Displaying items by tag: CRH

Ireland: Ernst Bärtschi has retired from the board of CRH. He was appointed to the board of directors in 2011. A Swiss national he was previously the chief executive officer of Sika and had worked for Schindler Group.

There are two significant cement producers around the world up for sale at the moment. Last week we dealt with India’s Binani Cement, which has so far attracted 15 separate bids from a number of international and domestic players. Now, we turn our attention to South Africa, where PPC remains the target of approaches by LafargeHolcim and CRH.

This week PPC rejected a partial offer from Canada’s Fairfax Holdings, which it considered neither fair nor reasonable. Like a mutual friend at a party that insists two people ‘really are perfect for each other,’ Fairfax had stipulated in its terms that PPC should merge with AfriSam to create a South African super-producer. It does not appear that this idea went down well and that particular combination now seems further away than ever.

When the news broke that it had rejected Fairfax, we thought that PPC’s stance seemed a little ‘too cool.’ However, looking just at the oversized and import-addled South African market does not give the full picture of what’s happening for PPC at the moment. It has significant and growing activities in the rest of Africa too.

Later this week PPC released its results for the first half of its 2018 fiscal year. Suddenly, its handling of the Fairfax offer made more sense. Over the six months to 30 September 2017, PPC nearly tripled its profit to US$21.1m. Crucially, sales from outside South Africa grew far more rapidly than those at home. While domestic earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) rose by 4%, EBITDA from elsewhere increased by 25%. These results bode well for a potential bidding war that now favours PPC.

Even from this greatly enhanced position, PPC was not finished with its announcements for the week. Today it revealed that it plans to build a new ‘mega-factory’ in the Western Cape. Johan Claassen, the interim chief executive of PPC, said there would probably be a formal announcement about new capacity in the Western Cape in 2018. He said that PPC had decided to conduct a feasibility study into a possible replacement for its Riebeeck plant. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is in progress and the plant is reported to be ‘semi-brownfield.’ Claassen said that the new facility would use around 25% of the current Riebeeck equipment and cost US$200/t of installed capacity.

The news of its results and announcement of the new plant represent a good PR move by PPC given the difficulties faced by the wider South African market. The new information will certainly give cause for CRH and LafargeHolcim to think again about the values of their offers, should PPC also be of the view that these also undervalue the company.

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.

Well it doesn’t normally happen like this. In late September 2017 Ash Grove Cement announced that it was set to be bought by Ireland’s CRH. The words it used were a ‘definitive merger agreement.’ Then suddenly this week on 5 October 2017 Ash Grove said that it had received a higher offer from an unnamed third party and that it was extending its so-called ‘window shop period.’ So much for definitive! The following day Reuters revealed that the new bid was from Summit Materials.

The on-going board machinations at LafargeHolcim and the PPC-AfriSam merger saga in South Africa show that the cement industry has its moments of boardroom high drama. Indeed, both of these long-rumbling stories have had murmurs this week with the early departure of LafargeHolcim’s finance director Ron Wirahadiraksa after less than two years and Dangote Cement’s decision to exit the ring from the PPC bidding. However, it’s rare that cement companies are publicly announced as sold and then get gazumped instead.

The Ash Grove debacle also carries a personal dimension. Ash Grove chairman Charlie Sunderland initially described CRH as his company’s biggest customer and one with a close relationship to the firm. Yet a US$300m higher bid suggests how much those ‘kind’ words were actually worth. To add insult to injury the chief executive officer (CEO) of Summit Materials, Tom Hill, used to work for CRH. This no doubt gave him an idea of how the management of CRH thinks. CRH’s public response so far has been that it has noted the extended shareholder approval period at Ash Grove.

At first glimpse Summit Materials and CRH have a similar cement production base in the US. Both companies operate two integrated plants in the country. Summit Materials runs plants at Hannibal, Missouri and Davenport, Iowa. CRH runs plants at Sumterville, Florida and Trident, Montana. Summit then has 10 cement terminals along the Mississippi River from Minnesota to Louisiana compared to CRH US’ five cement terminals in Detroit, Michigan, Cleveland, Ohio, Dundee, Michigan, Buffalo, New York and Duluth, Minnesota.

Yet, CRH also has two plants in Canada. Then the sheer scale of CRH’s other operations in North America simply dwarfs Summit’s. CRH Americas reported sales of US$16.7bn in 2016, more than 10 times higher than the US$1.6bn that Summit Materials declared. Both companies cover aggregates, asphalt, readymix concrete and cement but CRH is by far the larger of the two. So much so in fact that Summit Materials might potentially be taking on a serious amount of debt to finance the Ash Grove sale. As such any blip to the US cement market over the next few years could have serious repercussions to an overleveraged Summit Materials.

On face value the possible engagement with Summit Materials might appear to show that there is a lack of trust between CRH and Ash Grove. However, this cannot be inferred. As its shares are traded over the counter, Ash Grove’s shareholders have allowed a two-week shop window to enable other companies to counter-offer. This is to ensure that they get the best possible value. Talking to Summit is part of this process and may, or may not, mean that the last remaining US-owned cement producer stays based in the US after all.

The last week marked a step change to the US industry with the news that Ireland’s CRH has agreed to buy Ash Grove Cement. The latter is the largest remaining cement producer still owned by an American company. Its history dates back 135 years to its founding in 1882, with links to the Sunderland family for over a century. Following the acquisition, each of the top five cement producing firms in the US will be operated by multinational corporations based in foreign countries.

Although this scenario is not new to many other countries around the world, it is rare for a nation with a cement industry of this scale. The US is the third biggest cement producer worldwide. Out of the top ten cement producing nations Global Cement Magazine identified in its Top 100 Report 2017 feature in December 2016 only Egypt doesn’t have a local company to match the multinationals. China has China National Building Material (CNBM), for example and India has UltraTech cement and so on and so forth.

The actual sale covers Ash Grove Cement’s eight cement plants and 23 cement terminals, as well as its ready mix concrete and aggregate businesses, for US$3.5bn. Altogether its cement plants have a production capacity of 9.5Mt/yr and this really puts into contrast the Cementir Italia deal last week. HeidelbergCement has agreed to buy that company for around Euro57/t. CRH is buying Ash Grove Cement for US$368/t. That’s more that five times as much!

To be fair they are very different markets, with Italy’s cement sector consolidating near the bottom of a business cycle and the US growing with some promise. For comparison with other recent US acquisitions, CRH is offering to pay about the same as Summit Materials did to Lafarge for a cement plant and seven terminals in mid-2015. Other than that a few of the more recent transactions have been between US$200 – 300/t. The gradual price inflation for cement production capacity indicates that there is confidence in the US cement market.

In terms of CRH’s enhanced presence in North America following the completion of the deal, it currently operates two cement plants in the US: the American Cement Sumterville plant in Florida, a joint venture with Elementia, and the Trident plant in Montana. The CRH US division also runs five terminals in the Midwest and Northeast. This compliments Ash Grove Cement’s presence in the West, Midwest and South. Throw in CRH’s Canadian cement plants in Ontario and Quebec and CRH has the makings of a seriously strong cement business in North America. The only obvious impediment could be the close proximity of the CRH Trident plant and the Ash Grove Cement Montana City plant. Both are in Montana within 115km of each other and they are the only integrated plants in the state. A Federal Trade Commission arranged divestment in this location seems likely.

Ash Grove Cement’s chairman Charlie Sunderland, described CRH as his company’s biggest customer when the acquisition was announced. Buying Ash Grove Cement fills in one more piece in CRH’s construction materials puzzle in North America. Its American divisions have generated more than half of its revenue since at least 2014 dominating asphalt, aggregate and ready mix concrete markets. Yet it has lacked a cement market presence to match this. This changes when the deal with Ash Grove Cement completes.

Ireland: Maeve Carton plans to retire as Group Transformation Director of CRH and from its board on 31 August 2017. Since joining CRH in 1988, Maeve has held a number of senior financial roles prior to joining the board as Finance Director in May 2010. She was appointed Group Transformation Director in January 2016.

Germany: Opterra, the German subsidiary of Ireland’s CRH, has announced a change of plant manager at its Karsdorf plant. Berthold Perschall, 50, will take over from Giuseppe De Donno on 1 June 2017. De Donno has been in the post since July 2015 and has left the company to pursue a new professional challenge.

Perschall has been with CRH (and Lafarge beforehand) since 2000. Before coming to the Karsdorf plant in 2009 he worked at Lafarge’s Sötenich and Wössingen plants. He was most recently the head of maintenance and production at Karsdorf.

Finland: Miikka Riionheimo has been appointed as the chief executive officer (CEO) of Finnsementti with effect from 1 June 2017. He will replace the current CEO Kalervo Matikainen when he retires. Riionheimo has worked in a variety of roles for Hella since 2004 and also worked for Sandvik. He became the chief operating officer of Finnsementti in 2016.

Ukraine: The supervisory board of Podilsky Cement has appointed Leonard Barry as its supervisory board chairperson. Previously, he was the director of CRH in the country, according to the Ukrainian News Agency. Barry, aged 52 years, is an Irish national. He joined Irish Cement in 1989 as a process engineer before becoming its managing director in 2011. He trained as a chemical engineer at University College Dublin and holds an MBA from the University of Limerick.

Other personnel changes include the appointment of Declan Maguire, CRH’s chief operational director for Eastern Europe, as deputy supervisory board chairperson. Alan Connolly has also been appointed as secretary of the supervisory board.

The Philippines has been messing up the balance sheets of cement producers so far in 2017. Over the last week Holcim Philippines, CRH and Cemex have each reported lacklustre first quarter results dragged down by poor performance in the country. CRH’s chief executive officer Albert Manifold seemed to receive the worst kicking when analysts in a conference call refused to let it pass that the company’s sales had dropped by 12% year-on-year in Asia. Although to be fair to him the group’s Asian division only represented 2% of global sales at Euro0.5bn…

CRH’s quarterly financial reports tend to be in the form of sparse trading updates. So this lack of detail and CRH’s plans to invest over Euro300m in the market may have prompted Manifold’s grilling. According to the Irish Times he blamed the situation on cheap imports from south-east Asia pulling down the price. He then defended the investment on the grounds that local producers would have an advantage as they increase production capacity due to constant production and ‘guaranteed’ regulation and certification.

CRH isn’t the only organisation that has been burned by the Philippines. Before Christmas this column was praising the local industry for being in a boom. Cement sales had risen by 10.1% year-on-year to 20.1Mt according to CEMAP data in the first nine months of 2016 and the Duterte Infrastructure Plan was starting to target hundreds of billions of US dollars towards infrastructure spending. In the end cement sales rose by 6.6% to 26Mt for the full year in 2016 and this was a solid performance despite being brought down by the fourth quarter.

From the cement producers mentioned above, Cemex reported that its Ordinary Portland Cement sales volumes fell by 9% in the first quarter. It blamed the fall on bad weather and a tough quarter to compare against in 2015. Holcim Philippines said that its net sales fell by 12% to US$176m and it attributed it to lower public infrastructure spending, tighter industry competition and higher production expenses. Eagle Cement meanwhile, the fourth of the country’s major producers, is preparing to float on the local stock market in May 2017 to fund an expansion drive. The poor results of the other three cement producers may dent its proceeds from the initial public offering (IPO).

The words CRH’s Albert Manifold used in his defence were that, “Brand matters over there.” Funnily enough the other big Philippines cement industry news story that has been rumbling away for the last few months is an investigation by the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) into the conduct of the Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CEMAP) and some of the leading cement producers. Naturally this includes CRH’s joint venture Republic Cement. The enquiry was prompted in mid-2016 by the accusation of anti-competitive agreements by a former trade official. He also made direct allegations against Ernesto Ordonez, the head of CEMAP. The investigation is on-going and perhaps it will find out exactly how much ‘brand matters’ in the Philippines.