacity. One implication of this project is that it will push PPC and AfriSam’s market share over 50% that may have consequences with the local competition body.

For its part AfriSam appears to be suffering financial problems according to local press. The Public Investment Corporation (PIC), a government investment body, revealed in late 2016 that it had invested over US$100m in the cement producer since 2008. The PIC holds a controlling share of AfriSam with a 66% stake in the group. Other than this, solid facts about the state of AfriSam’s business are thin on the ground. However, competition in South Africa’s cement sector has certainly increased in recent years both within and without, from the import market.

As this column has said a few times merger and acquisitions seem to be the way to go for cement producers in weak markets. However, as annual results from Cementir and HeidelbergCement show this week, the initial boost from new asset and business purchases may not be so rosy when viewed in a pro-forma basis or when taking into account new units’ past performance. A lot here rides on these companies being able to take advantage of synergy effects and to make crucial savings. The big example of this in the global cement sector is LafargeHolcim. It will announce its financial results for 2016 on 2 March 2017. It also operates a cement plant in South Africa and the results may have implications for the PPC and AfriSam merger.

In other news, the European Union parliament has voted today, on 15 February 2017, to amend its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in line with a proposal made by the European Commission. This is unlikely to impress the environmental lobby or users of secondary cementitious materials in cement production, amongst other parties. More on this topic next week.

The other big cement producer merger collapsed this week when PPC announced that it had terminated discussions with AfriSam. Details were scant due to a confidentiality agreement between the South African cement producers. However, the CEO of PPC, Darryll Castle, confirmed that neither party could agree the terms of the merger. PPC's shares rose by 5% on the news of the breakdown.

Financially the decision may have made sense. As an unlisted company AfriSam doesn't publish its financial results but PPC did report a revenue of US$742m in 2014. Comparing cement production capacity in South Africa gives PPC 4.75Mt/yr and Afrisam 3.50Mt/yr. Roughly this is a 58:42 split although this doesn't take into account both companies' aggregates, ready-mix concrete and other product concerns.

It's possible that disagreements over the value of the two companies caused the breakdown. At the time the merger was first proposed in December 2014 PPC was reeling from the resignation of its CEO Ketso Gordhan in September 2014. Some media commentators viewed the proposal as opportunistic on the part of AfriSam given all the internal problems PPC was coping with. Also, given that the combined companies would have held a 60% share of the market, it is likely that the Competition Commission of South Africa would have taken a keen interest.

The uneven ratio of sizes between the two companies considering merging is similar to the problems now facing Lafarge and Holcim. The European building materials companies started out trumpeting their merger of equals before Lafarge's relative poor financial performance and fluctuating currencies made a mockery of this parity. Once this became clear then major shareholders in Holcim started to question the merger.

Back to Africa, the question with PPC and AfriSam is whether they should have swallowed their differences in view of future growth. With Dangote expanding across the continent and Lafarge consolidating its local activity under the Lafarge Africa banner it seems like the time to merge resources and expand.

AfriSam has been saddled with debt since a buyout in 2007 when Holcim reduced its share from 85% to 15%. In 2011 it agreed to pay a penalty of US$16m, representing 3% of its 2010 cement annual turnover in the Southern African Customs Union, due to cartel activity. Then in 2013 investment holding company Pembani Group reduced AfriSam's debt for shares and a controlling say on its board. By contrast PPC has been expanding across Africa, in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Zimbabwe, Algeria and Mozambique, to boost foreign sales to 40% by 2017. The programme is anticipated to raise PPC's cement production capacity from 8Mt/yr to 12Mt/yr.

Domination at home in South Africa and firm plans for continental expansion suggest that this deal wasn't in PPC's interest, although its domestic cement sales have declined which may have also made the case for consolidation more tempting. Dangote's progress in west African must be both inspiring and troubling for South African cement producers.

South African authorities have started a new investigation into imports of cement from Pakistan. This time the inquiry will examine trade dumping allegations made by local producers including Afrisam, Lafarge, NPC Cimpor and PPC.

The application made by the cement producers provided evidence that the difference between the price of cement (the dumping margin) in Pakistan and for imports from Pakistan in 2013 was 48%. Or, in other words, the price of Pakistan cement imported to South Africa was nearly half that of what is was being sold for in the country that it was actually produced in.

The data submitted to the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa comes from a report by Genesis Analytics on Pakistan cement prices in 2013 and tax information from the South African Revenue Service. Neither source is readily available for more detailed analysis here but data released by XA International Trade Advisors suggests that cement imports from Pakistan rose to 1.1Mt/yr in 2013 and at a value of US$59m. Roughly, this gives a price of US$55/t. This compares to an average price of US$90/t, from the All Pakistan Manufacturers' Association for the first nine months of the 2012 – 2013 Pakistani fiscal year, giving a dumping margin similar to the allegation by the South African cement producers.

Separate industry sources quoted by the Pakistan media on the story reported that the country supplies 1.5 - 1.6Mt/yr of cement to South Africa, its biggest export market, receiving a revenue of US$125m. Although this suggests a dumping margin lower than the one presented to the authorities it is still high.

Other information of note in the investigation notification is that the Pakistan cement imports are only competing heavily with the local bagged cement market in the Southern African Customs Union, which also includes neighbouring Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. The notification discounts bulk cement imports from Pakistan as being 'prohibitively' expensive suggesting that the Pakistan cement producers have no import infrastructure in southern Africa or that something else is stopping them. For example, the country's market leader for production, Lucky Cement, has export facilities in Karachi with silos and automatic ship loaders. Yet it's only 'brick-and-mortar' presence overseas are projects building an integrated plant in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a grinding plant in Iraq.

It may also be worth considering that South African industry newcomer Sephaku Cement hasn't joined the dumping allegation. The Dangote subsidiary was set to start producing clinker in late August 2014. This is out of character considering how prominent the Nigerian-based cement producer has been in campaigning against imports to its home nation. However, the Aganang plant in Lichtenburg, North West Province is over 700km from the coast and presumably safe from foreign imports at present.

One final question occurs. How are Pakistan cement producers able to dump bagged cement on the South African market at prices lower than what they are selling it for at home? If individual producers sold their excess at home at a lower price they could potentially undercut their competitors and make a profit. There are many barriers, from input costs to industry structural issues and other reasons that may be preventing this. However, if the South African cement producers succeed in their latest attempt to block imports from Pakistan it may add more impetus to remove such barriers.

Pakistan's Lucky Cement received the 'all clear' for its cement imports from the South African regulators last week. The situation exposes the increasingly competitive market in the country after the South African Competition Commission cartel investigations in 2011.

Sales of Lucky Cement were originally shut down in 2011 due to accusations made by its competitors, including Pretoria Portland Cement (PPP) and Natal Portland Cement (NPC). They complained that Lucky was not complying with South African standards. South Africa's National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) then ran its independent investigation and released its results last week.

The regulator's full 28-day test found no evidence that Lucky Cement imports were non-compliant with regards to their quality. A minor infringement concerning underweight bags was found and fixed. However, about a week beforehand, Lafarge South Africa's CEO said that his company was considering approaching another trade body with concerns about 'low-quality cheap cement' imported from Pakistan.

More serious criticism came from the Cement and Concrete Institute when the NRCS admitted that it didn't know how much cement had been imported into South Africa so far in 2012. The NRCS is supposed to inspect and approve the testing bodies each producer and importer uses for every 500t of cement.

Lucky Cement has been a regular importer of cement to South Africa since 2009. It exports around 1.65Mt/yr to over 22 countries in South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. CCI figures reckon that 140,000t of cement was imported to South Africa in the first quarter of 2012, mostly by Lucky Cement. According to the Global Cement Directory 2012 South Africa's capacity is around 11Mt/yr.

Four domestic producers – Lafarge, PPC, AfriSam and NPC – were accused of cartel activity by the South African Competition Commission, in a case that has been running since 2008. PPC confirmed the existence of the cartel, whilst Lafarge and AfriSam were fined US$19.6m and US$16m respectively.

By letting Lucky Cement resume the sale of its cement in South Africa, the NRCS has arguably done more than the Competition Commission to prevent cartel activity. With reports surfacing that other producers in Pakistan and India are considering exports to South Africa, domestic producers are going to have to become more inventive and more competitive.